# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1849 10 30_S36
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

36

much prates and writes of living faith, of true experimental Christianity? For with such a contradiction he can hardly discover even the A B C of this Christianity, and of the conscience cleansed by faith, yea not even common honesty and uprightness, such as is found here and there even among Jews, Turks and heathen. The reader must fairly draw the conclusion: Either Mr. Dr. B. Kurtz, with all the "sound common sense" which he possesses as a freethinking, practical citizen of the United States, has nevertheless gone somewhat crazy, at the least is weak of memory, so that in one place he does not understand or forgets what he has said or set down in another place, or he is insincere in his disposition, has no certain ground of doctrine, shimmers like a chameleon now in these, now in those colors, and in his confession accommodates himself in a fawning, servile manner to circumstances, according as he happens to have to do with churchly people or with enthusiasts, but prudently keeps open for himself a retreat into the American masses of the people, in order that he may remain nicely popular and his paper not fall off in circulation. For whence else the wholly unworthy and wretched flattery that the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper will find no favor and entrance among the "freethinking, practical people of the United States, endowed with sound common sense"? Had a local rationalistic, demagogic German newspaper writer written such words, it would surprise nobody. But that they have flowed from the pen of a Doctor of Theology, who at all times professes the greatest respect for the Bible and for living faith in the Lord Christ, who is so mightily zealous for all manner of awakening and conversion, for home and foreign missions — that is horrible and shameful to read.

For what is actually made judge in matters of faith in those words? Who pronounces judgment upon the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper? Perhaps the Holy Scripture, to which alone it belongs? Not so, but "the sound common sense of the freethinking, practical people of the United States." Let this doctrine, then, be conformable to the Word of God as it reads, it has nevertheless no worth, finds also no favor and grace among the Americans, because their sound common sense is against it.

But what will the native-born Americans themselves say to this eulogy of their countryman, the Reverend Mr. Dr. B. Kurtz?

The unbelievers will indeed say Yea and Amen to it and on their part acknowledge with praise the liberality of His Reverence. But the believing Americans, who as such are also upright and sincere people, whether they belong to this or that communion — what will these say to that eulogy upon the American "sound common sense"? They will fairly find in this adulation nothing else than an insult to Holy Scripture, thus to God Himself. For this Word of God says plainly: "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14), that is, the "sound common sense" even of the freethinking, practical people of the Americans can understand nothing, without the illumination of the Holy Ghost, of the divine truth revealed in the Gospel; rather it is foolishness to it.

To this "sound common sense," therefore, it is no less foolish that the only-begotten Son of God, by whom heaven and earth were made, is united in personal unity with the carpenter's son of Nazareth, than that with the bread and wine of the Holy Supper His body and blood are essentially present in sacramental union. To the "sound common sense" of every natural, that is, unregenerate, carnally minded man, be he a free American or a bondservant Negro, both are foolishness; but to the enlightened reason of every regenerate, spiritually minded man, be he a free citizen or a slave, both are divine power and divine wisdom. — It disgusts me to furnish further proof; every honest and sensible reader will already have recognized sufficiently that Mr. Dr. Kurtz is either a weak-minded or an insincere man, to whom may God grant grace unto repentance, and who in this perilous time should well lay to heart Matt. 7:21, 22, before it is too late.

But alas, this lamentable man with his pitiable disposition is not alone in the so-called Lutheran General Synod. Another, who perhaps has still more standing in this ecclesiastical body, is afflicted with the same blemish. This is Dr. S. Schmucker, Professor at the theological seminary at Gettysburg.

This man, namely, upon assuming his office, according to the constitution of the seminary, solemnly declared and affirmed before its directors, and as "in the presence of God" (and has repeated this testimony every five years), "that he believes that the Augsburg Confession and the Catechism of Luther is a summary and correct exhibition of the fundamental doctrines of the Word of God, and that he binds himself neither directly, nor by insinuation (by insinuation) to teach anything that contradicts or does not agree with the doctrines which they (namely the Augsburg Confession and the Catechisms of Luther) contain (be inconsistent with them). Who would now not think that a man who has solemnly given such testimony before the directors of the institution and affirmed it upon oath, must be a faithful teacher of the Lutheran Church and bring up the young men entrusted to him in the words of faith and of wholesome doctrine and guide them and on occasion heartily exhort them to continue in that which has been committed to them? Or suppose that this Lutheran professor should later, through the influences of Reformed teachers or text-books and through the deceit of his own reason-proud flesh, for example in the article of the Holy Supper, depart from the simple scriptural doctrine of his Church and fall into Calvinistic errors — would he not, if he did not find his way out again, in all right have to resign his position at the Lutheran seminary and by no means renew that solemn promise every five years? For though he, in opposition to the divine Scripture-truth of the Holy Supper, has an erring conscience, and holds for truth what is error, and the reverse; yet he must nevertheless, until, God willing, clear knowledge frees his conscience from the error, follow it and may not act against it for any reason.

But this the worthy man has not done, but although in the doctrine of the holy Sacraments in general he is thoroughly Reformed and therefore teaches straight against the Augsburg Confession and Luther's Catechism, he nevertheless remains quietly at his post, repeats every five years that solemn assurance, and is therefore nothing more and nothing less than a — conscienceless and faithless man. That this, however, is no unjust and unfounded accusation, we will now prove.

In his so-called portraiture of Lutheranism, that is, Abbildung der lutherischen Kirche, in which he seeks to give to the Lutheran Church a newfangled and popular varnish in order to please the English churches and especially the Presbyterians — in this little work he says, page 40: "Another feature of improvement in the Lutheran Church consists in this, that she no longer requires assent to the doctrine of the real presence of the Savior in the Holy Supper."

Likewise he says, page 45:

"The opinion which at present, if we err not, is most generally received in the Lutheran Church is this: that in the Lord's Supper the glorified human nature of the Savior is neither essentially nor in efficacy present, nor that anything mysterious or supernatural is therein; that nevertheless, while the bread and the wine are merely symbolical representations of the Savior's absent body, by which we are reminded of His sufferings, yet a special spiritual blessing is also bestowed by the divine Savior upon all worthy communicants, by which their faith and the Christian graces (christian graces) are strengthened."

To this it must now be replied:

First, it is not true that this grossly Zwinglian counter-doctrine against the Lutheran and ancient-church doctrine of the Lord's Supper is at present "generally received" in the Lutheran Church. For although, for example, here and there individual Lutheran theologians in Germany have expressed such doctrinal opinions in their writings, the Lutheran Church has nevertheless, neither in