# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1850 11 26_S52
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

52

thorough judgment concerning deviations from the pure doctrine.

In the composition of the Augsburg Confession we would not so much emphasize the prudent, systematically ordering mind of Melanchthon as the fidelity with which he therein bore witness to the most necessary articles of doctrine, and indeed with the assistance of his theological friends and especially of Luther, who, as is well known, furnished in the 17 Schwabach Articles the foundation of the Augsburg Confession.

As we acknowledge with joy the great services of the dear Melanchthon in the composition of the Augsburg Confession, so we must also express our deepest regret that this renown has suffered great injury through the alterations which Melanchthon, only ten years later, most arbitrarily made in some articles, and especially in that on the Holy Supper, and indeed to the great harm of the pure doctrine; to be sure, this was not his intention; rather he wished thereby to bring the contending parties nearer to one another and to help remove the aversion of the Reformed toward the Lutheran doctrine; but that this altered Augsburg Confession did not bring a single Reformed person to the acceptance of the Lutheran doctrine, but, alas, many Lutherans to the acceptance of the Reformed doctrine, and for a long time caused unspeakable discord, in that many pseudo-Lutherans sailed under this flag and deceived many with the good name Augsburg Confession; that finally, since there were then two Confessions, namely the unaltered and the altered, it was objected against the Lutherans, especially from the papal side, that they themselves no longer knew which was the right Augsburg Confession —, all this the "peace-loving, prudent" Melanchthon surely did not foresee; otherwise he would certainly not have taken this lamentable step.

In an occasional comparison of the exegetical achievements of Luther with those of Calvin, it is said of the former: "He takes the deepest glances into the heart of the Bible and, as it were by instinct (?!), commonly hits the right sense, but he troubles himself not about grammatical argumentation or logical development, and never keeps to the point; he makes the text merely a starting-point from which to scatter about his own thoughts, as they happen to occur to him." Of Calvin, on the other hand, it is said in contrast to Luther: "He observes the strictest order and discipline, follows the holy writer step by step, whithersoever he leads him, refrains from unseemly remarks, digressive episodes, and far-fetched allusions and sallies" (as one probably finds fault with all this in Luther's exegetical works.) "He joins with a rich theological depth of thought always also grammatical acuteness and logical argumentation." We will not go further into the particulars of this judgment, or rather condemnation, which can be explained only from a certain aversion toward him; we are also not inclined to enter upon an exchange between Calvin's and Luther's exegetical writings; yet we cannot refrain from citing against it at least one testimony, and that Melanchthon's, which he gave in the preface to the third Latin volume of Luther's works in the year 1549. He says therein: "It is good that we have Lutheri Auslegebücher, because they not only explain the prophetic and apostolic books, but also comprise his confession of the whole doctrine of the Church; for what a skilful expositor he was, the wise can easily gauge, especially when they hold other expositions beside it. I remember that Erasmus of Rotterdam used to say: There is no more skilful and better expositor among all whose writings we have after the Apostles; and I myself have heard learned and eminent men, who well understood the doctrine of the Church, say the like of Luther: and everyone will see it clearly who uses in reading only reason, attention, and honesty. — He understood Hebrew and Greek well, and could excellently develop the idioms. — He took from the right meaning of the discourse one single and certain sense, and brought no foreign kinds of sense to it. — He has therefore treated important matters in his exposition as a wise and experienced governor of the Church and successor of the Prophets and Apostles, and not as one who did not know what is usual and occurs in common life, and has considered the occasion of the prophetic utterances. He sees to what end they are to be directed and to which chief points of the doctrine all the single parts are to be brought, what belongs to the Law and what to the Gospel, what is spoken of the Church and what of worldly wise men."

What precedes will offer the readers sufficient material to judge for themselves whether and how the "Kirchenfreund" has attained its purpose by that article, "to counteract the so frequent narrow-heartedness in judgment and one-sided overestimation of one man at the expense of the other"; we on our part must raise this reproach, which is obviously meant to strike us Lutherans, against the "Kirchenfreund" with regard to Melanchthon; for although in some respects much praise of Luther is made therein, this is yet obviously only a bait for unsuspecting readers, to bring them the more surely into the artfully set nets of the censure that follows, so that they may hold the latter in all points to be as just as the preceding praise, and especially, in comparison with Melanchthon, may think: Luther would after all have accomplished little on the whole, if Melanchthon had not done the best in the matter and helped on everywhere. That this was not so, we have already seen in the first three points of comparison, and we shall see it still more clearly in the fourth, of which mention shall be made in the next section.

(To be concluded.)

Of Old and New Melodies.

The readers will probably for the most part have already heard something of the fact that in recent times in several Lutheran churches an entirely different manner of singing the hymns, which is commonly called rhythmic singing, has been introduced. Both in Germany and in America many are prejudiced against this manner, which is called a new one and which yet is precisely the old; the most of them, I suppose, for this reason, that they do not know the matter. But since it is our inmost conviction that, if the old rhythmic singing were again generally introduced, private and public worship would thereby be not a little furthered, we cannot refrain from bringing this matter once more to mention in our paper and from commending it to the consideration of the readers, especially of the pastors and cantors. To this end we hereby communicate an article which is found under the above title in the volume for 1847 of the Nördlinger Sonntagsblatt, now edited by Pastor Leydel. May this excellent article here, where something new can be introduced far more easily than in Germany, attain its purpose better than there. The article runs, after an introduction concerning Germany alone, as follows:

The first question is: Is it necessary, is it worth the trouble, to exchange the present manner of chorale singing for another, for the older, original one? — On that, I believe, we shall soon be agreed. It is with the melodies as with the hymns. He who has compared the old hymns and the new with one another will very soon say: "The old are more beautiful and better." Just so it is with the melodies. It is a pity enough that we can no longer sing the most powerful and most beautiful among the old melodies, e.g., "Wir glauben all' an Einen Gott, etc.," "Vater unser im Himmelreich, etc.," "Christ lag in Todesbanden, etc.," but at the most know them only by name. But he who has heard the old and new melodies sung side by side, who has sung them himself, will certainly give the preference to the old over the new. I cannot, to be sure, sing it over here on paper, but I will say what can be said about the matter.

I ask first: What is more beautiful and better, a work of art as the master originally made it, or as unskilled bunglers, botchers, and daubers have spoiled it? In other fields one gives without hesitation the preference to the masters over the botchers. One cleans, for example, old masterpieces of architecture again of the flourishes and daubings with which they were disfigured in later, tasteless times; one finally perceives that in earlier times church-building especially was better understood than in recent times, and now builds churches again after the old patterns. One need only compare such an old venerable church and such a newfangled house which they call a church, but which one could just as well use for a theater, for a dance hall, for a riding school, for a grain market