# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1849 01 09_S77
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

77

things about them, by this their blowing of alarms bring about the very opposite of what they intend by it. Curiosity has already led many a man into the church of a faithful Evangelist about whom the enemies had trumpeted forth horrors, and behold! — he heard what he had never dreamed of, and was won for the truth. Something similar has lately befallen the dear Mr. Weyl in Baltimore. This ever-watchful watchman upon the battlements of Lutheran Zion has, namely, lately spied out that our "Lutheraner" is a Jesuit in disguise, and has accordingly hastily cried out alarm and murder over it into the world. The consequence of this has been that we have gained a new subscriber in a dear brother in the ministry, hitherto entirely unknown to us. As proof we herewith communicate the following letter:

"Reverend Sir!

Through an article in the "Lutherischer Kirchenbote" of Baltimore, No. 22, of the 20th of October of this year, in which the "Lutheraner" of St. Louis is accused of secret Jesuitism, I have become especially desirous of making the acquaintance of this Jesuit, who probably seeks to deserve the name of a Jesuit just as much as Valerius Herberger at Fraustadt in Greater Poland. Be pleased, therefore, to send me the "Lutheraner" with the coming year, etc. etc. etc.

C. A. Schröer,
Lutheran pastor at Verona, Oneida Co., N. Y."

(Communicated.)

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. (The Eighth Commandment.)*)

It has pleased a correspondent signing himself R., of the "Christlicher Hausfreund," published at Cincinnati and issued by the German United Evangelical Synod in America, in an article in No. 8 of that paper, speaking on behalf of the Union and of the said united synod, to give vent to himself through some venomous effusions about the "so-called Old Lutheran tendency," and to incorporate in the same a communication concerning me and my previous conduct of my office in Chicago. Although I am neither a Bavarian nor a Saxon, I would nevertheless take the liberty of first remarking to Mr. R. that he is greatly mistaken if he believes that the withdrawal of myself and of some others united with me from the General Synod of Ohio in the year 1845 took place "with the greatest haste." From No. 21 of the 7th volume of the Pittsburger Kirchenzeitung he, and anyone who is concerned to learn our reasons for this step more closely, may see that our grievances had already remained wholly unheeded for more than a year and a day, and that the synod then resolved to leave the same unheeded for yet three more years, without taking the distress of conscience of the complainants to heart in the least, but rather dismissing them with mockery and scorn. Nor is any case known to me in which one of us gave up a field of labor "in ill humor," so long as there was still any measure of hope of being able to labor to the honor of the LORD. But I do not wish to dwell any longer upon such distortions: every man stands or falls to his own judge; and I will only illuminate somewhat more closely the part of the communication that especially concerns me, in order thereby, God willing, to prevent honest but weak souls from being offended by the false representation. Mr. R. seems to know his informant, the secretary of the newly constituted congregation here, Mr. Jacob Letz,*) very well, or rather not at all, since without further proofs he designates his report as "faithful and sincere." Before I enter more closely upon the communication in question, I would only mention that my congregation here is not 5 but only 2½ years old, and at the time of the defection was only 2 years old, and at the same time I request Mr. R. kindly to name to me the preachers, wholly unknown to me, with whom I made "theological private studies only here in this country," so that I may thank these gentlemen for the benefits shown me! But to the matter. Mr. Letz's first point of accusation against me states that I reserved to myself at the very beginning the right sometimes to give out a hymn from an "ancient" hymnbook, since the North American (it should say "Common") hymnbook does not contain enough orthodox hymns. This is perfectly well founded and needs no justification among simple Lutherans, but rather it needs justification that, in view of the then lack of good hymnbooks, I consented at all, though with this reservation, to the introduction of this hymnbook. Yet it might not be unfitting to remind Mr. L. how I, already before the "beginning," namely before I had even seen Chicago, made it a condition of accepting the call that I be able to serve the congregation as an ancient apostolic one, or what is the same, as a purely Lutheran one; that Mr. Letz answered me thereupon that I should only come and everything would be arranged according to wish; and that thereupon, at my arrival, he himself most of all spoke in favor of the founding of a united congregation (although only One nominal Reformed man wished to belong to the congregation), interpreting those words of his letter to mean that he had had in view only his own wish, but not mine! Only when he became convinced that I was firmly resolved never again to mount a pulpit rather than to enter into his proposal and to obey men more than the LORD, did he become apparently more yielding. If now Mr. Letz and his kindred spirits really, after the distinctive doctrines had been preached upon beforehand, signed the purely Lutheran congregational constitution even in partial ignorance, it would surely have been more honest if he had afterwards had his name struck from the congregation's list, than that he waited until he had secured a majority of the members for his plans, in order thereby to appropriate the church building, etc., of the Lutheran congregation and to secure it for himself and for his rationalistic and union-minded adherents. — Further, Mr. Letz accuses me of having introduced ceremonies in the altar service without ever asking the congregation about it. In the beginning there stood in the church, which was still far from finished, only a provisional speaker's platform, and therefore no altar service could take place at all. When an altar had been provided, I could not well officiate at it without ceremonies, and as a servant of the Lutheran church I naturally chose, though only the most generally customary, Lutheran ceremonies. Or could I perhaps have honestly and sincerely made use of Reformed ones, etc.? In mentioning the crucifix Mr. Letz prudently conceals that the same was in the church only one day, and was moreover set up without my knowledge, and that even before the beginning of the service I called upon the elders to remove it, which, however, did not seem advisable to them. Though I have, from my inmost conviction, in private conversations described as solemn and uplifting many things that Catholic churches have in common in their outward furnishing with the Lutheran churches of our forefathers, Mr. Letz is certainly mistaken in saying that I also made use of the expression "touching," since by God's grace I have long since given up seeking my own honor in artificially produced emotion among the members of my congregation, but rather endeavor to direct all my labor and prayer to this end, that the souls may be built up as living stones upon the one cornerstone, Christ JESUS, in the true, united faith. But that, after proper instruction from the Word of God, I admonished at votings that each should consider that, vote as he might, he must answer for his Yea or Nay on the Last Day, may well have startled Mr. Letz, since he has more than once declared that he doubted whether God concerned himself about our trifles(!); this may also appear to a Mr. R. far too severe: but truly not to any believing Lutheran, who knows that we shall one day also have to give account for every idle word (Matt. 12:36).

It must further be a grievous accusation in the eyes of Mr. R. that I have in sermons designated Zwingli and Calvin as apostates: but to a reason enlightened by divine grace it can only appear as great unreason that not only Luther, but also Zwingli and Calvin, with such great departures

*) Owing to several circumstances which we cannot all name here, the printing of this essay, which had been sent to us already several months ago, has been postponed until now. It is to be hoped that it still comes not too late, to spread again some light upon the ways which so-called "Evangelical" preachers take, in order to make the Lutheran church, hated by them, hated by the people and themselves beloved. The Editor.

*) In such matters I am not so great a friend of mere initial letters for persons and place names as Mr. R. may well be.