s this, admitting an errorist like Whitefield to the
pulpit of the local pastor and synodical president, such as was done at
this synodical meeting, had, at least, not been made before the time of
Wrangel." (383 ff.) Concerning his fellowship with Whitefield in 1770,
Muhlenberg made the following entries in his journal: "Friday, May 25...
Because I could not do otherwise, I wrote a few lines to Rev. Mr.
Whitefield, stating that if he would preach for me on next Sunday night
in Zion Church, it would be acceptable to me." "Sunday, May 27.... Early
in the evening Zion Church was filled with people of all sorts of
religion, both German and English. We two preachers went to Mr.
Whitefield's lodging and took him with us to the church, which was so
crowded that we had to take him in through the steeple-door.... He
complained of a cold contracted at the morning service, and consequent
hoarseness, but preached very acceptably from 2 Chron. 7, 1 on 'The
Outer and the Inner Glory of the House of God.' He introduced some
impressive remarks concerning our fathers--Francke and Ziegenhagen,
etc." (Jacobs, 287.) At the First Lutheran Diet, Dr. C. P. Krauth
explained: "Whitefield was an evangelist of forgotten or ignored
doctrines of the Gospel; a witness excluded from many pulpits of his own
church because of his earnestness in preaching the truth; in some sense
a martyr. This invested him with interest in the eyes of our fathers,
and his love to the Lutheran Church and his services to it made him very
dear." (287.)

55. Experiencing the Consequences.--From what has been said it is
evident that Muhlenberg's relations with the sects was not without
reprehensible unionism. Even where, in such fellowship, syncretism was
not directly practised, the proper confession of Lutheran truth was
omitted. As with the Swedes in Delaware, fraternal intercourse proceeded
on the silent understanding that the sore spot of doctrinal differences
must be carefully avoided. For Lutherans, however, this was tantamount
to a denial of the truth. Muhlenberg set an example the influence of
which was all the more pernicious by reason of the high esteem in which
he was held by the members of Synod, who revered him as a father. As
late as 1866 the Pennsylvania Synod defended its intercourse with the
Reformed Synod "as a measure introduced by the fathers in the time of
Muhlenberg and Schlatter." And the unionistic practises indulged in by
the General Synod throughou