# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1851 02 18_S101
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

101

writers make use, more or less, of their predecessors, as indeed they must. One may now either borrow the content and alter the words, or leave the content in the wording in which one finds it. The former procedure is certainly the better, when the borrowing author can give the material to be borrowed a form that is altogether better, or at least more suited to his purpose; the latter procedure is the preferable one, although it does not serve the vanity of the borrowing author, when he knows of no better and more suitable form to give the material to be borrowed than the one it already has. To this principle G. holds, and it is not apparent that he deserves blame for it.

As for G.'s Introduction to the N. Test., he does not mention in the preface the use of other writers, which no doubt has its reason in this, that "this field is to him the most familiar, the one most truly his own."

The author says further in his note that he would not have mentioned this "here" at all, if an English quarterly had not praised G. as a model theologian.

Now one indeed cannot see at all the connection between the two matters, namely how the praise allegedly undeservedly bestowed on G. by an English quarterly can be a reason for rejecting it on the occasion of reminiscences of Neander; yet one does see from this what the author is really about. The English quarterly has erred in this, that it praised G. too highly. Now it is indeed written in Holy Scripture that no man should think of himself more highly than he ought to think (Rom. 12); yet it will gladly be granted that it is desirable to appraise writers rightly as such, and we should therefore not hold it against the author if he wished to be helpful to others in this. But from this he is, according to the above, far removed. He charges that English periodical, to be sure, with "well-meaning ignorance" [a composition of words which, to judge by its somewhat strange sound and presumable sense, is meant to be a dose softened by translation from the original language]; yet we are convinced that well-meaning ignorance, even where it occurs, still brings about a more correct judgment than knowing ill-will.

Whether in that English periodical G. is represented as one of the greatest, if not as the first scholar of Germany, the writer of this does not know, but believes he knows that G.'s admirers do not claim that rank for him, much less does he for himself. In conclusion the author says further, in reference to Guericke (as something from which he would be far removed, to be it), "a model theologian most especially worthy of study." To what end this accumulation of words, which is by no means helpful to understanding the sense of the words, and this garnishing of "theologian" with "model"? Probably, so that the distance between the depth into which the author imagines he has cast down "this istum Guericke" and the height to which he ought not to climb might appear all the greater, and the reader in his astonishment mingled with indignation might at the end of the tirade sooner miss an exclamation mark than find too many. The writer of this thinks, by the way, that if that paper has praised G. as a true model theologian most especially worthy of study, its words are well founded and deserve all attention. For if a model theologian is to be someone after whom teachers of theology may shape themselves, then G. is certainly worthy of all imitation, in that he trades with the pound which the Lord has given him, while some bury theirs, and many others seek their own with it. But if model theologian is to designate merely a theological writer in general, then the writer of this believes that, even apart from the correct standpoint on which G. stands, few other theological handbooks equal his, especially his Church History, in what is attractive, in vividness, thoroughness, and retainableness of presentation [qualities so desirable in textbooks]. We therefore do not doubt that his textbooks, especially his Church History, which since 1833 has gone through seven editions, may, as hitherto, and in this country no less than in Germany, abundantly "render menial service to the highest and most glorious Master-Builder."

†

(Submitted.)
Church Conditions of the City of Cincinnati.

Under the above title there is found in the Reformed Kirchenzeitung, No. 2 of this year, an essay by C. (meant to read Clausen), Newport, Ky. Had our Lutheran Church not been spitefully attacked in this article, the undersigned would have hesitated to say anything about it, especially as it has flowed from the pen of one formerly so dear a friend to him. But in order that those esteemed readers of the "Lutheraner" who, in praying the second petition, "Thy kingdom come," also remember in intercession the "Queen of the West" and the fellow believers living therein, may for once learn that the Lord in grace has heard their prayer and has planted a Lutheran congregation here, I will, on the occasion of some remarks on the above article, write a few words about the Lutheran congregation here.

Mr. C., after touching upon Catholicism and Methodism, says:

"A hybrid between Catholicism and Methodism one must call the congregation of Pastor W. on Race Street, which arose in recent times, a fragment of the still existing Zion's congregation. Pastor W., a member of the confused Lutheran Indianopolis body, went out from the Zion's congregation because he was Lutheran, and especially because that congregation seemed to him too Methodistic and without constitution; and as his congregation, which a while ago consisted of forty members, now diligently reads the "Lutheraner," the organ of Old-Lutheranism, he seeks, if possible, to recommend the Löhe Agenda.

It is a pity for Mr. W., because he possesses good gifts and preaches God's Word, that through immoderate propagation of Old-Lutheranism he deprives himself of a salutary influence upon Cincinnati."

The undersigned, namely, laid down his office in November 1849 as preacher of the local Evangelical Zion's congregation, because that congregation refused, despite instruction concerning the union between Lutherans and Reformed, which is contrary to God's Word, to take its stand upon the ground of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, founded alone in the Word of God. With some thirty Lutherans following him from that congregation he founded a purely Lutheran congregation of the unaltered Augsburg Confession, and in Holy Week laid the cornerstone for a house of God, which was dedicated on the 30th of June of last year.

By what right Mr. C. now calls this congregation a "hybrid" between Catholicism and Methodism I am unable to guess. If he means to say: this congregation, or better, the doctrine which this congregation confesses, stands in the middle between Catholicism and Methodism, then everyone will agree with him, for the Lutheran doctrine holds, between the two [pardon my saying so] churches, the right mean. It teaches, for example, concerning the Holy Supper, not as the Catholics: bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of the Lord; nor with the Methodists and other enthusiasts: bread and wine are only signs of the body and blood of Christ, but: in, with, and under the bread and wine thou receivest the true body and the true blood of Christ. That is the right mean, well grounded in the Word of God, Matt. 26, 26-28, and 1 Cor. 11, 23-29.

But this Mr. C. cannot have meant, since it was surely not his purpose, in mentioning the local Lutheran congregation, to define its doctrine in this manner. At any rate he merely wished to instil suspicion against this Lutheran congregation, not very far removed from him, in those readers of his Reformed church paper who still hold to Lutheranism and for whom he is concerned lest, by reading the "Lutheraner" at the same time, they should recognize his and his congregation's groundless standpoint, so that it may not come into their minds, as disturbers of the peace, to rend the bond of peace and love in his so-called Christian congregation.

He calls me in the essay a member of the "confused" Lutheran Indianopolis body." If he designates this synod before its last session on the 5th of Sept. of last year thus