# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1851 04 29_S140
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

140

requirement deeply, to exercise a censorship which has not its like in the whole remaining history of mankind. The priests assembled from time to time — and also passed resolutions as to which of the circulating gospels were genuine — and which not. Only our four New Testament gospels found grace, etc." Here we see, as in Th. Paine, the total lack of knowledge of the distinction between the Homologoumena and the Antilegomena and of the course of events in the fixing of the Canon. Of historical proceedings Mr. Schmidt seems also to have no conception, and it seems not to have occurred to him that there are events in history with which that may at least in some measure be compared, such as the drawing up of a collection of confessional writings: in that, for example, in the Lutheran Church, of the confessional writings contained in the Book of Concord some are recognized by all (e. g. the Augsburg Confession), others on the other hand (e. g. the Formula of Concord) only by many as confessional writings, the authority of the latter has however risen in the course of time, and perhaps once all may be recognized by the whole Lutheran Church as confessional writings. No sincere Lutheran or Lutheran congregation would have anything against the acceptance of any one of the confessional writings, on account of the contents of those writings, even if he or it had once not counted such a one among the confessional writings (whether from lack of knowledge, or from any other accidental reason); but even if the most brilliant church assembly were to declare the altered Augsburg Confession, or the Leipzig Interim, or the confession of faith of the Elector John Sigismund to be a confessional writing, a Lutheran Christian or congregation would never accept it, as this indeed has in part already been confirmed historically.

Mr. Schmidt further thinks that "if apocryphal gospels had been preserved down to our century, this would have happened very much against the mind and will of the priestly caste." If by priestly caste he includes believing divines, which according to the manner of speech of people of his class is probably so; then this assertion of his is likewise a sign of his ignorance. To believing theologians — as appears repeatedly from their writings — the discovery of such things as the apocryphal Gospels is welcome; not as though they esteemed them according to their contents as anything else than dung, but because these, once for all, by their contrast with the holy Scriptures, further confirm that the latter cannot be of like, that is, human origin with the former; then also because they furnish useful materials for other sciences, such as languages, antiquities, history, etc., which then, each in its own way, again serve the One thing needful.

Further: Mr. Schmidt says that of such gospels "rejected by the priestly caste" six have been found again. He who sets so much value on them, who is so eager for their discovery, who wishes above all to make his readers acquainted with them, and already communicates to them one, that of Thomas, does not know even that there are seven of them: The Gospel of James, the History of Joseph the Carpenter, the Gospel of the Birth of the Holy Mary, the Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour, the Gospel of Thomas, the History of the Birth of Mary and of the Infancy of the Saviour, and the Gospel of Nicodemus.

With the ignorance thus displayed in few words by Mr. Schmidt, true to his motto, there goes hand in hand also its sister.

He communicates the so-called Gospel of Thomas, which is one of the worst of the apocryphal gospels. It is most correctly ascribed, probably, to a Gnostic heretic, who put the name of Thomas at the head of his work. As the grandfather of the Gnostics one may regard Simon Magus, of whom St. Luke tells in the Acts of the Apostles that he was a sorcerer in Samaria, who afterwards let himself be baptized, and later wished to buy from the Apostles for money the power of imparting the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands. The Gospel of Thomas now reports of Jesus' childhood, from his fifth to his twelfth year, such things and in such a manner as that Simon Magus might have reported them, or as an old gypsy woman might nowadays tell them, of which every one can convince himself to whom that so-called Gospel of Thoma comes to sight. This writing Mr. Schmidt now calls a "treasure," which he must lay before his readers before all things. O, what wisdom! But it gets better yet.

He says: he is of the opinion that the public of today is put in a position to form a correct judgment of the four Gospels by nothing so much as by acquaintance with the other products of the literature of that time," e. g. of the Gospel of Thomas. That is excellent! Whom does not Gellert's fable come to mind: "For Jürgen I am not at all afraid, he gets on by his stupidity!" If Mr. Schmidt goes on so, he will be only a help to the holy Gospel, whose enemy he is, precisely in wishing to harm it, for that the four canonical Gospels are written in another spirit than the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas even a heathen will recognize, and the Spirit of God out of the 4 Gospels shine forth only the brighter, when the so-called Gospel of Thomas and the like are compared with them. This is also just a reason why, as indicated above, the discovery of such apocryphal writings is by no means unwelcome to believing theologians; they serve to set the truth the more in the light.

Finally Mr. Schmidt asks: "It may be that many of our readers will ask in wonder, why then the Gospel of Thomas was not taken into the series of divinely inspired writings to be formed?" That is again genuinely Painish, and quite worthy of this lofty model. Th. Paine concludes: I know nothing of the matter, therefore others also know nothing of it; Mr. Schmidt, I wonder that 2 times 2 is four, therefore others also will gape with eyes and mouth.

If, then, Mr. Schmidt manifestly lacks knowledge of history in general and especially of the N. T. Canon, as also understanding for it, how can he nevertheless speak of it, wish to instruct about it, and even promise "to point out the purely historical veins by which each of these books is connected with the views, hopes, etc., of some party"? According to these very words, and to what Mr. Schmidt otherwise lets fall, he pays homage to the views of the newest assailants of the Canon, who, indeed in a very godless and unreasonable manner, but with great expenditure of learning and wit, have wished to make people believe that the holy Scriptures are spurious, and arose only at a time and in such a manner as it pleases them to assume. Since then Mr. Schmidt, to judge from the sample given, lacks all ability of his own, the conclusion lies near that he has provided himself with some such writings of those men, very valuable for him, in order to peddle out of them here in the far West wisdom already put to shame in Germany, and to dazzle the "stupid people" (for as such he must regard the people) therewith, in order that he may take money and honor from them, although, if they let themselves be dazzled, their eternal welfare would be ruined thereby. And if Mr. Schmidt draws from the source indicated, it need surprise no one if, in the following numbers, should any more of them appear, he wishes to make the readers believe that the 3 first Gospels are perhaps "a creation of the forming self-consciousness of the congregation in the 2nd century," according to Bruno Bauer, and the Gospel of John a "free, vague composition of the congregation," according to the same, or "written by a Samaritan toward the middle of the 2nd century," according to Lützelberger, "or a mediate product of Montanism in the 2nd century," according to Schwegler, and whatever more of such godless absurdities there are.

Moreover it will not be superfluous to remark that other articles also in the number in which the discussed essay "von der Bibel" is found only fully confirm what has been concluded from it as to Mr. Schmidt's abilities. Another article, for example, is headed "Wirkliche historische Enthüllungen über die wirkliche Todesart Jesu." Mr. Schmidt relates in it that at Alexandria in Egypt a parchment roll was found, and a copy of it came by Masonic ways to Germany. The same, he says, was written by a contemporary of Jesus, and it contains concerning the life and the manner of death of Jesus an-