N^ A BX 8030 .K68 S62 v. 2 Spaeth, Adolph, 1839-1910. Charles Porterfield Krauth Adolph Spaeth x^' Charles lp>orterfielb IRrautb 2).D., ILX.D. NORTON PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY AND CHURCH POLITY IN THE LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY IN PHILA- DELPHIA; PROFESSOR OF INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL PHILOSO- PHY, AND VICE-PROVOST OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA " Faithful to the Truth True to the Faith." ADOLPH SPAETH, D.D., LL.D. Professor in the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. fii a:wo Wolumes i JAN 18 1918 c^ ^SICAL St"'V '.mv^ VoLU\fE //., i8sg-i88s PHILADELPHIA General Council ipublication "Sbouse 1522 Arch Street 1909 PREFACE. Special acknowledgements are due to Professor Henry E. Jacobs, D.D., LL.D., for much detailed information and for constant advice in the prepara- tion of this volume. The very full Index covering both volumes of the Biography is the work of Mrs. Spaeth. The plan pursued in this second volume is essen- tially the same as that of the first, viz. : to let Dr. Krauth, as much as possible, speak for himself. While for this purpose there were not as many of his letters available as in the first volume, more extended use was made of his articles. Not what we, who knew him face to face, may say of him, will be of permanent value to the Church, but what Dr. Krauth himself thought and spoke on the great questions that agitated the Church in his days, and will continue to agitate her for some time to come. This Biography was written for the future. Dr. Krauth, in many respects, was ahead of his time. With all the admiration and affection he gained among his contemporaries, there were compara- tively few English Lutherans ready to follow him consistently to the end, through all his arguments and conclusions. His day is yet to come, if we are vi PREFACE. to have a harmonious Lutheranism that truly repre- sents, in doctrine and life, the Mother-Church of the Reformation in the English world-language. While we find it impossible to share his optimis- tic expectations that some one form of Christianity- is to be the conquering religion of the world, and, lifting itself "above the tangled mass of antagonis- tic communions, will ultimately impose order on chaos," we are fully convinced that the truly Cath- olic Protestantism of the Conservative Reforma- tion, that is Lutheranism, has its greatest mission yet to fulfill in this Western world, and if it is to abide and to do the work assigned to it in the prov- idence of God, it must be on the lines and principles mapped out and maintained by its greatest English- speaking teacher and representative, Dr. Charles PORTERFIELD KrAUTH. A. S. Mount Airy, Philadelphia. March 17, 1909. CONTENTS. CHAPTER X. PASTORATE IN ST. MARK'S CHURCH, PHILADELPHIA. 1859- 1861. Installation at St. Mark's Church, i ; constitutional provisions, i ; Dr. D. Gilbert's letter, 2; conflict about the clerical gown, 3; Dis- courses on Christian Liberty, 5 ; secession ; St. James' English Luth- eran Church, 12 ; action of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania con- cerning clerical robes, 13; sermon by Dr. B. Kurtz, 13; Dr. S. S. Schmucker on " The Spiritual Worship of God," 14 ; C. P. K.'s Reviews ; A Melanchthonian Pronunciamento, 15 ; Autocracy of the Tailor; Sartor Resartus, 18; resignation from the pastorate of St. Mark's, 23 ; C. P. K. in the East Pennsylvania Synod, 25 ; Dr. C. Hay's motion on Ministerial Sessions, 26 ; attempts to re-unite the East Pennsylvania Synod with the Ministerium of Pennsyl- vania, 27; C. P. K. received into the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, 2^. CHAPTER XI. EDITOR OF THE LUTHERAN AND MISSIONARY. I 860- I 867. Previous editorial work, 28; ihe Lutheran and Home Journal, 28; Apologv for our Existence, 29; the Lutheran Observer, 30; action of the West Pennsylvania Synod criticizing the Observer, 32; the Lutheran and Missionary, 34; Where Do We Stand? 35; Editor and Preacher, 39; The Lutheran Church and her News- paper Literature, 42 ; Church Papers, Individual and Official, 46 ; Difficulties in the Way of The Lutheran and Missionary, 48; C. P. K.'s hopefulness, 50; How to Make a Paper Succeed, 54; Divine Truth, 55 ; C P. K. resigns from the editorship, 57. vii viii CONTENTS. CHAPTER XII. THE NATIONAL CRISIS. 1860-1865. America a Blessing to Others, 59; Virginia, 60; Our Country, 61; Politics and Religion, 66; The Union, 69; The First Best Thing We Can Do for Our Country, 70; The National Cemetery at Gettysburg, 71; Everett's Oration, 71; The Monkey in the Palm Tree, 72; The Two Pageants ; Tribute to Abraham Lincoln, 73 ; threatened attack on C. P. K.'s home after the President's assassination, 73 ; Another Victory to be won, 74; What shall we do with them? 75. CHAPTER XIII. THE LITERARY CONTROVERSY AGAINST AMERICAN LUTHERANISM. 1861-1867. Defending the Defense, 77 ; Combativeness without Destructive- ness, 78; Forbearing one another in Love, 79; He that is not against us, is on our part, 81 ; Review of Dr. E. W. Hutter's Eulogy of Dr. B. Kurtz, 82; The Insidious Progress of Error in its Three Stages, 89; Rebuke them Sharply, 91; Sauce Piquante; or How to Enjoy being Abused, 93 ; Honesty in a Name, 94 ; The General Synod : her Name and her Founders, 96 ; American Lutheran Church vs. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 104; Fundamental Doctrines, 112; All Articles of Faith are Fundamental, 114; Divine Obligation of the Christian Sabbath, 115; Statement of the Definite Platform, 120; Luther's Catechisms and the Augsburg Confession, 121 ; Dr. H. E. Jacobs on the Sabbath Question, 123 ; Dr. C. F. Schaeffer's position, 123 ; Lutheran dogmaticians on the Sunday Question, 125. CHAPTER XIV. THE CRISIS IN THE GENERAL SYNOD. 1864- 1867. General Synod Convention in York, Pa., 127 ; the Franckean Synod applies for admission, 128; first vote of the General Synod, 129; The Franckeans admitted, 130 ; protest and withdrawal of Pennsyl- vania Delegation, 131 ; amendment to the Constitution of the General Synod, 132; hopefulness of the Ministerium of Pennsyl- CONTENTS. ix vania, 134; the Amendment rejected by four Synods, 134; Dr. B. Kurtz protests against it, 134; The Middle Party in the General Synod, 136; establishment of the Theological Seminary in Phila- delphia, 139; installation of the first Faculty, T42; C. P. K.'s Address, 143; teaching in the Seminary, 144; controversy with Dr. J. A. Brown. Philadelphia vs. Gettysburg, 146; necessity of the Semi- nary, 147; effect of the establishment of the Seminary on the leaders of the General Synod, 152; "The Coming Theological Conflict" (S. S. Schmucker), 152; significance of the new Seminary for the impending crisis, 154; Dr. S. Sprecher's letter foreshadowing the decision in Fort Wayne, 155; Dr. S. S. Schmucker's revelation, 156; Convention at Fort Wayne, 157; Dr. S. Sprecher's sermon reviewed by C. P. K., 157; The President's ruling, 159; Ministerium of Pennsylvania meets at Lancaster, adopts a revised Constitution, declares its connection with the General Synod dissolved, 161 ; Fraternal Address issued by the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, 164; counter-address by the Synods of West Pennsylvania and East Pennsylvania, 167; the Synod of Pittsburgh leaves the General Synod, 169; action of the New York Ministerium, 169; reconstruc- tion ; Studies in Church Polity ; synodical authority ; the representa- tive principle, 170; criticism of the Lutheraner, 171; the Reading Convention, 173; Fundamental Principles of Ecclesiastical Power and Church Government, 174; court litigations in consequence of the disruption, 176; domestic affliction, 178; letter to Thomas H. Lane, 178; pastoral work in Philadelphia, St. Stephen's, 180; Jubilee Service, 181 ; Christmas hymns, 182. CHAPTER XV. THE GENERAL COUNCIL. 1867- 1880. First Convention, Fort Wayne, Ind., 183 ; opening sermon — The General Council, Its Difficulties and Encouragements, 183 ; Theses prepared for the General Council, 189 ; declaration against Roman- ism, 189; liturgical work, 190; Constitution for Congregations, The Pastorate and The Diaconate, 192; Thetical Statement of the Doctrine concerning the Ministry of the Gospel, 194; The Prin- ciples of Church Fellowship, 195; Pittsburgh Convention, 198; Lancaster Convention, 202 ; Akron Declaration, 204 ; Galesburg Declaration, 205 ; controversy arising from Galesburg Declaration, 206 ; first article on the Purity of the Pulpit and the Sanctity of the Altar, 209; communications from Dr. R. Hill, 212; Dr. S. L. X CONTENTS. Harkey, 213; Letter from Olympus, 215; Bethlehem Convention^ 220; Theses on the Galesburg Declaration, 222; Twenty Four Pro- positions on the Galesburg Declaration by Dr. J. A. Seiss, 222; correspondence on the Galesburg Declaration, 224; letters from Dr. W. A. Passavant, 224; letters to and from Dr. H. E. Jacobs, 225 ; Dr. S. Fritschel, 232 ; from and to Prof. M. Lx)y, 234 ; to Rev. C. Spielman, 236 ; from and to Dr. J. A. Seiss, 237 ; to and from Dr. G. F. Krotel, 240; Dr. H. I. Schmidt, 242; Philadelphia Convention, Religion and Religionisms, 243; letter from Dr. J. G. Morris, Dr. C. W. Schaeffer, 245 ; Zanesville Convention, 246 ; Seal of the General Council, 246. CHAPTER XVI. PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY AND VICE-PROVOST OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA. History of the University, 250 ; Provost Dr. Chas J. Stille, 252 ;: administration of discipline, 253; duties of Vice-Provost, 255;. Inauguration of Dr. W. Pepper, 257; C. P. K. among the students (Dr. Geo. S. Fullerton), 259; As a teacher of Philosophy (Dr. G> C. F. Haas), 267; Fleming's Vocabulary of Philosophical Sciences,. 268; Dr. Rob. E. Thompson's estimate of Dr. Krauth as a Philo- sopher, 270 ; Berkeley's Principles, 270 ; The Strength and Weakness of Idealism, 272; Materialism, 277; letter from Ulrici, 281; letter from Dr. Phil. Schaff, 281 ; The Library, 281 ; Report on Bucknell Library, 282 ; The Library ; what it is, and what it ought to be, 283 ; Krauth Memorial Library, 298. CHAPTER XVII. LITERARY ACTIVITY DURING THE DECADE. 1871-1881. Conservative Reformation, 299; original plan (letter to Thos.. H. Lane), 299; Criticisms and Reviews, 302; Dr. J. A. Brown, 303; Dr. Caspar Rene Gregory, 304; Dr. C. F. Schaeffer, 304; Dr, G. F. Krotel, 305; Dr. H. E. Jacobs, 305; Dr. J. W. Nevin, 307; Dr. C. E. Luthardt, 311; Dr. J. A. Seiss, 312; Dr. Joel Swartz, 313; Infant Baptism and Infant Salvation in the Calvinistic System, 314; letter from Dr. Chas. Hodge, 317; opinion of the American Church Review, 317; relations to Princeton, 319; a Lutheran Review proposed by Dr. R. Hill, 322 ; A chronicle of the Augsburg Confes- CONTENTS. xi sion, 324; the Predestination Controversy, 326; work on the Bible Revision, 331; Excellence of the Authorized Version, 3^2; The Revised Version, 335; Book Reviews, 337; Just Criticism, 338; Humor and Good Humor, 338; Plagiarism, 339; Skeletons, 340; Religious Light Literature, 344 ; Novel Reading, 345 ; Wit, 346 ; Jeremy Taylor, 346; Bulwer and Dickens, 347; The Scissors and the Paste-Pot, 348 ; Dickens' Letters, 349 ; Miss Mulock, 352 ; Dr. McCosh, 353 ; Sunday School Songs, 355 ; Temperance Jewels, 356. CHAPTER XVHL JOURNEY TO EUROPE AND LUTHER-BIOGRAPHY. 1880-1882. C. P. K. requested to write a Luther-Biography, 361 ; arrange- ments for his journey to Europe, 363; Mr. J. W. B. Dobler, 363; letter to Dr. A. Spaeth, 364; outline of journey, 365; letters from abroad, 368; to his daughter, 368, 371; to Dr. A. Spaeth, 370; to Dr. H. E. Jacobs, 375; work on the Luther-Biography, 377 ; lecture in Y. M. C. A. Hall on Luther and Luther's Germany, 377; extracts from Luther-Biography, Luther's Germany, 378; Thueringia, 379. CHAPTER XIX. THE END. 1881-1883. In St. Johannis Church and parsonage, 382 ; summer excursions to Canada and Mount Desert, 383; Cosmos and Microcosmos, 385; last visits to University and Seminary, 394; parting from John K. Shryock, 394 ; last letter from Dr. W. A. Passavant, 396 ; death, .397; funeral, 398. LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 401 INDEX 409 TENTH CHAPTER. PASTORATE IN ST. MARK's CHURCH, PHILADELPHIA. 1859-1861. On the first of October, 1859, Dr. C. P. Krauth en- tered upon his work as pastor of St. Mark's EvangeHcal Lutheran Church, Spring Garden Street, Philadelphia, but not until March 2,2, i860, did his regular installation take place, on which occasion Drs. C. W. Schaeffer, E. W. Hutter and J. A. Seiss officiated. About ten years before, this congregation had been organized (March 26, 1850). Its first pastor, the Rev. Theophilus Stork, D. D., formerly of St. Matthew's, Philadelphia, may properly be regarded as its founder. The confessional standing of the congregation is indicated in the original constitution by the following references : " It shall be the particular duty of the Church Council to have the congregation always supplied with an Evangelical Luth- eran minister, sound in doctrine and of a fair character that the Scriptures be expounded and the doc- trines of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ preached in their purity, that the service of God's house be performed according to the simplicity of the Gospel, and that the sacraments be duly and regularly administered." " No minister of the Gospel shall ever be elected as pastor of this church, unless he is in full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church, agreeably to the tenets, rites and ceremonies thereof." In a letter addressed by Dr. D. Gilbert, of Philadelphia, to Dr. C. P. Krauth, on the day after his election, he describes the condition of the congregation as follows: I 2 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. X. It is well known that this congregation is composed of a variety of material. Some leaning to Methodism, others " Storkites," some anything at all, and a number of staunch Lutherans. These could not unite on any other than yourself The Methodist party had managed to get a majority of the Board of Trustees to agree to ask the Rev. Mr. Cookman, a young Methodist local preacher whether he would agree to unite himself with the Lutheran Synod provided they would elect him pastor. This he promptly declined. In this unsettled state of affairs of the congregation several have with- drawn and, for the present, go to other churches, Epis- copal, Presbyterian, etc. No doubt, most, if not all, will return should you accept, and if they do not, there is abundance of material at hand to fill up any vacancies that may exist. In the event of your declination I really do not know what is to become of the congregation. The rebellant and centrifugal elements will all again be put in motion, and there is no telling the result. Should you accept however, — in my humble opinion it will become a united and vigorous church. To Lutheranize this church will be an important work in itself. This latter has been too much neglected, especially in this congregation. Of course, they must be Christians first, and then, however, they ought to be indoctrinated with the views of our glorious Church and observe all her practices. I am glad that I am able to say that it is the universal wish of all the Lutheran churches, here, English and German, that you should come to Philadelphia. . . . Since Mr. Seiss has been with us St. John's has filled up and is now overflowing. The Board of Trustees will commence another church to be located West of Broad Street, as a colony from St. John's, within the present year. Should you become the pastor of St. Mark's I have little doubt but that you will be able to do the same in an equally short time. The increase will come mainly from our German congregations, their young people who become English, and who have hitherto furnished i8s9-6i.] ST. MARK'S CHURCH. 3 material for a new Episcopal congregation in about every three years ! ! The Germans, pastors and people, looked upon St. Matthew's and St. Mark's as pseudo-Lutheran, and hence other communions received the young people from the German Churches Look then at the change that will be effected by your coming, in the relation between the German and English churches, and then at the results to our beloved Lutheran Zion in Philadelphia. It was to be expected that a pastor of Dr. Krauth's theological convictions would, sooner or later, find him- self involved in a conflict with those members of the congregation who were "reared in other spiritual homes," and, very naturally, were strangers to the spirit and life of the Church of the Augsburg Confession. It may be regretted that the occasion for the actual collision was such a small matter as the question of the right of the pastor to wear the clerical gown in the public service. The pastor's own father. Dr. Charles Philip Krauth, of Gettysburg, expressed his anxiety that it might become "a war about forms instead of one about doctrines." But the spirit in which the pastor of St. Mark's took up and treated the point of dispute at once lifted it above a mere question of form. Straightway he set forth the great principle of Christian Liberty that was at stake, and upheld it with all the acumen and depth of the profound theologian, and, at the same time, with all the gentleness and forbearance of the loving pastor. The history of the controversy itself is briefly told. On March 14, i860, at a special meeting of the Church Council, called at the request of the pastor. Dr. Krauth asked for an expression of their opinion and vote upon the propriety of his adopting and wearing the gown as worn by most of the Lutheran clergymen. He stated his views at length, leaving it entirely to the Board to 4 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. I Chap. X. decide, as he had no preference in the matter. On motion of Mr. Matlack it was resolved that the gown be adopted by the pastor as part of the Church service. The motion ehcited remarks from all the members present, mostly in its favor. When the votes were recorded it was found that Mr. Murphy's was the only No. Some of the members of St. Mark's opposed to this decision demanded a congregational meeting to consider and decide the question. They were invited to meet with the Church Council, on May 15, i860, when the matter was fully discussed with them, and the Council declined to lay it before the congregational meeting. Dr. Krauth held : That this was a Church question and not a congre- gational one, and therefore, to be settled by the Church and not by the congregation. If the Church had not settled it, it would be a question for the minister, and not for the congregation. He is appointed to conduct the public service, and in all points left open by the Church, he has the right to do as he deems best. The pastor had made himself acquainted privately, to a large extent, with the views of the members, and was satisfied that they, very generally, either strongly desired, or at least did not strongly oppose the return to church usage. He did not introduce the question into St. Mark's, but found it there, and learned that it had been a topic of interest for years, and saw reason for desiring to have it settled definitely, in some way. He laid it before the Council, and while he claimed the right to have decided it without consultation, committed it entirely to them. The Council, freely chosen by the congregation, for the very purpose, among others, of giving counsel to the pastor, and of helping him to see the wants and wishes of the people, requested him to conform to the usage. This request was, on all principles of sound government, the request of the congregation, officially represented in its officers. The congregation has been consulted through their 1859-61.] CHRISTIAN LIBERTY. 5 constitutional organ, and it is at the request of the congregation, I conform to the usages of our Church. This position had been fully explained and defined to the congregation in two discourses preached on March 25, i860, and afterwards published. Christian Liberty in its relation to the usages of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. The substance of two sermons delivered in St. Mark's Evangelical Lutheran Church, Philadelphia, Sunday, March 2^th, i860. By Chas. P. Krauth, D.D. {Published by request.) Phila- delphia, Henry B. Ashmead. 1102 & 1104 Sansom Street. 22 Pages. The themes of the two discourses are: i. Christian Liberty Maintained, based on II Cor. iii. 17. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2. Christian Liberty Defended, based on I Cor. iv. 5. Judge nothing before the time. In the first discourse the fundamental proposition is laid down : Whatever does not pertain to the essence of religion, to its necessary manifestations and its necessary means, is subject to the liberty of the Church. This proposition, not the wearing of a gown in itself, is to be considered. . . . It is a precious gift purchased with the blood of the crucified Christ which I defend, the gift of Evangeli- cal freedom, — the inalienable right of the Church to remain free where her Lord has made her free. Now there must be some principles by which Christian liberty regulates itself, so that the freedom of the individual does not take from the congregation what belongs to its freedom as a whole, nor the freedom of the congregation take from the Church what belongs to its freedom as a whole. The liberty of the Christian individual in regard to matters of order, which involve himself only, is unlimited. But he dare not go out of his sphere to make his liberty a law to others, — to prescribe that they in 6 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. X. their homes shall do things in his way. He is not to assume what belongs to the congregation as a whole. The liberty of determining points of order which affect the whole Church belongs not to the congregation, but to the Church as a whole. There can be no uniformity unless the same authority gives the rule to all. If every congregation settles these matters for itself, there will be as many varieties as there are congregations. . . , Must a Lutheran clergyman learn a new set of usages every time he makes a change? and shall we never have clustering around the service of our Church the potent charm connected with the growth of our habits in it, the feeling, that, go whither we will, we shall find it the same? When our forefathers planted the Lutheran Church in this country, when in this land, which was then almost a wilderness, they gathered together congregations, they did not consult them, nor did the congregations dream of being consulted, whether they would retain the usages of our Church. Those usages were established on the one side and received on the other as a matter of course. And though their acts are not always perfectly consistent with it, this principle is recognized to this hour in all of our Lutheran congregations. The patriarchs of our Church in this country, — spir- itual, self-sacrificing men as they were, — continued this usage of our Church (the wearing of the gown). When they were taken away, when the low state of religion, which followed the war of our independence, infected our Church in common with others; when the taint of ration- alism reached her from Europe, and she grew careless of her doctrine, then a decline in her love of her venerable usages took place, and from indifference and accident, from the excessive size of her pastoral districts and from the usages of the sects around her, much was suffered to fall away to which she ought to have clung. In the period antecedent to the formation of our General Synod, there was a deadness in our Church, an indiffer- ence not only to the doctrines which distinguish her from i859-6i.] LAXITY IN DOCTRINE AND USAGE. 7 Other Churches, but to those great and vital doctrines which are dear to true Christians of every name. It was in this sad period of dechne from her first love, that the neglect of her usages took root. The tendency to a false Congregationalism, which has so injured our Church, arose at this period, and originated in the fear of all general authority which might have the ability to control the laxity in doctrine and in Christian life, which so widely prevailed. When God raised up the new generation, who labored in reviving the life of the Church, this diversity already prevailed. The first labors of the men of God, who felt the sore need of the Church, were directed to the revival of the great central truths of Evangelical Christianity. . . . They attended first to what was most pressing; and in those days in which they fought against the spirit of sloth in the Church with the one hand, and worked on the wall of Zion with the other, they perhaps hardly had time to think of the importance of restoring the outward grace of the Church with the restoration of her inner life. It is a lesson rich in suggestion that just that period in the history of our Church in this country in which the form- alism of heart was most absolute, and the Church most lifeless, was the one in which her venerable forms were abandoned. It is a sad thing to see the form robbed of the power; but there is one stage of misery below this. It is reached when the Church becomes so careless, so indolent, that she does not even keep up the form. And this was the condition of a large part of our Church. The power had vanished and the form went with it. We take this position and defy contradiction, that the abandonment of her ancient usages by our Church in this country originated in her deadness, and not in her spirituality. . . . Our General Synod did not originate this diversity; and wherever she has touched it at all, it has been in the effort to relieve it. One grand object of our General Synod was, indeed, to put a check upon the excessive freedom of congregations and Synods, — a freedom 8 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. X. which threatened utterly to destroy the unity of the Church. Though the excessive jealousy of general authority, which arose from the laxity of the Church, compelled the General Synod in its constitution, to dis- avow the power of prescribing among us uniform cere- monies of religion for every part of the Church; yet under the limitations of its constitution it has constantly labored by its advice to do what it is not allowed to do by prescription. In this City (Philadelphia) all our prominent German churches have retained the usage (of the gown) ; the first English Lutheran Church retained it. The diversity began with St. Matthew's, not from opposition to the usage, but from circumstances purely accidental ; and even in that church, one of the pastors, with his right unchallenged, wore the gown ; so that up to this period St. Mark's is the only Evangelical Lutheran Church of this City in which the gown has never been worn. Finally, we maintain that this usage, which our Church has thus determined, and to which we conform, is right. It is a divine thought, whose traces we meet everywhere, that all things shall clothe themselves in forms that indi- cate their nature. A thought prompted by the tenderness of God puts on its apparel in the violet and His majesty reveals itself in what the Bible calls "Cedars of God." Through all the kingdoms of nature, animate and inani- mate, through earth, sea and sky, the thought of God which lies in things reveals itself in their outward garb. The whole universe of matter is the clothing of divine thought. In it God shows what He is, by selecting the appropriate apparelling of His attributes: "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." All matter is designed to serve mind, or to display its attributes. The ultimate reason of all things visible is found in spirit. Essence and revelation, being and clothing are the two ideas of the entire creation. All feel that qualities of the soul may be revealed in dress; that it may display modesty and other virtues, or i859-6i.] THE GOWN EXCLUSIVELY PROTESTANT. 9 impurity and other vices, and may prove the wearer to be refined or coarse. All feel that one style of dress is appropriate to childhood,another to youth, another to old age. . . . The dress of our joyous life is laid off in times of mourning and we array ourselves in the garb of sorrow. Almost parallel with this general feeling, and, indeed, as a necessary result of it, it has been the sense of all our race, that sacred offices should be marked in the dress. It is the common feature of all religions. When the glorious reformation occurred, all the churches which arose acknowledged the principle, even the Puritans never objected to the simple gown and bands but wore them. ... What is this apparel in which such offense is found? Not a gorgeous robe of scarlet, but a vestment of black; it is not one which bears the tracery of superstitious emblems, but is entirely plain; not Romish, even in the sense of being used as an official dress in the services of that church. It is Protestant and exclusively Protestant. No Romish priest wears or dares to wear it. Where its use is established it marks the Protestant minister and separates him from the priesthood of Rome. It is an apparel appropriate to the office, person, the place with which it is associated. It helps to keep distinct the char- acter of the minister as a teacher of God's truth, to remind him that he stands before men, not to instruct them in politics or in business, not to display his elo- quence, or learning, but in God's name to proclaim the Gospel of peace. ... It helps to merge the man in the servant of God and ambassador of Christ. As far as its influence goes, it helps to correct an evil tendency of our time — the tendency to prize the minister -more than the ministry, — the voice more than the Word. It helps to throw the man into the background, and bring the office and the work into relief. In the second discourse the objections to the use of the gown were taken up and considered: i. That .there was no express command of the Lord for such lO CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. X. usage. 2. That it was opposed to the spirituality of the New Testament dispensation. 3. That it was not in keeping with the New Testament spirit of perfect sim- pHcity in worship. 4. That it was in conflict with the law of love, because offensive to some of the brethren. (I Cor. viii. 13.) 5. That the matter ought to have been laid before the congregation for final decision. All these objections were answered in the same calm, patient, loving and dignified manner, which pervades both these discourses from beginning to end. On the peculiar character of St. Mark's congregation he speaks as follows : If it be suggested, that St. Mark's presents an excep- tional case, because it is so largely made up of Christians whose religious training occurred in other denominations and who, therefore, ought not to be expected to conform to the usages of the Lutheran Church, we reply, that this fact, so far from weakening the force of our argument, imparts to it great additional strength. For just to the extent to which the preferences are manifold and con- flicting does it become difficult to meet the wishes of all. But if you have respect to one set of wishes, you are bound to have equal respect to all ; and as this is impossi- ble, nothing remains for the Church but calmly to carry out her own proper usages. All her children are then put upon the same common ground. She no longer is guided by preferences but by principle, and no one has the right to be offended. Our congregation indeed embraces many elements. This Church was one of the earliest to occupy this part of the City; and the faithful labors of the first pastor, — (Rev. Theophilus Stork) — drew into it many who were reared in other spiritual homes, but who have proved themselves devoted members of our household of faith. Yet whatever they have done for St. Mark's, they will confess that the ordinances and privileges of the Gospel they have here enjoyed have more than repaid them. 1859-01.] THE CHURCH AND ITS MEMBERS. u No church-member can lay up a balance of obligation against his church. He never can do as much for the church as it does for him. No man has a right to thrust upon a church his claim upon its gratitude, as a reason for its departure from its principles, or as a ground on which it may be urged not to return to its usages. We belong to the Church, it does not belong to us. . . . The discourse closes with this touching appeal which betrays how deeply the pastor had been personally affected by this conflict : It may be that some whom for the respect and love I bear them, I have wished most to hear this defense of Christian freedom, have not been willing to hear it, and are not in this audience. Surely Christian men ought to be willing to give to a pastor the poor privilege the law of the land accords to the vilest criminal, the privilege of being heard before he is condemned. To judge before we hear is surely to judge before the time. But what- ever may be the amount of their prejudice against the usage of our Church though it lead them to transfer to my person the aversion they feel to my opinions ; though they may say and do what wounds my heart deeply ; they shall see, if they permit me to show it to them, that the heart of a true Christian love lies too deep, and throbs too warmly, to be chilled by that which touches but the outer man. If their love for one whose only desire is to bless them, be not intense enough to reach him through a fold of silk, may he have grace to prove that his love for them is not obstructed in its beaming forth, by so thin a veil. When the years have fled ; when the solemn hours draw nigh, in which the passions of earth grow cold, the hour in which dying men review their lives, in the light of that awful world on which they are about to enter ; it may seem to those who have thought and spoken most harshly, that they forgot the law of love to their pastor and they may feel that they could die more peace- fully if he could tell them of his forgiveness. But he may be far from them; or, after this fitful fever of life, may be sleeping in the grave; and therefore, could he reach their ear, he would speak now what he may not be 12 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. X. able to speak then, and would give them the assurance, that he has forgiven and from his innermost heart does forgive all. But even these tender and affectionate words of the pastor failed to reconcile the opponents in the congrega- tion. A secession took place. Under the name "St. James' English Evangelical Lutheran Church," a new congregation was organized at Twelfth and Melon Streets, Philadelphia. In a communication to the Lutheran Observer, dated September 14, i860, and signed R. W. P. (Robert W. Patrick), the new move- ment was explained and justified as follows : We have been driven from the communion of St. Mark's Lutheran Church because a few officious men wished to introduce forms and ceremonies into the worship of Almighty God to which we as members of the Church of Jesus Christ were told we must submit without the privilege on our part of dissenting or pro- testing. . . . "The gown," as our opponents say, "is a small matter," which we most cordially admit. - . . But it was not the gown, it was principle, glor- ious principle, for which some of us would just as soon sacrifice our property, our position, nay, even our lives, if called upon, and necessary so to do. It was not the introduction of a few yards of silk promiscuously hung around the shoulders of the preacher, that caused us to withdraw from St. Mark's. It was because the liberties of the congregation were trampled on, their dearest rights invaded; for a congregational meeting, which every- where has the power of either assenting or dissenting from the form introduced for the first time into the worship of the congregation, was denied them. We are regularly organized, have elected a board of officers, adopted a constitution and bylaws. At our last meeting we elected a delegate to represent us in the East Penn- sylvania Synod to which we intend to apply for admis- sion. 1859-61.] ST. JAMES' CHURCH. 1 3 This new enterprise, however, was quite short-lived. About a year afterwards the announcement was made that "on account of the stringency of the times St. James' Church found it necessary to suspend services." An attempt to resuscitate it by calHng the Rev. Charles Stork of Baltimore, son of the first pastor of St. Mark's, proved unsuccessful. Meanwhile what had originally been merely a local difficulty in one of the Philadelphia Churches had taken a wider range and had become the subject of a general and rather violent controversy in the Church at large. The action of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, in June, i860, at its meeting in St. Paul's German Church, Phila- delphia, "requesting all ministers within its bounds as far as convenient, to resume the use of the clerical gown" gave the moral support of the venerable Mother Synod to the pastor of St. Mark's and his people, though they did not, at that time, belong to the Ministerium. But the publication of the discourses on Christian Liberty was the principal occasion for rousing the bitter opposition of the champions of "American Lutheranism," Dr. B. Kurtz and Dr. S. S. Schmucker. The former, in a sermon on I Corinthians xv. 58, preached before the Melanchthon Synod at Mechanics- burg, Md., September 2, i860, sent forth one of his char- acteristic tirades. After denouncing the Lutheran doctrine on the Lord's Supper as one of the "wild fancies pillaged from the dusty tomes of erring fathers incor- porated in presentations of doctrine as understood in the age in which those presentations were written, but now metamorphosed into authoritative creeds, and attempted to be foisted upon us as setting forth the infallible truth of God," he turns to the subject of clerical robes in the following language : The gown in itself is, perhaps, a harmless human con- 14 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. X. trivance, but as part and parcel of an obnoxious system, comprehending baptismal regeneration, the real presence, wearisome and monotonous liturgical services and the entire paraphernalia of high churchism, it is to be depre- cated as an additional rivet to the various fastenings of the whole machinery. No wonder that Christ and His Apostles so carefully abstained from all these ostenta- tious trappings, that they worshipped in all the inborn simplicity of the Gospel, and that these figments should find no footing in the Church until gradual degeneracy in doctrine and practice first opened the way. O, for a clap of thunder, as loud as to be heard throughout the universe, to explode all vain displays and dangerous errors, and to condemn them! A few weeks afterwards Dr. S. S. Schmucker pub- lished a discourse on "The Spiritual Worship of God" delivered before the Lutheran Synod of West Pennsyl- vania, September 30, i860. The sermon was based on John iv. 24, and undertook to set forth " The spirituality of all acceptable worship of God" under the following heads: i. Outward means of grace are necessary auxiliaries to spiritual worship in man. 2. These out- ward ordinances being designed as channels of divine truth, are of little value to divine worship, unless so presented as actually to convey it. 3. True spiritual worship consists in a proper estimate and use of both. When this sermon was published Dr. Schmucker "felt it a duty to add a short appendix, presenting the relevant historic facts and a few arguments against the use of the gown." The presentations made in this discourse were of such importance in the estimation of the author that he imposed upon his students in the theological seminary the task of committing its salient points to memory. Dr. Krauth promptly took up the gauntlet and answered his assailants in the Lutheran in an article sparkling with wit and humor, and yet, at the same time i8s9-6i.] THE ENEMIES OF THE GOWN. 15 full of Stern and manly rebuke. Under the head "A M elanchthonian Pronunciamento" he reviewed the above mentioned sermon of Dr. Kurtz as follows : The first point that strikes the thoughtful reader as he peruses it, is the ingenuity of the thing. The text is an encouragement of the christian laborer by the blessed hope of the resurrection. Apropos of this, by way of application we have an assault on creeds, liturgies, gowns, tapers, crucifixes, and their supposed aiders and abettors. The extract abounds in what looks like the most flagrant misrepresentation of the doctrines of the Church whose name the preacher bears, and the most wanton appeals to ignorance and prejudice. It seems calculated to move the worst feelings of the unsanctified heart, to make brethren, who have really nothing to divide them, hate each other, to cultivate a spirit of self- righteousness and censoriousness, and to set christian ministers upon a heartless crusade against each other. It looks and seems, we say, for if there be any connection whatever between the sermon and the text, all these things, however ugly their guise, are really the work of the Lord, the labor of the Lord which is not in vain, but •which is to receive its reward in the recompense of the just. . . . Some time ago a very respectable Lutheran congregation, through its constitutional repre- sentative, a highly intelligent Church Council, saw fit to request its pastor to conform to the order of service recommended by the General Synod, and also, in con- sonance with what had been the prevalent usage of the locality, to wear the black gown. He complied with their very reasonable request. Out of respect to the difficulties which these changes produced in the minds of a few of his people, he preached two sermons on the general principles of christian liberty, with a special reference to the use of it which had been made in this case. Though the principles were such as are common to almost all the Protestant world, the sermons were eagerly caught at outside of the congregation, and a l6 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. X. Strenuous and persistent effort made to gather from them, something in which radicalism might find its own partizan account. The curious anomaly has been pre- sented, of men belonging to the Lutheran Church, the most conservative of all Churches, trying to proscribe a congregation for a step which really has nothing in it inconsistent with the most ultra Puritanism. If the gown has been made a cover for any phase of doctrine or tendency, it has been made such by its opponents, — they have caught hold of it, they have persisted in seeing in it what is not in it, and have freely used the oldest and most widely circulated paper in the Church, not merely to ridicule our usages, but to assail with the grossest personalities those whose only offense is that they claim for themselves the rights enjoyed by all other Lutheran congregations. It is into this controversy that the sermon before us throws itself. The first picture of Dr. Kurtz that was ever given to- the world, represents him in a gown. Did he find, as he wore it in the pulpits in Germany to which he was so cordially invited, when he was begging money for our infant "German Lutheran Seminary," did he find those awful "proclivities" coming over him, which he so feel- ingly describes? The very best work he ever did for the Lord and His Church, was at an era when he did not object to wearing the "paraphernalia" and the "osten- tatious trappings" and going through what he now pro- nounces "most acceptable to those who have the least piety but desire to make the most plausible appearance?" How could the Doctor, who is an appreciator of humor, as well as the possessor of a large fund of it, how could he keep his face straight during portions of the sermon? when, for instance, he identified the sort of dress in which Luther and Calvin, Arndt and Gerhardt, Spener and Francke, Wesley and Whitfield, Knox and Chalmers, Muehlenberg and the Doctor's own venerable uncle, preached the everlasting Gospel, — identified this with "encumbering the Gospel with human inventions, bediz- ening it with golden chains, decorating it with wreaths 1859-61.] DR. KURTZ AND THE FATHERS. ,7 of artificial flowers, and garnishing it with clusters of flaunting ribbons ?" The poctor says, "the fathers of Lutheranism are erring." That is his opinion, and it means no more than that they do not agree with him. It is easier to say that they erred than it is to prove it. And why charge upon them that they are "dusty?" The Old Lutherans, we presume, do not let theirs get dusty. If the Doctor's fathers are "dusty," that is his fault, not theirs. If he will not stretch forth a hand and a dusting brush to his copies of them, which we presume, are not so many as to make the work an arduous one, he ought not to blame them that they will not come from glory to do it for him. After quoting from Dr. Kurtz's book. "Why Are You a Lutheran?" to confute the Doctor by his own language, Dr. Krauth addresses the following rebuke to him : Out of our general habitude of cheerfulness we have tried to take the Doctor's sermon in a way that would pam us least. However our views differ from his we would desire always to remember him as the ready 'and forcible writer and the active laborer in our Zion. He has spent many toilsome years in the service of the Church As a faithful pastor, as an active and successful agent for our seminary, as an editor, as the author of various books, each of which has decided merit in its kind he IS entitled to an honorable place in the history of our Church m America. Those who know him in private life speak of his social gifts and his felicity in conversa- A n"' u ^'^^ """""^^ ^"^ "''^''^' ^"""^ ^^ ^ ^e^^^er among men All these things in his present attitude increase our sor- row. We are more grieved than we can express that so clearheaded a thinker should lend himself to bewilder simpehearted men, and confuse plain things; that a man who has done so much to entitle him to "that which should accompany old age as honor, love, obedience, troops of friends" 1 8 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. X. is making it so hard for some who desire most heartily that he should have tfhem all, to avoid the feeling that he is sacrificing to partisanship what should be given to the whole Church. We respect the true fathers of " the Church — the living and the dead, and when Dr. K. speaks as one of them, speaks as he has shown himself able to speak, when happier influences than those to which he now surrenders himself, prompted his utter- ances, we listen to him with the respect due to truth, and the reverence which should wait upon wisdom matured by years. Let him strive for the peace of the Church — let him cease to utter and print sentiments which can only tend to heartburning and hostility, — let him not lend his hand to the sundering of the Church, and to the leaving behind him as a part of his work, the spirit of faction, of radicalism, and of hatred between brethren, and the Lutheran, which knows no party, will feel as profound a pleasure in the grateful acknowledgment of his better spirit, as it felt the deep pain connected with these necessary strictures. (*October 19, i860.) Dr. S. S. Schmucker's discourse on spiritual worship was subjected to a scathing but dignified criticism in the Lutheran of December 7, i860, concluding with the wish "that the Doctor had never written, never preached, and, above all, never published it." The "Appendix on Clerical Robes," "which some, in their wickedness, may perchance regard as meant to be the salient point of the whole publication" thinking, "that the whole discourse was framed as a rack for the support of a certain caudal appendage which adorns it," — was taken up somewhat more humorously in the Lutheran of April 19 and May 3, 1861, under the headings "The Autocracy of the Tailor vs. the Liberty of the Church," and "Sartor resartus," in which it was shown that both the scriptural grounds and the manner of quoting theo- *The dates indicate the numbers of the Lutheran (and Missionary) from which these extracts are ta^en. i859-6i.] SARTOR RESARTUS. 19 logical authorities were equally unfortunate in Dr. Schmucker's discourse, and the principles underlying the whole dispute are once more forcibly pointed out in the following words : It is an astonishing phenomenon in a Church calling itself Evangelical Lutheran, that there should be so much liberty allowed where the New Testament allows none, — we mean in articles of faith, and so little where the New Testament allows all liberty, we mean in things indif- ferent. This is the anomalous and unhealthy condition of a part of our Church within the General Synod, but truth in time will vindicate itself. We shall yet have a Church contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Saints, and insisting on her liberty in all other things, a Church which shall neither bind the things of freedom on the conscience, nor surrender the things of conscience to a spurious freedom. This is the unity of the Lutheran Church, — at once the purest and the freest of Churches. May God preserve her purity, freedom and unity for ever. We give the substance of the articles against Dr. S. S. Schmucker from the somewhat enlarged and revised form which appeared a few years later in the Lutheran and Missionary (November 29, 1866). It is often said that Evangelical Lutheranism attaches great importance to the wearing of ecclesiastical vest- ments — especially the gown, while ''American Lutheran- ism" distinguishes itself by violent hatred to the whole thing. But as regards clerical robes. Evangelical Luther- anism has the same moderate and Scriptural position which it holds every where. As there is nothing in con- flict with clerical robes in the letter or spirit of the Scripture, it believes that they may be retained or used without sin. In any case they are but parts of the out- ward order and grace of the service — no man is morally better nor worse for them, any more than he is for wear- ing or not wearing any other kind of clothing. If the 20 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. X. Church, one in the faith, in this country, decide that nothing distinctive shall be worn by the clergyman, the true Lutheran will cheerfully yield to its decision. As no such decision has been made, the question whether the gown shall be worn in this or that case is one to be settled affirmatively or negatively, with a prudent and charitable reference to the views and preferences of all parties con- cerned. A minister, and congregation and Synod, firm in the faith of our Church, are truly Lutheran, even if a gown was never seen nor heard of among them, — and all the gowns ever made will not render a minister, con- gregation or Synod Lutheran which is not in the unity of the Lutheran faith. True Lutherans, whether they wear the gown or not, are entirely united in their doctrine in regard to it. A man is neither better nor worse for wearing or not wearing it. Differences in raiment do not mar unity in heart. But it has been urged against the usage of our Church that the Saviour and his apostles wore no distinctive dress. How easy would it be, by carrying out this absurd mode of reasoning, to justify the greatest vagaries of an extravagant fancy in regard to dress. As the ordinary dress of men in the apostolic time did not differ essen- tially from that of the women, it might be urged that it is in conflict with inspired example that there should be any essential difference now. Bloomerism might build up on the New Testament an argument against men's wearing distinctive attire, much more plausible than that urged against clerical robes. They might claim some- thing in the very letter which has not been claimed against clerical robes — they might point to the declara- tion that, on the ground of the new dispensation, all dis- tinctions of the sort implied are ignored : "There is neither male nor female." And when it came to infer- ences, and to the argument from silence, Bloomerism, that great vestiarian heresy of the nineteenth century, might make a brilliant defence — and, in fact, carry the war to the very gates of Carthage. Headed with the 1859-61.] DRESS AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. 2 1 words, "Of the Gender of Dress," mutatis mutatidis, the argument against a proper clerical apparel would make an admirable Bloomer tract, for the diffusion of the peculiar views on the subject of apparel which have given to history the name of that immortal woman. Imagine Mrs. Bloomer taking up these principles to build an argu- ment on. Adopting them as a guide, she might argue that for men and women to dress in ways essentially different, is against all New Testament example, that the apostles wore flowing dresses like women, that it is a safe principle to dress as far as practicable on the prin- ciples which regulated the clothing of the early Chris- tians, that pantaloons are unscriptural, there being no New Testament injunction to wear them "in preaching," or at any other time; that, on the contrary, "various passages teach that every thing typical in the Mosaic ritual, of which breeches (Exod. xxviii. 42) were a part, is superseded in the New Testament." She might go on to urge, "that, like the uniform of soldiers, and the insignia of freemasonry" — coats, hats and pantaloons "have a tendency to attract the attention" of ladies to the gentlemen, "and in so far to divert it from" much more important things; that they "are calculated to minister to the pride and vanity of" men, who are human creatures, "of like infirmities with" the ladies; and that though some men who have distinctive dress are humble and good, "yet these exceptions cannot overthrow the general rule." She might say that, as a general similarity of the dress of the sexes was commenced in paradise, Gen. iii. 7, 21, and, for a long time, was universal, a distinctive dress for men is an innovation, that a majority of mankind still keep up a substantial uni- formity in this matter between males and females, and that, therefore, it would be better for those who depart from the general principle, to conform to it, than for the majority to depart from it; that there are many incon- veniences in ladies' dresses which tempt them to neglect their duties, especially when the weather is stormy, and the streets muddy ; and finally that such a distinction is in 22 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. X. conflict with the equaHty between the sexes acknowledged in our modern civiHzation, is inconsistent with the Decla- ration of Independence, which assumes that all human be- ings (among whom it is conceded that ladies are to be classed, with the exception of a few who are angels,) are equal, and being inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence, is in conflict with the Federal and State Constitutions, the principles of republican democracy, the stars and stripes, the eagle, and the Fourth of July. If Mrs. Bloomer, after recovering from the loss of breath consequent on such an accumulation of items, should assert that this scandalous diversity must cease, and that as the men don't wish to dress like the women, the women shall dress like the men — what could we do? Resistance or submission would be the alternative; and to the gentlemen that alternative always means submis- sion. We should be compelled not only to give her the last word, but meekly to surrender the article of apparel which she had shown herself so competent to wear. " Detur pulchriori." Over against the Puritanizing superstition against clerical apparel, equally as against the Romish supersti- tion in favor of what is gaudy and excessive, the true Lutheran maintains the just freedom of the Christian Church to have her ministers at her altars apparelled in just that mode which she deems best on the whole for the proper performance of all their functions, not enjoining on the conscience what Gk)d has not enjoined, and not forbidding what God has not forbidden. In what conflict with this is the real attitude of a false Lutheranism. It does not regulate its feelings or con- duct in this matter, on any fixed principles. Its friends will not only accept, but will allow themselves to seek, and sometimes very eagerly seek positions in which the gown is worn ; and then again, where partisan interest leads them the other way, they will assail the wearing of the gown as a very pernicious and Popish thing. No advocate of clerical robes in our Church has ever consi- dered a defence of them an appropriate subject for 1589-61. J FALSE LUTHERANISM INCONSISTENT. 23 sacramental meditation ; but the opponents of them have thought their opposition so important as to justify a thrusting of it in the place of Christ crucified at His very table. Here, as every where in which the false Luth- eranism completely escapes from the influence of the true, it is harsh, intolerant, fickle, and inconsistent, and here, as every where in which the faith is not involved. Evangelical Lutheranism is mild and forbearing. This is the Lutheranism we love, and to which we would consecrate our efforts, humble but sincere. Earnest, therefore, as is our desire to see one Scriptural church- like form of service throughout our land, whose outward robes shall be in keeping with its internal beauty, a service which shall neither take what is evil, nor reject what is good, because others have it, a service evolved from the proper devotional life of our Church, the richest, purest, and noblest devotional life the Church of Christ has ever had, while we pray for this, and labor and forbear for this, yet this, grand as it is, is little when compared with the object of our most fervent prayer. That prayer which we should breathe for our Zion were these our dying words, would be, that we may " all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, that we may henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive ; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into Him in all things, which is the head, even Christ." RESIGNATION FROM THE PASTORATE OF ST. MARk's. On the first of October, 1861, Dr. Krauth read the following statement to the Church Council of St. Mark's Congregation : I have been invited to become the editor of a paper devoted to the interest of the Lutheran Church and of our common Christianity, to be issued weekly in the 24 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. X. City of Philadelphia. The conviction is general in the Church that a good paper is at this time most impera- tively needed. The unanimous sentiment of those to whom the selection of an editor was entrusted, fixed itself on me, and from many influential sources I have been urged to accept the position thus offered. The most serious obstacle in my way is my reluctance to give up, in any measure, the pastoral work : my heart inclines me to give myself to it, not less unreservedly than in the past, but more so. But the indications of Providence which would lead me to assume a large part of the responsibility in the establishment of the new paper seem to me of the most marked kind. Without having reached therefore an absolutely final conclusion, I feel that I am drawn more and more toward the con- viction that I should edit the paper for the earlier months, if not for the first year of its existence. This decision may in your judgment render advisable a change of the relations I now occupy to St. Mark's Evangelical Lutheran Church. For though it is true that in a number of cases church papers are edited by pastors confessedly efficient in their work, and though by rigid system and earnest labor it might be possible for some men to perform in a good degree the work of both offices, I am not willing to assume any such ability in my own case, but commit it rather to your fraternal judgment as to those who in all good conscience before God will consult the best interests of St. Mark's congre- gation as its Council, and of our whole Church as faith- ful members. Two weeks afterwards his formal resignation was presented and accepted, but he continued to serve the church to the close of the year. On November 4, 1861, the Rev. G. F. Krotel, pastor of the Church of the Holy Trinity in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, was elected as his successor and entered upon his work on January 5, 1862. In the very first year of his pastorate St. Mark's congregation was dismissed from the East Pennsylvania Synod to join the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, much to i8s9-6i.] ST. MARK'S AND " THE OBSERVER." 25 the chagrin of the Lutheran Observer, which denounced their course as " very unreasonable. The church was born in a revival, has been built up under the influence of revivals, and belonged to a Synod that loved and cherished revivals, and now it has gone over, soul and body, to a Synod that, as such, has always been bitterly opposed to revivals. Now, what are we to infer from this? Why, that St. Mark's has repudiated revivals .... has lost the spirit of revivals." (Lutheran Ob- server, October 17, 1862.) IN THE EAST PENNSYLVANIA SYNOD. Dr. Krauth was received as a member of the East Pennsylvania Synod at Sunbury. September, i860, and at once placed on its Examining Committee, instead of Dr. C. A. Hay, who had been elected President. This Synod had been organized in 1842 by a number of clerg)^men who, being dissatisfied with the spirit of the Ministerium, the lack of " harmony of views and feel- ings." the largeness of the Mother-synod, the difficulties arising from the difference of language, German and English, had asked the Synod of Pennsylvania " forth- with to take measures for an amicable division of the Pennsylvania Synod, claiming a fair proportion of all the funds and legacies belonging to the Synod." The Ministerium declined to give its consent to a division but declared its willingness to grant an honorable dismission as individuals to those brethren who desired to separate from it. For some time there was considerable friction between the two bodies, the Mother-synod refusing to receive the first delegate of the East Pennsylvania Synod. A better feeling was initiated in the proceedings of 1850 when the East Pennsylvania Synod formally disavowed a certain "Circular" which had given offense to the Ministerium, charging it with a design " to introduce ministers from Germany who are rationalistic, unevan- 26 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. X, gelical or infidel in their sentiments, and immoral in their conduct, and to do injustice to brethren born and educated in this country." In i860 at the meeting of the East Pennsylvania Synod which admitted Dr. Krauth into its membership, an important discussion took place on the motion intro- duced by Dr. C. A. Hay: " That the constitution of this- Synod be so amended as to entitle all its members, clerical and lay, to participate in the transaction of all ecclesias- tical business." This movement aimed to abolish the- so-called " Ministerial Sessions," which had been a venerable tradition in the Pennsylvania Ministerium and the Synods that proceeded from it, ever since the days of Father Muehlenberg. Dr. Hay denounced it as " a relic of prelatical pretensions which should be aban- doned, having no support in Scripture or sound exegesis." His position was strenuously opposed by Drs. J. A. Seiss and C. P. Krauth. The former re- minded the Synod of the fact that the very same move- ment had been made in the Synods of Maryland, of Virginia and West Pennsylvania, and had, in every case been defeated. Dr. Krauth maintained that the op- ponents of the Ministerium could not produce a single- Scripture passage for the participation of laymen in the examination and ordination of candidates for the ministry. On the other hand there were clear passages to show that such powers had been conferred on the ministry, as in the words of St. Paul to Titus : " That thou shouldst ordain elders in every city." He also referred to the Liturgy of the General Synod in its form of ordination for the Gospel ministry, which declares: " The first preachers of the Gospel received their com- mission from the Lord Himself, and they ordained, by the laying on of hands, such as they deemed qualified to be their fellow laborers and successors. Thus has one 1859-61.] ENTERS THE MINISTERIUM. 2/ minister ordained another to the service of Christ down to the present time." The discussion resulted in the defeat of Dr. Hay's motion. In order to put an end to the unhappy collisions between the two Synods occupying the same territory, to bring about better relations or possibly to unite the two bodies into one, Dr. E. Greenwald, who had repre- sented the East Pennsylvania Synod at the meeting of the Ministerium in Allentown, 1862, suggested the appointment of a Committee from each Synod for a final settlement of the disputed points. This was done, and two different plans were afterwards offered, one by Dr. Greenwald, proposing a geographical line of division ; the other by Dr. G. F. Krotel, proposing a union of the two Synods, as " The United Synod of the Ministerium, etc., and the Synod of East Pennsylvania." The Ministerium at its meeting in Reading, 1863, de- clared the union to be eminently desirable and adopted certain positions as the basis for the projected union. But the conference held in Philadelphia, in 1863, for the purpose of making arrangements for a joint convention, to discuss the proposed union of the two Synods failed to accomplish its end. Dr. Krauth does not seem to have taken an active part in the discussion of this subject. On October 17, 1864, he was dismissed by the Synod of East Pennsyl- vania to the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, which re- ceived him into membership at Easton, June, 1865. ELEVENTH CHAPTER. EDITOR OF THE LUTHERAN AND MISSIONARY. 1861-1867. When Dr. C. P. Krauth resigned his pastorate of St. Mark's congregation to take charge of the Lutheran and Missionary , as editor-in-chief, he entered upon that sphere of his hfe work in which he exerted an influence more important and far reaching than in any other department of church work to which he was called. The reader will remember that long before this time he had made his debut in church-journalism, as a young man of twenty-three, when, in the spring of 1846, he undertook to furnish the editorials for the Lutheran Observer, during the absence of Dr. Benjamin Kurtz in Europe. The articles which he contributed made such an impression on the readers that, even at that time, the wish was expressed, that the youthful editor might be continued in this office. (See Vol. I, pp. 74, 75.) Ten years afterwards he had become a regular con- tributor to the Missionary, edited by Dr. W. A. Passavant, in Pittsburgh, — the paper of which his father had so hopefully spoken as the possible " antidote " to the Lutheran Observer. (Vol. I, pp. 300, f., 372.) During his pastorate in St. Mark's, Philadelphia, he had been engaged in regular editorial work. The Lutheran Home Jourttal, a monthly in pamphlet form, had been merged with the Lutheran, and in July, i860, there appeared the first number of The Lutheran and Home Journal, a semi-monthly, published by Henry KnaufT and Henry W. Knauff, and " edited by a Committee of 28 1861-67.] INTRODUCING " THE LUTHERAN." 29 clergymen," Dr. C. P. Krauth acting as editor-in-chiefj and Dr. J. A. Seiss as the principal associate, though their names did not appear in the paper. In the "Apology for our Existence" the editor says : We wish our paper to be truly Lutheran. It will maintain the doctrines taught in the Holy Scriptures, and confessed by the Evangelical Lutheran Church. The distinctive usages, history, liturgical, devotional and practical spirit of our Church will be illustrated in its pages. Our paper will be catholic. It will not ground itself upon what has been accidentally associated in particular nationalities with Lutheranism, but will look at our Church in its great essential and invariable principles, and endeavor to apply them to the new cir- cumstances which surround her in this land As the other papers of our Church are established not by any official sanction, but because of the private convic- tion that they are needed, we hope that our private and very sincere conviction that we are also badly needed, may be considered as furnishing some warrant for our appearance If any of the other papers are fixed in the opinion that there are too many of us, we shall defer to their judgment with the reverence which we feel to be due to superior age; and should they, under the urgings of their logic and of their consciences feel it their duty to withdraw from the field, and make a bed of their laurels, we shall do our best to secure them the praise they would merit by such an act of self-sacrifice. .... We feel it our duty to labor with all our power to make the Lutheran such a paper as would mitigate, in some measure, the sorrow of the Church at the loss of her ancient favorites. But if they shall obstinately de- cline to die, to retire, to merge, or even to " dovetail " for our advantage, they have no reason to fear us. They have the ground pre-occupied and have an established character. Our only hope is in furnishing the Church with a paper which shall, in some respects, more per- fectly meet her wants than our cotemporaries are able to do. 30 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XL Up to that time the Lutheran Observer, estabHshed in 1833, had been the only weekly organ in the English language, for the Lutheran Church, in the East. The spirit in which it was conducted at that time, by its editor- in-chief. Dr. Benjamin Kurtz, was an offense to many, on account of its hostility to the confessions of the Evangel- ical Lutheran Church, whose name it bore and whose interests it claimed to serve. (See Vol. I, p. 344.) For some time a change in its management had been desired and urged by earnest leading men in the Church. Several years before the Lutheran was established such a change seemed to be in sight. In January, 1858, Dr. G. Diehl, of Frederick, Maryland, had written to Dr. C. P. Krauth : "The paper will now be in our own hands. We will be untrammelled. You need have no fears about any further influence from Dr. Kurtz. You can at once send us anything you may wish to give us, assured that the reign of the dictator is at an end." But those hopes were premature. Dr. Kurtz continued to rule the Observer. Dr. Diehl retired from the editorial chair. Dr. Kurtz resumed his official connection with the paper as "cor- responding editor." Dr. Krauth rather welcomed him back to his place, to which, he said, he is entitled. He made the paper, gave it the impress of his own strong character, and so fixed its metes and bounds, that, even during his absence from it, it could not essentially pass out of them. He is a man of marked character, with an ability, first to know what he means, .... and secondly, to say what he means Whether a man's position be, in our judgment, right or wrong, we like to know what it is. If we are to have definite platformism, a low standard of ministerial educa- tion, elective affinity, anxious benches, noise in meetings, women making prayer in public, denunciation of the doctrines and usages of the Church, we wish them to be 1861-67.] DR. KURTZ AN HONEST RADICAL. 31 sustained by somebody who will not mince matters, by somebody who is not afraid of the inferences from his premises, but accepts the results of his own logic; and such a man is Dr. Kurtz. He is the leader in the extrem- est un-Lutheranism of the Lutheran Church in America, and his connection with the Observer will determine its entire effective character. The other editors, (Drs. Anspach and T. Stork) will simply help to extend the sphere of his influence. Their conservatism will only serve to mask the battery of his avowed and uncompro- mising radicalism, and help to bring within its range those who would otherwise refuse to approach it. (March i, 1861.) The Observer, under the leadership of Dr. Kurtz, acknowledges throughout that the Lutheranism of the Augsburg Confession, the Lutheranism of Luther, Arndt, Gerhardt, Spener and Francke, and of all the glorious luminaries of our Church, the Lutheranism which the heroes of our faith confessed, and for which our martyrs died, the Lutheranism which was brought to these shores by our fathers and planted by them amid the perils of the wilderness — in a word, that the Lutheranism of all history is not its Lutheranism. All that Lutheranism is formalism, symbolism, — carnal, Romanistic, effete. The most serious offense that a man or a paper can commit, in the eyes of its Lutheranism, is to refuse to look upon the hallowed faith of the Church, the faith which gave her her name, as if it were old wives' fables This attitude of the Observer, Dr. Krauth holds, "is not on the true basis of the General Synod," w^hile he claims for his own Lutheran that it stands on that basis as defined by the constitution and the acts of the General Synod. We shall defend the doctrines it confesses to be those of the Bible and of our Church, not striving to ignore the fundamental character of those doctrines of God's Word which our Church has always acknowledged to be funda- mental, nor to make fundamental what she has always denied to be such. We shall strive to strengthen the historical connection which our General Synod has 32 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XL acknowledged to be the origin of its own life and the life of our whole church in the land. We shall endeavour in the true spirit of our General Synod, to rise above all partisan and local modes of regarding the interests of our Church. We shall know no German Lutheranism as an isolated interest, and no Anti-German Lutheranism in its false appeals to the self-conceit of an illicit nationality. We shall defend American Lutheranism heart and soul so far as it involves the right of our Church in this land to determine, in her independence and by her own true genius, everything which is not essential to Lutheranism ; and we shall oppose ourselves heart and soul to everything^ which, under the name of American Lutheranism, pre- supposes that our Church in this land is to be a new sect, with new doctrines and new principles, and with nothing of the old but the name. We shall maintain that the Lutheran Church of our Western World is the old Church evolving a new life, and our prayer shall be that the Church in this country may not be less Lutheran than in the Old World, but very much more so. And this we believe to be the true position of our General Synod. (September 7, i860.) Meanwhile the dissatisfaction in the Church with the Lutheran Observer, and her interest in the battle between "The Lutheran and the Un-Lutheran" constantly increased. Even the West Pennsylvania Synod, at its meeting in Mechanicsburg, Pa., September, 1861, passed a preamble and resolution, severely reflecting on the management of the Lutheran Observer. A call was issued for a con- vention in Baltimore, October, 1861, for the purpose of forming an "Association for publishing a Lutheran Church Paper on the liberal basis of the General Synod." The friends of the Observer fully realized the danger threatening the traditional organ of the General Synod in the formidable rivalry of the Lutheran and the Associa- tion which had been formed by the Conservatives for its- 1861-67.] CONSERVATIVE AND CONCILIATORY. 33 publication. And yet, the excellent character of the new paper made such an impression that even a prominent member of the editorial staff of the Observer could not resist the temptation of taking "stock" in the issue. On October 28, 1861, Dr. G. Diehl writes to Dr. S. S. Schmucker : Heretofore the Observer has had two feeble rivals owned by individuals, now it will have a powerful rival, the property of an Association with ramifications in every section of the Church, and the keenest, wittiest man among us as editor. With his satire and playful wit and immense resources Charlie will take so much fun at the editor of a rival paper that a sensitive man will scarcely be able to bear it. Unless a powerful combination, includ- ing all our best writers (non-symbolical) can be found to supply editorial material for the Observer, the old paper will stand no chance. After all, genius and power carry the day. It is not so much doctrines and measures as talent. If Charles can win the eclat of being the spiciest and most delightful editor, the objections to his Symbol- ism will give way before the charm of his literary accom- plishments. And again (November 21, 1861) : The Lutheran and Missionary came to hand upon a much more liberal basis than I expected. Indeed it is so conservative that Low Church Lutherans can support it. It is so excellent in its literary character and conciliatory spirit that I was greatly pleased with it. I therefore have taken one share of stock. The plan was to form a joint stock company to pur- chase the Lutheran Observer. But the conservative wing in the General Synod, being convinced that "an antidote" to the Observer was an urgent and immediate necessity for the Church, had not been idle during the past months. In June, 1861, a confidential circular had been issued, submitting the draft 3 34 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XI. of a constitution for the "Lutheran Association for Newspaper and Periodical Pubhcation." Such an asso- ciation was promptly organized with Dr. J. A. Seiss as Chairman of the Executive Committee, and Henry KnaufT as Treasurer. Satisfactory arrangements were made for a union of the three papers, the Missionary, the Lutheran, and the Olive Branch. On Reformation Day, October 31, 1861, the first number of the Lutheran and Missionary appeared, with Dr. C. P. Krauth as General Editor, and Rev. W. A. Passavant, of Pittsburgh, as Co-Editor. Its programme was announced as follows : The Paper will be independent and decided, but con- ciliatory, outspoken on topics of importance, moderate, but impartial in criticism, and sacredly avoiding all obtrusion on the sphere of private life and of private character. It will have a due regard to honest differences of opinion among those who love the Church, and will strive to present a common ground on which our best men can meet for fraternal comparison of views. It will aim at creating more and more among our ministers and people, a profound love and reverence for the Word of God as the sole rule of faith and of life, and to diffuse a knowledge of its teachings. It will set forth, and when necessary, defend, those scriptural principles which created the Reformation and gave character to the Evan- gelical Lutheran Church, and separating the merely inci- dental, local and non-essential from what is. unchangeable and fundamental in her doctrines, usages and life, will "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints," and will "speak the truth in love." It will faithfully devote itself to the interests of the whole Lutheran Church in America, recognizing neither locality nor language, as a reason for narrowing its sympathies. It will strive to rise above every species of partisanship, and will earnestly labor for the purity and true peace of Zion. It will give special prominence to the great Evangelical doctrines of salvation by grace, 1861-67.] PROGRAMME OF " THE LUTHERAN." 35 the necessity of regeneration, and of a holy living as the fruit of faith. It will array itself alike against the error which substitutes the form for the power of godliness, and the fanaticism which mistakes justification by sensa- tion for justification by faith. It will aim to arouse pastor and people constantly to seek the reviving influ- ences of the Holy Spirit, and faithfully to use God's appointed means to secure them, and will present ample accounts of the special evidences which the Head of the Church may give, that the prayers and toils of those who labor for her good are not in vain. It \yill heartily sustain the General Synod in all its efforts to unite and strengthen our beloved Church. From the best books, periodicals, and newspapers of England, America and Germany, it will cull whatever, especially in religious literature or intelligence, is best adapted to interest and benefit its readers. It will look to the wants of the Home, of parents and of children, to the interests of the Sunday-school, of Missions, of Educa- tion, of Church Extension, of our Literary, Theological and Benevolent Institutions, and will sustain all measures however old or however new which have their warrant in the letter or spirit of God's Word. By a large corre- spondence it will be able to present ample and fresh intelligence from every part of the Church. Special regard will be had to the wants and interests of the German part of the Churches, and the great West will have a place worthy of its importance. The attitude of the paper with regard to the conflict that was agitating the Lutheran Church is more fully set forth in the following editorial : WHERE DO WE STAND? Not as the representative of a party. We shall labor to redeem the Church from partisanship of every kind. Our columns shall be open to thoughtful men of every shade of opinion, which is not in conflict with the funda- mentals of Evangelical Orthodoxy. Our aim shall be to 36 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XI. judge of every question on its own merits without refer- ence to the interests of any party, and we hope to secure the approval of men who may dififer widely on some points, but who concur in loving honesty, candor, and impartiality. We are not "old Lutherans." If there be a Lutheran- ism which is exclusive, harsh and repellant, .... which cannot discriminate between essence and accident, between truth and her clothes, which holds to what has been, simply because it has been, and regards novelty as the only unpardonable sin, which refuses all change, and would die rather than submit to any adaptation, that is not our Lutheranism. The Lutheranism we have learned to love is moderate in its tone, free from the spirit of a false exclusiveness, and makes no pretensions which have any show of extravagance. We do not claim that the Lutheran Church is the Church universal. We do claim that she is a part of it, pure in her genuine doctrines, earnest in her genuine life, uniting conservat- ism with ardour; a quiet, unpretending, yet great, and useful and beneficent church, whose living members love their Saviour with their whole heart, and have the witness and assurance in themselves that they are loved by Him. But with this we acknowledge the Christian character of the true disciples of our Lord throughout the world. .... We contend for a unity which rests on the com- mon recognition of the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, and a concurrence in the divine essentials of the administration of the sacraments. For those that are at war with us, even as regards these, we have charity — for those that are one with us in these we have the most hearty acknowledgment of Christian fraternity. We believe genuine Lutheranism to be the least exclusive of systems — the system which most happily harmonizes the steadfast confession of what God has fixed, with the most perfect liberty in what God has left free. We will not consent to abandon these great principles. If the effort thus to dwarf our Church should take the old and hallowed name upon it, we shall not be deluded by the mere sound. 1861-67.] THE PASSING AND THE PERMANENT. 37 If the effort to sectarianize our Church calls itself *'old Lutheranism" we are not old Lutherans, Atid yet we are Old Lutherans. We love the old doctrines — a great deal older are they than the Reforma- tion — older than time — old as the infinite mind in which they dwelt from eternity. The fact that our fathers revived them does not make the doctrines or our fathers less dear to us. We love the ancient life in its simplicity and earnestness, its childlike devotion, its tender trust — the dear old hymns that have spoken to the hearts of many generations, the spirit of the old worship, the principles that underlie the essential usages of our Church. In its own time and place and surroundings, there is nothing in the whole historic life of our Church that repels us. Our parent tree may shed its foliage, to renew it, or its blossoms may fall off to give way to fruit, parasitic creepers may be torn from it, storms may carry away a dead branch here and there — but there is not strength enough in hell and earth combined to break its massive trunk. Till the new earth comes, that grand old tree, undecaying, will strike its roots deeper in the earth that is, till the new heavens arch themselves, it will lift itself under these skies, and wave in tempest and sunshine, its glorious boughs. We are "American Lutherans." We accept the great fact that God has established our Zion in this western world under circumstances wholly different from those m which her past life has been nurtured. New forms of duty, new types of thought, new necessities of adaptation, are here to tax all her strength, and to test how far she is able to maintain her vital power under necessary changes of form. The Lutheranism of this country cannot be a mere feeble echo of any nationalized species of Lutheran- ism. It cannot be permanently German or Scandinavian, out of Germany and Scandinavia, but in America must be American. It must be conformed in accordance with its own principles to its new home, bringing hither its price- less experiences in the old world, to apply them to the living present in the new. Our Church must be pervaded 38 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XI. by sympathy for this land; she must learn in order that she may teach. She must not be afraid to trust herself on this wild current of the quick life of America. She must not cloister herself, but show in her freedom, and in her wise use of the opportunity of the present, that she knows how robust is her spiritual life, and how secure are her principles, however novel or trying the tests to which they are subjected. In the right use of the term we glory in being American Lutherans. And yet, we are not American Lutherans, if to be such, means that we are to have a new faith, a mutilated con- fession, a life which abruptly breaks with all our history, a spirit alien to that of the genuine Lutheranism of the past. An American Lutheran Church, which has no right to claim as a part of its heritage the immortal names, and holy memories of the past, a new sect in this land of sects — God save us from this. Lutheranism is neither a speculation nor an experi- ment, but an established life. It is a genuine Chris- tianity, and at its heart we caught the first life-pulse of our own. If to be Evangelical Lutheran, for this, without reservation, we confess ourselves to be, is fatal to our hopes of winning a way to the hearts of those who bear the same name with us, if to be what we call our- selves, is a crime, then our way is made thorny with those with whom we desire to walk in love. If to prefer Jerusalem above our chief joy may not be forgiven, then must the blow fall upon us. But we fear no repulse, no stroke of anger from those who love Zion. We ask them to labor with us for her purity, her peace, her pros- perity. Where we cannot see eye to eye with them, we beg them to bear with us, as we shall most gladly bear with them. Let us mingle our prayers for more light, more love, more earnestness — for a larger measure of the baptism of the Spirit of our God. On one point all Christian hearts beat together. It is in the desire for the unity of the Church universal. Let us begin with our own. The largest contribution we can make to Christian unity is to secure it among ourselves. Brethren ! toward 1861-67.] THE CHURCH DEMANDS UNITY. 39 whom our hearts have yearned only the more fondly, as we have seen misapprehension breeding doubt, coldness, and distrust, we must not stand aloof from each other in the great work of our Lord. The Church demands our unity — souls that are perishing cry out for it ; we must be one. The worst of heresies is hard, suspicious and unloving hearts, among those that should be brethren. Let us put the points on which we may differ into the crucible of experience, and let that which produces the purest love, the meekest, lowliest and most steadfast piety, the most active and abiding effort for good, be accepted as fine gold. In this fire the true test is made, and only he who suspects that he is building with hay, wood, and stubble fears the trial. Dr. Krauth himself had not been particularly anxious to undertake the editorship of the new paper. Other men, like Dr. W. M. Reynolds, and Dr. Theophilus Stork, showed much more ambition for that post, and were more or less disappointed when the place was not offered to them. But the Committee which selected Dr. C. P. Krauth, was, as his father writes, ''very urgent, gave him carte blanche, left him free to determine his pastoral relations. He finally concluded to accept and devote himself entirely to the work." (Letter to Dr. H. I. Schmidt, November 7. 1861.) Before coming to a decision he had conscientiously considered the important step he was expected to take, and had fully counted the cost. The following article, written about a year after the first appearance of the Lutheran and Missionary, gives us an insight into his personal reasonings and experiences in making the transition from the position of the pastor to that of the editor : EDITOR AND PREACHER. Who has the more laborious life, — the editor or the preacher? If we are to settle the question by our own experience, we would reply the editor has. Entering the 40 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XL ministry young and pursuing its work steadily, in posi- tions, and surrounded by circumstances, which gave us an opportunity of fairly testing its laboriousness, we think we know pretty well what is its measure of toil. In the ministry we had at various times engagements not directly connected with our pastoral vocation. With very little original disposition to write for the press, we have been drawn in to write a good deal. We have been a contributor to the Reviezv of our Church, a pamph- leteer, have translated a large and somewhat difficult work from the German, and have edited a Vocabulary of Philosophy. We did a good deal of work for the Missionary in its early life as a weekly, and when the Quarto Lutheran was started, came to be recognized as a sort of editor of it, on the strength of the fact that our lucubrations were set up in lead where the editorial ought to have been. Throughout these labors, which men of the quill know not to have been light, we have endeavored to perform the pulpit and pastoral duties required by large and intel- ligent congregations. We think we may say in all good conscience, that, although we took from the hours of rest and of recreation what ought to have been given to them, we never took from our people the time which belonged to them. If we did them wrong it was in this way, that excess of labor deprived us of the elasticity and freshness which we ought to have brought to our work. Our ministry commences with our boyhood. Our first efifort at preaching was made at the age of seventeen. We were licensed at eighteen, and shortly after organized our first congregation. At nineteen we were ordained, and are now in the twenty-second year of our ministry. Out of these twenty-one years the last has been the most laborious. It is true that we have voluntarily, in some sense, enlarged its toils. We preach more Sundays in the year than when we were in the pastoral work. The editor is a convenience for brethren when they go to the seaside, the mountain and the lakes. Our engagements often run 1861-67.] EDITOR OR PREACHER .' 4 1 in advance without a break for more than a month. Par- ticular engagements reach forward several months. We say, this, in some sense, enlarges our toils, but not, we thank God, in every sense. No matter how weary we may feel on Saturday night, we cannot be happy on the day of our Lord unless we are permitted to speak for Him. It is a privilege to plead for Christ. We used to envy those who could constantly hear preaching, and we rejoice now that we can sit under the sound of the Gospel more frequently than we formerly could. But we have found here, as everywhere, that "it is more blessed to give than to receive." Happy is the man who is allowed to give his whole heart and soul to the direct work of the ministry. He who runs from the ministry into any other work, without the clear call of God, is indeed to be pitied. While, however, editing is more laborious than the pastoral work, the labor is more diversified, the strain is not so steady on one set of muscles. It is said that a horse can go further in a day and with less fatigue, over a rolling country, than over a dead level. Even the special troubles of an editor, if he takes them in the right way, help to freshen him. He gets a larger variety of sensations than a pastor does, and the disagreeable ones are the second layer in the cameo of his life. No man can be at once comfortable and true to duty in his life unless he loves work. Without this love he will be unhappy anywhere. — and with it he can learn, even as an editor, to be content with his estate. (November 20, 1862.) What moved him. above all things, to undertake the laborious and responsible work of the editor was the deep conviction of the pressing need of the Church in this field. In one of the first numbers of the semi-monthly Lutheran, before its union with the Missionary, he expresses his mind on this subject in the following article. (September 21, i860.) 42 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XL THE LUTHERAN CHURCH AND HER NEWSPAPER LITERA- TURE. It might have been supposed that the Church, which is the mother of modern freedom, would, in this land of the free, see her halcyon days. To what are we to attribute it, that trials, hardly second to those of direct persecution, have assailed her here? She encourrtered, at her entrance on this western world, the difficulty con- nected with the diversity of language. The song of Zion was to be sung in a strange land — where its sweet- est utterances seemed a jargon and a babbling. They could not understand her testimony; they knew not of her rich literature, and of her glorious history; and when the poor German tried, in soul-deep utterances, to- show that he had the same faith as Christ's people around him, they forgot the faith, and laughed at the broken utterances of his unhabituated lips. He knew his mother tongue too well to be laughed out of the heritage it brought him, and clung to it with a tenacity, religious, and sometimes almost fanatical. One national life was to pass over into another; the warm-hearted, simple- minded German was to be shaped in the mould of a harder national type. Our nation is not specially endowed with the faculty of entering into the peculiarities of others, and doing them justice. We have too determined a disposition to think well of ourselves, to be deterred from doing it by so trifling a consideration as, that it is done at the expense of others. Many of the German emigrants were poor, depending on their own toil, and by natural consequence, in perpetual danger of becoming- absorbed in purely material interests. In a land of great personal freedom, and among a population divided as infinitely as sectarian ingenuity can rend it, the people of our Church shared, in common with others, the perils connected with the abuse of liberty and the tendencies to> factious division. Various causes, which we have not room to detail here, made her supply of ministers wholly inadequate. Never was there such a harvest with so few 1861-67.J GROWING OUR EXPERIENCE. 43 laborers. It took a strong constitution to bear such an acclimation as she was called to pass through ; but she still not only breathes, she lives. The first effect of those great movements of Provi- dence which have opened the way to the supply of her wants, has been a keener and more painful consciousness of the nature and extent of the wants. It is only when we begin to revive from a stupor, that we are conscious of having passed through it. The convalescent com- plains of his weakness, and the cicatrizing sore annoys. The very querulousness which sometimes manifests itself in our midst is hopeful. The very absurdity of some of the longings which reveal themselves, show that the Church begins to feel her wants. It may be exceedingly foolish in the invalid who is barely allowed a little chicken-broth to insist on being promoted straightway to beef-steak and mutton-chops; but the physician, who hears his demand, smiles hopefully, for he knows that a good appetite is a good sign, imperious and impatient though it may be. It is to us a most happy token of good that our Church is getting so inordinate in her desire for all sorts of good things, for although wishing for them does not in itself bring them, they never do come till they are wished for. This is wishing time in our Church. The blossoms are begging for sunlight, and the tender grass implores the shower. We do not despair because we see around us so many beginnings of things. No church learns by the experience of another. We cannot begin where other denominations leave off. We have to grow our experience from the beginning, and the root of all invention, and of all progress, is the sense of necessity. This we are getting. It does not seem much, we confess, but it is the point from which we must start. Look at the contented limitation of our Church even twenty-five years ago. The man who would then have said the things might be, which the most sober in our Church now say must be, would have been considered a dreamer. The man who would have affirmed that much could be which now actually is, would have been 44 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XI. suspected as an enthusiast. The friends of the General Synod in their defense of it against the allegation that it might become a tyrannical power, appealed to its numerical insignificance to show how ridiculous such fears were, and the appeal implied that it was not prob- able that it ever could be a great body. Now we are rising to the happy impatience connected with the most sanguine anticipation, and we are full of wants. Our wants — where shall we begin? More fields for our foreign missionaries, and more missionaries for our fields; a fuller supply of the wants of the heathendom in our Christendom ; men for the West ; men for the South ; men for the foreign emigrant, and men for the home emigrant; men to turn into the channel of the river of God the stream from the old States to the new. We want more churches and more preachers ; more educa- tion among our people and our ministers ; more bene- ficiaries on our funds, and more funds for our bene- ficiaries; more asylums for the friendless, and sick, and sorrowing of earth, and a deeper interest in those already formed, and a more systematic support of them. We want more thought fulness, more love, more earnestness in willing, and more persistence in working. We want more of the order of law in our government, and more of the spirit of the gospel in all our relations. We want to be a stronger church, a more active church, a more holy church. But before our Church can develop her strength, her children must know her well enough to love her; yes, and with a child-like heart, to be proud of her. She has been slandered, as though she taught her children the very things which wring her heart. Making, herself, no efforts to proselyte, she has been the victim of a thousand. And, alas! some of her children, even some who used to brand the falsehoods circulated against her, now seem to endorse them and to invent new charges, charges which even her foes never brought against her. We need light — a true Lutheran literature — and literature must begin to build at the bottom. The least pretending 1861-67.] THE IDEAL CHURCH-PAPER. 45 form in which it can come, is that in which it is most needed — first of all, the Newspaper. Papers, indeed, we have — some of them excellent in their kind. But some, even of these, are limited in their influence by the language in which they are issued, some by the disad- vantages of locality, and some by want of sufficiently large construction of the real need of the Church. If we could have a paper which fairly represented the highest spirit of our Church, faithful to her freedom and her purity ; not false to her doctrines, and yet true to her practical and spiritual life; addressing itself to the wants of our people, but not perpetuating prejudices by pander- ing to them ; could we have such a paper, meeting the support it deserves, would it not be the harbinger of a brighter day? Such a paper would be faithful to the past and the present ; faithful to the name and principles of our Church; yet prompt to teach every lesson which time has brought to enlarge her experience. It would be a paper of Missions and Education; of Faith and of Mercy; of the School, the Church, and the Asylum. Its columns would be the place where men of kindred heart — only drawn more closely to each other by their diversities in minor matters — would unite the offerings which they hoped might not prove unacceptable to the Church. Such a paper would be, in some degree, worthy to be called a Lutheran paper, and to sustain it, would be like ordaining a host of new and faithful preachers. Such a paper we wish ours to be, but nothing on the one hand but the blessing of God on unremitting toil, and on fervent prayer, and nothing on the other but the combination of the strength of many, and the confidence and the sustain- ing arm of the friends of the Church can make it such. The important question whether a church-paper should have an official character, being issued and con- trolled by church authority, or should be simply a private undertaking on individual responsibility, is considered by him in an article of October 19, 1865. We can readily understand that in those days, in the midst of .6 CHARLES PORT ERF lELD KRAUT H. [Chap. XI. the conflict that was raging in the General Synod, his answer would naturally be in opposition to the official character of the church-paper. But, at the same time, he clearly points out the great dangers of irresponsible papers, edited by private persons who may use them to exercise a most pernicious influence in the Church. The article is as follows : CHURCH PAPERS, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL. Should the paper for the Church be issued and con- trolled by church authority? We think it should not. But, in avoiding this rock, we should not run upon another. The Christian people of a church, in buildmg up a paper, should have sure guarantees that it shall continue to be that paper which they desire to establish. An irresponsible individualism in church publications is a great mischief at one extreme, as positive official authority in them, is a great evil at the other. No paper bearing the name of the Church, and sure to be considered as representing it, should be sustained, unless there is some well-defined mode of correcting evils which may be connected with it. There should be a covenant as to the great leading principles which are to regulate it, and there should be some authority which should protect the patrons of that paper from the abuse of that power which time brings to every paper which becomes well-estab- lished. An old paper is an Institution. The subscriber does not merely pay a sum for which he receives an immediate equivalent, but he helps to build up something which will eventually grow so strong, that it can laugh at his remonstrances, and his withdrawal of subscription. There should be written guarantees, and an official power to enforce them. We have a Protestant regard for that which is written and explicit, over against that which is oral and implicit. The supporters of a paper should know what is guaranteed them, and should have a thorough assurance, well protected, that they will not be used as indirect instruments in building up what they abhor, or in establishing within the Church a power 1861-6;.] INDIVIDUALISM NEEDS GUARDING. hostile to its life. In every respect in which individual- ism has Its proper play, the editors and correspondents ot a paper should have the most absolute liberty Their utterances should not be official; their paper should not propose to be a new symbolical book; they should not be under the restraint which rests upon men who suppose that what they say commits others. They are not to regard themselves as editors or correspondents plenipo- tentiary, and should neither hold themselves responsible for other men's sins, nor expect others to answer for theirs. In its proper province, we believe individualism is an element of power. But it must be well-defined in Its metes and bounds; for all power runs out, if un- guarded, into tyranny. The true liberty of one, respects the liberty of the many, and does homage to law A freedom of the press which overrides and crushes out all other freedom, is, in fact, one of the worst of autocracies and to this dangerous extreme, all absolutely irresponsible publication tends. The English papers of our Church with two exceptions, have no such safeguard The Lutheran Standard, edited by Rev. M. Loy, is published under the auspices of the Joint Evangelical Lutheran 'T, u °iu^^'''- ^^^ Lutheran and Missionary is published by an association embracing a large body of our most esteemed ministers and laymen. Its fundamental principles are clearly defined in its constitution The character and duties of all who take part in its manage- ment are defined; no man, though he had the wealth of Lrc^sus or ot a speculator in petroleum, can buy an editorship in it, or enlist it to individual ends If its editor errs in judgment, or perverts the paper from its true ends, there is a corporate body which can advise and reform him, and. if necessary, deprive him of his place, ft the utterly irresponsible papers of a church, after win- ning their way into the families of the church, and establishing themselves, were to advocate the most vital errors, there is no authority which could throw the editors from their places. Their patrons do not know what they are establishing. Their editors, being self-elected 48 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XI. simonical autocrats, can remain at pleasure in these posi- tions, and wield, as has actually been wielded, the influ- ence of such papers, in favor of secession in the State, of fanaticism and doctrinal error in the Church, and of the spirit of private grudge, and animosity, among ministers, Synods and Churches. With all the courage and enthusiasm that animated the men who had undertaken the publication of the Lutheran and Missionary, they could not deceive themselves as to the great difficulties which obstructed their path and made their success, for a time, a matter of great anxiety and uncertainty. "The Lutheran is making its way slowly. It has a hard struggle," says Dr. Charles Ph. Krauth, in a letter to his friend, Dr. H. I. Schmidt. *'Can it live?" was the question which its warmest friends sent up to the sanctum of the Editor. The paper was undertaken at the very time when the conflict between North and South reached its terrible crisis in the war, which for four long years devastated our country, and concentrated all the interest of its patriotic citizens on its bloody fields- of battle. It brought an enormous rise in prices for the necessities of life, and also for all material and labor, connected with the printing and publication of a paper. Many of the oldest and most widely circulated papers, in those days, were forced to reduce their size, to increase their price, and to make themselves more and more gen- eral advertising mediums, often in very questionable forms. Well might Dr. F. W. Conrad say, in a letter to Dr. C. P. Krauth, in which he promised to write for the paper and apologized for his absence from the stock- holders' meeting: 'Tf you can get along during these war times with your heads above water, you will be doing wonders." Another difficulty which the Lutheran had to encounter we find indicated in a passage from a letter of Dr. Chas.. 1861-67.] THE" LUTHERAN" AND ITS READERS. 49 Ph. Krauth, when he says : "The Lutheran might per- haps be regarded as too educated for our Church, but that is, if a fault, a very good one." The average readers of church papers among the Lutherans of those days were men of rather modest Hterary culture and education. The Church of immigrants and of their descendants in the first and second generation, preoccupied with the struggle for an honest living on the farms and in the workshops of the country, could not boast of any distinction and brilliancy in this respect. Her people were mostly plain folks, of an ordinary public or parish school training. And even those among them who were regular readers of church papers had been thoroughly spoiled by the tone which characterized the leading paper, the Lutheran Observer. There was, no doubt, a certain popularity in its pithy and drastic manner of handling its themes. But it was the popularity of the unprincipled demagogue, whose coarseness and crudities catered to the uneducated masses, and blinded them to the real shallowness, and utter lack of literary and theological culture which char- acterized its leading articles. People who relished the tirades of the Observer were not able to appreciate the high literary standard of the Lutheran, its solid scholar- ship, the width and comprehensiveness of its horizon, its fairness and generosity, its Attic refinement, even in the sphere of wit and humor. But the foremost obstacle which the Lutheran had to overcome, was the widespread indifference to the faith of the Church, and the lamentable ignorance of her own members concerning the true spirit of the Mother Church of the Reformation, from which they had been thor- oughly alienated. In this respect the Lutheran "had indeed its audience for the most part to make. Faithful and successful as the labors of the Missionary had been in dispelling prejudice, it was not in the nature of things 4 50 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XI. that the work of a few years should undo the mischiefs which had been growing for generations, and which had enshrined themselves in almost every institution of the Church. There was hardly a part of Christendom in which some of the distinctive elements of Lutheranism were so grossly misrepresented, and so bitterly hated, as in portions of the nominally Lutheran Church. It seemed almost impossible for the Church to receive a hearing from many of her own sons." In the face of all these formidable difficulties and dis- couragements Dr. Krauth displayed, in the highest degree, that cheerful buoyancy and optimism which were such prominent features in his character, and which were based on his firm conviction of truth, and his unswerving devotion to its cause. "Flattering no prejudices, allow- ing itself to be used by no party, the Lutheran throws itself fearlessly upon the sympathies of the friends of the Truth. If it cannot live as a witness for the Truth it does not wish to live at all." But he himself has no doubts as to the vitality of the paper. He is sure that "the intelligence, the calm and deep piety and the noble- heartedness of the Church largely look to this paper to represent what they hold most dear; that it has done much to cultivate a taste for true literature, for sound religious and theological reading in the Church; that it has blessed its friends, and, against their own will, has blessed its enemies The throbbing of the Church's heart is in it. Those who love it, those who write for it, those who circulate it, those who pray for it — they it is, by whom under God, it lives. And as it lives by them, so it lives for them and for the great cause which is most near to them." The bitter attacks of his opponents in the form of "Sharp Letters," he meets and disarms with such pleas- antries as this: "We would inform our American 1861-67.] A BRIGHT OUTLOOK. 5 1 Lutheran patrons who seem to regard us fairly a target for the shafts of their severity, by letter, that we take all these things in the most amiable way. If their object be to amuse us, we hope they will keep on writing, especially if it does them good. If their object be, (not that we would suspect them of anything so malevolent, but we put it by way of hypothetical suggestion) — if their object be to make us uncomfortable, we feel that it is due to them that they should be informed that they don't make us feel uncomfortable in the least. As we are laboring in the sacred interest of truth, we care nothing for popularity. We have counted the cost, and are encountering nothing we did not anticipate ; therefore, we keep a cheerful heart. If reproach be not as pleasant as praise, it is a great deal safer." The hopefulness with which he looked forward to the future of the Lutheran finds full expression in the leading article which introduced the "Fifth Year of Its Life," and from which we clip the following passages : We have entered upon our fifth year, with much to encourage us. That it is our fifth year, that we have passed through the depressions of a long and terrible war, that we have outlived bitter misrepresentation, unscrupu- lous hatred, the vacillation of the timid, and the treach- ery of the double-minded, — this is in itself encouraging. To us, who are by the side of the paper daily, it presents nothing that speaks of a dying condition. Its financial prospects never seemed so hopeful. Its hold upon the hearts of its friends never seemed firmer. The arrange- ments of the coming year give assurance of increased strength in every department. The Editors of the paper continue their former rela- tions to it, but will have the valuable aid of Rev. C. W. Schaeffer, D. D., in the department of Exchanges and Selections; of Rev. Joseph A. Seiss, D. D., and of Rev. G. F. Krotel, D. D., in attending to the large and grow- ing correspondence of the paper ; and of Rev. W. J. 52 CHARLES PORT ERF I ELD KRAUT H. [Chap. XI. Mann, D. D., in a special department devoted to Foreign, and especially to German Items. Rev. F. M. Bird will still give his efficient and valued aid to the Library- Department, especially in General Literature and its associated branches. All these arrangements, we think, will be regarded by our readers as evidences that the Lutheran and Mis- sionary means not only to live, but to be alive. When the Lutheran, as a Quarto, was struggling for life, one of its warm friends, writing to us, echoed in a question, the constant assertion of its enemies. He asked : "Can it live?" and thereupon paid it a compliment at the expense of our Church, saying, in effect, "The paper is a good thing, and just what the Church needs, but the Church has got into the bad habit of neglecting just what it most needs." Pleasant as praise may be, we were not then, nor are we now, willing for our paper, or for our- selves, to receive compliments at the expense of the Church. We do not concede that our Church neglects what meets its wants, though it may sometimes neglect what men think it wants. This paper, in its infant and in its adult state, has had reason to be particularly well satisfied as to the discriminating power of the Church. We have been cheered beyond our most sanguine expecta- tions, by the approval of the Church, as shown by the manner in which it has responded to the efforts of those who have controlled this paper, to meet the wants of our pastors and people. In the union of the two papers, the Missionary (for the establishment of which, and its labors for the faith of our Church and its glorious mission of beneficence, so much gratitude is due to the Rev. Wm. A. Passavant, and those who worked with him,) and the Lutheran, even the enemies of both might have been supposed to find a pledge that the new interest had vitality. But some of them were not yet convinced, and still they murmured. It will die. But the Lutheran and Missionary still lives, and we believe is destined to live. It has passed the most critical period of its life. The predictions of its 1861-67.] WINNING ITS WAY. 53 Speedy death had nothing at all to warrant them. They originated merely in the wishes of those who were its enemies, and who tried to counteract the influence of its young and healthy life by crying out that it was in a dying condition. Over and beyond all discouragements of every kind this paper has been winning a firmer foothold. Many of its earliest, warmest and steadiest friends are noble men, who may not see eye to eye with us in all things, but who wish to sustain a paper, which is open, candid, and free from partisanship. Some of the strongest proofs of approval and sympathy have come from brethren who we supposed would be indifferent — and not a few from those who we feared would be among our active opponents. We feared this, not that we felt that there was any thing to justify their opposition, but because we know the power of prejudice, even in the minds of the good, and because we see daily how the grossest misrepresentations come to be accepted as truths, simply by dint of repetition. "Only give me," says an acute observer of human nature, "only give me the privilege of incessantly repeating uncontradicted, that the sun does not shine, and I will at length bring the mass of men to believe it." We know that our labor has not been in vain in the Lord. We have marked the growth too perceptibly to be mistaken, — the growth in our Church in America, of a consciousness that her faith is grounded in the eternal Word, and that her distinctive usages are among the fair- est bloom of Christian liberty, quickened and controlled by the Spirit of the Lord. In spite of all the efforts of partisanship, the time shows itself to be rapidly coming when the men who resist the advance of the Church, the men who feel no sympathy with her struggles, will find themselves deserted. To hasten the glorious consumma- tion of the triumph of our Church's pure faith and divine life, demands, under God, above all things else, that those who control our church papers should exhibit genuine independence and moral courage. Those never will be 54 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XL wanting who "sacrifice unto their net, and burn incense unto their drag; because by them their portion is fat, and their meat plenteous." But a great church, however con- fiding and enduring, must ultimately be waked up to show them that there is a point at which the most patient refuse to be longer treated "as the fishes of the sea, as the creeping things that have no ruler over them." In the good work which, we believe, God is accom- plishing in the Church through those who are willing to work with Him, we hope that this paper has borne a part, earnest, though humble, and we desire that, by His help, it may do yet more. Let the Church continue and enlarge its encouragement; let those who work for us, work still ; let those who have done nothing, do some- thing; let those who are going to do something, stop going, and do it at once. Let the Church do all it can for us, and, God helping us, we will do all we can for the Church with our facilities thus enlarged. The ground on which his hopes for the ultimate suc- cess of the paper were based, is set forth in the following article (July lo, 1862) ; HOW TO MAKE A PAPER SUCCEED. The grand object of a paper is, as we understand it, the diffusing of truth. Its circulation is only a means, the spreading of truth is its end. Its circulation, if detached from its end, is pernicious. If a paper has a circulation of a hundred thousand subscribers and scatters falsehood among them, that paper is a failure. It may put money in the pockets of its projectors; it may levy blackmail, directly or indirectly, from those who are weak enough to be afraid of it; it may mystify and perplex what is very simple, and may thus seem to be very strong ; but it is a miserable failure. It can really profit nothing by these things, for it has exchanged its soul for them. On the other hand, no paper can be completely a failure which is outspoken in the truth. It may give offense and lose subscribers, but it has honestly tried to 1861-67.] POPULARITY DEARLY BOUGHT. 55 do the work for which it was established. Our advice to every paper which has been injured by its honesty is this : Be more honest ! Perhaps you have helped to produce the mischief by your previous timidity. Don't speak merely enough of the truth to arouse its enemies, but go on speaking it, till you have aroused its friends. Our experience is that for one doubtful friend lost by honesty, ten genuine ones have ultimately been gained by it. But were the reverse the case, the path of duty would be no less plain. Some men choose preachers and papers to have smooth things prophecied to them, but the class to whom an upright, conscientious and fearless preacher and paper must look for support, are those who wish to know the truth, and the whole truth, however deeply it may probe the sore places. The progress of merit may not be as rapid as that of charlatanery, but it is more abiding; popularity may be purchased at the expense of truth, — but the purchase is a dear one, and the very people who have been deluded by the tricks of falsehood, and the wiles of demagogues, are the most unrelenting in the exposure and rejection of them when their eyes are opened. For papers, as for ourselves, the true principle is — Do right, and leave the result to God. Our duty and responsibility in the service of truth are thus forcibly presented in the following lines (March 6, 1862) : DIVINE TRUTH. If knowledge be separated from the affections and the life, it results in "dead orthodoxy", which is a bad thing, — a very bad thing ; nothing is worse than a dead hetero- doxy, or a confused animal sensationalism, which mis- takes foam and fury for fervor, and which runs with rapidity because it has nothing to carry. Any human sensations, emotions, raptures, which are not wrought through the Word of God by its doctrine, are fallacious, and may prove destructive. The Word of God is our 56 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XI. sheet anchor, and if any wind, whether of false doctrine or of spurious feehng, break us from that, we drift away, and are cast upon the shoals and lost. Any system which undervalues truth, which prizes sensations apart from their distinct origin in the doctrine of the Word of God, brings Christianity down to the level of Mesmeric manipulation The most specious show of piety which ignores the reality of divine truth, which affirms in theory, or main- tains in practice, that truth and error are not essentially and eternally antagonistic, runs out into a diseased sub- jectivism and fanaticism. In its development, it tends to morbid sentimentalism, then to latitudinarianism, then to rationalism, and at last to open infidelity. The moment a man is silent on any truth because it is opposed, he accepts a principle which is likely ultimately to make him silent on all truth. He may think he yields it because he has a large, liberal nature. He really yields it either because he is too uninformed to see what is truth, too defective in moral earnestness to love it as he ought, too deficient in courage to defend it, or, because, looking upon religion itself as the minister to his personal vanity, he will not fall out with errorists, because he courts their good will. In the faithful adherence to the truth Dr. Krauth, at the same time, saw the only safe and practical way to the real and healthy union of the Church. Can we have genuine unity, without a hearty consent to the same articles of faith, accepted in the same sense? Can we permanently succeed as an Evangelical Lutheran Church, while we reject, or ignore, or leave to personal whim, any part of the faith in which our Church anchored herself, while the storms of centuries spent themselves upon her? The time will come, when the questions which were so much to our fathers, will be something to us, when we shall see that those questions, which gave our Church her determinate life, the questions which made her, are needful to save her. 1861-67.] A UNITED CHURCH POSSIBLE. 57 The time of doctrinal anarchy, which our sad experi- ence has proved to be also a time of doctrinal tyranny and proscription, will give way to the recognition of the great truth, that the Church is earnestly to contend for the faith once delivered to the Saints, a duty, in which is involved that all faiths are not alike; that there is one faith once delivered to the Saints once for all ; that the Church of God has this faith; that it is the object of assault ; that we must contend for it, and contend earn- estly. Our Church in this country will yet see that she is derelict in her most sacred duty to her children in offering them no counsel in their perplexity, no correction of misrepresentations which alienate them from the pure faith of our fathers and from herself, and leave them at the mercy of this man's little book, and that man's little paper, or some other man's or men's little platform. .... Our Church in the General Synod has not breathed the spirit of outspoken Lutheranism, at least has not felt as our fathers felt, the necessity of plain words on disputed points. With no hierarchical centre, no liturgical service as in the Episcopal Church, with a Con- gregationalism tending in its elements to independency, and robbing us of strength of government, we have had hardly anything to hold us together but our name and our history ; and detaching these, as we have largely done, from their vital doctrinal connexion, we have exposed ourselves to the hazards of division and dissolution. If principle did not demand more doctrinal unity, our inter- ests would. We must have it, or our experiment in this country will be a failure. We will have it, and with forbearance mingling itself with honesty, we shall have it, not at the price of a rent and bleeding Church, but in our Church, then truly united. For seven years, including his work on the semi- monthly Lutheran. — from July 6, i860, to June 27, 1867, — Dr. Krauth held the position as Chief Editor of the Lutheran, when its management passed into the hands of a Committee, consisting of Drs. C. W. Schaeffer, 58 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XL G. F. Krotel, J. A. Seiss and W. A. Passavant. On retiring from his post Dr. Krauth could truly say, in his last editorial : Since the Lutheran was established in its quarto form, the portion of our Church in which it is circulated has passed through a revolution, the greatness and importance of which it is hardly possible to estimate. Genuine Lutheranism was, at that time, hardly more than a feeble tendency, for which its best friends seemed to ask and hope toleration, rather than favor. Now pure Lutheran- ism is confessed as a power, and by none more eloquently than by the very men who are trying to believe, and to make others believe that the power is not a power of God. The work which he did as Editor of the Lutheran was the principal instrumentality in bringing about the forma- tion of the General Council, uniting the different nation- alities and languages of the Lutheran Church in America, English, German and Scandinavian, on the basis of a full and unreserved recognition of her historic Confession. No higher testimonial could have been given to the merits and influence of Dr. Krauth's work in this field than the action of the General Council, when, in the full conviction of its being firmly knit together in the unity of the one faith, it finally made the Lutheran its official organ, under the editorship of Dr. G. F. Krotel, who had been one of the earliest co-workers with Dr. Krauth. TWELFTH CHAPTER. THE NATIONAL CRISIS. 1860-1865. "I am first a Lutheran and then an American," Dr. Krauth used to say. But there was no conflict between the Lutheran and the American in his great and noble heart, so loyally devoted to his country as well as to his Church. His healthy scriptural faith made him all the more faithful as a citizen, well balanced even in times of wildest excitement, in the midst of the terrible crisis through which our land passed during the war times of i860 to 1865. With all his fiery patriotism he was not swayed by the partizan cry of political passion ; always fair and just, loving and tender towards those who, according to his honest conviction had gone astray, or, as he preferred to view it, who had been led astray. Not to revive antagonisms of bygone days, but to picture the true Christian patriot, that he was, we present to our readers some of Dr. Krauth's memorable utterances dur- ing those times of conflict. AMERICA, A BLESSING TO OTHERS. Resting on God, we shall be the bearers of blessings to others. As those noble rivers which sweep through our land bear traces to the sea of the soil through which they wind, so shall the swift streams of living thought, ■which spring from every part of our land, grow strong by blending, and bear their tinges to the ever-heaving heart of the world. And as the breezes which play over the bloom of her fields and forests, move out from the shore to gladden the souls of men upon the deep, so shall each wind of heaven bear the fragrance of the wild 59 6o CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIL flowers of her freedom, to revive the heartsick and lan- guishing of the earth! O, my country, I salute thee with reverence; I stand in awe before the image of the greatness which Jehovah offers thee. Thou art already "time's noblest offspring;" yet, if thou walkest humbly before thy God, thou shalt see the birth of an era lovelier than thyself, fairer than painter's touch or poet's dream Hail to thee I Serve God and prosper. Then, "instead of fathers, shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth; Jehovah shall make thy name to be remem- bered in all generations ! the people shall praise thee for ever;" and whatever be the greatness of thy greatest sons, they can make no loftier earthly boast than when they say, "We, too, are children of this Mother of Men." (December 7, i860.) He sings the praises of his native state, Virginia, in an address delivered at Salem, on the occasion of the inauguration of a new president of Roanoke College : VIRGINIA, It is a soil, hallowed by the ashes which are the treas- ures of our Nation, the object of an undiminished com- mon love and reverence through the wildest storms of division, in which the dead remained the sole bond of the living. But to me it is a soil specially hallowed as the resting place of all my earliest ancestry. My father's father and mother lie in their long rest amid the wild beauties of this Eastern Virginia, — Old Virginia, as we love to call it. My mother's parents sleep in the sunny valley of the Shenandoah; and in Western Virginia, knowing not my loss, I was borne, an infant, from the last pressure of that mother's loving arms, to be taken to them no more, until "the day break and the shadows flee away." The elect Virginian never falls from the grace of a loving pride in the State of his nativity, and one bond of his devotion is that in no land is cultivated intellect prized more than in Virginia. The intensity of 1860-65.] OLD VIRGINIA. 61 aristocratic feeling, the boast of ancestry, the pride of family, so marked as traits of Virginia, nowhere more than in Virginia completely yield to the claims of intel- lectual pre-eminence. Her aristocracy is but the column ; her great minds, highly cultured, however lowly may have been the original position of their possessors, are the statue with which her admiration crowns the shaft. The greatest of her sons next after Washington in political distinction,* directed that on his monumental stone, in the record of that by which he most desired to live in the memory of men, — last of all, as if it were the crown of the whole, — should be inscribed that he was "father of the University of Virginia;" and in this he was true to the noblest pride of the class which has given Virginia her place irr the history of the world. He was not blind to the besetting sins of the nation. He would have none of that patriotism which says : "My country, — right or wrong!" This feeling, he was convinced, would tend to atheistical presumption, a rush- ing towards destiny, in which conscience and humanity .are trampled beneath the feet. Without fear or favor he would lift up his voice like a trumpet, and, without sparing, declare unto his people their transgression. OUR COUNTRY. No thoughtful man can deny that we have great national sins. It is true, not all the sins in a nation are properly the sins of a nation. A nation can be charged -with the sins of her sons, only so far as she fosters the spirit of those sins, or is indolent or indiscreet in her efforts to arrest them. To strike at national sins requires something more than clumsy blows, however well meant, and vigorously given, at whatever may not square with an Utopian imagination, which builds castles of theory ■on foundations of fog. No man is competent even to •define, still less to correct national sins, who is unable or * Thomas Jefferson, who founded the University of Virginia in 1819. 62 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XII. unwilling to allow for the imperfections which, in the nature of things, must mar the noblest institutions framed or administered by man. Nor must the sin in a twig or branch of the national tree be confounded with the sin in the sap, which would vitalize and reproduce all the mischief which might be lopped off in the brief agony of national pruning. Beneath all outward manifesta- tions of evil, there lies in men and nations a spirit from which it unfolds itself. The shape of sin is but the incarnation of evil, as the body is the incarnation of the soul. To understand national sin, we must see its soul, the "original sin" which generates its sins of purpose and of act. In vain will it be to look on the outward appearance, to paint with the hues of health the wan cheek of the consumptive, to efface the tokens of disease, and imagine the work is done. We must imitate the divine plan, and address ourselves to the correction of the life-principle of evil, strive to discern and eradicate the disease itself, even as Jehovah creates a new heart, and the new heart creates the new man ; even as He gives health, and health diffuses its own glow. It requires no long or minute observation to be satisfied that every nation has its distinguishing spirit, from whose direction or misdirection arise its virtues or vices. Often, indeed, its vices spring from a perversion of the tendencies which, rightly directed, would make a nation glorious ; "some soul of goodness" is to be distilled even out of its "things evil." If we should designate that peculiarity of our nation which, in its proper working and under due restraints, is the source of her energy, her independence and her progress, and which yet, in its exaggeration and abuse, may become the source of ruinous evils, and of ruin, we would say, it is her spirit of self-reliance. True self-reliance is, indeed, a noble trait, when it rests on the divine promise, and feels strong in itself, because God, its refuge, is strong. Its feet are beautiful upon the mountains, because it is on the pathway marked out by Jehovah it is fearlessly treading. A generous confidence in her own institutions, and in her own strength ; a noble 1860-65.] NATIONAL SELF-RELIANCE. 63 self-respect, which will not lower itself to so base a thing as crime, however tempting may be the lure — the movement of an ardent heart, which throbs for some- thing higher, better and greater — these are the life and glory of a young state, — " a spirit in the world That causes all the ebbs and flows of nations, Keeps mankind sweet by actions." But there is a natural result, and in the present condi- tion of human nature, if unrestrained, an almost inevit- able result of continued prosperity, which may turn the impulses of the national heart, originally so generous and exalting, into sources of crime and destruction. Into this condition our nation, not only had entered, but had advanced to an alarming degree. We were verging fast toward a reckless and arrogant trust in ourselves; a sentiment, practically, that we were the source of our own blessings, that we would prosper at any rate, whether God favored us or not. This feeling tended to an athe- istical presumption, a rushing toward destiny, in which conscience and humanity were trampled beneath the feet. God has stretched forth His hand as signally in redeeming us from bondage, as He stretched it forth to Israel; His guidance has been as marvelous; the miracles of His mercy as manifold; His gifts more glorious; our vocation hardly less sublime : "He hath not dealt so with any nation." But our nation has not meekly knelt and pressed to her lips and her heart, the hand that made her great and happy. She has not acted as though she, above all nations, had reason to rest humbly, thankfully, trustingly, on the providence of God. She has not weighed the awful responsibility of her distinguished position and privileges. She has shown a disposition to permit herself to be rapt into a bewildering dream, a delirium of ambitious self-conceit. Our nation nursed the feeling, and was hardly ashamed to confess it, that she was borne on by a kind of happy fatality, which neither she nor others could resist. Too often, instead 64 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XII. of guiding herself by light from the eternal Throne, the light reflected from the eternal Word, she seemed to look to a "star of destiny," — not the star which guided wise men to the Prince of Peace, but to that meteoric light which led the mighty murderers of mankind, that baleful glory which dazzled them into a career, the record of the crimes and sorrows of which proves that no falsehood, however gross, can be safely left to the self-annihilating power of its own absurdity, that no trust, however weak in itself, may not assume a deadly power, when it can be used by men as a pretext for doing what they already desire. It is, indeed, easy to impress upon the mind of a nation a thought which so dignifies our nature as this, that we are carrying out the plans of God. To regard them- selves as co-workers with the Omnipotent, is flattering to men, and to lead them to feel this, is consequently easy ; but to make them realize the fearful accountability which is connected with their mission, the responsibility which attends men, either as the ministers of the benevolence or of the vengeance of God — this is hard, because it checks the presumption of man, sweeps to the earth his pride, and holds his depravity in rein. Men do not love to be told that they are but instruments, whose course a will above their own has the absolute right of determining; that they, without any reservation whatever, are the dependent subjects of a King, through whom alone that success is possible which they imagine they control, and to whom alone its glory is due. Detached from a heart-felt reliance upon God, as by its very nature it tends to be, and unchecked even by the healthy caution of self-love, as it soon becomes, there is no madness of scheme, no wickedness of policy, no atrocity in action, to which such an unhallowed ambition, such a fatalistic inflation, will not furnish a plea. To every appeal to national honor, to public integrity, to common morality, when they come in the way of its purposes, the cool reply will be : " Who can turn the stream of destiny, Or break the chain of strong necessity, Which fast is tied to Jove's eternal throne ?" i86o-6s.] A NATION SITTING IN DARKNESS. 65 Atheism has assumed the robes of Rehgion ; men have called their immoral plottings, plans of providence, and have given the name of divine sovereignty to the brutish- ness of human license; the most hallov^^ed names are played off against the most hallowed things; the devil, in terms of Scripture, has tempted a nation to worship him ; the designing have poured into the golden vessels they have stolen from the "^'temple of the house of God," the poisonous draught, at the drunken banquet of national conceit; the thoughtless and indolent, tricked by the "great swelling words of vanity," have seemed to believe that by some legerdemain of language, evil had actually become good, and darkness light, and bitter sweet. Oh, how much there has been in the past, to make the hearts of the good to grow sick with fear. And now their worst fears are realized. The chasten- ing hand of God is on our land. A vast crisis has been precipitated on the nation. There rests upon our land the gloom of an undefinable horror. At the mid-noon of her prosperity, her sun, not as by eclipse, nor by sudden descent to the horizon, but as if it sunk away into the very zenith, sheds no more the beams of its full glory, but suffuses all things with the pallor of a "darkness visible." There have been sins which have covered our whole land from Maine to Georgia, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. There is nothing in which we have been more thoroughly a Union than in some forms of guilt. In these there has been no North or South, there has been no East and no West. There are sins enough common to our whole land, to justify God in sweeping our whole land with desolation. There is but one way of safety possible. It is by an humbling of ourselves before God, as universal and as complete as our sins have been. If our whole land bows before God, our whole land may be saved — if a part turns to Him that part may be saved. Without this we may be scourged by God's most awful plague — the letting loose of man against man till earth becomes a hell. Without this, peace, if we obtain it, will be hollow, transient — delusive 5 66 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XII. — the prelude for more fearful chastisements. Will not our nation give up its horrible atheism and act as if there were a God ? Till we see our country humble and peni- tent, — till we see her full of the energy of a living faith in God, and filled with a spirit which shall make interces- sions for her in groanings that cannot be uttered, — till then our hearts will be saddened. These are hours in which the people should be called to the reading of their hearts, hours in which the saints should cling to the mercy-seat and the ministers of God the Lord weep between the porch and the altar. Lord, save us, we perish! 1857. 1861. POLITICS AND RELIGION. When the artful question : Is it lawful to pay tribute to Caesar or not ? was put to our blessed Lord, He neither cut the knot nor fell into the snare. He answered the question. He committed those who put it to the truth and justice of His answer before He gave it; He made it impossible for them to condemn Him without condemn- ing themselves ; He answered explicitly and unmistakably and yet dashed to the ground their council of evil. Our blessed Lord was a patriot. He loved His native land. Its hills, its vales, its streams, were dear to Him — its hamlets, its cities, and its great metropolis. He sym- pathized with its toiling and oppressed thousands. He wept over Jerusalem. He labored to mitigate its political evils. On this question His sympathies were all with His people. He knew the grief of the tribute. He estimated in all their breadth and depth the feelings of opposition to it. He saw the logic of all the argument; he felt the moral force of all the genuine opposition to it. Like a true patriot the Saviour had an opinion on this great question. It is hard for men whose hearts are with their kind, not to form some opinion on the subjects which deeply agitate the public mind. It is, indeed, every man's duty, calmly, conscientiously to labor to have a just opinion ; and it is, in many respects, less mischievous that men should have erroneous opinions, than that they 1860-65] C^SAR AND GOD. 67 should remain passive and have no opinion at all. A man in error is nobler than a clam, which has no errors because it has no ideas. A partisan is a man who does injustice to one part for the sake of the other, but a man who takes no interest in one or the other, does injustice to both parts for the sake of himself. The men who have no opinions make the class who are either absolutely inert, who are neither cold nor hot, or they are the class who put themselves up at auction to the leaders who have opinions, or are engaged in the manufacture of them. They are, as a class, the most unprincipled and dangerous of men. It was like our Saviour then to have an opinion. His enemies knew that He would never take refuge in the plea which would have been the very one a weak man would have resorted to, the plea that He had formed no opinion. His opinion was shaped, not by His sympathies, but by His judgment ; not by abstract theories, but by the hard, fixed facts that were around Him. No Jew felt more keenly everything that could be urged against the paying of the tribute than Jesus Himself felt it, and if He had reasoned with His feelings, and had put His heart above His head, He would have replied: 'Tt is not lawful to pay the tribute." The Saviour not only had an opinion, but He expressed it. When urged privately, though the motives of those who urged Him were wrong, He spoke out. He did not select the theme Himself ; He did not preach to the people His views on politics, though those views were infallibly right. He expressed no political views in the Sermon on the Mount. So great was His caution, that when the effort was made to work His destruction through the Roman government. His enemies could lay hold of noth- ing except that He had declared Himself to be a king, and that declaration had always been guarded in such a way as to show that His kingdom was purely spiritual. But with the common rights of a man He felt that He could express His opinion, and He did express it, and He taught that while the sanctuary is no place for the 6S CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XII. discussion of the partisan questions which divide good men, and that the pulpit is not the place for politics in a narrow sense, He also taught us that Christian men and Christian ministers are not to cut themselves off from the thoughtful examination of the great questions of the day, and that at proper times and under proper circum- stances, controlled by charity and prudence, they may utter what they believe. And what was that opinion? Look at its character- istics. How had it been formed ? It rested on the solid facts of the case. The leading fact was that the nation was actually subdued. The question of tribute was not a question of choice. It was hard to pay tribute. It would be harder to be butchered; to see their wives and daughters given into the hands of brutal soldiers, and their nation destroyed. If the Roman government was sustained by this tribute, so was their own within certain limits. Their personal freedom was guaranteed. They themselves declared : "We have never been slaves to any man." Their free- dom of conscience was untouched. They were not obliged to sacrifice to idols nor prevented from worship- ping their God according to their convictions of duty. The individual conscience was let alone. If the Romans took tribute and devoted it in part to sustaining heathenism, the Jew could not prevent the abuse. As he did not give tribute for the purpose, and could not help giving it, the government was responsible and he was not. If the government had tried to compel him to go to the temple and worship a false god, he should have died rather than yield. Thus in later times Christians freely gave tribute. They did not refuse to serve the govern- ment in any way; they gave fortune and life, even to rulers that oppressed them, but where the slightest infringement was made on individual conscience, they went to the dungeon and scaffold rather than yield. Rather than utter a word of reproach against the name of their Master, or scatter a few grains of incense before a statue of the emperor they went cheerfully to the death. 1860-65.] THE UNION, NOT UNIONS. 69 Another feature of the Saviour's answer was, that it confined itself strictly to the question. He did not deviate from it or launch out into the manifold topics which it might easily have opened. He did not discuss the question whether it was right for the Romans to subjugate His nation, or right to hold them, or whether the tax was a proper one. Nor did He discuss the ques- tion whether the people as a people had the right to throw off the yoke if they could, and free themselves from their tyrants and their tribute. These were not the question. The question was this : Whether the people, having been subjugated and actually submitting, and the government actually standing, being the government in fact of the land — whether it was lawful for the individual, lawful for him in conscience and before God to pay this tribute ? And to this the Saviour distinctly rephes that it was lazvful. (March 6, 1862. Also, Csesar and God, 1874.) THE UNION. There is a bond stronger than steel that holds these States together, — but there is no bond to hold the half of them together. Whatever may be the difficulties of having one Union on these shores, there are still greater in the way of having two or three Unions. Without this great Union, State-rights will be worth nothing. The States will perish with the rights. Our Union once overthrown, cannot be reconstructed. If the theory on which our government stands, is the true one, we need no reconstruction, — we must not tolerate the thought of it. H the theory on which the rebellion is based is true, the Union would not be worth recon- structing. No nation dies more than once. There is a power which indeed once raised the dead, but that power never raised one who died by his own hand, li our land com- mits suicide, it will never live again. (July 5, 1861.) ■JO CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XII. THE FIRST BEST THING WE CAN DO FOR OUR COUNTRY. You ask as a patriot what is the first best thing I can do for my country now ? I wish to aid her to the utmost of my abihty. My property — my hfe — all — all — I am ready to sacrifice. What shall I do ? The first best thing for every man in these hours is as clear as the sunbeam. If you are not a Christian, the first best thing for your country is to come to your Saviour as a hearty penitent. The first best thing you can do on earth for your country is to put within it one more living child of God — the first best thing you can do in heaven for your country is to establish there another interest of pleading, and of agonizing prayer. Go — You can do nothing for your country till you have laid hold on the arm on which your country's destiny now hangs. We have no refuge, none, none but God's pity. Your first best thing for your country is to give yourself a right to appeal to that pity. And what is the first best work God's children can do for their country? It is to draw nearer to their God — in a more full and unreserved consecration, and to use with their whole heart for their country, their interest with Him they love. The greatest power they can exer- cise is not in the heated discussion of the hour, not on the street, not in the public meeting — no — no — these ques- tions will not be settled between man and man — they must be settled between man and God. The halls of debate will not settle them, the Cabinet will not settle them, the Bench will not settle them — if they are settled by any power which connects itself at all with man, they will be settled by the closet — by the silent energy of fervent prayer. Some trust in chariots and some in horses — some trust in speed, and some in strength — some in the craft of counsel and some in the munitions of war — but we will remember the name of our God. Peace must be linked with righteousness, and peace to our nation must spring from peace in the hearts of her sons. i86o-6s.] EVERETT'S GETTYSBURG ORATION. -ji Whatever be the second good thing, we may be sure of the first best. Let us do this. It may help to save our country — nothing we can do can bless our country so much, yet if it brings not to our country all we desire, it will be certain in its results to ourselves. If we hearken to God's commandments — amid all the storm and uproar of human passions which shall rush like torrents over the land, our peace shall be like a river — amid the violence and crime which war engenders, and which shall dash like the roaring surf on rock-bound coasts, our righteousness shall be as the waves of the sea. (April 19, 1861.) THE NATIONAL CEMETERY AT GETTYSBURG. Dr. Krauth was present at the dedication of the National Cemetery with its monument to the soldiers fallen in the battle of July, 1863. His impressions of Mr. Everett's oration are given in the Lutheran of November 26, 1863 : Finished in style, and logical in argument, it beauti- fully fitted the appropriate action, and the clear, well trained voice of our American Cicero. Not without touches of pathos, it yet lacked something of the tender- ness and profound feeling which would have character- ized a perfect oration for such a day. Well reasoned on every point it discussed, it yet perhaps lacked in unity and in that movement around one great centre which are necessary to a speech of the highest order. It took perhaps too much from the dead and gave too much to the questions of the hour, and was not without repetition of what the world had already heard from the author. But even the things which might be regarded as defects in it, considered in its relations to the time of its utter- ance and the place in which it was delivered, will add to its positive value, as a speech to be circulated, read, pon- dered and preserved. It shows that the snow upon the venerable head of Mr. Everett has not chilled the vital powers of his highly cultivated mind. 72 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XII. Even on that solemn occasion his sense of humor did not forsake Dr. Kratith, as appears from the following- item, which accompanies the above quoted reference to Mr. Everett's oration : The incongruities which make us smile, mingle them- selves with what is sublimest and what is saddest in our human life. The monkey nestles in the palm trees ; the tear is caught in the furrows of a smile. Entering the cemetery at Gettysburg, on the day which commemorated the great battles in which it was the centre of one of the fiercest conflicts which have ever shaken our world, we noticed the old weatherbeaten board, placed within its gate long ago, when men never dreamed that the peaceful hills would echo to a sharper shot than that which would bring quail or squirrel to the hunter's bag. On that old board, as if it would make us smile even while our hearts ached in intense feeling, stood the following warning : "All persons discharging any gun, or other fire-arm on these grounds shall be fined FIFTY DOLLARS." Alas ! We could not smile long on the playful suggestion, or at the thought of the wealth which would pass into the hands of those to whom that city of the dead belongs, if this penalty could be exacted for every shot which had there been fired in that ever memorable opening week of July. We looked from the quaint warning toward the fresh heaps of earth which told of the brave who sleep where they fought; and the dimming tear rose the more quickly and sadly for the momentary smile. The question may be asked, why Dr. Krauth, in speak- ing of the Gettysburg celebration, had not a word to say of President Lincoln's address on that memorable occa- sion? Was it that, with him also, the address failed to create a profound impression at the time of its delivery, as was undoubtedly the case with many of its hearers, and that the full realization of the grandeur of that immortal speech only grew upon him, as it was read and 1860-65.] PRESIDENT LINCOLN. 73 re-read in later days? His silence at the time was certainly not due to any lack of appreciation of Lincoln's character and work. In his discourse "The Two Pageants,"* delivered in the First Evangelical Lutheran Church in Pittsburgh, on June ist, 1865, he paid a glow- ing tribute to the martyred President, "a true type of the land he loved, great, strong and careless of beauty, yet growing toward it in the refinings of trial ; his heart as tender as a woman's, and his patience a soul of peace within him while warfare raged around him; so firm and yet so forgiving; so true to his land, yet so gentle to its foes; so unconscious, so genial, so childlike." It was, indeed, a strange and somewhat tragi-comical coincidence, that, when the news of Lincoln's assassina- tion reached Philadelphia Dr. Krauth's residence in Ger- mantown came near being mobbed by an infuriated rabble. The Doctor was absent from home, and Mrs. Krauth. a native of Virginia and very outspoken in her sympathies with the South, either from sheer thought- lessness or in bold defiance of popular sentiment, had not only neglected to place the emblems of national mourn- ing over the door, but had even made a display of flowers in the windows! It needed the intercession of a neigh- bouring Lutheran clergyman and his courageous wife to calm the excited crowd, with the assurance that the gentle- man whose home was threatened with violence was a loyal patriot and a sincere admirer of the martyred President. It is needless to say that the terrified lady gracefully yielded to popular feelings and hastened to procure the crape that was to prove that her house made no exception to the universal display of national mourn- ing. When, at last, the war had ceased, no one spoke kinder and stronger words for peace and reconciliation between * Printed by W. S. Haven, Pittsburgh, 1865. 74 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XII. those who had been estranged and separated in State and Church than Dr. Krauth in the summer of 1865. ANOTHER VICTORY TO BE WON. Amid the rejoicings of our nation over the greatest victory ever won, we must not forget that we have another victory to win, no less grand, the victory which Christian, fraternal love and humanity win over preju- dice, and wounded pride over fear, doubt and the sick heart. Of the mass of the greatest sufferers, an im- mense proportion have been unwilling actors in this tragedy of crime. Heart-broken and despairing, they gather about their desolate hearths or move among the wrecks of former happiness, shadows among shadows, their property gone, their loved ones dead, the sharp pressure of the commonest wants of life upon them. We must not leave the noblest part of the South to die of a broken heart. Great in conquering, our nation must show itself greater in forgiving. Let it not be said that we did not meet sorrow and penitence with the spirit of heavenly tenderness, that we could not bury animosity, however just it might seem. These glorious free states once shared and helped to foster the delusions which, at last, matured in conspiracy and rebellion. The richest part of our heritage from the war is the knowledge that He who chastises for sin is ready to forgive — ready to blot out. Let us be like God. Our country must and will stand firm upon the great principles of humanity, right, freedom and law, for which the precious blood of our noblest sons has been spilled, and our brave soldiers and sailors have battled and endured. But because she is fixed forever by God's good providence in her faith in God's teachings to her, because she stands upon this rock, she can grasp with her strong hand the outstretched hand that pleads for pity from the wild sea covered with wrecks — a pity which must be given now, or withheld forever. (May 11, 1865.) 1860-65.] THE SYNODS OF THE SOUTH. 75 WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH THEM? It might be thought rational and judicious, that the question : What shall we do in the case of the Southern Synods, if they propose to return to the General Synod? should be deferred until we have some sort of evidence that they are willing to return. It is, nevertheless, possi- ble that the spirit they suppose to move their brethren in the North, may have its influence in determining their course. We think they will find in that spirit no barrier in their way. If they are willing they will probably make application in the usual way, and the sole question will be : Do they conform to the constitutional requisitions? The General Synod has no constitutional power to make the political position or political offenses of a confessedly regular Lutheran Synod a ground of exclusion, if it ■demands admission, in the manner and with the pre- requisites defined in the constitution. The General Synod is a voluntary confederation of the laxest kind. It disavows again and again all governing power. It does not legislate. The Synods do not bind themselves by its resolutions. The General Synod claims no right, even of moral coercion. If, therefore, the dreadful lessons of the war have not made our South- ern brethren wiser on the subject of slavery, they do not, by merely joining the General Synod, bind themselves to the acceptance of its utterances on that subject. If they wish to come back there is nothing in the way of their return. If they are going to return, it will be easiest and best for them to return now. The close of the war furnishes ■a natural solution of their desire at once to return. If they defer it, it will be hard to give a good reason for a future return, over and above the reason for returning at once. The punishment of the Rebellion may very safely be left where it properly belongs — with the Government, which has a fuller knowledge of the facts, and can act with a discrimination which it is impossible for any 76 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIL Other power to exhibit. While the Rebelhon was in arms, the true pohcy was to accept with every power of our great land the ordeal to which it forced us — to strike our hardest blows, and not to listen to mercy till justice had been satisfied. Now the time for gentleness and the binding of wounds has come. The Church has worthily done her part in strengthening the public senti- ment which made our noble Government mighty in war. It is now her yet more congenial and Christ-like mission to strengthen that Government in its work of harmoniz- ing, of restoring peace, and of saving the downcast and despairing from themselves. The first duty of the Lutheran Church in this work is to save her own mem- bership in the South. THIRTEENTH CHAPTER. THE LITERARY CONTROVERSY AGAINST AMERICAN LUTHERANISM. 1861-1867. The establishment of the Lutheran and Missionary naturally and unavoidably led to a literary warfare against the New School or American Lutheranism, of which the Lutheran Observer was the principal expo- nent. At the outset Dr. Krauth's attitude in this contro- versy was purely defensive. In "defending his defense" of historical Lutheranism he challenged his opponents : If you will cease attacking it, we will cease defending it, — if you no longer revile it, we will no longer laud it, — if you will stop circulating falsehoods about it, we will no longer need to be so active in setting forth the truth about it. That in the present state of our Church in this country a great deal of discussion is needed, is most certain. The time is thronging with momentous questions, doc- trinal and practical. To settle these where men differ, there must be controversy. Controversy in its own nature is not unfriendly, it is simply the arraying of facts and arguments by which opposite conclusions are main- tained, facts and arguments by which what is believed to be in error is met, and by which what is believed to be truth is vindicated. When good men honestly differ and honestly argue, on purely speculative points, when they are willing fairly to understand and correctly to state the positions of those from whom they differ, they may contend, and contend very earnestly for the truth without being alienated from each other. 77 78 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIII.. When on the other hand men are mean and evasive in their attempts to support error, it is a duty to expose their dishonesty, and to point out to just contempt and ridicule their vohmtary and mischievous absurdities. The fooHsh are so far to be ansv^ered according to their folly, as to prevent their being wise in their ov^rn conceit. All truth wins its way by discussion in some shape. Our Saviour argued, his apostles argued, the Epistles are largely controversial, and the early Church argued; and truth stated, and defended, was the only way through which the Holy Spirit subdued the world. Our Reformers were all controversialists, as Protestants against Rome, as Evangelical against the colder forms of heterodoxy, and as maintainers of an absolutely Biblical truth, against such portions of the nominally Protestant and Evangelical communions as departed in any respect from what our Reformers believed to be the doctrine of God's Word. The most vigorous controversialist who ever lived was Martin Luther, and because under God this warfare in which he stood as the anvil to the smiter, was a vigorous and uncompromising one, the truth was- triumphant. To have the truth and to be willing to> contend earnestly for it makes the heroes of the faith, and such men we need for the hour. (Nov. 19, 1863.) A noted phrenologist once diagnosed Dr. Krauth's. mental frame as a controversialist, by ascribing to him; "Combativeness without destructiveness." And in look- ing over the vast literature of those years of severe literary conflict, we find ample testimony for the correct- ness of this diagnosis. Eager as he was for the battle in defense of truth, — for to him "there is but one thing on earth worth having and worth fighting for, and that is truth," — he was, at the same time, always kind and considerate toward the persons of his antagonists. How- ever keenly now and then, he applied the ironic lash, he always remained the "good humored writer," (See Dr. B. Kurtz's statement in Vol. I, 173) who only in excep- 1861-6-.] TOLERATION AMONG BRETHREN. 79 tional cases, as in his controversy with Dr. J. A. Brown, became really severe with his antagonist. The spirit in which he meant to conduct the warfare is best illustrated by a few quotations from some of his leading articles in those days. FORBEARING ONE ANOTHER IN LOVE. Genuine toleration is eminently characteristic of true Lutheranism. No Church in existence has such a glorious record as ours, of the successful resistance of the temptation to persecute. Ours has been a Church of earnest manly debate— but it has been characteristic of her, that she separates between error and the errorist— that when she condemns men, it is in their heresies, not in their persons, and that among errorists she carefully weighs the circumstances which mitigate or increase their culpability. This spirit of our Church should not be lost upon us in this country. Great differences of opinion have been temporarily exhibited bv individuals in our Church, in her European history, and theological warfare was the result. But the battle 'was decided with the weapons of the Word, and the whole membership of the Church came to the recognition of the truth. But the battles of thought requtre more time than is needed for the work of the sword. Therefore, the soldier of the cross must learn to wait. This lesson of waiting we must here learn. Those whose devotion to the doctrines of our Church is most unreserved and ardent, must not cease to bear with their brethren in the Church in America, who claim, under the unparalleled circumstances that have sur- rounded us, an extraordinary provisional condition of theological freedom; provided that they do not ask the right to attack the doctrines of the Church, to attempt to weaken the faith of others. In the abnormal condition of our Church in this country, there is safety in no other position than in that of great fraternal forbearance, of freedom from partisanship, of a large, manly spirit of 8o CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chaf.XUI. scriptural and historical investigation. We would not discourage, but do all we can to promote the thorough examination of our doctrines. The most reviled of them can endure it. What we want is that which is so beauti- fully delineated in the Preface to the Augsburg Confes- sion, "that in this matter of religion the opinions and judgments of diverse parties may be set forth in each other's hearing, may be understood and weighed between them in love, meekness, and gentleness, one toward another, so that those things which, on either part, are set forth or understood otherwise than the Scriptures teach, being put aside and corrected, those things may be settled, and brought back to the one pure truth and Christian concord; so that henceforth the one pure and true religion may be cherished and preserved by us; so that as we are subjects and soldiers of the one Christ, we may also live in unity and concord in the one Christian Church." Our prayers and toils are directed by the hope that all ministers and members of our Church may one day be in body, soul and spirit, a unity, acknowledging the faith once delivered to the saints, and so purely confessed by her, and revealing its power in a holy activity, which shall gladden the world. We believe, nay, we know, that our Church has the truth, and when her children shall trust her as they should trust such a mother, our family bond will be the most blessed and benignant which binds men outwardly together on earth. In order to secure this end, we should be willing to labor long and endure much. Desirable as it would be for all of us to see eye to eye, and to be able to accept, without reservation, the Augs- burg Confession as a system of doctrine, we should not attempt to hasten this result by violent legislation, by prescription or proscription. If it please God to bring it about, we are satisfied that it will be done under the influence of calm counsels, of uncontrolled investigation, of the largest forbearance consistent with bearing the name and confessing the faith of our Church. The power which destroys a Church is that which bursts up 1861-67.] NOT AGAIXST THE TRUTH. 81 from the great deep of human passion, in a dekige of angry personal controversy. The power that freshens her into a new hfe. "comes down as rain upon the mown grass — as showers that water the earth." HE THAT IS NOT AGAINST US IS ON OUR PART. (Mark ix. 40.) There are men in our Church in America who are not positive in their convictions on all points of Lutheran doctrine, but who are reverential, and are sincere. Never do they assail the doctrines of our Church ; they look upon such a course with horror; they regard the departure from the faith as in itself abnormal and deplor- able, and they do not labor to perpetuate it. Such men are sometimes, just as suits the ends of false Lutherans, assailed, on the one side, as covert Symbolists, or claimed, on the other, as sympathizers with fanaticism. They are neither. They are men of God who, in a wonderful Providence, whose issues are now fast ripening, are in a Church which they love, although the influences of early education have fixed certain difficulties in regard to her doctrines in their minds. Their hearts are with our Church as a mother. Their sympathies and hopes are with those who are striving to defend her. They wish that what are charged upon her as blemishes may prove to be beauties. Such men are not fully against the truth, and, therefore, are, in an important sense, on its part. Amid the confusion into which the zealotry and rage of baffled conspiracy brings part of the Church, they may seem for a time to be in dubious relation to men and things they abhor, but they cannot long even seem to countenance what is so alien to their true mind. May they come to the full truth and an open confession of it, that they may fully stand where their spirit inclines them, leaving error without even the poor cloak which it makes of an abuse of their position. Then will all the real weight of the Church be cast together, Zion will have peace, and will move rejoicingly to that inevitable 6 32 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chav.XUL consummation towards which she is now struggHng with a mourning heart. Probably the most beautiful and striking testimony of Dr. Krauth's disposition and his constant anxiety to dis- tinguish between the error and the errorist is his generous tribute to his fiercest opponent, Dr. B. Kurtz, in a review of Dr. E. W. Hutter's Eulogy on the Life and Character of Rev. Benjamin Kurtz, D. D., LL. D., delivered at Selinsgrove, Pa., May 28, 1866: Dr. Kurtz's greatest merit was that which in kind is the greatest that any man can have — it was that he was a man, even his infirmities were manly. He was not womanish, nor babyish, nor childish. He aroused every feeling of aversion except that of contempt. He was a man of more than ordinary intellect and force, but Dr. Hutter diminishes the reader's impression in regard even to this by claiming that his hero would have been a Grant or Sherman in war, a Marshall on the bench, a Webster in statesmanship. We shall not undertake to prove that he would not. It is comparatively difiticult to tell what a man, who has risen or failed in one pursuit, would have become in some other. It is easier to tell what he became in his own. Dr. Kurtz, in his palmiest days, was, beyond all question, a good preacher, but he was not a Chalmers nor a Mason. His mind was essentially partisan, not judicial. He would have made an admirable lawyer, but a dangerous judge. He had no claim to extensive learn- ing. He was not a master of theology. He knew little of Church polity; his principle of "elective affinity," and his practices showed the crudeness of his views. He had, undoubtedly, power as a popular religious writer; but he never elevated the taste of those for whom he wrote. He wrote to it as it was, and always was severe upon styles and modes of thought which rose above his own. His own vein was one of practical force, a sort of spiritualized worldly prudence, in that happy average of the good every day qualities which makes a popular i866.] DR. B. KURTZ. 83 writer. He settled nothing that was unsettled, and happily could not go deep enough long to unsettle any thing that was settled. His strength, as a thinker, was his common sense ; his weakness was, that he did not comprehend that common sense is only good for common things, that every body has a common sense of his own, or thinks he has, and that there is much which no man's common sense, nor all the common sense in the world can settle. One most extraordinary feature of Dr. Kurtz's mind was the perverse character of its sensibility to testi- mony. He did not believe the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, and expressed doubts as to the eternal Sonship of Christ, but he believed in mesmeric clairvoy- ance. When he first visited the magnetic telegraph he expressed a suspicion that the whole thing was a hoax. He was far more impressed by any thing he saw, or thought he saw, than by any amount of mere testimony. He could see the clairvoyants, and hear from their own lips what they professed to view at the moment; but he could not see the telegraphic message flying along the wires, nor could he touch Christ in His supernatural pres- ence, nor fathom eternal Sonship, and so he would none of them. In a word, he was unconsciously rationalistic in his mode of thought. It ought never to be forgotten, in any generous esti- mate of Dr. Kurtz, that a very large part of his life was one of great pain, and nervous prostration and excite- ment. In his moods of involuntary irritation he was wholly different from his pleasanter self. This he felt and confessed. "See here," he once said to a young friend, as he handed him a manuscript, "what a bitter thing I have written. I am glad it has not gone into print. The fact is, I had had a hemorrhage — I was nervous and excitable beyond measure, and so I wrote what you see." A few weeks after, there must have been a return of the feelings which inspired the article; for it appeared (not as an editorial) with a handful or so more of aloes mixed in. To the source of which we speak is to be imputed, in part, the polemical character 84 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XllL of the Observer. Its attacks were constant. Hardly a week passed that there was not a new victim served up, or an old one tortured afresh. Dr. Kurtz never wrote so vigorously as when he was scathing some one. In those halcyon days of universal church love and peace, which are poetically supposed to have preceded the estab- lishment of the Lutheran, the Observer was, in fact, a "dark and bloody ground" of ferocious warfare. The influence of the Lutheran has tended to restrain com- batants, to defend truth and innocence, to lead to the discussion of principles, and to bring necessary conflict, from beneath the traditions of the tomahawk and scalping knife, and to put it under the laws of nations and of honorable warfare. In his most genial times, Dr. Kurtz was one of the most agreeable of men ; he could take rank with the finest conversers; there was wisdom and wit in his words, and something very winning in his manners. Under some circumstances, there was, without the slight- est tinge of affectation (a weak vice which no man could impute to him,) something almost courtly in his carriage. The unquestionable, direct influence which Dr. Kurtz exercised was due certainly as much to the love and admiration, as to the fear he inspired. As regards his own repose, and the undivided regard of the Church, it was a great misfortune to Dr. Kurtz, as it is indeed to any man of strong character, to be in the editorial chair. The editor's enemy always has Job's unfulfilled desire gratified. The editor's life is spent in writing the book which the art of Faust (we sometimes think that Mephistopheles suggested it to him) graves with more than the iron pen and lead in the rock. His excitements and depressions are chronicled. He is like the birds of the geologist, which have left the marks of every step in mud, which turned to stone. Dr. Kurtz changed in view and tone on many points — to continue a leader he had to become a follower ; but he had a pride of consistency, and attempted the hopeless task of adjust- ing his relative conservatism to his later absolute radical- ism. Dr. Hutter repeats the explanation of what cannot i866.] DR. B. KURTZ. 85 be explained, and renews the attempt to harmonize what cannot be harmonized. It would be an ungracious task and an unnecessary one to show that it would have been better to have left the whole thing untouched. The true question — the only one which need concern the lover of truth — is not whether he thinks now as he once thought, but whether he now thinks right. " Let the dead past bury its dead." Dr. Kurtz did make the Observer a power; and its power was, at one time, for some things a good one. It helped to develop some disposition for reading, aroused to a certain point a sluggish Church, which had declined from the faith; but even when it did most good, it mis- took a tendency half developed for a final result ; it turned to battle with its better self, and devoted its latest energies to preventing the logical consummation of its better earliest work. In its best day it mixed up with its good an enormous amount of the questionable and of the evil, and finally became the instrument of unmitigated mis- chief. Providentially, it fell into the hands of gentle- men, who, starting with the humble confession of Dr. Kurtz's sins, (and never do we so heartily confess any sins, as those of other people) soon plunged headlong into worse than his worst. These new Editors floundered hopelessly, ate each other up virtually, distracted and dis- organized their own party, disgusted all conservative men with their radicalism, and all the radicals with their awkward apologetic conservatism, and all honest men of all schools, with their twistings, windings, explanations, evasions, invisibly fine points, and extraordinary tertium quids, which were designed to escape the extravagance of the party who asserted, at one extreme, that twice two are not four, and of the "symbolists," who asserted, at the other, that twice two are four. Never was it more manifest how invaluable Dr. Kurtz had been to the party he guided, than when the reins were committed to the ambitious Phaethons who were confident they could manage the chariot better than the 86 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XUl. old driver, but who were run away with, and tumbled into a dark and muddy river, from which a stock com- pany is now trying to fish them out, with the design of putting a break on the chariot, twelve cords on the drivers, and snaffle bits on the coursers of the East and the West. Dr. Kurtz had the full confidence of the mass of his party. He knew how to control them beyond a certain point, by allowing them to control him up to that point. They knew where he stood, and were sure that in the battle he would be with them. If he was not per- fectly consistent with himself at different eras, he at least never occupied two positions at one time. He was plain and out-spoken, and rarely attempted to evade the fair inferences from his premises. Whatever power the paper he edited so long may now have, is traditional. Nobody pretends to love it for what it is ; most continue to take it from the time when they took it, for what it was, and a few hold on to it for what they hope it is going to be. As a professor, Dr. Kurtz's success was less marked, Selinsgrove was the accident of his plan, not the issue of it. Had he foreseen that it would be the last step, he never would have taken the first one. Dr. Hutter's vindication of Dr. Kurtz's claim to be a consistent Lutheran, all turns upon a false conception of what constitutes a Lutheran. He is a Lutheran in the true sense, who holds the distinctive faith of the Lutheran Church. This Dr. Kurtz did not hold in all its parts. In his latest years, he spent nearly all his energies in combating what he maintained was part of the confessed faith of that Church. He was one of the authors of the Definite Platform, and it is to his honor that he was the first to avow his relation to it, and that he never aban- doned it, maintaining as he did, incontrovertibly, that the "American Lutherans" who opposed it, differed from those who upheld it, only in lack either of consistency or of honesty. And yet so careless was he in investigating the documents on which he professed to pronounce judg- ment, that he insisted that the Augsburg Confession i866.] DR. B. KURTZ. 87 enjoined exorcism. The truth was, Dr. K. knew exceed- ingly Httle about the Confessions and theologians of the Lutheran Church. His acquaintance with books was that of a reader, and that sort of acquaintance was large and varied. It was not at all that of a student, and his favorite books were not those of profound theology. He neither had deep root in the past, nor deep insight into the future. He did not move in the thoughts of those who went before him, nor leave much in which men are likely to move after him. He was a man of the present, and a large part of his work was passing away before he died. Though his works display popular apti- tude, and were generally well received by those for whom they were meant, none of them show thorough investiga- tion. Where they show research, it is the research of others. But he is gone — gone, we trust, through the infinite grace of our adorable Saviour, into a world where every film is removed from the eye, every imperfection from the soul. Weak or bad men have tried to make capital for the wrong, by representing us as an enemy of Dr. Kurtz. Dr. Kurtz himself knew better. Even when he was bearing part in a cruel persecution in which radical- ism was attempting to destroy us for the crime of fidelity to duty, we had no spark of personal hostility to him. When in the controversy into which, to our deep pain, he had thrust himself, his better nature was aroused, and he wrote to implore us to desist; we gladly consented to cease to defend the truth against his attacks, on the sole condition that he would cease from fresh attacks upon the truth. When he afterwards forgot himself so far as to renew his assaults in the most wanton and offensive manner, we replied to them reluctantly and sparingly. When he wrote an Introduction to Dr. Sternberg's defense of an assailant of the Lutheran Church against us, who had met those groundless charges, we replied to both with something of that plainness of speech which Dr. Kurtz always professed to admire, and in which no man went further than himself. All our relations to him 88 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap.XUI. in controversy were purely defensive. But let all that pass. Truth lives in spite of the strength of its assail- ants, and of the feebleness of its defenders, and every cause w^hich has abiding might, has it in itself, and not in men. It w^as made Dr. Hutter's vv^ork and duty to w^rite the Eulogy of Dr. Kurtz. He has done it from a full heart. He was the right man to do it; he loved and revered him; what he says of him in this address, he has said of him privately, very often, and very warmly. It has been made our work and duty to say, as a truthful man, what we think of the Eulogy and of him who is the subject of it. As one who long enjoyed an intimate acquaintance with Dr. Kurtz, and who could appreciate his virtues without being blind to his faults, we have exercised the right to speak frankly of him. We never had a particle of animosity to him: if we ever had, it would have expired with the first knowledge of the deep grief which bowed his aged head, and went down with him to his grave. If we stood with his Eulogist at that grave, we are sure that the tear would not start more freshly to his eye than to our own ; and when we are gone, we ask of our dearest friend no more than that he shall feel as gently to our infirmities, as kindly to our virtues, as we feel to the faults and excellencies of Benjamin Kurtz. It is all in the same spirit in which, on another occasion, in the midst of fiery controversy, he had said of his aged antagonist : "We do reverence age, but we reverence truth much more ; and when age, instead of gracing its hoary head with the crown of truth, tramples it under foot, we kneel to lift the crown from the dust, rather than to do homage to the head which dishonors it." But while Dr. Krauth was always willing to treat per- sons who differed from his standpoint with all due con- sideration, he could never close his eyes to the importance of the principles that were at stake, and to the great danger for the Church wherever error was admitted into i865.] THE PROGRESS OF ERROR. 89 it. He pointed out that there were generally three stages to be found in its insidious progress. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are a few, and weak ; only let us alone ; we shall not disturb the faith of others. The Church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them ; we only ask for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions. Indulged in this for a time, error goes on to assert equal rights. Truth and error are two balancing forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Any thing on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential. Any body who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace •of the Church. Truth and error are two co-ordinal powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them. From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy. Truth started with tolerat- ing; it comes to be merely tolerated, and that only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all •disputed points. It puts men into positions not in spite of their departure from the Church's faith, but in conse- •quence of it. Their recommendation is that they repudi- ate that faith, and position is given them to teach others to repudiate it, and to make them skilful in combating it.* This has been the history of rationalism in our Church in Europe and in this country. It is the struggle against it in its third shape, its effort at supremacy, which has "been going on for some years among us. Like the slave- power, it has at length aroused good men against it, who in their love of peace not only had tolerated it, but would * Conservative Reformation, p. 195 f. go CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chaf.XUI. have endured even its claim for equal rights. To keep it at that second point was their aim years ago, but time and providence have made them wiser. You might as well expect a tiger-cub to remain a cub, as for error not to grow bigger and more exacting. Every man sees now that the Evangelical Lutheran faith, and the bald and pie-bald rationalism, which is attempting to supplant it, cannot permanently co-exist in harmony. Both cannot be supreme; both cannot assert harmoniously equal rights; both cannot wisely be tolerated as the normal condition of the same communion. If the faith of our fathers is that abominable thing which its opponents, who take its name to stab it to the heart, pretend it is, they are dishonest men, on their own showing, and have all along been such, in pretending to tolerate it. They ought to root it out utterly, if it be half as bad as they pretend to think it. On the other hand, if that rational- ism, which tampers with so much of the faith as it may suit this or that man for his private convenience to tamper with, in the prerogative of which one man throws away the doctrine of the Trinity in whole or in part, and another is satisfied with a due share of mild-drawn Pelagianism ; if this be the dangerous thing Evangelical Lutherans believe it to be, they ought not to countenance or connive at it, in its third, second or first stage. It is its attitude of effort after supremacy, in contending for which it has openly seceded from the faith of the Church, and has in all the varied shapes of schism carried on its cruel war within the Church. But it must not only be pushed back from this third stage, but pushed back from equal rights, and from toleration. Unless we would have the whole growth over, we must cut it up by the root. Connivance at error is intolerance towards truth. When we speak, however, of pushing back, we mean not by proscription, but by the avoidance of entangling alliances, alien to fidelity to the truth, and by the asser- tion and maintenance of sound principles, until the Church is ripe for such action as shall put her right, and keep her right, by God's blessing, forever. To have two faiths is- i865.] WIT AXD HUMOR GIFTS OF GOD. 91 the bud of having no faith ; the error is the cancer of the truth. If we would not have perpetual warfare in the Church, we must recognize and stand firm to the truth, that there is but "one faith," and that our Church, by God's mercy, has got it. (June 9, 1865.) The propriety and duty of caustic criticism, of "a sanctified bitterness" that would freely use the weapons of wit and humor against the enemies of truth is thus forcibly set forth : Gentlemen with velvet cuticles would better keep themselves out of print. Critics should, indeed, cultivate amenity. Every man, nevertheless, must be himself. Some men lay down their own temperament, their own inclinations, their own defects, as a canon for others. They will allow no sparkle of imagination in others, if they themselves are dull. If they are lugubrious, a laugh (which a man can sometimes take very heartily on paper,) is unpardonable. Nevertheless, the play of humor and the felicities of wit, are the great weapons by which the kingdom of the ridiculous is kept down — a kingdom which would soon cover every other, if it were not held in check. The argument for creative design from the existence of wit, is just as strong, as from any other case of adaptation. Wit was as certainly created to keep down nonsense, as cats were created to keep down mice. Wit may indeed get out of its sphere as a cat may get out of hers. When Tabby assails the sublime of roast beef, and dares to lay paw upon the Christmas turkey. she is justly put under the regimen of another cat with as many tails as puss has lives. When wit gets out of its province and touches what belongs to a holier domain, it deserves a scourging from incensed virtue ; but the devil of a profane or immoral wit. must be fought with the fire of a true wit. and never is the scourging of a false or misdirected wit more terrible than when it comes from a true wit regulated by principle ; for wit. like all other gifts of God, can be sanctified and used for His glory and the welfare of man. 92 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Cuap.XUI. It is not sharpness of the wrong kind to wither false reasoning with true logic, to overthrow groundless assumption with well-established facts, and to show the exceeding absurdity of the absurd. The tone in which the objectionable writings and doings of men are noticed, may indeed be somewhat conditioned by the character of the men and their tone. Those who observe the grace of discussion, are entitled to the benefit of it; and those who are coarse and proscriptive, deserve to be treated more roughly; for in writing, as in every other sphere, there is to be law and justice as well as love. "With the froward," says the Psalmist, "thou wilt show thyself froward." There is a sharpness, indeed, which under some cir- cumstances, becomes a moral duty. It is expressly enjoined by Saint Paul, who after giving a specimen of severity of the most downright kind, urges Titus to an equally honest handling of errorists, — "Rebuke them sharply," he says, "that they may be sound in the faith." The man who thinks that wrong can be tickled into virtue, and who is interested in seeing how the Apostles handled the weapons of controversy, might with profit read the first chapter of Titus and follow it up with a general glance at the Epistles. The sacred writers cer- tainly never made themselves partakers in other men's sins and errors, by want of explicitness in pointing them out and denouncing them. But never has a holy severity been more unreserved in its language, than in the case of our Lord Himself. His detestation of evil was intensi- fied by His love ; for in proportion as we love will be the earnestness of our indignation at that which subverts and destroys what we love. But it may be urged that holy men, and most of all our Master, spoke these words of "sharp rebuke," under the impulse of the Spirit of the Most High, whose gifts are not imparted to us in the measure in which they possessed them. To this we can give no better reply than that of Milton : "Ye will say, these had immediate warrant from God to be thus bitter; and I say, so much 1 862.] PROVIDENCE AXD PEPPER. 93 the plainer is it found that there may be a sanctified bitterness against the enemies of the truth." (March 30, 1865.) With what good humor, on the other hand he himself was ready to take the attacks of his enemies, appears from the following : SAUCE PIQUANTE ; OR HOW TO ENJOY BEING ABUSED. There is nothing in the way of sauce piquante which we so much relish, as being roundly abused, provided that the abuse has certain characteristics. In the first place, to the thorough enjoyment of it, it is essential that you get it for having done your duty. It is one way in which Providence rewards you for doing right, for it gives you an immediate and unmistakable evidence that your work has not been in vain. The praises of the good may be mistaken, but the vindictiveness of the bad is unerring. Then, the abuse must be hearty ; the more fierce and furious the better, for just to the extent it is such, is the evidence that what you have done for good has been effectively done. Then, it must lose sight of all the questions that have been really involved, for in this case you feel that it confesses that it cannot grapple with them. It is especially delightful when the whole fury of it falls on yourself, and the truth you have defended is spared. It has a peculiar charm too when it gets away from everything you have ever done, or said, or written, about which people may know something, and charges upon you motives about which nobody can possibly know anything, as it thus confesses that malignity can do nothing against you with what it knows, and has to fall back upon what it imagines But one caution. Mustard does not suit young and tender mouths. We do not recommend this highly flavored sauce to everybody. You may be weary of praise, satiated with flattery, sighing for a new sensation, with something rough in it to stir a languid palate, and 94 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap.XIU. you may imagine that it is just the thing. But be cautious. Before you commit yourself to it ponder the question well, whether you would not enjoy better some- thing mild and emulcent, say, a little arrow-root pap, or barley gruel, or a few raw Chincoteagues on the half shell? But if you are sure you would like it, if you know that you are proof against slanders, simply and solely because they are slanders ; proof against them even though many should utter them and a few believe them, then out with the truth about some miserable humbug of the hour, put your finger through some soft-soap bubble of hypocrisy, let fall a drop of ink on somebody's sham, and you shall have a new and exquisite enjoyment. Your sauce will be well shaken so as to distribute the hot particles all through it, and you shall have plenty of it. (October 9, 1862.) Apart from the question of objective truth as held and confessed by the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Dr. Krauth insisted in the whole controversy on that sub- jective personal truthfulness and honesty which demand that, under no circumstances, men should give themselves false names, calling themselves what they are not in reality. Such indirectness, artfulness and mental reservation are unworthy of a true nobility even of unre- generate nature, and entirely at war with a Christian character, and "what form of deception," he asks, "can be more thoroughly criminal, than the wearing of a name which tells what we are not ?" If we call ourselves Lutheran we must be Lutherans. If we are not, our name is certainly a mistake; and if we know that we are not, our name is a falsehood. Dr. Krauth points out that even in this subjective aspect the Lutheran Church is, and always has been, characterized by an outspoken honesty, thoroughly averse to any kind of duplicity and compromise. The German character is proverbially an honest one. i862.] HONESTY OR DUPLICITY^ 95 Even where it is wrong, it is still honest. Saclclucean, rationalistic, unbelieving it may become under pernicious influences ; but Pharisaic, hypocritical, cunning, it cannot be. The Lutheran Church is, in her essential nature, an honest Church. Read her history and you will And that her bitterest trials have arisen from the fact that she would not endure double meanings, the twistings to which subtle and dishonest criticism subjects words. One mind, one heart, giving themselves voice in terms of unmistakable meaning, were the demands she made for unity. She stood Athanasius-like for this, against the world. Had she demanded less, had she been willing to practice that syncretism which has been the external strength and internal weakness of the Church of England, she might, perhaps, have had all Protestant Europe nominally Lutheran ; she might have been a more splen- did, a more wealthy, a more potent church politically, and all simply at the price of a little duplicity. Zwingli desired above all things to have fellowship with the Wit- tenbergers. Calvin joyously signed the Augsburg Con- fession, and acted in the capacity of a Lutheran minister ; Reformed churches insisted that the Augsburg Confes- sion was also their Confession. Why did not, why could not our Church meet this spirit with a kindred charity ? Could she not let men accept her anti-Pelagian articles in a Pelagian sense ? Could she not let them em- brace the doctrine of an unlimited atonement with a limitation? Could she not permit the doctrine of the sacraments to be understood in three ways? Why must she insist on clearing herself of those ingenious interpre- tations of her faith, which enabled men to confess it without holding it? Did not affection, to say nothing of her own ease and her outward glory, did not love seem to plead for this? And against all this was set over- honesty, that cold repulsive virtue. The kingdoms of the world seemed to be offered her as the price of silence, but she believed, and, as of old, faith was too mighty for prudence. I believe, therefore I have spoken. (May 22, 1862.) 96 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIIL Applying this principle to the General Synod, Dr. Krauth holds that by its very name it is bound to be fully and honestly Lutheran, no matter whether the doctrinal statements of its original constitution were distinctly Lutheran or unsatisfactory on the point of confession; no matter, whether the founders of the General Synod personally were strong and sound, or weak and vascillat- ing, in their Lutheran consciousness. THE GENERAL SYNOD HER NAME AND HER FOUNDERS. The two points connected with the Constitution of the General Synod at which we first look in forming our impressions of the character of that body, are the two extremes, locally considered : the title and the signatures — her constitutional name, and the names of the signers of her Constitution. Her name in the title is "The General Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United States," and in Article I, "The Evangelical Lutheran General Synod of the United States of America." With honest men, the assumption of a name is in itself a pledge of the most solemn kind that they are, and purpose to continue, all that this name imports. If there be for any reason a likelihood that the meaning of the name may be misunderstood, they carefully guard against the possibility of mistake. When honest men, therefore, take a name with a fixed historical sense, without a hint that they depart from its received mean- ing, that name is in itself an ample guarantee of their fidelity to the thing which the name represents. The founders of our General Synod were honest men. Any judgment of her position, therefore, is radically wrong, which ignores the full moral potency of her name. It is not to be denied, in terms or virtually, that the very name of our General Synod binds her to be an Evangelical Lutheran body. We insist that our General Synod, in virtue of her name, apart from a solitary word which further defines her position, is morally bound to be Evangelical Lutheran. And by this we mean that i866.] CALLED LUTHERAN, BE LUTHERAN. 97 our General Synod, simply because of her name, if there were no other reason whatsoever, must be Lutheran, with all the pre-suppositions which mature in that name; that is, she may not be a Pagan body, but must accept God's Word ; may not be a Jewish body, but must be a Christian one ; may not be Romish, but must be Protestant ; may not be Universalist, Arian, Socinian or Rationalistic, but must be Evangelical ; may not be Anabaptist, Fanatical, Zwinglian, Calvinistic, Episcopal, Baptist or Arminian, but must be Lutheran, — that is, must be that thing to which alone the distinctive name Lutheran has ever been historically and properly applied. When a body calls itself Lutheran, it binds itself to be Lutheran, whether it in so many terms accepts the faith of the Church or not; for the historical sense of the name Lutheran makes it embrace those, and those only, who hold and confess the whole faith of our Church, as it is summarily stated in the Augsburg Confession. A moral obligation is not annihilated by being ignored, and an un-Lutheran Synod, although it may be silent about the Confession, or repudiate it in set terms, is still bound by its Lutheran name to be Lutheran. No protest can absolve it from the moral duty of being what it calls itself, or rid it of the moral guilt of using terms deceitfully. It is a radically false idea that the General Synod might properly be called Lutheran, even though it were un- Lutheran, because the private opinions of individuals among its founders or its early friends may have been un-Lutheran. If every nominal Lutheran on earth were to embrace Romish, Socinian, Pelagian, or any other false views, condemned by our Church when she received her name, that apostacy would not make their views Lutheran, it would simply prove the holders of them to be un- Lutheran. Such views might kill our Church ; they could not give her a new being. History will allow of but one Lutheran Church. If she be a true Church, she is im- mortal; and if she be not, the mystery of her having had one life is not to be deepened by giving her another. Our Church has accepted her position, and on it, if it be the 7 q8 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [CnAP.XllI. ridit one, she must stand, or by its side, if it be a false one, she must fall. The faith of a church is its heart. That heart pulsates in the Confession, and when the pulsa- tion of that heart ceases forever, the church is gone, it is beyond the physician's skill to set a new heart in it. The old one can beat no more. The galvanic stream may counterfeit in the yet pliant limbs some of the motions of life but it is lost time to employ it. Nothing remains but the judgment of God, and of posterity, for its soul, and a speedy burial for its body. It is too late to make Lutheranism over again. If it were made wrong, we must let it go, and find something to take its place. A church can have but one life. If it be true, she needs but one; for that is an immortal one. If she be false, it is appointed unto her to die ; and after this, no second life, but the abiding judgment. If the Lutheran Church be a failure, she is a failure forever. If it can be shown that any man, or all men, who took part in forming a General Synod, which they called Lutheran, were errorists, that does not change the moral force of the name. There are fifteen names appended to the Constitution of our General Synod, as it was framed in 1820. Suppose that it should be demonstrated that one of those signers was an Arian, — what does that argue? Nothing more than this, that an Arian was guilty of the great inconsistency of taking part in organiz- ing the General Synod of a Church which rests on the everlasting foundations of a firm faith in the Trinity in Unity— a Church which has sung through the generations past, and will sing through the generations yet to be, and will sing forever, "Blessed be the holy Three, the undi- vided One." Suppose it shall be shown that another was a Socinian, another a Pelagian, another a high Calvinist, another a low Arminian, another Popish, another Ration- alistic, that one was an indolent Latitudinarian, who cared nothing about the points on which men are divided, and that another was too ignorant to know, or too obtuse to comprehend the most obvious and necessary metes and definitions by which truth is segregated from error, — i866.] BIGOTS AND LIBERALS. 99 what then ? Is the inference to be drawn that our General Synod admits all the tendencies which germinate in these errors, and bud and blow in these errorists, to be normal, ha\ing equal constitutional rights, to be forever respected, and forever left unrepressed? If we are to reach a canon in this way, then we must know what every man of the fifteen held, lest we should do injustice to his private notion, by not giving it full latitude with the others. And how shall we treat the strict Lutheranism of some of these founders, if we find that any of them were tainted with such a thing — that Lutheranism, which knows of but one true faith, and refuses to fraternize except with it? "Oh, easily enough!" it may be answered; "tolerate it, too, in common with other errors, provided it is willing to put itself on a level with them, and assume no airs. But if it claim any thing more — if it assume that it has any more right in the Lutheran Church on this side the water, than any other opinion, it shall be hunted to the death." All was peace in the Pantheon, though the gods were innumerable, while their friends consented to bring them in, in the crowd. The offense of Christianity was, that it claimed that its Deity was supreme, — that to accept Him was to reject all others. It was to repress this abominable Christian exclusiveness that the narrow bigots who held it were scourged, tor- tured, beheaded, and burned, by the liberal Pagans of the day. "If you had been satisfied," said these philosophic men, "with your just share, — if you had only claimed what we claim for our gods, you could have a niche for your favorite. You could have put your Christos with Mercury and Venus, and could have worshipped him to your heart's content. But as for such narrow bigotry as yours, your one God, to exclude all the other gods ; your one Lord, to put down all the other lords ; your one faith, to put down all the choice opinions of great men, we will have none of it; nothing but hacking, hewing, torturing, will answer. We will try, render, fry, boil and broil your abominable intolerance out of you. Down with all bigotry and Christianity! Up with a liberal-minded lOO CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Cuat.XUI. Paganism! The truth is, that if inflexible adherence to the one faith, as alone to be allowed, be bigotry, the Christians were bigots, and the men who put them to death were liberals. Christianity in its own nature, as divine, is of necessity proscriptive — it can allow the right of nothing but itself in the hearts of men. Mere human figments and notions may consistently and safely tolerate each other, but Truth must proscribe or be proscribed. The Lutheran Church in this country will yet see that liberty for any other system within her communion, means proscription of Lutheranism itself, — that if she allow any other faith than her own to find shelter within her, she will soon cease to allow her own — and that the most merciless denouncers of true Lutheranism, and of sincere Lutherans, will be those who wear the name of Lutherans. Even now the extremest misrepresentations of Lutheran- ism are sometimes heard from nominal Lutherans, and some of those who call themselves brethren in the faith, are the last to whom we should make an appeal for the simplest justice. Men that have called themselves Lutherans have characterized their Church and its doc- trines, in such terms, as the bitterest passions of contro- versy in the sixteenth century hardly called forth. Jesuit malignity itself has never prompted such terms of reproach as some who pretend to be of our Church have applied to her doctrines, and if you analyze the strongest prejudices of some nominal Lutherans, you will find that they have been artfully inflamed and directed against Lutheranism itself. We claim, that within any church, or any Synod which calls itself Lutheran, Lutheranism shall not be one power of many, but the supreme power — that it shall not be tolerated, but shall rule — and over against this primary maxim of morals and of self-pre- servation, it matters very little what may be, or may be pretended to be, the private notions of some of the men, or of all the men of a certain era. But were it not so — were it of far more importance than it is to go back of official documents, to the purely i866.] HEARSAY OR WRITTEN EVIDENCE. loi private notions of those who wrote or subscribed them, — to ascertain satisfactorily the private views of men half a century ago, is near^ an impossibility. It is a hard thing for a man accurately to know what his own views were in time so long gone. A man may insist to-day that his views were thus and so at a certain period, when his writings of that period are flagrantly contradictory of his present impressions. He is apt to think now that he did mean what he now wishes he had meant. Oral tradi- tion is a most un-Protestant species of evidence. The mouth is a Papist, the pen is a Protestant. "He said," is Romish; "It is written," is Lutheran. One grand object of written documents is to avoid the confusion, conflict and inevitable error, which arise from the effort to guide ourselves by impressions of what this or that man thought, or said. To leave a written statement, made in intelligible words, to get at somebody's impression of what he thinks he thought long ago, or of what he thought somebody meant, is for a man to carry his candle away from the blazing fagots of his fireside, to plunge into a morass in the hope of lighting it at a will-o'-the-wisp. As members of the General Synod, we know its founders only in their document, its Constitution. They wrote that document for the express purpose of conveying their meaning to posterity. It is the result of their collective wisdom, and if we cannot learn from it what they mean, we are not likely to learn anywhere else. If any man assert that they meant some certain thing, he must show us that they meant it in the Constitution, not out of it. Eaves- droppers and the chroniclers of table-talk are insecure witnesses. Men do not make words, but take them. However venerable and honored men may be, they cannot destroy first principles. A unanimous resolution that "whatever is, is not," won't make it so. But even that which, in its own nature is capable of change, cannot be changed by every one who is willing to change it. The doctrines of the Lutheran Church cannot be changed. She may add a fuller expression of them, but she cannot change them. But if her doctrines could be changed, it I02 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [CuAv.XlU. could only be by a power as general as that which estab- lished them, and they must be set aside as solemnly and officially as they were accepted. It requires the official act of a majority in the Lutheran Church to make a thing Lutheran, and any man who claims for himself or his work that name, separate from, or in conflict with, such a general act, makes a claim which must be false, and may be fraudulent. The Synod or man that does so, is usurping for tyrannous abuse what belongs alone to the freedom of the Church as a whole. But suppose it could be demonstrated that our General Synod was not meant by its founders to be Lutheran, and suppose that this fact constituted a warrant for continu- ing it as an un-Lutheran body, what result have we reached? This, beyond all question, that its name should be changed so as to represent the actual thing named ; in a word, that, not being Lutheran, it should not be called Lutheran. But while the name stands, and while we are all agreed that it ought to stand, the infer- ence is resistless, that our General Synod is, and of right ought to be an Evangelical Lutheran body, and the assumption that it is such should condition an interpreta- tion of every word which is found in her Constitution, With the genuine attitude of our General Synod, as defined by terms accepted in their obvious grammatico- historical meaning, we are satisfied ; but we do not hesitate to say that the mode of interpretation which is used by some violent partisans in ascertaining her doctrinal posi- tion, if it were well grounded, would not only exclude her from any just right to be called Lutheran, but would properly excite the suspicion of all Evangelical Pro- testants of every name. But she ought to vindicate herself from all irnputation of complicity with any mis- representation of her true position. If her Constitutional test of doctrine, as amended, is capable of two meanings, she should say which is the true one. She owes it to the cause of truth, to common honesty, to the real unity and peace of the Church she represents, to say where she stands in regard to the doctrines of God's Word, which 1862-66.] ARE YOU A LUTHERAN? IO3 have been, and are most frequently obscured, or mis- represented. In a world of error our Church is bound to show that she stands by the truth, is bound to prove herself a living- witness of the faith once delivered to the saints. If it be the duty of the individual Christian to occupy no neutral position in regard to any error, yet more is the largest and most important ecclesiastical body in the Church under obligation to plant itself clearly on the truth, so that no man may mistake her position — so that her whole moral weight shall go with the truth and the right. (April 4, 1866.) Applying the tests adopted by the General Synod itself he addresses himself in this forcible language to the con- science of his opponents : Do you believe the fundamental doctrines of God's Word to be taught in a manner substantially correct in the doctrinal articles of the Augsburg Confession? Do you believe that the Augsburg Confession and the Cate- chisms of Luther are a summary and just exhibition of the fundamental principles of God's Word? This is as mild a test as could well be presented of a man's Luth- eranism. Will yours bear it? Do you believe that the fundamental doctrines of God's Word are taught in the Confessions, or have you doctrines which you are dis- posed to make fundamental, about which they are silent? If you have, you are not a Lutheran on our General Synod's definition. Do you believe that those funda- mental doctrines are taught in a manner substantially correct, or do you think the manner is incorrect, even in substantial, poor, confused, capable of twenty different meanings, each one of which has as good a claim as any other to recognition, and that there are arts and mysteries of interpretation by which our Confessions are Romish and Protestant. Orthodox and Socinian, Pauline and Pelagian, Zwinglian and Lutheran? If the latter is your view, you are not a Lutheran as our General Synod defines the term. When it makes our Confessions. I04 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [C^w.Xlll. a test of doctrine, it implies that their meaning is ascer- tainable, and that they have but one meaning. Are you hugging yourself in the delusion that you are a Lutheran, because you can receive, on what you acknowledge to be fundamental, the words of the Confessions in some sense, though it is demonstrable, and you know it, that this sense is not theirs, but yours? We are not going to sit in judgment on you. It is not to us you stand or fall. If your conscience acquit you, we shall not condemn you. Neither God nor man has set us as a ruler or a divider over you. We only put fraternal queries; we make no pretension to fulminate judicial decisions. But for those who call themselves Lutherans, to revile their Church, to abate all they can of the glories they cannot deny, to contrast it unfavorably with the extremest products of the mushroom compost of pseudo-Protestant sectarianism, to heap on its head the crimes of those who have been its betrayers, to strain statistics, to pervert facts, and obtrude guesses as truth simply to dishonor it, — for such persons the assumption of the title is a mon- strous fraud. To bear the hallowed name of our Church, our dear and venerable Church (venerable and dear in spite of all the foul aspersions of ignorance and of men- dacity), to bear that name only to labor to rend the Church into fragments, to make her a hissing to her own children and to the world, is a treachery which it is hard to characterize with sufficient severity. (March 2^, 1862.) AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH VS. EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA. In the course of the controversy Dr. Krauth naturally was led to examine that principal question: Is there such a thing as an American Lutheran Church, in dis- tinction from the historic Lutheran Church of the Augs- 1861-67.] CLAIMS OF AMERICAN LUTHERANS. 105 burg Confession? and if so, on what does it rest its claims, and where does it set forth its faith? In speak- ing of the Church planted in this Western world by the Lutherans from the Fatherland, one of the champions of American Lutheranism said : " We are their offspring or have entered on their inheritance, and although we may claim the right to mould according to our new position, or to alter or amend what in our judgment needs it, we resign neither the name nor the right to the inheritance." Of course, if the things to be altered or amended were matters of Christian liberty, the proposi- tion would not be objectionable. But it was in matters of faith and doctrine that the liberty was claimed to alter or amend according to " our judgment," however remote the result might be from the original and con- fessed faith of the Church. And yet, at the same time, the name Lutheran and the whole " heritage " of the Lutheran Church was claimed as their rightful property by the very men who thus lightly cast off or reconstructed the faith of the Church. From a series of articles in which Dr. Krauth very thoroughly examined the whole question, we give the fol- lowing quotations : In the only sense in which the term " American Luth- eran Church " can be honestly used, we claim to be a member of that Church. By this, we mean that the Evangelical Lutheran Church has an existence in America, and that it is our privilege on that soil to be in her Communion. We are Lutherans, because in accord- ance with the solemn declaration of the Lutheran Church inade centuries ago, and never retracted, as to what is essential unity, union and communion, we accept her only rule of faith, which is God's Word, and heartily believe, teach and confess that her faith is in accordance with that rule; and we are American Lutherans because ■we belong to that part of our Church which is in America. I06 CHARLES PORTERFJELD KRAUTH. [Chat. XUl. We do not concede that any man is more American than we, because he is less Lutheran ; nor that any principles cease to be Lutheran, because they are on this side of the Atlantic. Usages originating in her liberty, our Church, in every land may change and adapt to her peculiar cir- cumstances and wants, but truth is eternal and unchange- able. With her own witness as to what is truth, the Church stands or falls. The witness of our Church to- her faith is given in the Augsburg Confession; if she has witnessed to falsehood and error, her name and her life must be the penalty of her error Is there such a thing as an American Lutheran Church, distinct from what is known in history as the Evange- lical Lutheran Church? We reply, there is not. There may be individual and synodical apostacy to any extent from the faith of the Church, but this does not in itself make a new Church, any more than boils, smallpox, or the loss of an eye or a nose make a new body. The cor- ruption of the old is not a formation of the new. There- is no such thing as an " American Lutheran Church " in any other true and honest sense than this — that there is. an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which, in the doctrines of the Gospel and in the right administration- of the Sacraments, is one with the Evangelical Lutheran Church everywhere else. There is but one Lutheran Church in the world; and, if we do not belong to it, we do not belong to the Lutheran Church at all. To illus- trate the propositions we have laid down, we offer the following facts : 1. There is no Church in this country which bears the name American Lutheran. The General Synod calls itself the General Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church — and so the District Synods, Societies in the Church, Conferences and Congregations, all bear tlie old historical name. We have yet to know of an Ecclesias- tical Association, large or small, which has taken to itself the title American as descriptive of anything in the char- acter of its Lutheranism. 2. No man can point to any book, pamphlet, or paper 1861-67.] THE BIBLE THE RULE OF FAITH. 107 in which the '* American Lutheran Cliurch " gives any authorised account of itself. 3. Lutherans, certainly no less Lutheran and no less American in birth, affection and principle than any men who claim to belong to this mysterious " American Lutheran " Church, repudiate the whole idea as an im- position on common honesty and common sense. If there be an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, that is enough for them. As to an " American Lutheran Church." as something distinct from the Church of the Reformation in doctrine, they see no need for it, and no possibility of its being. 4. The men who talk of the American Lutheran Church avow themselves as on the old foundation as regards the rule of faith. They believe, they say, that the Word of God is the only rule of faith. So far as they really are true to this foundation, there is nothing American in their Lutheranism; for this is the founda- tion of Evangelical Lutheranism. and the avowal of it is common to all Protestantism. The simple acceptance of this statement of the foundation no more makes them Lutherans than it makes them Episcopalians, Presby- terians, Baptists, Methodists, or Campbellites, or Socinians, Pelagians and Universalists, who make the same statement. All these receive nominally the Bible as the only rule of faith. 5. But when " American Lutherans " come to interpret this rule of faith, they do it upon different principles from those of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. In various degrees they use the natural and unsanctified reason as a thing which is to shed light upon God's Word, not as something to be enlightened by it. In genuine Lutheran principles of interpretation, reason is simply a witness on the facts ; in American Lutheranism it is a judge upon the law. In genuine Lutheranism the natural faculties, aided, in answer to prayer, by the Holy Spirit, in His personal influence through the Word, see what, by the laws of human language, is meant by the divine words, and allow the absolute authority of Holy Scripture. It I08 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH.[Ck\p.XIIL maintains that no difficulties on the part of natural reason justify us in setting aside the simple force of divine words. Thomas says, for example, to Christ, " My Lord, and my God !" Now, nothing is more certain, by the laws of natural reason, than that a man recently crucified, dead and buried, with the wounds of his crucifixion still open, is not Lord and God. Rationalism, therefore, making reason the judge of the words, declares that they are only an exclamation of surprise. Luth- eranism, only allowing reason to be the witness of the obvious force of the words, accepts them literally; and believes that the crucified one was truly Lord and truly God. That most " American Lutherans " accept the doctrine of our Lord's proper divinity is due, not to their principles of interpretation, but to their inconsistency. At the same time, it is well-known that under this same plea which American Lutherans make, there have been Socinians and Arians harbored in our Church in this country; and the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ, which is an essential part of the Church's state- ment of her faith in the Trinity, has been passed over in silence by some of the living leaders of this School, and denied in downright terms by others. It is a law of language that metaphor lies in the noun. We say, " God is a rock," and we know that it is not meant that he is physically a rock, because the noun "rock" is used metaphorically — for a defense or refuge. When we say, " God is a spirit," we know that he is literally a spirit, because that word is not metaphorical, and the " is " is unchanging in meaning. When at a table we say," Take, eat, this is bread made of wheat," we know the expression is literal, because the noun "bread" is not metaphorical. When Christ says, "Take, eat, this is my body," the word body cannot be metaphor- ical, because it was Christ's literal body which "was given and broken for His people." When in defiance of the law of language " American Lutheranism " pretends that " is " can mean " is like," it simply kills the whole Word of God, for wherever it says from Genesis to 1861-6;.] LUTHERANS WITH XO CONFESSION. 109 Revelation " is," this theory enables men to transmute it into "resembles."' God resembles a Spirit, Jesus re- sembles God, the Holy Spirit resembles a Comforter. 6. As " American Lutherans " have a different prin- ciple of interpretation from that of the Church, they reach different conclusions from those of the Church. As human reason, out of its proper sphere, has nothing to guide it, " American Lutherans " come to conflicting conclusions on many points, and have no centre of unity whatever, except that they agree in rejecting in greater or smaller measure, the doctrines of the Lutheran Church. There is no system of Theology which they unite in ap- proving. They are in conflict, not, like the Lutherans of Mis- souri and Buffalo, on one or two points (which, thanks be to God, seem about to be settled), but on every point. There is not a statement of doctrine on a single point on which they can perfectly agree. Among them have been strong Calvinists, although the predominant tendency is to a very low Arminianism, and to Pelagianism. They have no Confession of Faith. That most indefinite thing, on which nobody could sit or stand, which was called the Definite Platform, was repudiated by the larger part of American Lutherans, and those who profess to accept it cannot tell us what it means, nor even what they meant it to be. 7. When we ask after the history of this pretended new Church, we find that it wishes to claim identity historic- ally with the Evangelical Lutheran Church. It talks of Luther as if he belonged to it, although the bitterest protests of his life, not short of those he made against Rome itself, were directed against the very errors which they pretend are not only Lutheranism, but the only pure Lutheranism. Their position virtually is, that Zwingle was the real Lutheran, and Luther the pretender, or Papist in disguise. They would claim Melanchthon, who wrote the Augsburg Confession, in which it is said that the unity of the Church consists in assent in the doctrines of the Gospel, which doctrines are contained in I lo CHARLES PORT ERF I ELD KRAUT H. [Chap. XIII. those very articles of faith, the " Articuli Fidei Praecipui," the principal or fundamental articles of faith to which the doctrinal part of the Confession is devoted. They claim the very men whom, in stigmatizing living believers as wretched symbolists, they also stigmatize. Luther and Chemnitz, Spener and Franke, Schwartz, Egede, Harms, the Patriarch Muehlenberg, among the great de- parted, and men like Delitzsch, Henry Kurtz, and Hengstenberg, not to speak of men on our own soil, among the living noble men, not unworthy of their place in the great army of Confessors, these all because of their fidelity to the pure faith of our Church, are really stigmatized as " wretched symbolists " with " wretched theories." Yet it is out of the history of the very Church which these great men loved and still love, that " Ameri- can Lutheranism " strives to gather a few fig-leaves to hide its nakedness, when the judging voice summons it to account. From the names and mighty deeds of our fathers, the glory of which illumines a world which was not worthy of them, this poor and dishonest thing which tries to cover with their authority what they abhorred, draws the largest part of its claim on the respect of man- kind. It is willing to use the names of these heroes of the faith as a part of its clap-trap — but for their prin- ciples, their doctrines, their uncompromising truthfulness of speech, and their unshakable honesty of life, it has no taste whatever. It will accept all the property of the past, but will assume none of its debts. 8. As regards the devotional and practical life of Christianity, this tendency has developed nothing. Take from it what lingers in it as a legacy of the pure, good system with which it battles, and remove what is merely imitative of surrounding sects, and, in its own nature, transient, and nothing is left. There is nothing really good in it which was not developed by the living faith of our Church long before " American Lutheranism " had a being. If some of the practical activity of our Church is found among men of this School, it is no less true that a larger, more earnest and abiding energy is found 1861-67.] NO NAME, NO CREED. NO HISTORY. m among those most devoted to the pure doctrines of our Church. Is practical activity found among some who depart from the faith? So is there, on the other hand, among many of the very same class, as complete an inert- ness and deadness as is possible. The life and hope of our Church in tliis country, are with the men who are firm in the faith of the Church, and with those who are most near them in spirit — the men whose difficulties in regard to the doctrines of the Church are educational, and whose deepest sympathies and most earnest hopes are with her genuine faith and her true life. Apart from these classes, the '' American Lutheran Church " has its true symbol in the weathercock and the soap bubble. The men who are spending their energies in misrepresenting the doctrines of our Church, and, in the effort to rend it so as to form a new sect, are either tools or the users of tools. They talk of vital piety and experimental reli- gion, but they do not illustrate them. The " American Lutheran Church " lacks three ele- ments to justify its name. i. It is not Ainerican — this is its first lack. Its fundamental principles were asserted by ancient errorists, renewed in part by Zwingle, in other parts by the Anabaptist fanatics, and carried out by the Socinians and Rationalists. These principles are simply an adoption and adaptation of European error, and are not American. 2. This so-called Church is not Lutheran — this is its second lack. Its whole distinctive life turns upon the denial of the Lutheran faith. 3. It is not a Church — this is its third lack. It has no separate organ- ization, no name, no creed, and no history. Not Ameri' can, not Lutheran, and not a Church, where and what is the " American Lutheran Church ?" Will brethren within the Evangelical Lutheran Church, who insist that they have a right to establish an "American Lutheranism" with a distinctive position in conflict with the fundamental conception of our Church, will they reflect for a moment what it is they propose to establish? "American Lutheranism" really means that 112 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIIL they are to have a new faith, a mutilated confession, a life which abruptly breaks with all our history, a spirit alien to that of the genuine Lutheranism of the past. An American Lutheran Church, such as they dream of, would have no claim as a part of its heritage to the immortal names, and holy memories of the past. It would be a new sect in this land of sects. God save us from any more sects : but if we must have them, let no one of them bear the sacred name of our Church. It is too late in the day to invent some novelty which shall pass current under the title of Lutheranism, how- ever that title may be qualified by any other. Lutheran- ism is neither a dubious speculation nor a passing experi- ment, but a long established life. It is a genuine Chris- tianity, and at its heart all the purest religion of the Protestant world caught the first life-pulse of its own. Three centuries of assault have not shaken the faith of our Church — three centuries more will not do it. How- ever specious the new form of apostacy which you call American Lutheranism may seem to you, it will be like all the other errors, which, outside or inside of our Church have been directed against her faith. It will utterly fail. What Lutheranism meant three hundred years before we were born, it will mean three hundred years after we are buried. " American Lutheranism " carries its death in its name. The name it tries to float on, is really a mill- stone about its neck, and will sink it to the bottom. FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES. It is of great interest to notice in Dr. Krauth's writ- ings during those years of controversy, a steady growth in his own convictions toward the full and unreserved recognition of the Confession of the Church, as binding in all its doctrinal statements, for all her teachers and members. In his articles on the General Synod of the year 1857 (See Vol. I., pp. 381 ff.) he had still main- tained that " the doctrinal basis of the General Synod was designed to be one on which, without sacrifice of 1861-6-.] WHAT IS FUNDAMENTAL? I13 conscience, brethren differing in non-fundamentals might meet," yea. that the question " whether non-fundamental doctrines were taught in the Confession was left entirely untouched in that basis." While, for his own person, he held fast to the Confession, even on the disputed points, his drift was, nevertheless, only about this, that the cutting away of certain parts of the Confession, was not, indeed, to be made in form, as the Definite Platform of 1856 had done, but that nevertheless every man should be allowed mentally to do it, if he saw fit. But the spirit revealed by the American Lutheran party in the course of the controversy, gradually convinced him that the position for which he had pleaded so dexterously in 1857 was utterly untenable. Again and again it was. openly declared that a strict and faithful adherence to the Confession, as fundamental in all its doctrinal state- ments, was " irrational, unscriptural and unlutheran."' (Lutheran Observer, November 17, 1865.) The demand was made that Lutherans should no longer insist upon such points as fundamental, "about which the ablest theologians and most devout Christians have not been entirely agreed Sooner than yield on this point we would see the Church perish." (Lutheran Observer, Dec. I, 1865.) Over against such radical and sweeping declarations, he became perfectly clear in his mind that there could be no consistent medium between the two positions, on the one side of an ex animo subscription to a Confession, and on the other, of an absolute rejection of the Confession as any kind of a test. While the revised Constitution of the General Synod (of 1864) claimed to hold "the Augsburg Confession as a correct exhibition of the fundamental doctrines of the Divine Word," it was evident, that the term fundamental had been so abused as to convert what ought to be the most solemn and well defined of obligations, into a miserable sham, and the falsi- 114 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIU. fication of language and of history went so far that men claimed certain doctrines of the Augsburg Confession were so clearly not fundamental, that it became distinctive of a true friend of the General Synod so to regard them; that, for example, any one who did not reject the Lutheran doctrines of Baptism and of the Lord's Supper, or at least regard them as non-fundamental, was not on the basis of the General Synod. Against such an assumption Dr. Krauth, of course, entered his decided protest. On July 13, 1865, he published that remarkable declara- tion in which he defined his position as to fundamentals with a frank and manly acknowledgment and recantation of his former "crudities and inconsistencies" on this point. It was this declaration which was so highly prized by Dr. Walther, of St. Louis, and quoted by him in his memorial notice after Dr. Krauth's death, "as an imperishable monument of the uprightness and candor of his convictions." These are the closing paragraphs of the article referred to ("The Aimless Battle") : As for ourselves, we wish no one who feels any interest in our opinions, to doubt where we stand. Li the matter of self-consistency there are some things of which we should feel ashamed, could we be guilty of them; there are others in which we would feel no shame whatever. We do not feel ashamed to confess that time and experi- ence have modified our earlier views, or led us to abandon them, if we have so modified or so forsaken them. A false pride of consistency is the surest mark of a little, opinionated pragmatist, of the dumb watch among thinkers, whose hands are fixed at one, and who keeps them there, because he has no spring within him to move them. Li Church and State the last years have wrought changes, deep and thorough, in every thinking man, and on no point more than this, that compromise of principle, however specious, is immoral, and that however guarded it may be, it is perilous; and that there is no guarantee of 1861-67.] ^.V HONORABLE RETRACTION. 115 peace in words where men do not agree in things. So far, then, as under influences, for which we were not responsible, we once believed that there can be true unity in the Church, which does not rest on the acceptance of the doctrines of the Gospel, in one and the same sense, so far we acknowledge that time and the movement of God's providence have led us to truer and juster views. To true unity of the Church is necessary an. agreement in fundamentals, and a vital part of the necessity is an agreement as to what are fundamentals. The doctrinal articles of the Augsburg Confession are all articles of faith, and all articles of faith are fundamental. Our Church can never have a genuine internal hartno7iy, except in the confession, without reservation or ambiguity of these articles, one and all."^ This is our deep convic- tion, and we hereby retract, before God and His Church, formally, as we have already earnestly and repeatedly done indirectly, every thing we have written or said in conflict with this our present conviction. This we are not ashamed to do. We thank God, who has led us to see the truth, and we thank Him for freeing us from the temptation of embarrassing ourselves with the pretence of a present absolute consistency with our earlier, very sincere, yet relatively very immature views. DR. KRAUTH's position CONCERNING THE LORD's DAY. One of the charges brought by the ''Definite Platform" against the Augsburg Confession was, that it denied the "divine obligation of the Christian Sabbath." (Vol I, p. 358.) Without direct reference to the Platform or to its principal author, Dr. S. S. Schmucker, Dr. Krauth had taken up the Sabbath question in the Missionary of Dr. W. A. Passavant in a series of articles on the "Sabbath and the Lord's Day" (1856). In the declaration of the Pittsburgh Synod against the Definite Platform which was drawn up by himself, (1856) he had inserted the formal protest, "that this Synod maintains the sacred * The italics are from Dr. Krauth's own hand. I 1 6 CHARLES PORTERFJELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIII. obligation of the Lord's Day." A somewhat fuller treatment of the subject, incorporating the articles in the Missionary, is found in the Evangelical Review (1857, January) in a paper on "The Lutheran Church and the Divine Obligation of the Lord's Day," which was simul- taneously published in a pamphlet of 53 pages by Henry C. Neinstedt, Gettysburg. (1856.) In numerous extracts he presents first the views of Luther and of Melanchthon on the Lord's Day, and then proceeds to an examination of the statements of the Augsburg Confession. He con- tends that the articles on Abuses, which contain the declarations of the Augustana concerning the Lord's Day, are not to be considered as part of the doctrinal basis of the General Synod : The formula of subscription proposed by our General Synod does not embrace that part of the Augsburg Con- fession which touches on the Sabbath. The qualified assent which that Formula demands, is to the "doctrinal articles;" that is, the first twenty-one articles of the Con- fession, and makes no reference whatever to the articles on Abuses, in the seventh of which occurs what is said in regard to the Lord's Day. li the views of the Augs- burg Confession on this topic be erroneous, we have bound ourselves in no way, as a part of the General Synod, to their adoption or defense, nor is any disclaimer necessary on our part. We have never given even a qualified subscription to the articles on Abuses. We need no new basis to renounce what the old basis has never confessed. Even those who give unqualified subscription to the entire Augsburg Confession, he holds, have not thereby bound themselves to what it says on the Lord's Day, because "that subject is introduced incidentally, is briefly handled and simply as illustrative of another." The article in which it is mentioned treats of ecclesiastical power (the power of the Bishops). Any man might i8s6.] THE LORD'S DAY. Ii; accept its statements unreservedly without obligating himself to the "reception, as a matter of course, of all the arguments used in it, or of the illustrations used in its defense. We may consider a doctrine impregnable and yet allow that a particular defense of it is very weak and illogical Every word in the article on Church Power which alludes to the Lord's Day might be erased, and yet its arguments remain impregnable." With great acumen he insists that the points made in that article of the Augsburg Confession are exclusively directed against the presumption of the Romanists, against the Romish Levitical idea, that the obligation of the sacred day is one that arises from the idea of the necessary sacredness of particular times, or from ecclesi- astical prescription. If we were compelled to state very briefly the points in dispute between the Romish and the Evangelical theo- logians, as regards the Lord's Day, we should say, — • Rome maintained a Levitical necessity, the Confessors a moral necessity ; Rome a Mosaic distinction, the Con- fessors a Christian distinction ; Rome a prescriptive determination, the Confessors a free one ; Rome a canon- ical observance, the Confessors an evangelical one. Rome rested the divine obligation on the necessity of the Sab- bath, the Confessors on the necessity for the Sabbath ; the one laid the foundation of the law in the day, the other in man ; the one declared that man was made for the Sabbath, the other that "the Sabbath was made for man." In regard to the Apostolic origin of the Lord's Day, Dr. Krauth contends that there is no disagreement between the Augsburg Confession and the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which says: "The Apostles resolved to consecrate the first day of the seven to divine worship and called it the Lord's day." Is there in the Augsburg Confession a solitary hint of the denial of the Apostolic origin of the Lord's day? Not 1 1 8 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIII. one When the Confessors say "the Christian Church has ordained Sunday," they do not mean to make an antithesis between the Church and the Apostles, as much as to say, the Church and not the Apostles, ordained it. It is between the Christian Church, the body of Christ in its primitive purity, including the Apostles, and guided by their infallible direction, and the Romish Church, they design to make the antithesis. After quoting the testimony of a number of prominent Lutheran theologians who hold that the appointment of one day in seven is a divine law of general and lasting obligation, he sums up his position on the whole question in the following points which, thirteen years later, were incorporated in the explanatory notes appended to his edition of the Augsburg Confession :* 1. The law that one day in seven shall be set apart for the service of God, has existed by divine command, from the foundation of the world, and its obligation is a part of the original law of nature. 2. The command was repeated in the Decalogue and in the Mosaic law, with specific ceremonial characteristics adapting it to the Jewish nation. 3. The law itself, generically considered, is of per- petual and universal obligation ; its specific ceremonial characteristics pertain only to the Jews. 4. The law itself has never been abrogated; the specific ceremonial characteristics have been. 5. To keep one day in seven holy to God, to abstain from all that may conflict with its sanctification, is generic, not specific ; moral, not ceremonial. 6. The obligation to keep holy the seventh day, or Sat- urday, is ceremonial and not binding on Christians. 7. The resurrection of Christ, His successive appear- ings, the Pentecostal effusion of His Spirit, on the first * The Augsburg Confession literally translated from the original Latin, with the most important additions of the German text incorpo- rated : together with the General Creeds ; and an Introduction, Notes and Analytic Index. By Charles P. Krauth. D.D. Philadelphia, 1869. 1856.] THE LORD'S DAY. I Iq day of the week, together with the example of the Apos- tles, and of the ApostoHc Church, have shown to the Church what day in the seven may, under the New Dis- pensation, most fitly be kept holy, and have led to the substitution of the first day of the week for the seventh as the Christian Sabbath. 8. To keep holy the first day of the week, to consecrate it to God, and to this end to abstain upon it from all works except those of necessity, mercy and the service of God, is obligatory on all men. Having thus recorded the position of Dr. Krauth on "The Divine Obligation of the Lord's Day," we feel bound to add a few words of explanation to our narra- tive. The views set forth in the above quoted summary were undoubtedly held by him even in later years, possi- bly to the end of his life. But, we feel assured, that, if his essay on the ''Sabbath" had been incorporated into his "Conservative Reformation," as he originally intended to do, it would have undergone considerable modification, if not in its final conclusions, certainly in the line of its arguments. We must not forget that the treatise from which his views are quoted belongs to the year 1856. It manifestly bears the marks of that period of his life over against later and more mature developments. The distinction, in his reference to the doctrinal basis of the General Synod, drawn by Dr. Krauth between the first twenty-one articles of the Augsburg Confession and the last seven articles on Abuses, is in full accord with the position held in those days by the author of the "Defi- nite Platform," who omitted those articles entirely from his "American Recension of the Augsburg Confession," while the later Dr. Krauth accepted that second section of the Augustana with its antithesis against prevailing Abuses, as an equally integral part of the Lutheran Con- fession. The objections of the American Lutherans to the atti- 120 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XUl. tude of the Augsburg Confession on the doctrine of the Lord's Day arose from their legaHstic and puritanic views on this point, so radically different from and opposed to the Evangelical spirit of the Confession. While Dr. Krauth has a great deal to say on the antithesis between Rome and our Confession, he is silent on the antithesis between the Sabbatarian legalism of the Puritans and the Evangelical, Scriptural position of the Lutheran Confes- sion.* The very language he employs, in constantly speaking of "the fourth commandment," and the "Sab- bath," seems to indicate that he was, at the time, to a considerable extent, still under the bias of his early train- ing and environments. We are convinced that his distinction between the "Christian Church in its primitive purity" as over against the "Romish Church" is out of place in the above quoted reference to the Augsburg Confession. When the Con- fessors say "the Christian Church has ordained Sunday," they clearly intend to represent the appointment of that first day in the week as a chiirchly institution and arrange- ment, over against a positive and direct divine revelation and commandment. And, being an appointment of the Church, the selection of that particular day belongs to the sphere of liberty and not of law. It is human, a matter of good order and charity. The State, indeed, may make Sunday-Laws, and Christians are bound to obey them, under the fourth (fifth) commandment; and *The Definite Platform says (pp. 27 and 28) : "Our American churches beUeve in the divine institution and obligation of the Chris- tian Sabbath. We therefore reject the doctrine taught in the former Symbolical books in which the Sabbath is treated as a mere Jewish institution, and supposed to be totally revoked ; whilst the propriety of retaining it as a day of religious worship, is supposed to rest only on the argument of the churches for the convenience of general con- vocation." See also Dr S. S. Schmucker, Lutheran Manual, 1855, The Lord's Day or Christian Sabbath, pp. 310-324. 1856.] THE CATECHISMS OX THE SABBATH. 121 they are thankful for the protection they afford to the laboring man and the worshipping congregations. But the Church, as the assembly of believers under the Gospel of Jesus Christ and entrusted with the administration of the means of grace, does not lay down a law concerning set times and days, as by divine authority. It certainly is a remarkable feature in Dr. Krauth's treatment of this whole subject, that he does not introduce tiie explicit testimony of other Confessional Standards on this topic, except a very brief quotation from the Large Catechism, which appears under "Luther's views of the Sabbath." In fact, from his reference to the "Confes- sion" the reader might be led to believe that the official standards of the Lutheran Church contained no clearly 'defined doctrine concerning the Lord's Day at all. The Augustana, he says, introduces it only "incidentally," handles it quite "briefly and simply illustrative of another subject." And consequently he holds even those who accept the entire Confession not bound thereby to a certain fixed doctrinal standard concerning the Lord's Day. But the question at once suggests itself, what about our Catechisms, especially the very full testimony of the Large Catechism, written by Martin Luther in 1529, and formally approved as one of the official standards of our Church in the Formula of Concord of 1577 ? Let us hear some of its declarations in its exposition of the third ^commandment of the Decalogue : In the Old Testament God has set apart the seventh -day to be observed, commanding His people to keep it holy above all other days. This commandment .... is given to the Jews exclusively .... it does not apply to us Christians. But we keep the holy days of rest (Feiertage) first of all on account of the body and its needs, as nature also teaches and demands for the com- mon people, men and maid-servants who have attended 122 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Ckav.XUI. to their work and trade throughout the whole week, that they may withdraw from it for a day of rest, and refresh themselves. In the second place chiefly for this reason that on such day of rest time may be taken for divine worship, so that we may assemble for the hearing and ministering of the Word of God. But with us this is not so bound to a certain time as with the Jews, that it must needs be this or that day. For in itself no day is better than another, and these things, indeed, ought to be done daily. But since the mass of the people cannot possibly attend to it, at least one day in the week must be devoted to it How then is this day kept holy? Not by abstaining from hard labor or putting on our best clothes, but by ministering the Word of God and being occupied with it. This position is also maintained in the brief and con- cise exposition of this commandment in the Small Cate- chism: "We should so fear and love God, as not to despise His Word and the preaching of the Gospel ; but deem it holy, and willingly hear and learn it." This statement is significant in what it says as well as in what it omits. It avoids the term Sabbath. It makes no refer- ence whatever to set times or days as appointed by divine authority, which is the one chief thing in the Westminster Catechism's explanation of this commandment. It sim- ply finds the abiding moral duty and obligation of all men, under this commandment in this, that we should worship God by deeming holy His blessed Word and by hearing and learning it willingly; for the Lord's Day is the Word's Day. In the light of the two Catechisms the language of the Augsburg Confession must be interpreted when it says of the Lord's Day : What then are we to think of the Sunday and like rites in the house of God ? To this we answer that it is lawful for bishops or pastors to make ordinances that things be done orderly in the Church .... not that consciences 1856.1 DR. JACOBS' POSITION. 123 be bound to judge them necessary services and to think that it is a sin to break them without offense to others. .... Of this kind is the observance of the Lord's Day, Easter, Pentecost and hke holy days and rites. For those who judge that by the authority of the Church the observance of the Lord's Day instead of the Sabbath day, was ordained as a thing necessary, do greatly err. Scripture has abrogated the Sabbath Day And yet, because it was necessary to appoint a certain day, that the people might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the Church designated the Lord's Day for this purpose ; and this day seems to have been chosen all the more for this additional reason, that men might have an example of Christian liberty, and might know that the keeping neither of the Sabbath, nor of any other day is necessary. These statements, it seems to us, clearly define the official position of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, as over against any kind of Sabbatarianism, even in its mildest form. This has been fully proved by Dr. Krauth's successor in the chair of systematic theology in the Philadelphia Seminary, in a strong article, written by him when he was quite a young man. The Sabbath Question, in its historical relations and bearings upon the faith and life of the Church, by H. E. Jacobs, A. M., Phillipsburg, Pa. (The Evangelical Quarterly Review, 1869, pp. 524-555.) There he treats of the Antinomian, the Sabbatarian and the Dominical views of the Lord's Day, and shows convincingly that the position taken in the Lutheran Confessions, the Catechisms and the Augustana, is the only tenable one. over against all kinds of Sabbatarianism. The scholarly treatment of this question by the young "Magister" so delighted the chair- man of the Faculty of the theological seminary, the ven- erable Dr. C. F. Schaeffer, that he addressed a most enthusiastic letter to his young friend, (October 14, 124 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. Xlll. 1869) in which he says: "The views which you present and defend with such varied learning and consummate skill, I have myself always entertained. But I confess that while I was fully convinced in my own mind, I was not aware how absolutely impregnable my position was. .... Every word that you have written is, to use a German idiom, 'spoken out of my soul.' " About ten years later the Sunday question was dis- cussed in the Lutheran pastoral association of Philadel- phia, which at that time held its meetings in the lecture room of Zion's German Lutheran Church. Dr. Krauth submitted a series of theses on the subject, presenting essentially the same views which he had embodied in his annotations to the Augsburg Confession (1869). In the debate he was opposed by Drs. W. J. Mann and A. Spaeth, and the request was made that he state the difference between himself and Dr. Jacobs on this subject. He thus refers to it in a letter to Dr. Jacobs (March 2, 1878) : "At the Pastoral Conference, yesterday, I pre- sented at their request Theses on the Sabbath. I was asked what was the difference between your views and mine. I stated the differences as I understand them and the points of agreement, and said I did not believe there was any radical difference, certainly none of a practical kind. The discussion was a very animated and inter- esting one." It is due to Dr. H. E. Jacobs to state that in writing on the Sunday question he had no idea or intention of antagonizing Dr. Krauth's views, formerly published on the same subject. Concerning the Sunday question, he writes to Dr. Krauth, in answer to the above quoted letter (March 13, 1878) : My articles were prepared without reference to what you had written on the same subject. When Rev. Bassler, as President of the Pittsburg Synod, assigned i869.] LUTHERAN SABBATARIANS. 125 me the topic (in the examination as a Hcentiate) I under- took to investigate the subject, as far as I could, inde- pendently, for fear that I might be unconsciously influ- enced by your position. It was only a part of the pro- cess, by which I had tried to go over the entire system of doctrine and form an independent judgment with some of the dogmaticians as my guide. When my paper attracted more notice than I had expected, I was afraid to examine your article for fear that I might find a con- siderable difference, and my paper might appear to have the design of antagonizing what you had previously written, which I did not wish to do; as the subject was not of my own choosing. In examining the matter since, I believe that the only point of difference can be as to the moral obligation to devote one day in seven to peculiarly religious duties, upon the ground of the third commandment. The position of Gerhard, Quenstedt and Calovius I have a great difficulty in reconciling with that of the Augsburg Confession, many of Luther's state- ments, and of Chemnitz, Brentz and the divines of the first and second periods. The historical facts, then, to be remembered in this connection, are these. From the very beginning there have been some prominent Lutheran theologians who, in their teachings concerning the Lord's Day, do not confine themselves to the statements of the Confessions, but going beyond them, emphasize another side on which the standards of the Lutheran Church are, as we believe, intentionally silent. The Confessions, as we have seen, have nothing to say of a divine appointment of a certain day, or of one day in seven divinely ordained for wor- ship. They do not consider this as part of the moral abiding and universally binding law in the third com- mandment. But those theologians hold that it is by direct divine appointment that one day in seven has been set apart for divine worship. Luther himself, in spite of the clear utterances of his Catechisms, has many pas- 126 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. Xlll. sages that seem to uphold this view. Some of the writers of the Formula of Concord, Chytraeus, Andreae, Selnecker, and some of our great dogmaticians, like Gerhard, Calovius, Quenstedt are of the same mind on this doctrine. And Dr. Krauth also, evidently, represents this mild type of Sabbatarianism, which holds that the obser- vance of one day in seven belongs, not to the ceremonial, but to the moral law. 1 FOURTEENTH CHAPTER. THE CRISIS IN THE GENERAL SYNOD. 1864-1867. The conflict between the "American Lutherans " and the Conservatives (" SymboHsts ") which had so long agitated the Church, culminated in the conventions of the General Synod at York, Pa. (1864), and Fort Wayne, Ind. (1866), the establishment of the Theological Sem- inary in Philadelphia (1864) and the organization of the •General Council (1867). As the time for the twenty-first convention of the Gen- eral Synod was drawing near Dr. Krauth once more sounded the voice of solemn warning and admonition in the Lutheran (May 5, 1864) : Let there be pure love for each other and just forbear- ance where there are conscientious differences, but let there be also a deep love for the truth and fraternal plainness of speech. Men cannot build together unless they are agreed as to what shall be built. We, who are, in our inmost souls, convinced that the faith of our Church, in whole and in each of its parts, is the very truth -of God's Word, cannot believe in the hearty sympathy and co-working of those who regard that faith as unscrip- tural, Romanizing and soul-destroying. We ask, as a simple matter of justice, as a matter of cogent necessity, involving the very peace and life of the Church, that men who bear the same hallowed name with us, shall cease to assail the faith, apart from which, that name, as a church-name, is deceitful and illusive. With the brethren not perfectly one with us. but who treat the confessed ■faith of our Church justly, fairly and re\'erently, we can 127 128 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIV. heartily labor, looking for and praying for that time, surely coming, when God shall bring us to see eye to eye, when He shall have ripened us for an unequivocal confession together of the whole truth. But with those who regard the looseness which rationalism has brought into our Church as normal, a thing to be perpetuated as good in itself, with these all unity is impossible, and the sooner the attempt to keep it up is abandoned, the better. A few days before this was written the Lutheran Observer also had given its advice and instructions for the approaching convention, after this manner: "No time should be wasted by the discussion of controverted points of doctrine pertaining to the sacraments. We are all sufficiently Lutheran. We can afford to tolerate some degree of diversity on non-essentials. All the ministers and churches of the General Synod are evangelical. The object aimed at by our General Synod should be to pro- mote harmony of feeling and co-operation between our Synods and churches in the great work of evangelizing the world, and bringing all the baptized children into the spiritual fold of the Redeemer. Not a word should be spoken, not a resolution offered, calculated to offend any brother, or wound any portion of the Lutheran body." Dr. Krauth himself, at that time still a member of the East Pennsylvania Synod, was not a delegate to the con- vention at York, but attended it as a visitor. The Presi- dent of the General Synod, Dr. B. Kurtz, being unable to be present, had appointed Dr. S. Sprecher, of Spring- field, Ohio, to preach the opening sermon. It made no special reference to the controversy in the Church, but treated of "The Responsibility of the Church of God dur- ing the Present National Crisis," from the text : Esther iv. 13, 14. Dr. Sprecher was elected President. The diffi- culty in the convention arose through the application of the Franckean Synod for admission into the General Synod. In the year 1837 this Synod had been formed in i864.] APPLICATION OF FRANCKEAN SYNOD. j 29 Western New York through the secession of some mem- bers of the Hartwick Synod. They had never received the Augsburg Confession, considering it " antiquated and unfit for the present age." In its place they had substi- tuted a Confession or " Declaration " of their own faith, utterly ignoring the distinctive doctrines of the Lutheran Church. Vice Chancellor L. H. Sanford, in a case before the court in New York, had decided (July, 1844), that " The Rule and Standard established by the Franckean Synod is essentially different and fundamentally at vari- ance with the* Rule and Standard of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, established and declared by the Augs- burg Confession of Faith." The Committee to whom the application of the Franckeans had been referred, reported through their chairman, Dr. H. N. Pohlman, " That the Franckean Synod be admitted, as an integral portion of the General Synod, as soon as they shall give formal expression to their adoption of the Augsburg Confession, as received by the General Synod." This was on Friday, May 6, the second day of the Convention. In the joy of his heart Dr. Krauth, giving a summary report of the proceedings up to this point, writes to the Lutheran. The most important question rising on the first day of the meeting was as to the reception of the Franckean Synod. The vital question was : Is that body on the basis of the General Synod? and this at once raised the question : What is that basis, and where is it authorita- tively stated? It was refreshing to find that the views maintained in the Lutheran as to how that basis is to be determined were generally acknowledged as correct, even by men who have for months been combating them, to wit : that it is to be settled by the Constitution of the General Synod, and not by mere recommendations which no Synod is bound to accept, which many Synods have declined to receive, and which the General Synod itself 9 J30 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIV. has seemed to withdraw For some time it seemed to be a foregone conclusion that the Franckean Synod would be voted in; but as the facts were developed, a change began to be manifest, the friends of truth stood firmly to their position, men who are strong in the confi- dence of the radicals, without themselves being radical, took the right ground The result has been a won- derful victory of principle over impulse, and gives proof that truth is winning its way in our Church over against all the open opposition and secret combination which are directed against it. The discussion was throughout fraternal, warm, but never violent, and its result will be good. It is a grand testimony to the fact that men begin to feel that the name of our Church means something, and that consistency requires that terms and things should bear some sort of relation to each other. We would add, that it was very evident that the tendency in the Franckean Synod had been for a long time one of recession from its extreme laxity and unchurchliness, and it would give general satisfaction if it would plant itself unmistakeably on the old foundation, and in no heart would the feeling of joy be deeper than in those of the men who, in faithfulness and love, have opposed its immediate admission. We are sure that the course recommended by the General Synod is all that is necessary to give a place in the hearty confidence of the whole Church to the Franckean Synod. This is a crisis in its history, and as it uses that crisis its future will take its shape. Unfortunately the gratification and joy expressed in these words were not to be long-lived. Before his com- munication to the Lutheran was mailed Dr. Krauth had to add a "Postscript," on Monday afternoon, announcing that the vote concerning the Franckean Synod had been reconsidered, and that it had, after all, been actually admitted into the General Synod. On Saturday morning the delegates of the Franckean Synod were permitted to 1864.] FRANCKEAN SYNOD RECEIVED. 131 lay a communication before the General Synod, stating, that " in adopting the Constitution of the General Synod the members of the Franckean Synod fully understood that they were adopting the doctrinal position of the General Synod, viz., that the fundamental truths of the Word of God are taught in a manner substantially correct in the Augsburg Confession." This led to a reconsidera- tion of the previous action, and a renewed discussion of the whole case, which resulted in the final decision, " That the Franckean Synod is hereby received into connection with the General Synod, with the understanding that said Synod, at its next meeting, declare, in an official manner, its adoption of the doctrinal articles of the Augsburg Confession, as a substantially correct exhibition of the fundamental doctrines of the Word of God." The Ayes and Nays being called, the vote stood 97 against 40, with two being excused from voting. The credentials of the Franckean delegates were then presented and their names entered upon the roll of the General Synod. The chair- man of the Pennsylvania delegation. Dr. C. W. Schaeffer, at once gave notice that he and others would enter their protest against this action. This was done on the follow- ing Tuesday. The protest declared that by this action the General Synod's Constitution had been " sadly and lamentably violated. The Constitution .... provides for the admission of regularly constituted Lutheran Synods solely. A regularly constituted Lutheran Synod is one that " holds the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, as taught by our Church." By universal consent these doctrines, so taught, are expressed in the Augsburg Con- fession. The whole history of the Franckean Synod presents it as having no relation nor connection whatever with the Augsburg Confession; and upon diligent exam- ination of its official documents we have failed to discover any evidence that it has ever accepted of said Confession. It is therefore not a regularly constituted Lutheran 132 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chav.XW. Synod, and by admitting it as an integral part of the General Synod, the General Synod has violated its Con- stitution." This protest was signed by the whole Penn- sylvania delegation, C. W. Schaeffer, G. F. Krotel, B. M. Schmucker, G. A. Wenzel, B. W. Schmauk, C. F. Welden, L. L. Houpt, C. F. Norton, C. Pretz, J. Reichard, and by members of the following Synods : Pitts- burgh (4), New York (4), Illinois (3), Maryland (2), East Pennsylvania (i), Ohio (i), Olive Branch, Indiana (i). Northern Illinois (i), Iowa (i) — 28 in all. In addition to this protest the Pennsylvania delegation presented a paper declaring their withdrawal from the sessions of the General Synod, in order to report to the Ministerium of Pennsylvania at its approaching conven- tion, as they were bound to do under the resolutions of their Synod at the time of its reunion with the General Synod (1853), that "should the General Synod violate its Constitution and require of our Synod assent to any- thing conflicting with the old and long established faith of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, then our delegates are hereby required to protest against such action, to withdraw from its sessions and to report to this body."* (See Vol I, p. 351.) The withdrawal of the Pennsylvania delegation naturally created a profound sensation, and the matter was regarded with serious apprehensions for the future of the General Synod. The whole course of the pro- tracted discussion had demonstrated the necessity of defining more clearly what the General Synod understood by the term " regularly constituted Lutheran Synods." The unsatisfactory character of the language of its Con- stitution on this important point was fully recognized, *Dr. Chas Phil. Krauth said : The admission of the Franckean Synod was an outrage which fully justified the Pennsylvania Synod in withdrawing. But they 9Ught to have considered themselves as out and not sought to return. 1864.] DR. POHLMAN'S AMENDMENT. 133 and, to meet the case, Dr. H. N, Pohlman offered the following amendment of the article referring to the admission of Synods : "All regularly constituted Lutheran Synods not now in connection with the General Synod, receiving and holding with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of our fathers, the Word of God as contained in the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as the only infallible rule of faith and prac- tice, and the Augsburg Confession as a correct exhibition of the fundamental doctrines of the Divine Word, and of the faith of our Church founded upon that Word, may, at any time, become associated with the General Synod, by complying with the requirement of this constitution, according to the ratio specified in Art. 2d." This proposed amendment was favorably entertained by the General Synod, and ordered to be sent down through the Secretary to the several District Synods for final action. Compared with the original constitution of the General Synod it undoubtedly represented a far more definite and positive statement of the doctrinal basis of the body. Moreover, the General Synod, at the motion of Dr. W. A. Passavant, adopted, in all its essential features, the action of the Pittsburgh Synod, framed in 1856, by Dr. Krauth, defending the Augsburg Confession against the charge of alleged errors, and the changes proposed in the "Definite Platform." (See Vol. I, pp. 377-379.) Thus, for a while, the disintegrating process in the General Synod seemed to be arrested, and a day of better under- standing seemed to dawn with these important conces- sions made to the conservative side of the house. The Lutheran Observer greeted the action of the General Synod, on the last day of its convention, in an enthusiastic editorial: "Now we know where we stand, and there is no longer room for controversy and the personal abuse of intolerant exclusionists. We all stand on the Augs- burg Confession, with the qualifications and moral 134 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chat. XIV. restrictions, defined in the accompanying resolutions, so that we are true Lutherans .... without hyper-ortho- doxy and exclusivism on the one hand, or radicahsm on the other." And even the Pennsylvania Synod looked upon the action of the General Synod as the indication " of an earnest desire to stand firmly and faithfully upon the true basis of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and to prevent forever the reception of any Synod which could not and would not stand upon this basis." While the Ministerium of Pennsylvania heartily approved of the withdrawal of its delegates in York, it was, nevertheless, generally acknowledged that "the conservative course of the General Synod after the withdrawal of the Pennsyl- vania Synod's delegation, had removed all disposition to sever its connection with the General Synod, and that it was the duty of the Mother Synod to retain its connection undisturbed, and to labor on, in the General Synod, for the welfare of our beloved Lutheran Zion in this land." These bright hopes and expectations, however, were doomed to disappointment. Within a few months it became manifest that, for the time being, the General Synod was not ready to insist on a loyal and unreserved reception of the Augsburg Confession on the part of its District Synods. Dr. B. Kurtz, almost hovering on the brink of death, sent a communication to the Lutheran Observer, earnestly protesting against the proposed change in the doctrinal basis : Hands have already been laid on the constitution, and that on a very important point, namely the doctrinal basis. I cannot even imagine a good reason for this change. We had prospered before the change was made, and should have been content to let, at least " well enough " (I should say, very good) " alone." The old wording of the basis was simple and perfectly intelligible, and if misconstrued or perverted, it were done wilfully, just as 1865.] AX ALARMING INNOVATION. 135 the modified language in the change may, with equal ingenuity, be misconstrued and perverted. If the change was made to conciHate symboHsts, then it was worse than vain, for it only gave them a partial triumph, while it did not draw them a thousandth part of an ell nearer to us. Who does not know that if we wish to satisfy them, we must "go the whole figure," i. e., adopt the entire body of symbolic books without exception or reservation? In other words, they imperiously demand of us, to go over to them, and not expect them to move one jot or tittle in returning to us. And should we yield, then adieu to the peace, unity and prosperity of evangelic Lutheranism in our country, for Ichabod will be written on her walls. A still greater objection to the change in the basis, is the fact, that it was a change in the constitu- tion. Organic law, which usually comprehends only fundamental principles, should be rarely touched and always with a sparing and cautious hand. This is a well established maxim Would to God, the district Synods might be led to regard it as their duty to recon- sider this subject, and vote down this contemplated alarming innovation, this unnecessary violation of the deliberate and well-considered work of their cautious and prayerful fathers. (See Lutheran and Missionary, Sep- tember 7, 1865.) The proposed amendment of its doctrinal basis was formally rejected by four Synods, — Hartwick, Melanch- thon, Franckean, and Central Synod of Pennsylvania. " We are asked," said the President of the Franckean Synod, " to amend the Constitution by inserting in it an unqualified recognition or endorsement of the entire Augsburg Confession, and bind it as a creed upon our Synods and upon our consciences. Are we prepared to do this? to do violence to our honest convictions, and become the reproach of Protestant Christendom? I trust not." And the leader of the opposition in the Hartwick Synod openly denounced the Augsburg Con- 136 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Ckav.XIV. fession as being fundamentally wrong and teaching the grave errors commonly attributed to it by its enemies! But, when the constitutional amendment of the General Synod had been adopted by a majority of eighteen Synods, the four dissenting ones who had thus openly and defiantly rejected the " doctrinal basis " in its new form, continued in undisturbed connection with the Gen- eral Synod. The very same writer who had so cheerfully welcomed the amendment in the Lutheran Observer, — " Now we know where we stand, we are true Lutherans, we all stand on the Augsburg Confession " — comforts those dissenters with the assurance that they are laboring under a misapprehension if they protest against an unqualified recognition or endorsement of the entire Augsburg Confession. " There is no such thing as an unqualified subscription ! It must be moderate and liberal, — there is no greater madness than that of laying down a subscription which brands as traitors to Lutheran- ism four-fifths of the most evangelical and devoted por- tion of the native Lutherans of the land." (Lutheran Observer, September 8, November 17, 1865.) To understand the real inwardness of the General Synod's action at York we must remember, that between the radical American Lutherans and the Conservatives there was, in the General Synod, a large middle party whose leaders Dr. Krauth characterized, in the following scathing language : There are always moral weaklings who deem them- selves miracles of gentleness, prudence and moderation, snaky doves, or dove-like serpents, refusing to be reduced to a class. These amiable inanities play at neutrality and conservatism, carefully doing justice to Ormuzd, and not forgetting the redeeming features of Ahriman. They think that there are no real differences in the world, and that from the "unfortunate misunderstanding" which threw Lucifer out of heaven, down to the late ** unhappy i865.] AN UNHAPPY MEDIUM. • 137 misconception " between Brown and Robinson, there is nothing which could not have been healed by a cataplasm of soft words and soft soap, or an ointment of love and lard. Whatever is " Tutissimus " they assume to be eo ipso, " in mediis." Whatever is the best policy they assume to be honesty. They now go with the one side, now with the other, but take a path exactly midway between them, assuming that wherever the extremes of opinion are due North and South, the precise line of truth is exactly due East or West ; and that, supposing what claims to be truth to be one yard off from alleged error, you infallibly keep the golden mean by holding yourself eighteen inches aloof from both. The indistinct classes are alike in this, that, as their position is ambigu- ous, they become make-weights on this side or that side, as circumstances may determine. Their general affinities and mysterious fate ordinarily, however, bring them out with the wrong. Finding that instead of winning the confidence of extremes, they lose the little of it they have had, they grow weary of being wandering stars, and tumble at last into the bosom of the largest orb that attracts them. It was chiefly due to the influence of this middle party that the crisis in the General Synod was delayed so long. Their attitude at one time filled the Radicals with the hope of carrying all their measures, and fastening their " Definite Platform " on the American Lutheran Church, as her final recension of the Augsburg Confes- sion; while, perhaps a few weeks, yea a few hours later, they would take their stand with the " Symbolists " and hold out the prospect of hearty support, in order to keep them in the fold of the General Synod. It is evident how this policy of agreeing to disagree, of reconciling the irreconcilable, so characteristic of the General Synod of those days, resulted from this cause. But it also reveals how little real value is to be attached to actions and resolutions passed by a body composed of such elements. 138 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chav.XW. Such was the case in the York convention from which the final crisis is to be dated. The first resolution con- cerning the Franckean Synod, making their adoption of the Augsburg Confession the condition of their admis- sion, was reached by the coalition of the middle party with the Conservatives. The action of the following day, reversing this resolution and admitting the Franckeans at once, was a victory of the Radicals who had succeeded in drawing a majority over to their side. When the protest and withdrawal of the Pennsylvania delegation, following this action, opened the eyes of the convention to the seriousness of the crisis to which it had drifted, there came the proposed amendment of the constitution, with the Passavant-Krauth resolutions attached to it, — an attempt to satisfy the Conservatives and to stop further disintegration. Dr. Krauth himself, in the end, was not at all satisfied with those resolutions. The Pennsylvania Synod, with that charity which believeth all things, regarded the subsequent resolutions of the General Synod professedly in vindication of the Augsburg Confession as earnest, and the token of a better mind. Taken in the meaning of those who offered them, they would have been such a token. The after events showed that they were designed by the majority, as an adroit piece of thimble-rig. Passed in their earliest form in the Pittsburgh Synod to counteract the Definite Platform, these resolutions were so modified by the General Synod as to be, in the sense it put into them, the Definite Platform itself in a new form. Their repre- sentative men had made a " Recension "of the Augsburg Confession which made it mean everything it did not mean ; and now the General Synod, moved largely by the Lobby influence which was the power behind the throne, mightier than the throne itself, made a recension of the Pittsburgh resolutions, which commuted them into the i864.] EARLY PLANS FOR A SEMINARY. 1 39 poison, to which they had originally been the antidote." (September 10, 1868.) ESTABLISHMENT OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY IN PHILADELPHIA. A few days after the adjournment of the York Con- vention of the General Synod, the Ministerium of Penn- sylvania, at its 117th meeting in Pottstown, Pa., resolved (May 25th, 1864) : " That in the name of the Lord we now determine to undertake the establishment of a theo- logical Seminar^'." The Seminary idea was, indeed, not a new one with the Mother Synod. For nearly a cen- tury, ever since the days of the Patriarch H. M. Muehlen- berg, she had been waiting, wishing and working for its realization. In 1846 Dr. C. R. Demme, the distinguished pastor of St. Michael's and Zion's Congregation, Phila- delphia, had been nominated as the Synod's Professor of Theolog}'. He had educated several young men for the ministry, and had made a fair beginning with the collec- tion of a theological library. On the German side of the house the Mother Synod was constantly urged by men like S. K. Brobst, C. F. Welden* and others, to establish her own institution on her own territory, either in Allen- town or Philadelphia, because the supply of German pastors from the Gettysburg seminary was found insuffi- cient. The English brethren (like G. F. Krotel, J. Kohler, C. W. Schaeffer, and others) were at first willing to hold on to Gettysburg, in the hope that a change for the better might in the end be effected in that institution. As Dr. S. S. Schmucker had resigned his professorship, in *As President of Synod, in his ofiBcial report, i860, he had recom- mended to the Ministerium, "That immediate steps be taken to establish a Theological School in some suitable place, the residence of two or more ministers, who are competent for the work, and who shall have charge of such institution." (Engl. Min., 1S60. p. 12.) 140 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIV. February, 1864, an opportunity seemed to present itself for a representative of positive Lutheranism, to be elected as his successor. But the experiences of the York Convention, and the conviction that there was no prospect for the election of a satisfactory professor in Dr. S. S. Schmucker's place,* made them more and more favorable to the demands of the Germans. The President of the Ministerium, Dr. C. W. Schaeffer, in his official report to the Synod in 1864, strongly advised immediate and definite action in this important matter. " Providence," he said, " seems to be forcing upon our attention the duty of making more ample provision for the education of pastors whose talents, whose acquirements and general cultivation, shall qualify them to occupy our pulpits with credit to themselves, to the welfare of the Church and to the glory of God The necessity for definite and liberal action is now upon us. If Synod should longer delay it may be too late. Men whose loyalty to our Confession is doubtful, may gradually get possession of our churches, until the churches themselves shall be seduced from the holy faith of the fathers, which it is so much the glory of this Synod to uphold. The whole subject is commended to your serious attention and your prompt action." Thereupon the Ministerium unanimously resolved to establish its own theological Seminary, and in a special meeting, at Allentown, July 26 and 27, 1864, determined the necessary details for the organization of the new institution. It was to be located in Philadelphia. Its doctrinal character was " unreservedly and unchangeably based on all the Confessions of the Evangelical * Dr. J. A. Brown who once, in his treatise " The New Theology ' ' had criticized Dr. Schmucker's teachings, and had led the opposition against the Definite Platform of the East Pennsylvania Synod, (See Vol. I, p. 410, p. 360.) was elected as a sort of compromise candidate, to succeed Dr. S. S. Sc+imucker, in August 1864. i864.] THE FOUNDING OF THE SEMINARY. 141 Lutheran Church." Three ordinary professors were elected, Dr. \V. J. Alann for the German department, Dr. C. P. Krauth for the Enghsh, and Dr. C. F. Schaeffer, of Gettysburg, for the intermediate department. Drs. C. W. Schaeffer and G. F. Krotel were appointed as extraordinarii. A provisional Board of Directors was elected. Neighboring Evangelical Lutheran Synods, approving of the principles which were to govern this institution, were cordially invited to co-operate 'in its endowment. The establishment of a Theological Seminary in the City of Philadelphia was a formidable undertaking for a Synod like that of Pennsylvania, whose members and congregations, unfortunately, had not yet been trained to liberal giving, and to a united active participation in the work of the Church. But now everything seemed possi- ble to those whose love for the confession of their fathers had been rekindled, and who had been roused to a full appreciation of their responsibility for the future of our Lutheran Zion. Hand in hand the work was under- taken and carried on by the German and English portion of the Church. Mr. Charles F. Norton, a member of St. Mark's English congregation, founded the first Eng- lish professorship. The German Mother-congregation in Philadelphia gave the ground for the building in Franklin Square, and a considerable sum of money besides. Synod completed its endowment of the Ger- man professorship at the meeting in Easton, 1865, when, in a few minutes, the necessary balance was subscribed by pastors and delegates. The New York Ministerium, the Burkhalter family, of New York, and St. John's English congregation of Philadelphia followed in the line of endowing additional professorships. The small beginning made with eleven students, in an uninviting room of the back building of No. 42 North Ninth Street 142 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Cuap.XIV. soon enlarged and grew steadily. The building No. 216 Franklin Street was occupied. After eight years it had to be enlarged to make room for sixty students. In 1889 the Seminary was moved to the beautiful grounds in Mount Airy, where nearly one hundred students can be accommodated. Surely the Lord's blessing has been abundantly bestowed upon this work. On October 4, 1864, at a solemn and inspiring service, in St. 'John's English Lutheran Church, Philadelphia, the first faculty was formally installed. Dr. Beale M, Schmucker, the English secretarj^ of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, delivered the charge to the professors : Standing here, in this city, where, more than a cen- tury ago, our Synod was first organized, and the founda- tions of our Church's prosperity in this country were laid; near to old St. Michael's, the first church erected under the ministry of the patriarch Muehlenberg, in which the first session of our Synod was held, where for more than a hundred years the Gospel has been preached in the German language; within the walls of St. John's, the first church erected within our bounds for the preach- ing of the Gospel in the English language; calling up before us the memories of the long line of holy, learned, laborious men of God, who in this city, and within the membership of our Synod, have lived, labored and gone to their eternal rest, who, in their lives, prepared many for the work of the ministry, who felt the ever growing necessity for a Theological Seminary, and .... looked forward in hope toward the day of its establishment; in unity of faith with the true Evangelical Lutheran Church of all lands and ages, in humble dependence on Almighty God, the everlasting Father, upon Jesus Christ, the great Head of the Church, and upon the Holy Ghost, we lay the foundations of this Theological Seminary. We appoint and install you as its first Professors. We commit to you, and to those who shall succeed you in office, the realization of the hopes of those who are now i864.] THE FIRST FACULTY INSTALLED. 143 no more, and our own. The Lord have you in His holy keeping, and prosper the work of your hands. Dr. Krauth, the youngest member of the faculty, at the request of his colleagues, made the formal reply to the charge, defining the doctrinal position and aim of the Seminary. He discussed the rule of faith, which is the Word of God, — the faith of the rule, which faith is set forth in the Confession,— the right of private judgment in relation to the rule and the faith, exercised in reaching the meaning of the rule, and embodying and protecting its results in the Confession, — and theology in all its forms linked with the rule and with the faith. We stand, he said in his opening remarks, upon the everlasting foundation— the Word of God : believing that the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments are in their original tongues, and in a pure text, the perfect and only rule of faith. All these books are in harmony, each with itself, and all with each otfier, and yield to the honest searcher, under the ordinary guidance of the Holy Spirit, a clear statement of doctrine, and produce a firm assurance of faith. Not any word of man. no creed, commentary, theological system, nor decision of councils, no doctrine of churches, or of the whole Church, no results or judgments of reason, however strong, matured and well informed, no one of these, and not all of these together, but God's Word alone is the Rule of Faith. No apocryphal books, but the canonical books alone, are the Rule of Faith. No translations, as such, but the original Hebrew and Chaldee of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New, are the letter of the Rule of Faith. No vitiation of the designing, nor error of the careless, but the incorrupt text as it came from the hands of the men of God. who wrote under the motions of the Holy Spirit, is the rule of faith. To this rule of faith we bring our minds; by this rule we have humbly tried to form our faith, and in accordance with it. God helping us, we will teach others — teaching them the evidences of its 144 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [CnAV.XlY. inspiration, the true mode of its interpretation, the ground of its authority, and the mode of setthng its text. We desire to teach the student of theology the Bibhcal languages, to make him an independent investigator of the word of the Holy Spirit, as the organ through which that Spirit reveals His mind. We consecrate ourselves, therefore, first of all, as the greatest of all, as the ground- work of all, as the end of all else, to teaching and prepar- ing others to teach God's pure Word, its faith for faith, its life for life; in its integrity, in its marvellous adaptation, in its divine, its justifying, its sanctifying, and glorifying power. We lay, therefore, as that without which all else would be laid in vain, the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets — Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner- stone. In the first provisional sketch for the division of departments in the new Seminary, the following branches, were assigned to Dr. Krauth : Systematic Divinity, Encyclopedia and Methodology, Hebrew, Old and New Testament Exegesis, Church History, Ecclesiastical Polity. But only the first two and the last one were actually undertaken by him. One of his brightest pupils, the first alumnus of the Philadelphia Seminary who became President of the General Council,* thus describes his method of instruction in the Seminary : It was " to follow some German author, — Luthardt in Dogmatics, Hagenbach in Encyclopedia, Richter in Church Polity, — as a general guide, and then, in lectures, to develop, modify or apply, according to the needs of our Church here in America. Gradually these lectures assumed a fixed written form, and then students were expected tO' copy them and recite from them." Unfortunately his plan in teaching Dogmatics was entirely too diffuse for a three years' Seminary course, being actually spread over nine *The Rev. Th. E. Schmauk, D. D. See Indicator, February 1883. 1864-6-.] TEACHER AND PUPILS. I45 years, so that a student during his attendance at the Seminary, would only get one third of the whole course. Dr. Krauth was the ideal teacher for the ideal student. The ordinary and subordinary element learned little in his room. He expected much from his pupils. The very language of the text book must be memorized unless the student could reproduce the thought in language as exact as the author's. With thought and language fully at command, the student was invited to bring up any diffi- culty or objection, or to ask for an illustration or explanation. In these social talks, the Doctor was inspir- ing. He did not jump at conclusions, or assume ignor- ance in the learner's mind, but patiently waited till the latter had stated the objection in full, and even repeated it to assure himself that he had caught the meaning of a mind laboring in doubt and confusion, and then, by his- invincible power of logic, he penetrated to the centre of the point at issue, and by his wonderful gift of language, he made the subtle and obscure distinctions so clear that the student's heart would throb with enthusiasm and excitement. Questions would fly from all parts of the class, but no one could " corner " the Doctor. His prin- ciple in argumentation was always to start from a point on which his opponent agreed with him, and to argue to that on which they disagreed. In recitation, the Doctor prided himself on his ability to restrain his enthusiasm, and to put the student's knowledge to a fair but critical test by questioning. He sat there with a countenance immoveable as adamant, even while the student was making the most ridiculous statements, and many a one has sat down after the polite " That will do," with the feeling that he had made a splendid recitation, while the Doctor put down a notation not much above zero. Dr Krauth loved his pupils. He defended them, thought well of them, and put the most charitable con- struction on all their words and actions. He was par- ticularly interested in the Indicator, a monthly, published 10 146 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIV. by the Seminary students for a number of years. The first number of the Indicator intimates that " a wise old head, keen in foresight and weighty in experience," had something to do with its estabhshment. To his residence two students repaired, and there, in the cool of the sum- mer evening, the plans for the Indicator were discussed and matured. It was his eye that scanned the doubtful articles, and more than once has some student rushed out to that house in West Philadelphia, to obtain from the final referee his decision on some disputed point. The Seminary library was very near Dr. Krauth's heart. Through his efforts many a costly volume was placed on its shelves. It was he who induced Mr. Dobler in Baltimore to give us the Dobler Funds ; it was he who was entrusted with the duty of selecting and purchasing books. He was always ready to give the librarians the benefit of his discriminating judgment and great learning. Once, while in the library, and speaking of it, he said: If I had twenty thousand dollars to give to the Seminary, I would not found a professorship, but would put them into the library.* During the months following the establishment of the Seminary, Dr. Krauth was involved in a protracted controversy with Dr. J. A. Brown, of Gettysburg, con- cerning the doctrinal position, respectively, of the two institutions. Dr. Krauth wrote his articles in this sharp discussion with a sore heart, but from no enmity to the theological school at Gettysburg, which had been his own Alma Mater. He declared that the Seminary at Phila- delphia ''originated in no personal hostility to it ; it is not in opposition to it, except so far as the principle of an assured faith, in its own nature, stands firmly over against the vacillation of the private opinion, which shifts with each change of a professorial chair, or with the eras of the progress or retrocession of its incumbent. *Th. E. Schmauk, Indicator, February, 1883. 1865.] GETTYSBURG AND PHILADELPHIA. 147 . . . We have loved our Seminary at Gettysburg as few can love it. In the light of memories of the past, and in the bonds which hold our hearts to those who now toil in it, and to early and dear friends who cherish it, we love it still. To turn from it has involved one of the severest conflicts of our life, between our convictions and our affections, and we still offer our fervent prayers that it may come to rest in every part on the sure and eternal foundation of the faith once delivered to the saints, and thus be established, for a blessing to the Church and the world, to the end of time." In a similar strain he writes to his daughter, (June 30, 1865.) . . . "You can hardly appreciate how much it has cost me to be faithful to my convictions ; how deep they must be to lead me to take any position which would even indirectly give disquietude to my father, whom I love and revere with my whole heart. Yet, I feel that it is the principles in which he reared me which I am faithfully carrying out. I think that when I have answered Dr. Brown your solicitude for the cause I represent will be relieved. I am on the side of the truth. Your grandfather Krauth has always thought and declared that nothing would be so happy a thing for the Church, as the ability to receive unreservedly the faith set forth in the Augsburg Con- fession. He has always disapproved of the latitudinarian way in which the doctrinal tests have been interpreted. Ask him, whether, believing as I do in my inmost heart, that the whole faith of our Church is taught in God's W^ord. I can in conscience take any other position toward the men and the principles which undermine what I believe is divine? While I have a part to fight in this great battle of truth I am willing to endure hardness as a soldier of Jesus Christ. Your picture of quiet and rest is very charming, — but there are but twelve hours in the day." His conviction of the imperative necessity of the new theological seminary, is forcibly set forth in an article 148 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH.[Cbav.XW. in the Lutheran and Missionary, August ii, 1864, from which we quote the following main points : It is needed for the sake of pure doctrine. There is no Theological Seminary in the United States, in which are fully taught, in the English language, the doctrines of the Reformation, as our Church then held, and now holds and confesses them. The number, ever growing, of Lutheran Students of Divinity, who speak the English alone, and the proportion of our churches, constantly increasing, which require English preaching exclusively, makes this reason so cogent, that, if it stood alone, it ought to decide the question. Let those who say a new Seminary is not needed fairly meet this fact — that we might more safely send our sons to Princeton or Ando- ver to imbue them with just ideas of Lutheran doctrine, and with love for it, than we can send them to any Insti- tution of our Church within our reach, in which doctrinal theology is taught in English. If the Lutheran Church is not Scriptural in her distinctive faith — that very faith, in virtue of which she exists as a separate organization with a distinct name, she ought not to live, ought not to bear the name, ought not to have Theological Semin- aries at all; but if she be Scriptural, as she is in very deed, in her whole faith, then is it our sacred duty to see that ample arrangements be made for perpetuating, in every tongue in which her ministers set forth Christ crucified, that whole faith in the glorious internal har- mony of its inseparable points. Have we Seminaries enough ? We reply : We have a great many, too many, of the wrong kind; but we have not one to which we can look, to which a man who believes in the Scriptural character and fundamental importance of all the doc- trines of our Church can, without doubt or fear, recom- mend the students who must receive instruction in English alone. There is no Theological School to which we can send our sons, in which the doctrines and con- fessions of our Church are set forth to the English student as throughout consonant with the Divine Word. i864.] THE SEMINARY NECESSARY. 149 The new Theological Seminary, based upon the Word of God as the sole rule of faith, and upon the Creed of the Church as a pure confession of that faith, and making arrangements for instruction in every depart- ment of Theology in the English language, will meet this great and crying want. When fully organized, it will have four or five professors heartily devoted to the doctrines of our Church — giving, some of them the whole, others a part of their time and labor, to teaching in the English language the various parts of Theology. We need it for the sake of internal homogeneousness among the men who are to be trained for our minisfry. It will meet one grand want, in training in the same doc- trine, love and life, all our students. It is most unnatural and dangerous that in the same communion, and under the same roof, one set of students should be taught to regard as Romish abominations and dangerous errors what others are taught to consider as the very truth of God. It is hazarding the wreck of the faith of our young men to show them, at the time of their highest im- pressibleness, their own teachers, to whom they ought to look up reverently, at war in regard to the faith, setting forth conflicting doctrines, leading different factions, or controlled by them. It makes them regard the faith of the Church as a thing that may be doubted; doctrines seem to them as mere matters of opinion and theses of controversy; they commit themselves to extreme posi- tions in debate ; error becomes more inveterate, and the truth itself tends to become exaggerated on the particular side on which it is assailed ; laxity runs into rationalism and skepticism — orthodoxy into harshness and bigotry. A Seminary in which conflicting systems are taught nurses contempt for authority, rancor between students, and misunderstanding among professors. It will help in the bad work of unsettling the Church, and will spread its griefs and heart-burnings far and wide. We need it for the sake of the true co-ordinating and harmonious working of the two languages — English and German. It is one great want of our Church that the ISO CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chaf.XIY. two tongues should work in sisterly harmony. But while the language is the badge of diversity in doctrine, usage and spirit, it will be clung to most tenaciously. The attachment of our German brethren to their language is not necessarily that blind, narrow thing which some imagine, and others pretend to imagine, it is. Let the German and English elements of ,our Church throb heart to heart in faith and life, and the diverse tongues will no longer make the old practical difficulty. In a Seminary where individual opinions are set forth in one tongue, and the faith of the Church in another, the two sets of students will be in danger of transferring their dislike of principles to the language, and from the lan- guage to the persons of those who hold them. Hand in hand should move the two noble languages which our Church in this part of the world has given to her for her sublime mission. She has what Alexander wept for : she conquered the world which speaks German — and now, with the soldiers who wrought that conquest, she can go forth to subdue to Christ the new world, which speaks a tongue our fathers knew not. Let us have a Seminary in which the one pure faith shall be the hallowed bond of both languages. This, and this only is a solvent mighty enough for the difficulties connected with the nationalities and languages of our Church in this Western World. You sanctify, you glorify the prejudice of tongue and nation when you make them badges of faith and safeguards to it. The Lutheran, in that case, will cling to his language because he loves his faith ; but bring to his earnest heart the conviction, in any case, that for that very faith's sake all thought of nationality and language must be made secondary, and he will make it secondary. The spirit of the new Seminary, the spirit to which it owes its life, is that neither English nor German shall be anything for itself, but shall be every- thing for Christ. This homogeneousness of doctrinal influence and co- ordination of languages will tend to produce unity of spirit in our young ministry, and, through them, in the 1864-] WORKING TOGETHER IN LOVE. 151 whole Church. Trained to love the same faith, taught to do justice, each to the language of the other, as mainly valuable, because in it is to be set forth, maintained and applied, the sacred faith for which our Confessors faced kings, and our martyrs went exultingly to the death, our young men will feel that they have one holy work to do — that the purest affection for each other should ani- mate them, and that they should co-work with every power which God has given them. Nothing so binds men as a common faith. Never do men build heartily together until they are agreed as to what is to be built, and are persuaded in their inmost hearts that their work is, in all its parts, of God. The difference of tongues among the workers stopped the building of the Tower of Babel, but it did not prevent the rearing of the Temple. The very source from which our sunderings have often come, shall henceforth tend to promote our unity. In the properly directed heart of young Christians of different nationalities, there is a strong mutual interest and sym- pathy. To the right-minded, planning and applying American there is something peculiarly interesting in the character, tone of thought and feeling — in the very diversities of the German, as there is on the part of the warm-hearted, trusting and reflecting German a peculiar charm in the genuine brother in the faith, born in another land, and shaped in a different world of influ- ence. Bring our young men together, to nurture them in one fixed faith, to breathe into them one intense love, to accustom them to one harmonious usage, to keep them working together practically, for a time, in one field ; then send them forth, and the bond which unites them can never be broken. The ties which hold them together are enduring as life. Their Theological training has been the time of their entrance into the inner court of com- munion of saints. Christ, in his inseparable connexion WMth His own incorrupt doctrine and pure sacraments, will be their centre, and they will make Him, and His teach- ings, and His means of grace, the centre of all the churches in which they labor — the centre of an assured 152 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap.XIV. and abiding- faith. Then may we hope for a true unity, which shall beget a substantial and healthy uniformity. The action of the Pennsylvania Synod, in the estab- lishment of the Philadelphia Seminary, called forth the severe criticism and fierce condemnation of the leaders of the General Synod. From the time that it became known, we notice that the withdrawal of the Pennsyl- vania delegation in York is being considered in a differ- ent and more serious light. Now the question is raised : "Is the Pennsylvania Synod still a component part of the General Synod?" And the assertion is made that the withdrawal of her delegates was the wjthdrawal of the Synod itself from the General Synod. "The Seminary and its fostering Synod will, of course, dissolve their connection with the General Synod. . . . This Seminary is now de facto out of the General Synod, and in doctrine and spirit antagonistic to it. . . . The whole movement is virtually one of secession. It is revolu- tionary. ... It is the old argument of Papal domination repeated in the nineteenth century ; private opinion is nothing, individual conscience is nothing, you must be- lieve in the infallible Church. ... It is a formal protest against the doctrinal basis and polity of the General Synod. It is a call for separation. ... In this advanced age of Christian liberality and progress we have no need of ministers fashioned after the effete theological system and extreme symbolism of this abnormal Seminary. We want living men now, and not antediluvian petrifactions or theological automatons." A few weeks after the installation of the professors in Philadelphia, "The Coming Theological Conflict" was treated in an able editorial of the Lutheran Observer (October 21, 1864), evidently from the pen of Dr. S. S. Schmucker. The writer takes a calm and compre- hensive view of the crisis in the Church, comparing the 1864.1 DR. S. S. SCHMUCKER ALARMED. 153 time to that of the organization of the General Synod, with its reaction of the positive elements against prevaihng rationalizing tendencies. He asks : "Will the aggressive High Church movement be resisted hereafter, or shall the whole Church be yielded to its leavening influence?" He is not without anxiety concerning the final outcome, and seriously considers the possibility of the ultimate triumph of the minority. "It would not be the first instance in the history of the world, of the few winning the prize from the many, by wise policy and burning energy. . . . The principal agencies by which the ultra- confessional men are now operating on the Church are the new Seminary at Philadelphia, the Lutheran and Missionary, and the publication of Catechisms, Litur- gies and Hymn Books under the sanction of the Pennsyl- vania Synod. . . . Should the smaller party surpass the larger in zeal, sagacity and vigor, should the majority remain supine, allowing their institutions and their journal to languish, and their writers to be negligent of the Liturgy, the Catechism and the Hymn Book, it requires no prophetic vision to forsee the result." When the representatives of the Pennsylvania Synod appeared at the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Gettysburg Seminary they were refused admission, because, "in the opinion of this Board the Pennsylvania Synod by its action at York, Pottstown and Easton had placed itself outside the pale of the General Synod." And yet, the Pennsylvania Synod had not said a word about withdrawing from the General Synod. She adopted the amendments to the Constitution of the General Synod, proposed by the York Convention, and elected a full dele- gation to represent her at the next convention in Fort Wayne, 1866. She seemed entirely undisturbed and unconcerned, even in the face of the most violent articles in the Lutheran Observer, which predicted that the Penn- sylvania delegation would "have to travel to Fort Wayne 154 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chaf.XIV. and back at their own expense. Their credentials will probably be laid upon the table, until after the organiza- tion of the Synod, and then be referred to a Committee who will report at the close of the Convention, to the effect, that, when the Pennsylvania Synod sends a delega- tion upon the same terms as other Synods, they may be received, and not before." {Lutheran Observer, June 30, 1865.) Possibly the Synod of Pennsylvania did not, at the time, realize the full significance and far-reaching influ- ence of her own action in establishing the Philadelphia Seminary. When Dr. Chas. Philip Krauth, of Gettys- burg, heard of the step taken by the Mother Synod he said with a heavy heart : *'Now a division of the Church cannot be avoided." History proved the correctness of his judgment. The hopes of continued harmonious co- operation in and with the General Synod, expressed by the Pennsylvania Synod, after the establishment of her own Seminary, were pleasant illusions. However well meant, charitable and sincere her declarations in this respect had been, it must be admitted that the clearer judgment and more consistent logic was on the side of the radical wing of the General Synod. They showed a thorough appreciation of the real situation with which they were now confronted. The "Symbolists" had gained possession of two powerful instrumentalities, which had hitherto been exclusively in the hands of the American Lutherans, they had the Press in the Lutheran and Mis- sionary, with Charles Porterfield Krauth, as editor-in-chief ; and they had their Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. By means of these two agencies the forces of the Conserv- atives were, at last, well organized, and would soon make their influence felt in training a different ministry, and creating a different spirit throughout the laity of the Church. There were now two armies, fully equipped and encamped against each other. "Practically," said one 1864-66.] THE -CASE" OF THE OLD SYNOD. 155 of the Radicals, "we are two denominations, disguise it as we may. ... It is time that all hollow truces should he abandoned." It was better that the illusion of still being united in one body should come to an end. The Radicals had the power to bring this result about. Theirs was the President in the chair of the next convention. Let him rule out the Pennsylvania delegation and they would never return ! Such was the programme. It was carefully pre-concerted, and was carried through unflinchingly. In February, 1866, Dr. S. Sprecher, the President of the General Synod, expressed himself, as follows, on the "case" of the Pennsylvania Synod : In regard to the relations of the Pennsylvania Synod to the General Synod I have some difficulty. If the with- drawal of her delegates could be disconnected from the past history of the General Synod there would be no difficulty. But after leaving the General Synod and not sending delegates for many years, the General Synod ... at Winchester allowed her delegates to take their seats without any application on her part to be received into the General Synod, and while other Synods whose delegates appeared at Winchester had to make regular application before their delegates could take their seats, those of the Pennsylvania Synod were received without such application, and treated as if their Synod had never left the General Synod, though she had year after year, for many years, done nothing but abuse the General Synod, and declare that she had nothing to do with it. Besides, her delegates, at Winchester, were permitted to take their seats at the same time that they explicitly stated the action of their Synod requiring them instantly to withdraw and report to her, in case the General Synod violated her Constitution, etc. Now, from this it would almost seem as if it was understood that this withdrawal of her delegates temporarily, for the purpose of punish- ing the General Synod, was only a special privilege 156 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIV. granted her, and did not amount to a withdrawal of the Synod herself. Unfortunately the arguments in favor of the amendment of the Constitution, the ratio of repre- sentation especially, seemed all to proceed on the sup- position that the Pennsylvania Synod was in the General Synod. I think, however, that I, as President of the General Synod, can know officially only that the dele- gates of that Synod withdrew, and that I, as President, cannot, in the organizing of the General Synod, know any action of this Synod in the interval, as it cannot be officially known until it is reported to the General Synod, and no such report can be made until after the organiza- tion of the General Synod. In other words, that I, as President of the General Synod, cannot know whether the Pennsylvania Synod may not have been grieved as much in conscience as her delegates were, and conse- quently have withdrawn; or whether, if she sanctioned the act of her delegates only as the manifestation of dis- approbation of her servant, the General Synod, and has sent another set of delegates, whether her action was such as the General Synod can tolerate, or was accom- panied by such conditions as she must reject ; and conse- quently that I must regard her as out of the General Synod until it is organized. My present feeling is that I have a right to refuse to receive the certificates of their delegates.* Dr. S. S. Schmucker, of Gettysburg, on the journey to Fort Wayne, told his son, Beale M. Schmucker, one of the Pennsylvania delegates, "that an extended corre- spondence between prominent men of the General Synod, many of them delegates to the approaching meeting, had been held, that they had carefully considered the situa- tion, and that they had resolved that the Ministerium of Pennsylvania should no longer be connected with the General Synod. He calmly reviewed the position on both sides, and gave the reasons why it was better for * Letter to Dr. S. S. Schmucker, February 12, 1866. i866.] SYNODICAL SERMON, FORT WAYNE. 157 peace and unity that this course should be taken, and being assured of the support of a majority of votes, the action was decided on."* CONVENTION AT FORT WAYNE, 1 866. The twenty-second convention of the General Synod was opened at Fort Wayne, Ind., on Thursday morning, May 17th, 1866. The Pennsylvania Synod had elected a full delegation, consisting of J. A. Seiss, C. P. Krauth, G. F. Krotel, C. W. Schaefter, S. K. Brobst, B. M. Schmucker, S. Laird, and C. Pretz, H. Lehman, L. L. Houpt, C. F. Norton, C. Heinitsch. In order to secure their attendance the Ministerium had postponed its own annual meeting which, according to time-honored cus- tom, always convened on Trinity Sunday. The opening sermon was preached by the President, Dr. S. Sprecher, on I Thess. v. 19-21. It made a most painful impression on the members of the Pennsylvania delega- tion, as **an extraordinary mingling of the most danger- ous assumptions of Romanism in the one direction, and of the dreariest rationalism in the other, ... a plea for hopeless schism, sectarianism and heresy." When, a few weeks afterwards, it appeared in print,* Dr. Krauth reviewed it at length in the Lutheran (August 23d. 1866). There he says: One great fallacy which underlies the whole argument and comes to the surface in a great variety of phases is, that Lutheranism is not a system of doctrine, but merely one of the rules of Hermeneutics ; not a result, but a process, — or. rather, a theory of process. This process, according to Dr. S., goes on indefinitely; and the results may vary according to the time, place, person or church * See Lutheran, December 27, 1884. t The Apostolic Method of Realizing the True Ideal of the Church. Baltimore : T. Newton Kurtz, p. 44. 158 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Cuav.XW. which uses the process. Lutheranism may successively mean everything and anything which the craziness of an abuse of the right of private judgment may cover with the pretenses of Protestant investigation. Lutheranism may be Unitarian, Pelagian, Calvinistic, Baptist, Armin- ian, as the current shifts. Provided only that nothing in the way of "writings or creeds of men come between them and the examination of the Bible," twenty men may reach twenty different results, and all be equally good Lutherans. A man may have twenty different phases of credence, and be equally Lutheran through the whole. The Lutheran Church may have a new set of doctrines in every generation, and teach the children to deride the faith, and trample on the teachings, of their fathers and mothers. It has hitherto been supposed that the Luth- eran Church owed her being to her having "proved all things," and having by this process found that which is good, holding fast to it, and to this very end embodying it in her Confessions. But it seems this was a mistake. It is not what she finds, but the way she hunts for it, that gives her character. She is to assume that the prov- ing is never done, but always to be done, and three cen- turies after her credulous profession that she has the truth, is to go to work seriously to find it, aided by Drs. Poor, fond, old mother! She thought her merchantman had found the great pearl at the old Wit- tenberg long ago, but it seems that was but paste. She must go now to the new Wittenberg, not, indeed, to find the pearl, but to learn that pearls are subjective, and that "nothing is good or evil, true or false, but thinking makes it so." The fact is that these principles root up the faith utterly. They ignore the divine origin, perpetuity, and heavenly guidance of the Church, they put the teaching power of the Bible and of the Holy Ghost, below that of an ordinary arithmetic and of a country schoolmaster. It is too mild to call such views Latitudinarism ; they are logically Nihilism. They do their work so effectually i866.] THE CRISIS AT FORT WAYNE. 159 that they would not only leave no Lutheran Church, but they would leave no Church at all, — they leave no solid ground of the "one faith" which has always been held, and must ever be held, somewhere in the world, and whose perishing would be the perishing of the Church itself. We have left us but a mere mirage of whimseys and notions. They give us a rule of faith which never generates faith, a Creed by which no man can know what we believe ; they give us a state of mind in which we do not know what we believe, or whether we are to be- lieve at all. They ''quench the Spirit," by declaring that in the first and simplest elements of Christian faith. He has not, in the lapse of two thousand years, led the Church into all truth. They "despise prophesying," by regarding the Holy Scriptures not as clear, with the power of generating a sure faith, but as a set of riddles whose meaning men are still guessing, and are to keep on guessing, with nothing to decide whose guess is right. They "prove" nothing so as to establish it as good, and firmly to be held to. but do their mischievous worst to unsettle what the Church, taught by the Spirit in the Word, has reached and confessed. A better text for the discussion of this sort of "true" Lutheranism would have been : "Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." At the organization of the convention, when the roll of the Synods was called, the President refused to receive the credentials of the Pennsylvania delegation with the following declaration : "The Chair regards the act of delegates of the Pennsylvania Synod, by which they severed their practical relations with the General Synod, and withdrew from the partnership of the Synods in the governing functions of the General Synod, as the act of the Synod of Pennsylvania, and that consequently that Synod was out of practical union with the General Synod up to the adjournment of the last convention, and as we cannot know officially what the action of that Synod has l6o CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIY. been since, she must be considered as in that state of practical withdrawing from the governing functions of the General Synod, until the General Synod can receive a report of an act restoring her practical relations to the General Synod ; and, as no such report can be received until said Synod is organized, the Chair cannot know any paper offered at this stage of the proceedings of the Synod as a certificate of delegation to this body." As a matter of courtesy, Dr. C. P. Krauth requested permis- sion to ask the President for the word or words of the Constitution or laws of the General Synod, which gave him authority to make such a decision. The President said in reply : "I exercise this authority, because I cannot officially know that the Pennsylvania Synod is in practical relations with the General Synod." Dr. Krauth said : "That is not the point. I do not ask you why you exercise the authority, — but from whence you derive your authority. What article of the Constitu- tion, or law of the General Synod gives you such author- ity?" Dr. Sprecher said: "It is not from a possession of power, but from a lack of power that I do not receive your credentials." Dr. Krauth replied: "Then we are to understand that you have no Constitutional right to reject our credentials." An appeal being taken, the decision of the Chair was sustained by a majority of yy against 24 votes, and the heated discussion on the "case of the Synod of Pennsylvania," which lasted through several days, had no other result than to affirm that this deliberate action had been "regular and Constitutional." There was no alternative left to the delegates from Pennsylvania but to withdraw and again to report to their Synod. After they had left the convention. Dr. W. A. Passavant presented a protest against the action of the General Synod, signed by 22 delegates, belonging to the Synods of New York (4), Pittsburg (5), Ohio (4), Iowa (3), Northern In- diana (3), Minnesota (i), Hartwick (i), Illinois (i). i866.] THE FINAL BREACH. l6l A few weeks afterwards (June 7-9, 1866) the Minister- ium of Pennsylvania met in special session, at Lancaster, Pa., for the consideration and adoption of its revised Con- stitution. When the second chapter, declaring the faith of the Synod, came up for discussion, Dr. Krauth proposed the full and explicit statement of the Synod's doctrinal position, essentially the same as in the Constitution of the Theological Seminary at Philadelphia. An animated dis- cussion ensued in which the point was raised that this was in reality a change of doctrinal basis. Dr. Krauth showed that his amendment was not intended to present anything new, but to make that which had already been adopted, clear, that the Synod had actually held this posi- tion in her published Confession for more than a century, and while there had been sad times of practical departure from this faith in her past history, she was now reviving and confessing her faith anew. The declaration of faith, as proposed by him, was finally adopted by a rising vote, only three members dissenting, who were excused from voting. At its regular annual convention, beginning June 10, 1866, the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, after hearing the report of its delegates to the Fort Wayne Convention, cordially approved of their action, and formally declared its connection with the General Synod dissolved, because it had been "unjustly deprived of its right by the late convention of delegates at Fort Wayne, and because of its conviction that the task of uniting the conflicting ele- ments in the General Synod has become hopeless, and the purpose for which it was originally formed has sig- nally failed." Thus the long-continued and far-reaching conflict, in which the great principle of all true unity of Church and Confession was really at stake, was finally brought to a decision, on what might seem to have been, a mere parliamentary question, and the attempt has been made repeatedly to show that the breach at Fort Wayne l62 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chav.XW. took place not at all for the sake of the Confession, but simply on a point of order, and perhaps even as the result of personal feelings. But even the leader of the Missouri Synod, Dr. Walther, at once and unreservedly defended the Pennsylvanians against such charges. Scarcely any event, he said, within the bounds of the Lutheran Church of North America has ever afforded us greater joy than the withdrawal of the Synod of Penn- sylvania from the unionistic so-called General Synod. This is a step which will undoubtedly lead to conse- quences of the utmost importance, and of the most salu- tary character. The plan to give prominence and supre- macy in this land, by means of the "General Synod" to a so-called American Lutheranism, which ignores the distinctive doctrines of the Lutheran Church, and to compel the truly Lutheran Synods to occupy a separ- atistic, isolated and powerless position, is completely frus- trated by this step. How uncomfortable the General Synodists are in view of this, they show most clearly by maintaining again and again that the Synod of Pennsyl- vania did not leave them on account of doctrine, but on account of the treatment received at Fort Wayne. They know right well what a blow it would give them if it were known that the oldest and largest Synod of their con- nection withdrew, because the General Synod had de- parted from the true doctrine of the Lutheran Church. Any one willing to read the history of those days with an unprejudiced eye, must come to the conclusion that the great battle was not for a mere technicality, but for a principle of the highest importance. It was, as Dr. Krauth said, in his address before the Pittsburgh Synod (October, 1866) : The conflict of truth against error, truth against force, truth against false compromise. . . . Men pass away, generations come and go, but principles abide forever. . . . With her eternal principles, what shall be the future i866.] TRUE UNITY ONENESS IN FAITH. 163 of our beloved Zion in this land? Shall it be conflict, division, weakness, or shall it be peace, unity, zeal, un- folding all her energies ? It is unity. Every difficulty in her way, every barrier to her progress, proceeds from tlie lack of unity. But what is the unity of the Church? That question was answered three centuries ago by the Reformers, and fifteen centuries before that in the New Testament. True unity is oneness in faith, as taught in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are one with the Church of the Apostles, because we hold its faith ; one with the Church of the Reformers, alone because we hold its faith. Outward human forms are nothing; ecclesiastical government, so far as it is of man, is noth- ing; all things are nothing, if there be not this oneness of faith. With it begins, in its life continues, in its death ends, all true unity. There can be, there is, no true unity but in the faith. . . . The one token of this unity, that by which this internal thing is made visible, is one expres- sion of faith, one "form of sound words," used in simple earnestness, and meaning the same to all who employ it. You may agree to differ; but when men be- come earnest, difference in faith will lead first to fervent pleadings for the truth, and, if these be hopelessly un- heeded, will lead to separation. All kinds of beliefs and unbeliefs may exist under the plea of toleration ; but when the greatest love is thus professed, there is the least. Love resulting from faith is God's best gift. Love that grows out of opposition or indifference to faith, God abhors. There can be no true love where there is not also true hatred, — no love to truth without abhorence of error. The love which works against faith is not of God. ... In Christ we can alone find unity. Only when we meet in this centre of all true unity will we have peace. And we can be in Christ only in a faith which accepts His every word in His own divine meaning, and shrinks with horror from the thought that, in the prostituted name of peace and love, we shall put upon one level the pure and heavenly sense of His Word and the artful corruption of that sense by the tradition of Rome or the vanity of carnal reason. (November 8, 1866.) 164 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap.XIV. Having severed its connection with the General Synod the Ministerium of Pennsylvania at once took steps toward the organization of a general ecclesiastical body, representing the interests of the Church in this country, on a truly Lutheran basis. A Committee was appointed, (Krotel, Krauth, Mann, C. W. Schaeffer, Seiss, B. M. Schmucker, Brobst, Welden, Laird; Norton, H. H. Muhlenberg, Houpt, Trexler, Heinitsch, Lehman, Pretz, Endlich, Mattes) and charged to prepare and issue a fraternal address to all Evangelical Lutheran Synods, ministers and congregations, in the United States and Canada, which confess the Unaltered Augsburg Confes- sion, inviting them to a convention for the purpose of forming a union * of Lutheran Synods. The fraternal address, issued by this Committee, and written by Dr. Krauth, under date of August loth, 1866, presented the following points : The Synod of Pennsylvania has not assumed tjie serious responsibility of inviting such a Conference, with- out reasons of the gravest kind. It is most clear that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in North America needs a general organization, first and supremely for the main- tenance of unity in the true faith of the Gospel, and in the uncorrupted sacraments, as the Word of God teaches and our Church confesses them ; and, furthermore, for the preservation of her genuine spirit and worship, and for the development of her practical life in all its forms. It is no less clear that there is no existing organization adapted to these grand ends, or capable of being adapted to them. There has been no union of any kind among all the nominally Lutheran Synods in America. The only *The original recommendation of the Committee report, (Dr. Mann, Chairman), had been, ' ' to correspond with other Lutheran Sy- nods, with reference to the propriety of calling a couvention of such Lutheran Synods, churches and individuals, as may be favorable to the organization of a general ecclesiastical body," etc. i866.] A GENERAL ORGANIZATION NEEDED. 165 Body pretending, even in name, to be in any sense a General Synod, never embraced all the Synods. But that Body has ceased to retain even the ratio which it once held, and does not now embrace half the membership of the Lutheran Church, and it is just those portions of our Synods which are most thoroughly consistent with the faith of the Church, which are excluded from it, while the part which remains with it is largely in undisguised or covert warfare with the Confession of our Church, on every point which gave her distinctive being over against the errors of both Rome and of rationalistic sectarian- ism. All hopes of the "General Synod" ever becoming in our Church what its name appears to claim, have become fainter and fainter, until finally, by receiving as integral elements what its Constitution excluded, and by denying a place in its organization to elements whose full rights of representation were guaranteed by its Constitution and confirmed by its own solemn act, it ceased to be such a Body as that Constitution defines, and has no moral right to be considered or called a General Synod, even in the very doubtful sense in which it might once have been entitled to that name. A great necessity is, therefore, laid upon us, in the Providence of God, at once to take steps to meet a want, which has been so urgent, and the painful consciousness of which continually grows. We are imperatively called upon to confer together for the formation of wise plans, which shall avoid the serious mistakes which weakened and finally brought to an unhappy termination the former effort. In the light of the history of our whole Church, and more especially of this Western portion of it, we are called, in the simplicity of the faith of our fathers, and in the honest singleness of their heart and confession, clearly to declare what is the great end for which we build, to wit : The pure Gospel and its Sacraments, the preservation and extension of which can alone give to Synods a true value. The Church needs an organiza- tion in which Christian liberty shall work under the law of love and in the grace and beauty of divine order, in i66 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIV. which shall be unmistakably acknowledged the common faith once delivered to the saints, the testimony of which is found in unmingled purity in the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, in its native, original and only true sense, on which our Church rests as her unchangable confes- sional foundation. Such an organization would have the vigor necessary to efficient action, and to so much uni- formity as is needed to embody true unity, yet, would provide such complete and wise safeguards as to pre- vent it from being made the instrument of inequality or oppression, or from being tempted to establish what is merely human, and w^hich binds only by the law of love and the just principles of church order, as if it were in the sphere of conscience and of divine necessity. It would avoid the weakness of government, which first runs into anarchy, and then by reaction into tyranny. It would shun the laxity in doctrinal obligation in which error, first satisfied in being tolerated, speedily goes on to rule, and at length on the ruins of faith, establishes the most intolerant of all proscriptiveness, the proscrip- tiveness of unbelief. The condition and wants of our Church in this land make it clear that we are not moving in this matter on insufficient or doubtful grounds. With our communion of millions scattered over a vast and ever-widening terri- tory, with the ceaseless tide of immigration to our shores, with the diversity of surrounding usages and of religious life, with our various nationalities and tongues, our crying need of faithful ministers, our imper- fect provision for any and all of the urgent wants of the Church, there is danger that the genuinely Lutheran elements may become gradually alienated, that misunder- standings may arise, that the narrow and local may over- come the broad and general, that the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace may be lost, and that our Church, which alone in the history of Protestantism has main- tained a genuine catholicity and unity, should drift into the sectarianism and separatism which characterize and curse our land. i866.] THE FRATERNAL ADDRESS. 167 Apart from these extraordinary reasons, our general vocation as a Church, the interest of Foreign and Home Missions, of theological, collegiate and congregational education, of institutions of beneficence, of a sound relig- ious literature, all demand such an organization as shall enable our whole Church in this land, in its varied tongues, to work together in the unity of a pure faith, and in the harmony of mutual good understanding and love. Moved by these great facts, and by hearty desire for the unity of Zion, the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, the oldest of Lutheran Synods in the United States, has felt, that under Providential guidance whose history is too recent and familiar to all to need repetition here, her motives could not be misunderstood in taking this neces- sary initiative to future action. In conformity with her resolution, therefore, we invite you to appoint delegates to represent you in a Convention for the purpose of forming a union of Lutheran Synods. The fraternal address, inviting ministers, congrega- tions and Synods to co-operate with the Mother-Synod in the formation of a new general Body, called for a response and decision on the part of those to whom it had been sent. Among them were Synods that had never been in connection with the General Synod, and others which had belonged to that body up to the time of the Fort Wayne Convention. With some there could hardly be any doubt, from the beginning, which side they would take in their decision. Others, however, like the Pitts- burgh Synod and the New York Ministerium, could hardly be expected to reach anything like an unanimous decision on this important question. These would form the principal battlefields on which the two sides would have to measure their strength. Efforts were made by the advocates of the General Synod to counteract the effect of the fraternal address of the Pennsylvania Ministerium. The West Pennsylvania Synod unanimously resolved l68 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Cuav.XW. (York, September 13th, 1866) to appoint "a Committee of five members to prepare an address to the churches on the secession of the Pennsylvania Synod from the General Synod, and in response to the charges since published against said body." The Committee (J. A. Brown, H. L. Baugher, S. S. Schmucker, A. H. Lochmann, F. W. Conrad) compelled the venerable father. Dr. Charles Philip Krauth, in Gettysburg, who was nearing the end of his earthly pilgrimage, to add his name, "by request of Committee." Their paper was cordially endorsed by a similar Committee of five, appointed by the East Pennsylvania Synod.* Thus the Mother-Synod had, as Dr. G. F. Krotel said, "a monitor on the right and on the left," — the monitors being two Synods which had, years ago, been formed on the territory of the Synod of Pennsylvania by the withdrawal of a number of her ministers and congregations. And these Synods now condemned the action of the Mother- Synod as "seces- sion," as the "schismatical and unchristian conduct of those who are seeking to divide and destroy the General Synod of our Church." They alleged that the Pennsyl- vania Synod was not "driven from the General Synod, but deliberately withdrew." "It is true," said Dr. G. F. Krotel in answer to this charge, "the delegates. . .were not driven, by blows or hisses, from the Church and Synod, but the demands made of them, and the opposi- tion raised against them, for years, and the spirit exhib- ited at Fort Wayne, literally drove them out. If there is a way to compel men to enter the kingdom, without physical force, then there is also a way to compel honest men to go out of a body like that at Fort Wayne. The Fort Wayne technicality did not drive them out except * Address to the Ministers and Members of the Evangelical Luth- eran Church in the United States. J. E. Wible, Printer, Gettysburg, Pa. 8 pp. 1866-6;.] ACTION OF THE SYNODS. 169 in so far as it was the last . . . exhibition of the cause of all our troubles, the last straw that made the burden insufferable." {Lutheran, October nth, 1866.) The Pittsburgh Synod met in October, 1866, and after an animated and lengthy discussion, condemned the decision of the General Synod at Fort Wayne "as inju- dicious, unjust and unconstitutional," revoked its action of 1852 by which it had, in common with the Pennsyl- vania Synod, entered the General Synod, accepted the invitation of the ''Fraternal Address," and appointed dele- gates to represent it at the proposed Convention. Dr. C. P. Krauth was present at this important meeting and, by an elaborate address in which he reviewed the whole conflict, contributed materially to the decision reached by the Pittsburgh Synod, of which he had formerly been an honored member. The minority of eleven pastors, in sympathy with the General Synod, withdrew and organ- ized a new Synod. At the Ministerium of New York, which was in session a few days before, the result of the crisis had been similar. There Dr. J. A. Brown, the President of the General Synod, appeared as delegate from the W'est Pennsylvania Synod, but the Ministerium refused to recognize him in that capacity. Final action on the relation of the New York Ministerium to the General Synod was postponed for a year, the question being sub- mitted to a vote of the congregations, and the officers were appointed a Committee to attend the Convention called by the Pennsylvania Ministerium. and to report on it. At its next annual meeting (September, 1867), the New York Ministerium formally dissolved its connection with the General Synod, and the minority at once organ- ized a new Synod. This result completely changed the character of the New York Ministerium. Up to this time the English element had had full control of the Synod, though, numerically, the Germans had the majority. 170 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIV. Now the Synod at once became an almost exclusively German body. RECONSTRUCTION. STUDIES IN CHURCH POLITY. SYNODICAL AUTHORITY. As soon as the crisis in the protracted ecclesiastical con- flict had been reached, when the smoke had hardly cleared away from the battlefield in Fort Wayne, Dr. Krauth at once turned from the polemics of the preceding years to the constructive work of reorganization. The ques- tion of the day was the formation of a new general body on a sound basis. It fell to Dr. Krauth to prepare the fundamental articles of Church Polity for the organiza- tion of such a body. He was convinced that the dis- tressing condition of the Church of those days was the result not only of laxity in doctrine, but also of serious defects in the sphere of Church government.* He de- plored the great lack of authority and discipline which had abundantly manifested itself everywhere in the administration of Church affairs, and endeavored to draw the lines for a stronger and more efficient Church government, in harmony with the Scriptures and the Confession of the Lutheran Church. His preparatory work in this direction appeared in a series of articles on "Our Church Polity in America; Character and Author- ity of Synods, Representative Principles." (Lutheran and Missionary, June 21, 28; July 5, 19; September 20, 1866.) Starting from the declaration of the Smalcald Articles that "The decisions of Synods are decisions of the Church" he presents in extenso the testimonies of leading Lutheran theologians, like Calovius, Buddeus, Quenstedt, Hollazius, on the authority of Synods. The position taken by him on these questions roused some * Compare also Dr. H. E. Jacobs' History of the Evangelical Luth- eran Church in the United States, pp. 460-470. i866.] CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 171 suspicion and criticism on the part of conservative Luth- erans in the West (Missouri and Iowa), who objected particularly to his parallel between Civil and Ecclesiasti- cal government, and seemed to be afraid of hierarchical tendencies, and an infringement of true evangelical liberty, while Dr. Krauth maintained that his views were not essentially at variance with those advocated by Dr. Walther on this point. In "a word of explanation," he replies to the criticism of the Luthcraner, and defines his position more fully to this effect: We do not mean to make the parallel absolute between Civil and Ecclesiastical government. Their functions, aims and means are utterly diverse. We meant and said no more than this: that the government of the Church, generically, is also a divine institution, the Church is a true kingdom, Christ is King, the Bible is its absolute Constitution and law, ministers are divinely called. Bap- tism is a divine admission into the kingdom, its remission of the sins of the penitent and believing is done by God's authority, its retention of the sins of the unbelieving binds in heaven. Its means are the Word and the Sacraments, and its restraining powers are reproof and correction with the Word, and the holding back of unfit men from the Sacraments. And as the genus of Church govern- ment is divine, and as the genus cannot exist as an abstrac- tion, but must be concrete in the species, and as tiie species is left in certain respects to the freedom of the Church, her decisions made in the way in which her own people and pastors have agreed they shall be made — do bind them, so long as they voluntarily and freely remain in the organization, in and by which they have them- selves agreed, that the various matters which are pro- perly the subjects of Church freedom shall be determined. The freedom of the Church is a very different thing from the licentious lawlessness of the individual church mem- ber, with which it is, in this country, continually con- 172 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIV, founded. Far be it from us to imagine that all the Bishops, Synods and Councils in the universe, past, present or to come, can make ordinances which can "bind the conscience," or can make their decisions "a necessary service of God, the violation of which, if it could be done without offense, would yet be sin" — but we do hold that the churches can agree to commit the decision of matters, confessedly belonging to Christian freedom, to the determination of their own representatives, under certain limitations guarding against abuse, and that when decisions are thus made, the voluntary parties are bound by their own agreements, while they continue in this organization, to respect its decisions; — in other words, we hold to the right of the churches to represent them- selves — to agree what shall be given to the control of the representative body, and we hold that they are either bound to be faithful to the compact or may justly be excluded from its benefits. We entirely agree with our friend in the Liitheraner that the strength of the Church does not depend upon a "strong government," but on the unity of faith, doctrine and confession. But "strong" and "weak" are relative terms. We want a real government; — something which shall hold in a genuine outward bond, however mild, the true confessors of our Church's faith, and enable them to work in harmony, and if we under- stand the principles which control the government of the Synod of Missouri, we are sure that we desire nothing stronger, nor better in the government of our whole Church in this country, than these principles would give us. We only ask a Church Government which shall bind us by the gentle laws of love and peace, which shall take offenses out of the way, which shall be an aid in causing- all things to be done decently and in order in the Church — which shall be a safeguard to conscience, and shall not lay, nor attempt to lay burdens on it. The decisions of a Synod which shall be such a government representatively, will indeed be merely human, as the decisions of all earthly governments are merely human — nay, often manifestly wrong; nevertheless, we hold that i866.] A DIFFICULT PROBLEM. 173 the generic g-overnmental principles, and the right of representation are as really of God in the Church as in the State. The obligation to conform to the decisions of such a Synod, is the obligation of peace, love and order; and where violation of them (except on the ground of conscience) creates scandal and offense, there is a moral obligation to conform to them. (Augsburg Confession 67, 53.) But with the Church of Christ there are forces mightier than the sword of state, and more manifestly divine, because they belong not to the realm of force, but to the kingdom of the Spirit. THE READING CONVENTION. The Convention called by the fraternal address of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania met in the old Trinity Church, at Reading, Pa., December 11 -14, 1866. The men who had been chiefly instrumental in bringing to- gether this important meeting of Lutherans in America fully realized the delicacy and difficulty of the work be- fore them. Superficial unions, wrote Dr. Krauth (December 6, 1866), are easier than deep and substantial ones: men who are simply looking for a policy can more readily coalesce than those who are profoundly in earnest in securing great principles; blind partisanship is more easily controlled by those who will fall in with it, than honest men, who are moved by conviction and who are willing to move others by it alone. The Lutheran Com- munion on this Western Continent has one of the grandest problems which have ever been given to the Church to solve. She is numerically one of the largest of the churches; she has varied nationalities to combine into one well disciplined host of her Lord. Her sons hold the Word of God, and teach its precious truths in more tongues than any of the other churches in the land, perhaps in more than all the others together. Her people have been trained under different governments and 174 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chaf.XIV. diverse forms of church pohty, and thousands of them have endured wrongs of State usurpation and the mis- chief of rationahstic or pseudo-unionistic teachings. To bring this mighty mass into a harmonious whole will not be the work of a day; but it is a work so glorious, so happy, so divine, that it may fill the measure of the fullest ambition which a holy heart can cherish, to do some- thing, even a very little something, toward its con- summation. Brethren are to see eye to eye on great questions of doctrine and of the polity of the Church. The little and the local is to give way to broader and nobler conceptions of the genius and mission of our Church : preferences are to yield to principles, and our membership is to show that the assumption in regard to the fidelity of the people, on which the free government of our Church rests, is not a mistaken one. Let all that love Zion remember the Convention in their most fer- vent prayers. It was, indeed, a springtide of warm fraternal affec- tion, of honest attachment to the faith, and of brightest hopes and prospects for the future of the Church, during those cold winter days of 1866, when the Convention met in Reading. Such an assembly had never before been seen in the Lutheran Church of this country. There were side by side Pennsylvania, Ohio (three Synods), Wisconsin, Michigan, Pittsburgh. Minnesota, Iowa, Mis- souri, Canada, New York and the Norwegian Synod. The Swedes were represented by letter from Dr. Hassel- quist. Professor M. Loy, of Columbus, preached the opening sermon on I Cor. i. 10. Rev. G. Bassler, of the Pittsburgh Synod, was elected President. Dr. Krauth had prepared two sets of theses on "Funda- mental Principles of Faith," and on "Fundamental Prin- ciples of Ecclesiastical Power and Church Government (Church Polity)," which were fully discussed and adopted by the Convention. They afterwards formed the basis for the Constitution of the General Council. 1866.1 THE PRIVILEGE OF DEBATE. 175 The agreement on all these fundamental points was perfect. It was only when the practical question arose of proceeding at once to the organization of a general body on those principles, that a divergence of opinion appeared. The representatives of the Missouri Synod and the Norwegian Synod declared that they considered the formation of a general body premature, and wished that there should be more conferences for further delib- eration and discussion. Dr. Krauth met their difficulties and objections in the kindliest spirit. "In a free Confer- ence," he said, "we may discuss questions, but we decide nothing definitely, and bind nothing. In a general church organization these questions can be decided for those who are within it — and definitely so, so far as the deci- sion does not oppress the conscience. All who can acknowledge each other as Lutherans in a free confer- ence, can, with equally good conscience, unite in a general church organization of the Synods they thus acknowl- edge. The very fact of their being really and truly Lutherans should prevent them from continuing sepa- rate ; it should bring them together in one united organ- ized body. Even in a free conference there would have to be an acknowledgement of each other as Lutherans before we came together. . . . Feeling as I do the great force of the arguments of the brethren who prefer a free conference, I rejoice that both preferences as to mode may, to a certain degree, be met. Let those of us who are prepared, unite in an organization and invite our brethren of the Missouri and Norwegian Synods to come to us for a free conference on the points not settled. . . . Let the organization be an organization to those who enter it ; but to brethren who agree with us in principles, in aims and in the ends proposed, and differ only as to the best means and mode of securing those aims and that end, to them let it be a free conference." This suggestion of Dr. Krauth found recognition 176 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIV. in the Constitution of the General Council, Art. I, Sec. 2, in the following provision : "The General Council shall have the power of extending the privilege of debate to the representatives of Synods which adopt the funda- mental principles, but which have not ratified the Consti- tution." It was in the sixth session of the Convention, held on the afternoon of December 14th, at St. John's German Lutheran Church, that the report of the Committee on the Outline Plan of a Constitution was finally adopted, and thereby the organization of the General Council was formally decided. With grateful and rejoicing hearts the Convention sang "Now Thank We All Our God." (Nun Danket Alle Gott.) The rupture in the General Synod which led to the formation of the General Council involved not only Synods, but also local congregations, and in many cases led to a re-adjustment of their Synodical relations. Here and there congregations themselves were divided, and bitter litigations were carried on before the courts by the opposing parties, for the possession of the church property. The contentions were of a particularly acrimonious character on the territory of the Pittsburgh Synod, where the minority, adhering to the General Synod, claimed to be the historic and lawful Pittsburgh Synod, entitled to its name and all its rights in Church and State. Thus, in the City of Pittsburgh itself, the First English Church was dragged into court, and finally an opposition congregation was organized under the pas- torate of Dr. J. H. W. Stuckenberg. Similar contro- versies occured in Leechburg, Williamsport, Allentown. Dr. Krauth was repeatedly involved in these lawsuits, being cited as an expert and witness for the General Council party, while Dr. J. A. Brown usually represented the other side. Among his papers extensive sketches are preserved, of the testimony prepared by him for the i868.] LEECHBURG CHURCH CASE. lyy court in each case. Of special interest was the case of Hebron EvangeHcal Lutheran Church in Leechburg. There the request of the General Council party, of some- what doubtful majority, for a change of charter, was refused by the court, as a matter of right and not of faith. Dr. Krauth was summoned by telegraph to appear (June, 1868), and at once responded in deference to the judgment of Rev. G. Bassler, the President of the Gen- eral Council. There were also present, from the General Council side, G. A. Wenzel, S. Laird, H. W. Roth, J. Sarver (the pastor), J. K. Melhorn, D. McKee, M. Schweigert, H. E. Jacobs. The General Synod was represented by Dr. J. A. Brown, J. H. W. Stuckenberg, S. F. Breckenridge, J. A. Ernest, G. F. Ehrenfeld, and others. For five days Dr. J. A. Brown was on the stand; one half-day in direct examination, and the rest under cross-examination, conducted by Hon. E. S. Golden, of Kittanning. Apart from the legal aspect of the case, the theological contention in Kittanning was, on the one side, to prove that the recognition of other confessions besides the Augustana in the Fundamental Principles of the General Council involved a departure from the faith of the Lutheran Church. This became a difficult problem for the General Synod side, when Dr. Brown, under cross-examination, was compelled to testify that the professors' oath in the Seminary at Gettysburg originally required subscription not only to the Augsburg Confession, but to both the Catechisms of Luther. The examination of Dr. Brown having consumed the entire week, Dr. Krauth was not heard. One day, however, large placards were posted about the streets, announcing that Dr. Krauth would deliver a lecture on one of the evenings, in the German Lutheran Church, on the theme : "The Life Questions of Lutheranism, the Life Questions of Christianity." The lecture was attended by the repre- sentatives of the General Synod, as well as those of the 178 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIV. General Council. Its substance afterwards appeared in the Lutheran in a series of articles under another title.* DOMESTIC AFFLICTION. During the years covered by this period of Dr. Krauth's life there is a noticeable falling off in his private correspondence. Hardly any letters of this time are found among his papers. "I feel," he writes to his daughter (March 14th, 1865), "that it must be an unnatural state of things in which my letters to my children and to my father must be so rare. And yet, for this state of things I cannot hold myself responsible." And this period, when his mind was so completely en- grossed with the great questions and struggles that agitated the Church, was a time of serious losses and sore bereavement in his family life. On May 30th, 1867, his venerable and beloved father fell asleep in Jesus. (See Vol. I, p. 24.) About a year and a half before he suffered a terrible blow in the loss of his two youngest children who died within 24 hours from each other, in Germantown, Philadelphia, — ^Julia Katharine, on Thurs- day morning, October 19, 1865, aged three years, three months and ten days ; and Robert Lane, on the following Friday morning, aged eight months and three days. We are passing, he writes to his friend Thomas Lane, in Pittsburgh, through the Valley of the Shadow of Death. Two of our children lie dead within our walls. Our darling little Julia, after four weeks of sickness, passed away from us in the twilight of the morning of Thursday. All night the storm had been wild. The old pines had seemed to struggle with the gigantic force of the winds, and the leaves swept and eddied and hurled themselves against the window panes with the drifting rain. All night, while the fearful storm was raging, our * MS. Memorandum of H. E. Jacobs. 1865.] THE DEATH OF THE CHILDREN. lyg dear little one wrestled with death. Fainter and fainter grew the struggle. . . . The calm of the morning came, — away off in the East the clouds half reflect a few broken beams of light which, mingled with bright shadows of the waving branches through which they played — streamed upon the wall. The glory of another world, the bright- ness of the throne opened upon the immortal vision of our child, as the weary eyes closed for the last sleep. Everything seems for the present swallowed up in her death. She was the idol of the household. There was in her a mingling of archness and gentleness fascinating beyond expression. She was a true child, but with a thousand little buddings of character which gave promise of womanly graces. She sleeps in Jesus. The last trace of the struggle of death has passed from her face, and she lies now in her heavenly whiteness, her long eye- lashes resting upon her cheek as if in sleep. Alas, our cup which seemed to us streaming in an overflow, was not yet full. Our baby whom we had named Robert Lane. — linking a dear family name with a name which is precious to us for the sake of the dear friends who have taught us to love it, — our baby had been very fragile from his birth. We dared not expect, we hardly dared to hope that he would be spared to us. His eyes, — wonderfully beautiful and expressive with something of that deep gaze of reverie which great masters have given to the eyes of the infant Saviour, — seemed to ponder our faces, as we w^atched him so early passing into the shadow of mystery, which hangs over our sorrowing world. On Friday morning he passed away. Both our dear ones will sleep in the same grave. Julia will have by her side the little brother to whom her innocent loving heart had so turned in its sweet affection. In these hours we are sustained by the loving kindness of a faithful Saviour. Cherished friends come to us with their sympathies, and their offices of love. It is not what friends can say, — for all w^ords except those of our God seem powerless, but what balm there is in what they are, in the knowledge that their hearts are with us. Nothing i8o CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIV. that can alleviate sorrow has been wanting to us, — yet, oh, how weak we feel ourselves. PASTORAL WORK. During all those years Dr. Krauth did abundant pas- toral work in various English Lutheran Churches, such as St. John's, St. Stephen's and St. Peter's, in Philadel- phia. For nearly a whole year he served St. John's Church (Race Street above Fifth), during the absence of its pastor. Dr. J, A. Seiss, having for some time been in feelDle health, left for Europe and the East in April, 1864, and after an extended journey through the Holy Land returned again in the Spring of 1865. On March loth, a formal reception was tendered to him by his congregation. Dr. G. F. Krotel welcomed him in behalf of the clergy and the Lutherans of Philadelphia. Dr. Krauth presented the greetings of the congregation. In the course of his warm-hearted and eloquent address he said : Through the ancient homes of our fathers, we followed you, with faith in the God of our fathers. When you reached that land which is glorified forever by the touch of those sacred and bleeding feet, which eighteen hundred years ago "were nailed for our advantage on the bitter cross," each hallowed place assumed to us a more vivid reality, as through your eyes we seemed to look upon it ; the waving of the cedars and the murmurs of the Jordan brought their low music to our ear. We knelt at Bethany, and the hand of the Glorified seemed lifted over us. We entered Jerusalem, and its dust seemed holy. The lessons of the Church Year assumed a strange vivid- ness. Still, still in faith we followed your footsteps, assured that you would return. A few years afterwards, when Dr. Seiss took charge of the newly organized congregation of the Holy Com- munion, Dr. Krauth again supplied the pulpit of St. 1866-67.] PASTORATE IN ST. STEPHEN'S. l8i John's until a successor had been found. His services were highly appreciated by the congregation, and a special pew was reserved for Dr. Krauth's family in that venerable church. In 1866 and the following years we find him as pastor of St. Stephen's, at that time a small struggling Mission Church in West Philadelphia. On June 5th, 1866, their little sanctuary was consecrated, Dr. Krauth himself preaching the sermon, and one of the collegiate pastors of St. Michael's and Zion's German Churches, in Phila- delphia (A. S.), performing the act of consecration. It was the time of the crisis in Fort Wayne. The English- speaking ministers of the Pennsylvania Synod happened to be out of town. So Dr. Krauth sent for his young German friend rather than ask one of the "American Lutherans" of the City, to assist in the consecration service. During his pastorate in St. Stephen's he w^as particu- larly interested in the introduction of the historical litur- gical order of the Lutheran service in his young congre- gation. In these efforts he had the devoted and intelli- gent co-operation of the organist of the congregation, his own daughter. The "Jubilee Service," written for the three hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Reforma- tion (published by J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, 1867), was for the first time fully used in St. Stephen's. It was "meant to exhibit something of the devotional life of that great era, and thus to show how, proving all things, our Church held fast to that which is good, joy- ously accepting the treasures of the deepest and purest love and piety, in which the Holy Spirit continued to bear witness to our ascended Lord throughout the ages. ... As our Church gave them back to the people, as a noble part of her reformatory work, it is her special vocation to guard the heritage she restored." The little pamphlet of 24 pages presents a large collection of I 82 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIV. liturgical material under the following abridged Rubric of the Service: Invitatory, Confession, Introit, Gloria in Excelsis, Collect, Epistle, Gradual, Gospel, Creed, Hymn of Invocation, Sermon, General Prayer, Hymn, Preface with Sanctus, Communion with Agnus Dei, Closing Collect, Benediction, together with 31 hymns, mostly translations from German sources.* Dr. Krauth's arrangement of the Liturgical material does not present that clear distinction between the Minor Services (Matin and Vespers), and the Main Service (Communion), which is so characteristic of the service of the Church Book in its final shape. It rather seeks to combine in one comprehensive service, the materials of all these different services, making no attempt to restore either the Matin or the Vespers in their original form, as separate services. Nevertheless, the little booklet did much good in prepar- ing the way for the Church Book in our English Luth- eran congregations. * His two Christmas hymns, A Babe is Born in Bethlehem, trans- lated from the Latin, Puer natus in Bethlehem, and, The Happy Christmas Comes Once More, based on Bishop Grundwig's Danish original, Del kimer nu til Juleftst, were prepared for the first Christ- mas celebration of St. Stephen's Sunday School. They have both found a place in the General Council's Sunday School Book. FIFTEENTH CHAPTER. THE GENERAL COUNCIL. 1867-1883. The General Council of the EvangeHcal Lutheran Church in North America was organized in the Jubilee year 1867, when the three hundred and fiftieth anni- versary of Luther's ninety-five Theses, — nailed to the door of the Castle-Church at Wittenberg, October 31, 1 5 17 — was celebrated throughout the Lutheran Churches. The first convention was opened November 20, 1867, in the Church of the Holy Trinity, Fort Wayne, Indiana, the very same building where, eighteen months before, the delegation of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania had been ruled out of the General Synod by its presiding officer. On the evening of the same day Dr. C. P. Krauth preached, what might be called, the opening sermon, from which the following abstract is presented : THE GENERAL COUNCIL. ITS DIFFICULTIES AND ENCOURAGEMENTS. Zech. iv, 6. 7. The first difficulty of the General Council arises from the largeness of its scope. Our ideal is a Council em- bracing every Lutheran of the millions who speak German, Danish, Swedish and English, all genuine Evangelical Lutheran Synods in the States and the Can- adas. Comparatively easy would be our work, were we confined to one country, tongue, or nationalitv. 183 184 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. The Council will meet this difficulty by confining it- self strictly to its own sphere. Avoiding all sectional and political questions, respecting all nationalities, yet knowing none, it must represent that true and general Lutheranism which is the servant of no nationality, language or section, and which working together for our common Lord in His purified Church, makes diverse tongues but diverse organs for His praise, diverse na- tionalities but diverse sources for the glory of His king- dom, and diverse sections only the widening of the sphere in which He reigns. A pure, living, and loving Christian- ity which can embrace this Continent, yea, the world, is true Lutheranism, the Lutheranism of the Cross, Evan- gelical Lutheranism. The second difficulty is the nature of its basis. The General Council would unite these vast interests on a basis of principle. Policy is easy, and selfishness natural, but principle is difficult. Ours is the sublimest of prin- ciples, fealty to God's eternal truth. Without the Holy Ghost in His plentitude, our work is simply impossible. Look at our basis. It accepts one rule of God's Word. It derives but one faith from that Word. It would have that faith confessed in the same words, used in one and the same sense. It designs to apply this faith to all questions which have arisen, or may arise, as to the doctrine, worship, practical life and discipline of the Church. We want no great external organization at the expense of the truth. This Council is no child of the spirit of the time. Thus far has the Lord led us. We accept the same rule of faith. We acknowledge the cor- rectness of one and the same confession of faith. But do we all understand that confession throughout in the same sense? In regard to many points of immeasurable importance, indisputably there is harmony among all, — both the par- ties to, and those whom we desire to be parties to, this contract. The general confessions are accepted and un- derstood in the same sense. They are in harmony on the distinctive articles of generic Protestantism, on all 186;. ] DIFFICULTIES OF THE COUNCIL. 185 the great generic Evangelical doctrines, and on all the absolutely indisputedly distinctive doctrines of the Luth- eran Church. The Lutheranism which the General Coun- cil embraces, and desires yet to embrace, has a relative unity incomparably beyond that of anything which, out- side of this circle, pretends to the name of Lutheranism. Jealousy of a general ecclesiastical authority is a diffi- culty which acts upon, and is reacted upon by all the others. Some fear that the great and inalienable rights which God has given the congregation and the individual Christian may be infringed upon. Say they, the congre- gation is divine, the Council human, therefore the con- gregation is safer than the Council. History is appealed to. Corrupt Councils have set forth false doctrines and persecuted the followers of the truth. Experience too has shown our Church's ability to get on without a gen- eral body; the futile attempts toward such a body in this country are cited. The congregation is divine, and has the promise of God's special aid by His Spirit through the Word. What it does in accordance with its divine rights is also of the Divine. It may become a part of its divinely marked duty to exercise the divine right of representation. The congregations represented whether by direct power, as in the local Synod, or by mediate power, as in the call of a general Council, through the Synods, are, within the bounds fixed by the congregations, the congregations themselves. Such a body of representatives is a congre- gation of congregations. In our country the people rule and legislate for themselves through their representa- tives ; and so with congregations. The promise : Where two or three are met in My name, there am I in the midst of them, is verified whether the two or three be from one or from three congregations. No less is it verified if these three be chosen, and meet at the direction of the congregations. Thus too, whether a hundred or a thou- sand congregations have their representatives in a coun- cil. The promise is verified to such a body, since it is a congregation of believers in a temporary organization l86 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. and since it is created under their divine charter by the congregations who have founded it. The legislative acts of congregations, because of their divine organization, are also divine, so far as they really represent the will of God. Divinely led, they represent themselves, and the body thus formed is mediately divine. Congregations render decisions which bind the conscience of the member, because these decisions accord with the divine Word. When one congregation calls to its aid the divinely illuminated wisdom of all the congregations, there is not a diminished but increased probability, that it will be in accordance with the mind of the Spirit. But some object the abuse of Councils. We reply that all power may be abused. The power of choice led to the fall. The power of steam instead of carrying us safely might have dashed us to pieces. The very fear thus confessed implies a power for good if it be rightly used. Guard this power against abuse, and what a gain the Church has. A true General Council will protect the right. Church history tells of glorious Councils, great palladia of the faith. The Council of Nice is referred to in Article I of the Augsburg Confession. In our Book of Concord portions of the action of the Councils of Chalcedon and Ephesus are received with favor. In the preface to the Augsburg Confession our fathers urged a general Council, and they were always exceedingly anxious for it. Says Luther in the preface to the Smal- cald Articles, *T desire from my soul that a free Christ- ian Council shall be convened." Against such a general Council the enemies of the Reformation fought, and manoeuvered with all their might. Our fathers believed, and believed rightly, that a free general Council would have thrown all Europe into the arms of the Reforma- tion. They charged as one of the greatest sins of the Pope that he took away from the Church the power of judging, making it impossible, by his refusal to hold such a council, to remove false doctrines or wrong modes of worship, "causing in consequence the loss of many souls." "Councils were not condemned, but the Pope i867.] LOYALTY TO THE FAITH. 187 who despises Councils." "The judgments of Synods are the judgments of the Church. Tiie power of judging and determining in accordance with the Word of God should not be taken from the Church." It is not logic to argue against all Councils from the sins of corrupt Councils, to bring up what was done un- der the intimidation of the Pope and of civil power; as if this Council, free from intimidation in this land of free thought and free speech, were similar to these. It is not logic to argue from Councils whose avowed basis was the avowed authority of men, to a Council based on the Word of God alone, nor should it be argued from Councils composed of men in the legalism of self-right- eousness, to a Council pervaded to the heart by the glor- ious doctrine of justification by faith; from Romish or hierarchical Councils, to this of brethren who rejoice in grasping each other's hands as equals ; from Italian in- trigue, to German openness and honesty ; from politico- ecclesiastical bodies, to this which, by its very definition of the real scope of Christian Synods, forever excludes the partisan topics of the hour. And should the General Council prove unworthy of the trust reposed, we have our refuge. It is clearly defined under what circum- stances Christian men would be justified in leaving it, and how that is to be done. When the General Council forsakes the faith, the men of faith should and will for- sake her, but not before. It is the eternal faith of God's Word which our Church confesses, to which we are loyal. "Love," says Luther, "endureth all things, faith endureth nothing." In the sphere of love we will give up every- thing for the love of Christ and our brethren. In the sphere of faith we will give up nothing; no, not a jot or a tittle : not to men, friend or foe ; not to devils, not to secure life itself. And the love which endureth all things in the sphere of love, springs alone from that faith, which, in the sphere of faith, endureth nothing: that faith, and that alone worketh by love. In the unity of that faith which, because it is inflexible to wrong, by wrongdoers is called bigotry; in the unity of that faith, which is called l88 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. by those who err intolerance, because it will not tolerate error, in that unity we will yield our mere human pre- ferences, however dear, to the wish of our brethren of the faith. We will yield all that we wish in the human con- stitution of the Church, in the human elements of her worship; everything that is of man, however beautiful and approved. The more inflexible our faith is, the more yielding is our charity; the more intolerant our faith is, the more enduring is our love ; and this we believe to be the spirit of this body. Treason is treason to the eternal faith of God's Word, not to a traitorous body which renounces or chaffers with it. Apostacy is apostacy to the truth; and the forsaking of its enemies, and secession from secession, is the first demand of those who love true union. We proclaim before men and angels, that if this body or any other, is finally committed to false doc- trine, or to a clearly false profession of true doctrine, it is not a mere privilege but a sacred duty to leave it, that we may have no fellowship with works of darkness of which heresy and hypocrisy are among the darkest. God's command to His people in the Babylon of Rome or in the Babel of Rationalism is "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers in her plagues." But we humbly believe that this Council will not prove unworthy. God is with us, my brethren. It were atheism to deny it. That providence which counts our hairs, has not without an object, ordered our meeting here. The very Cross which surmounts this edifice seems to have been put there in unconscious prophecy of this hour. For beneath it we raise the banner whose centre is the Cross. Our confession is one in which the Cross of Christ is all. Our mighty dead, our noble army of martyrs and con- fessors, as this Council in the years to come continues its work, will look down from their high homes, and in glory, as in the days of their warfare, ascribe all praise to the omnipotent arm, the omnipotent love of our ascended Lord. The headstone of the temple is to be laid in heaven, and the voices of those mighty and sainted ones whose 1867-83.] THESES PREPARED FOR THE COUXCIL. 189 memory we hallow through all these days of Jiihilee, shall be united with us in the cry "Grace, grace unto it." (Lutheran and Missionary December 12, 1867, from Fort Wayne Democrat.) Dr. Krauth was at that time in the prime of his life, forty-four years old, and through the remaining sixteen years of his life the best strength of his mature manhood was devoted to the interests of the General Council. He had prepared the way for its formation by the triumphant vindication of the Lutheran Confession against "Amer- ican Lutheranism." He had drawn up the "Principles of Faith and Church Polity" on which its constitution was founded. For ten years he was the honored and be- loved President of the Body, and always has he been recognized as its foremost theological leader, whose pro- found scholarship, whose fearless love of the truth, whose gentleness and forbearance towards those who differed from him, commanded universal respect and admiration. Whenever important points of doctrine and their appli- cation to the practical life of the Church were under dis- cussion, he was charged with the preparation of the lead- ing theses; (On Justification, Minutes of 1870; On Pul- pit and Altar Fellowship, Minutes of 1877.) If the pre- sumptions of the Roman hierarchy were to be met and repelled, as in the Encyclica of Pius IX (September 13, 1868) to "All Protestants and other Non-Catholics." he was entrusted with the answer which informed the Pope, that Lutherans "are not Non-Catholic Protestants, but are Protestants against Rome, only because Rome herself is Non-Catholic," and that "Our Church believes in one Holy, Catholic Church, the Universal Christian Church, the Communion of Saints, whose faith she confesses, and of which she is a pure part, and her true people living members." If it was a question of the Scriptural prin- ciples for the organization of a Christian congregation, 190 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. he was charged with drafting a model constitution. So also in matters referring to the order of service in the preparation of the Church Book, his voice carried the greatest weight. For many years he had been an industrious and en- thusiastic student in the department of Liturgies. (See Vol. I, pp. 154-155-) The results of his investigations, published in a series of articles in the Lutheran of 1866 and 1867, cover the whole ground of the main service and show an extensive acquaintance with the principal Agenda of the Lutheran Church in Germany, as well as with the Book of Common Prayer and its history. We are, however, inclined to think that most of this liturgical material was compiled by Dr. Krauth considerably be- fore its publication. For on several points the position taken by him on the floor of the General Council in 1867 differs from views presented in those articles. When Dr. Krauth joined the Ministerium of Penn- sylvania, in 1865, he was at once added to the Church Book Committee of that Body. At that time the Com- mittee had been at work for ten years; they had pre- pared the Liturgy of i860; they had been instructed in 1862 to consider the question of preparing a collection of hymns, and in 1863 proposed and were instructed to pre- pare what, in its result, was the Church Book, and its contents were then fixed in all essential features. In 1865 they had made and printed the provisional collection of hymns, and had done much work on the other parts, but there remained the working out, arranging and final com- pletion of all the changes which the Liturgy of i860 was to undergo, and the careful revision of the collection of hymns, and of the text of each hymn. In all this work, from 1865 on. Dr. Krauth took an active and prominent part in all consultations and decisions in the Committee, 1866-69.] LITURGICAL WORK. 191 and his elaborate liturgical studies* gave his views great weight both in Committee and in Synod. His sug- gestions and proposals made, considered and adopted in the Committee were very many. Still, Dr. B. M. Schmucker did not think that any part of the text of that edition was wrought out and presented by him, ex- cept the Versicles and a few Collects. In November, 1869. the General Council ordered the preparation and insertion of the Introits and Collects for each Sunday and Festival Day, and a collection of special Collects. In the preparation of these Dr. Krauth had a very prominent part. The Sunday and Festival Day Collects were al- ready determined, and only the translation of a few Col- lects needed revision; but a large number of the special Collects were sought out and translated by Dr. Krauth. But in all the work of revision, requiring many and pro- tracted meetings, he participated, and gave much time and labor to the work, and they were of great service to the Church, t The work of the Pennsylvania Committee had been submitted to the Reading Convention of 1866, which appointed a Committee, representing all the different Synods, "to aid the existing Committee of the Pennsyl- vania Synod in the perfecting of their contemplated Book." At the first Convention in Fort Wayne the order of service in the projected Church Book was submitted for discussion and adoption. And here Dr. Krauth took issue with his friend Dr. B. M. Schmucker, the chair- man of the Committee, who was willing to sacrifice the ancient historical order of the Lutheran service, to the "general custom" of those days, in the proposition, that * See his pencil notes in the old Agenda and Liturgical works in the Library of the Theological Seminary, at Mount Airy, Philadelphia. t See Beale M. Schmucker, Memorial of C. P. Krauth. Printed for the Ministerium of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, 1883. Pp. 16, 17. 192 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. the main service should begin with the Introit, followed by the Confession, Kyrie and Absolution. Over against the "unanimity of the Committee'' Dr. Krauth appealed to the "unanimity of the Church" and carried his point, that the Introit be restored to its usual and proper place in the service, after the Confession. Another, and far more important topic on which a difference arose between the two friends, Dr. C. P. Krauth and Dr. B. M. Schmucker, was the Constitution for Congregations. At the third convention of the Gen- eral Council (Chicago, 1869) the Executive Committee reported that it was ready to submit for the examination of the Body "a full and extended Constitution for Con- gregations." It was ordered to be published and sent down to the Synods. In 1872, after the formulation of the confessional basis for congregations, and the ar- ticles defining the position of the Pastor had been deter- mined, a new Committee was appointed, with Dr. Krauth as chairman. He prepared the draft of the Constitution which was recommended by the Committee for adoption in 1875. Dr. B. M. Schmucker, a member of the Com- mittee, presented a minority report, saying, that, while uniting in the presentation of the above report for the consideration of the Council, he did not unite in the recommendation of the Committee that it be adopted. The main point of objection on Dr. Schmucker's part was the position taken by Dr. Krauth with reference to the Scriptural offices in the congregation, the Pastorate and the Diaconate. The Constitution says : "The Chief Officers of the Christian congregation are named in the New Testament, Pastors or Shepherds, Bishops, Pres- byters or Elders, and, as they that have the rule in the Lord, all which names designate one and the same class of officers whose dignity, rights and general duties are under Divine appointment the same, and are inalienable 1875] COXSTITUTION FOR CONGREGATIOSS. 193 and unchangeable. — The Deacons are primarily the executive aids of the Pastor in the work of Christ, for and in the Congregation. They shall be installed with the laying on of the Pastor's hands." Dr. Schmucker thought these provisions concerning the Pastorate "too autocratic, and the office eminently magnified." He doubted "whether the Pastorate in our sense of the term and as it exists among us, represents the whole Presbyter- ship of the New Testament, and whether it is true that such Pastorate and Diaconate are the only ordinary and permanent offices in the congregations of the primitive Church." He feared that "the present organization of our congregations would be upset by this provision,'^ (Letter to C. P. K. September 23, 1875.) I''' support of his views Dr. Schmucker might have appealed to the testi- mony of some prominent Lutheran Theologians, as Martin Chemnitz, Johann Gerhard, and, in recent times, Dr. C. F. W. Walther, who held that the distinction be- tween teaching Elders (the Pastors) and ruling Elders (Lay-men) was scriptural, being based particularly on I Tim V. 17, as interpreted by these Doctors. Dr. Krauth on the other hand, had come to the conclusion that no such distinction was meant in this passage, if rightly un- derstood, that the New Testament Eldership was the of- fice of the Pastor alone, while the only auxiliary office in the Church was the Diaconate. This position, which was finally approved by the General Council in the adop- tion of the Constitution for Congregations in 1880, was a decided departure from the universal rule and practice of Lutheran Congregations on this Continent, since the days of Henry Melchior Muehlenberg, which provided for a Church Council consisting of Elders and Deacons (Vorsteher). There is no doubt that this feature was adopted by the Pennsylvania German Congregations from the early Dutch Reformed and German Reformed 13 ig4 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. Churches in Pennsylvania, the Dutch Lutheran Churches in New York and New Jersey, and ultimately from the German Lutheran Church in London, and the Dutch Lutheran Church in Amsterdam, those last named Luth- eran Churches being clearly influenced by the Presby- terian form of Church Government which they had learned to know and to appreciate in England and in Holland. (See : The Organi::ation of the Early Lutheran CJinrches in America. By Beale M. Schmucker, D.D., Lutheran Church Review. July, 1887.) This whole subject was treated very fully by Dr. Krauth in a series of articles (Lutheran, December 31, 1874. to February 18, 1875) "Thetical Statement of the Doctrine concerning the Ministry of the Gospel." There he says : In I Tim. v. 17, in the words "the Elders that rule well," the emphasis is on the word "well/' and the antithesis is not between two classes, with official distinc- tions, one of which merely rules, and the other does not rule, or both rules and teaches. The antithesis is between members of the same official class, some of whom rule well, others do not rule well. The word "labor" (Kopiao) means to work hard, to toil, and has special emphasis given it by parallelism with the word "well," in the first part of the verse. It implies solicitude, weari- ness, perseverance, and fixes the standard of the work of the ministry. The antithesis it involves is not between those who are ordained to teach the Word, and those who are not ordained to teach it ; nor between those who rule, and those who teach ; nor between those who rule well, and those who labor in the Word, but either do not rule at all or do not rule well ; but between those who toil in the Word and doctrine, and those who do not toil, either neglecting it or falling short of the proper activity in it, or proving themselves incapable of doing well the work of religious teachers, or for any other reason, not toiling in the Word and doctrine. — The whole theory of 1867-75] LAV ELDERS A MODERN INVENTION. jgc lay or ruling eldership is built upon two false emphases apart from which the evidence of other misused passages IS too weak to deserve notice, and is not only without warrant trom God's Word, but in direct conflict with it — The theory and office of Lay Elders is a modern m- VENTiON, the general date of whose first assertion is distmctly marked. The so-called Lay Elders have no divme right to the title of Elders, and as the title is con- nected with a false theory, and is used to support it the name ought not to be used to designate a body of men who are of purely human creation.— Though the theory obtained currency mainly through the influence of Calvin and was for a time dominant in a large part of the Cal- vinistic Churches, there have always been Calvinistic Bodies vvhich do not receive it, and it has been rejected by many of the greatest scholars of that communion- 1 hough the theory was incautiously adopted by some of t^rF'^i I'""'' ^/-'^'^ ^"'^^^"" C^^^^^J^' y^' 't is in con- flict with the teachings of our Confessions, and of the Reformers who prepared them, and rests on a dangerous fallacy the important interest which it has often been honestly meant to protect.-The term "ruling el- der IS a misnomer, as, on the admission of those who use It, the teaching elders are also, and indeed by pre- eminence, ruling Elders. ^ ^ THE PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH FELLOWSHIP IN THE GENERAL COUNCIL. At the first convention of the General Council in Fort adop ed he Constitution and was ready to enter into full niembership of the Body, asked that the General Council should expressly acknowledge, what they considered to be virtually implied in its "Fundamental Principles of Faith and Church Polity." vi. that, according' rth must brr d • '" ^^""^^'"^^ ^"^'^^^^" Churd. there must be and is condemned, all church fellowship with such as are not T ii<-liprQt-.c ^i i • "•''"P ^viLn not J^utherans the admittance of those Iq6 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. of a different faith to the privilege of communion, and into the pulpits of Lutheran Churches. This request, made by the Iowa Synod in good faith, and as a matter of conscientious conviction, presented a live question of the highest importance, which kept the General Council in constant agitation for a number of years, led to the withdrawal of several Western Synods, and seriously disturbed the harmonious and amicable re- lations between some of the leaders who had stood side by side in the great conflict with the General Synod, and in the founding of a new general Body on a sound Luth- eran basis. The struggle for the maintenance and con- sistent application of the correct principles of pulpit and altar fellowship was, in reality, a struggle for the very right of existence for the General Council. Those who, in the battle against the General Synod, had once stood up for the principle, that the distinctive doctrines of the Lutheran Confession were to be considered as funda- mental doctrines, and that no church fellowship could be maintained with those who rejected them, or refused to consider them as fundamental, could not consistently demand freedom to cultivate or tolerate temporary fel- lowship with others who were separated from the com- munion of the Lutheran Church on those very points, by what they taught and believed. Nothing less was at stake in this question, than the doctrinal basis of the General Council itself, to wit, that "the true unity of the Church must of necessity be unity in doctrine and faith and in the Sacraments." (Principles of Faith and Church Polity. Art. 2.) But the full appreciation of this principle and its prac- tical application to the momentous question of pulpit and altar fellowship was of comparatively slow growth among the leaders of the General Council themselves, not ex- cepting Dr. Krauth, who was providentially called to i867.] PULPIT AND ALTAR FELLOWSHIP. 197 give to this perplexing subject the fullest and most thor- ough-going treatment, and to lead the General Council step by step to a clearly defined and consistent position. In the different stages of the discussion of these principles he had an experience similar to what he passed through in his combat with American Lutheranism, when, after years of comparative latitudinarianism, the consistency of logic and the faithfulness to the Confession finally forced him to the declaration, that "all articles of faith are fundamental, and that the Church can never have a genuine internal harmony, except in the confession, with- out reservation or ambiguity, of these articles one and all. (See Chap. xiii. p. 115.) The adherence to, and application of this principle, was bound to make him in the end, the most powerful and consistent champion of "Close Communion" the Lutheran Church has ever had in this country or in Europe. It brought down upon him the censure, condemnation and estrangement of brethren whom he loved and esteemed, and who considered his at- titude as uncharitable, intolerant and quite inconsistent with positions he had formerly held and defended. But he held that there is no peril greater to a man's love of truth than a false pride of mechanical consistency. His seeming inconsistencies were the long growth of ripen- ing consistency. They were not the result of want of a fixed principle, — the shifting from principle to prin- ciple, — but the outgrowth of one great set of principles, maturing and bringing into more perfect harmony the conviction and the act. From the hour that, by God's grace, through many a sore struggle and conflict, he had begun to approach the firm ground, up to the present, he had moved in one line. His present convictions were connected by unbroken succession with those earliest ones. "The law of growth is the law of life. The inconsist- encies of the earnest seeker of truth are like the incon- 198 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. sistencies of the oak with its acorn. There are changes, but it is one life which has conditioned them all." (Re- marks at the First Diet, Philadelphia, 1877, p. 143.) The question of Pulpit and Altar Fellowship was for the first time fully discussed by the General Council at the Pittsburgh Convention, 1868, on the basis of a Com- mittee report, prepared by Dr. Krauth as chairman. The recommendations of this report which were unanimously adopted, contain the following points : "As regards Ex- change of pulpits, we hold, i. — That the purity of the pulpit should be guarded with the most conscientious care, and that no man shall be admitted to our pulpits, whether of the Lutheran name or any other, of whom there is just reason to doubt whether he will preach the pure truth of God's Word as taught in the Confessions of our Church. 2. — Lutheran ministers may properly preach wherever there is an opening in the pulpits of other Churches, unless the circumstances imply, or seem to imply, fellowship with error or schism, or a restriction on the unreserved expression of the whole counsel of God. — As regards the Communion with those not of our Church, we hold, that the principle of a discriminate, as over against an indiscriminate Communion, is to be firmly maintained. Heretics and fundamental errorists are to be excluded from the Lord's Table. The respon- sibility of an unworthy approach to the Lord's Table does not rest alone upon him who makes the approach, but also upon him who invites it." The position taken by Dr. Krauth in the extended dis- cussion of these principles clearly shows, that at the time of the Pittsburgh convention, (1868) he was not ready to endorse fully and unreservedly the inferences drawn by the Iowa Synod, ''that all church fellowship with such as are not Lutheran,. .. .the admittance of those of a different faith to the privilege of communion and into the pulpits of Lutheran Churches must be condemned." 1868] AT THE PITTSBURGH CONVENTION. 199 He realized the profound importance of these questions as conditioning the future, not only of the Lutheran Church, but of Protestantism itself. On the general question, he said, there is no contro- versy. All pure churches with a sound discipline, recog- nize the general principle of discriminate, over against in- discriminate communion. This general principle is based on God's Word. A man that is an heretic is to be re- jected. Those are condemned who bring in damnable heresies. It grows out of the true unity of the Church which is a unity of faith. An outward without an inward unity is a sham, a fraud, an assault upon the true unity of the Church. The unity in the faith is the condition of communion. With the Lutheran Church her doctrine of the Lord's Supper is a fundamental article of faith. The question is not, then, shall there be a discrimination in the Communion ? In this all agree. The Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Baptist, all sound church organizations unite in such discrimination. The question is : What are the certain things necessary to justify such discrimina- tion? There has ever been a difference in the application of the particular and the Oecumenical Confessions. The Lutheran Church views in a different light those who differ from her peculiar Creed, and those who differ from the Apostles', the Nicene, the Athanasian Creed. A Pres- byterian is not to be placed on the same ground as a So- cinian. Not as to the outer then, but as to the inner circle, is the difficulty. Shall we, under all circumstances, exclude from the Lord's Table all who are not in the same external organization with us? There are differ- ences arising from ignorance, not willingly ; through simplicity, not understandingly. Have we not met in other churches those who accepted the faith of our Luth- eran Church as that of the Bible? Miserably un-Lutheran in doctrine are many who call themselves Lutheran. By no external limits of ecclesiastical organization is this question to be settled, but by the unity of the faith. 200 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. In a similar strain he expressed himself on the "Ex- change of Pulpits." All churches worthy of the name agree that there is to be no exchange of pulpits with Errorists. The churches around us, many of whose members may think us bigots, will find that their most prominent teachers have held this position. The practice of the Apostles, the practice of the Church up to the Reformation, and of all churches since that time, has been to allow no inter- change of pulpits with errorists. This is not a mere mat- ter of opinion, or social refinement, or courtesy, but it is a question deep, broad and vital. The pulpit is the great guard of purity of doctrine. The Gospel as preached is the power of God. A pure pulpit makes a pure church ; a confused pulpit a confused church. Loose views on this subject tend to moral skepticism. To this nothing is more favorable than the idea that the churches are all right ; that truth has been torn into fragments, and here we find a toe, there an ear, in another place a hand. This is one of the worst tendencies of the Union-speculations of the present day, and is to a great extent, caused by this business of pulpit-exchange. The distinctive doc- trines of the Lutheran Church are important. We hold doctrines opposed to the general tendency of the Amer- ican mind. We have therefore a peculiar difficulty in holding our people fast to the pure doctrines which we confess, and have confessed, some of them almost against the world. Looseness on this point weakens the ground on which we make a test of candidates for our Ministry. Our position may be summed up as follows: i. — \Ye all agree that a man who holds doctrinal views contrary to the Oecumenical Creeds should be excluded from our pulpits. 2. — We are all agreed in this : A Lutheran min- ister may preach wherever there is an opening, unless there be something to show fellowship with error or to restrict his preaching- the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. 3. — All are agreed in this : Sects which have arisen from factious subdivisions are not to be placed i868.] THE INTERCHANGE OF PULPITS. 20 1 on the same level with the churches from which they have sprung. God forbid that we should place the Re- formed Church upon a level with the Campbellites and other factious schismatics. 4. — /\11 are agreed that no man should be admitted to our pulpits, whether he bear the name of Lutheran or not, who does not preach the true Word of God. 5. — On the interchange of pulpits we must exercise the extremest care, and hence no Synod should be condemned which positively restricts its pulpits to those who are Lutheran. We see clearly that, if we could draw that sharp line, it would simplify the ques- tion. 6. — Other ministers holding to the Confessions of the Church Universal, and affording evidence that they will preach the truth of God's Word as our Church con- fesses it. should not be excluded. There always have been, out of our Church, those who have held to the faith of the Church. Martin Luther, when he began the Re- formation, was pure in the truths of the Holy Word. If there were a Romish Priest now, whose circumstances were similar, although still under the sway of Rome. I believe, that I would be doing nothing wrong to admit him into my pulpit to preach the doctrine of justification by faith. . . .If then in that corrupt church this is true, can we not find in the churches wliich have fought with us against the common enemy, for Protestantism over against Rome, for the sufficiency of Scripture over against its insufficiency, for justification by faith over against justification by works, — can we not find those whom we can in\ite into our pulpits? We must make a difference between those who differ with us on the essen- tial Christianity, and those who agree with us on those precious truths which rise above all distinctions. Our Brethren may think us deficient in logical consistency, but they will do justice to our Christian hearts. There are so many not of us, yet so dear to us, that we cannot say: You shall not enter our pulpits. Dr. Krauth was evidently aware of the unsatisfactory •character, — the "logical inconsistency" — of his position 202 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. at that time. The distinction between those who differ from "the particular confessions" of the Lutheran Church, and "those who differ from the Oecumenical Confessions, the Apostles', the Nicene and the Athanasian Creed," was irrelevant and untenable in the consideration of this question of pulpit and altar fellowship, because it ignored the fundamental character of the "distinctive" doctrines of the Lutheran Confession, and would have opened the door to Romanists as adherents of the Oecumenical Creeds. And the sentimental appeal to the "Christian heart" in the case of those who err "from ignorance, not willingly, through simplicity, not under- standingly," was hardly in place, where a confessional principle was at stake. Dr. Krauth, even at that time, saw clearly, that the question would be settled in the simplest way, if the definite confessional line could be sharply drawn. But he was not yet prepared for that. Even two years later, at the convention in Lancaster, O., (1870) he still stood by the same position. The Pitts- burgh declarations had not been satisfactory to the West- ern Synods. The Synod of Wisconsin withdrew from the General Council. And at the Chicago convention (1869) the Minnesota Synod re-opened the question, asking, whether the right interpretation of the General Council's testimony was this: i. — That heretics and fundamental errorists cannot be admitted to our altars as communicants, nor into our pulpits as teachers of our congregations? 2. — Since the so-called distinctive doc- trines of the Lutheran Church are fundamental, whether the General Council understood by "fundamental er- rorists" those who, with regard to these distinctive doc- trines, are not in harmony with the pure Word of God as it is confessed and taught in our Church? A Committee, consisting of Drs. Seiss, (Chairman) Krauth and C. W. Schaeffer, was charged with the pre- paration of an answer to the "Minnesota Question." Dr_ i87o.] THE "MINNESOTA QUESTION." 203 Krauth had conferred with the chairman of the Commit- tee. He had himself prepared a very full statement on the subject, which is still extant among his papers. Part of the draft of an answer, proposed by Dr. Seiss, had been submitted to Dr. Krauth. But, unfortunately, un- der the impression, that the Chairman of the Committee was in essential accord with his own views on this point, Dr. Krauth had not examined the full report in its final form, in which it was submitted to the convention in Lan- caster (1870), as he himself frankly confessed in the course of the debate. Thus it happened that his name appeared under a definition of the term "fundamental er- rorists," as those "who err from the common Christian faith as embodied in the three general Creeds," — a defini- tion, which did not represent Dr. Krauth's views, and which was so unsatisfactory to the General Council, that tlie report was referred back to the Committee "with in- structions to make certain alterations." (See Minutes of Fourth Convention G. C. p. 27.) But, after all, the final action of the General Council at Lancaster (1870) ex- pressly stated, that the term "fundamental errorists" in the Pittsburgh declaration did not include "those who are the victims of involuntary mistake, but those who wil- fully, wickedly and persistently desert, in whole or in part, the Christian faith, especially as embodied in the Confessions of the Church Catholic, in the purest form in which it now exists on earth, to wit : the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and thus overturn or destroy the foun- dation in them confessed; and who hold, defend and ex- tend these errors in the face of the admonitions of the Church, and to the leading away of men from the path of life." In consequence of this action the Synods of Illinois and Minnesota withdrew from the General Coun- cil. No final settlement of the question had been reached by this declaration. It still did not touch the main issue. It dealt with the whole problem, however earnestly and 204 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. sincerely, as belonging to the sphere of pastoral rules and regulations, and not as a fundamental principle of faith and confession. But only one year afterward, during the Rochester convention (1871) Dr. Krauth declared, in private con- versation, his sincere conviction, that the position of the Iowa Synod on the question of church fellowship was the only correct and consistent one, and that this whole matter would not be settled in the General Council, until it had reached the same position. At the Akron convention (1872) the Iowa Synod, through its delegate. Dr. Sigmund Fritschel, renewed its request for a definite answer to the mooted question. What it desired was "not the mere pastoral advice how to act in certain difficult cases, but the establishment of the confessional principle." The General Council was asked, that certain verbal declarations of its President, (Dr. Krauth) "in which the confessional principle was clearly and unequivocally expressed," be adopted by the Body as its own official statement. By request the Presi- dent reduced those statements to writing, and they were formally adopted as the sense of the Lancaster declara- tions, to wit: I. — The rule is: Lutheran pulpits for Lutheran ministers only. Lutheran Altars for Lutheran communicants only. 2. — The Exceptions to the Rule be- long to the sphere of privilege, not of right. 3. — The de- termination of the exceptions is to be made in consonance with these principles, by the conscientious judgment of pastors as the cases arise. (Sixth Convention G. C. Minutes p. 47.) A climax was reached in the discussion of the Church Fellowship problem at the ninth convention of the Gen- eral Council, in Galesburg, Illinois, 1875. In the month of June, of the same year, the Swedish Augustana Synod had taken action on the subject of "Mixed Communion," and had adopted the following declarations : "Fellowship i875.] THE GALES BURG RULE. 205 in the Supper with those who have and hold a doctrine (hfferino- from our Confession, especially relative to the Lord's Supper, is, in a greater or less degree, a denial of our own faith and confession, and is making little account of the Supper itself. — No others, therefore, ought to be allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper within the Church, than those who belong to the Church or have the same faith and confession with our Church." Fol- lowing up this action of one of the largest and most in- fluential bodies in connection with the General Council, Dr. Justus Ruperti, pastor of the German St. Matthew's Church in New York City, gave notice in the first session of the Galesburg convention of the General Council, that he would submit propositions for the consideration of the subject of Pulpit and Altar Fellowship. This led to the adoption of the famous "Galesburg Rule/' passed in the sixth session. October 11, 1875, as follows: "The General Council expresses its sincere gratifica- tion at the progress of a true Lutheran practice in the different Lutheran Synods, since its action on communion and exchange of pulpits with those not of our Church, as well as at the clear testimony in reference to these subjects officially expressed by the Augustana Synod at its convention in 1875 ; nevertheless we hereby renewedly call the attention of our pastors and churches to the principles involved in that testimony, in the earnest hope that our practice may be conformed to our united and deliberate testimony on this subject, viz.. the rule, which accords with the Word of God and with the Confessions of our Church, is: Lutheran pulpits for Lutheran min- isters only — Lutheran altars for Lutheran communicants only." (Ninth Convent. G. C. Minutes, p. 17.) In re- gard to this action the President. Dr. Krauth, made an official declaration to this effect: 'The sole change in this action is, it declares whence we get the rule, to wit, out of the Word of God and the Confessions of our 2o6 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. Church. It only makes expHcit, what was impHed before. And in the practical application of it, all pretence that the rule is only a human rule, or rule of order, is pre- cluded." This action of the General Council stirred up the great- est excitement, particularly among the English pastors and congregations of the Body. Dr. J. A. Kunkleman, pastor of St. Mark's English Lutheran Church, Philadel- phia, addressed a note to the Lutheran and Missionary (October i8, 1875) in which he asked : i.— Is the report of the Council's action correct? 2. — Where does the Word of God, and where does the Confession of the Church give the rule : Lutheran Pulpits for Lutheran Ministers only ; Lutheran Altars for Lutheran Communicants only ? Dr. G. F. Krotel, the writer of the "Insulanus" letters in the Lutheran and Missionary, in a letter to Dr. Krauth of October 19, 1875, applied "to headquarters for in- formation concerning the Galesburg action, inasmuch as it was evidently understood in two different ways, the one party believing that the position contended for from the beginning has been abandoned in favor of the strict- est view and practice, while others were under the im- pression that the resolutions adopted at Akron remain unaltered." Two days after Dr. Kunkleman's questions had appeared in the Lutheran, the Editor-in-Chief, Dr. J. A. Seiss, addressed the following note to Dr. Krauth : October 30, 1875. Dear Bro. — There is considerable feeling generating among some of our clergy of the General Council re- specting the late pronouncement of that Body on the "Rule" concerning Lutheran Pulpits and Altars. You know there has been no difference among us as to the Rule in general, the whole controversy having been on the legitimacy, under the Scriptures and Confessions, of I I875-] EXPLANATION DEMANDED. 207 "Exceptions." situated as we are in these weak and dis- ordered times. The face of tiie late action would seem to repeal or supersede all previous utterances with regard to such exceptions. It makes the "Rule" to be the teaching and requirement of the Holy Scriptures and the Confessions, and as there can be no exceptions to such a rule, many feel, that what we (including yourself) have been insist- ing on in this matter, has been summarily cast overboard, and that we are now in loyalty expected to accept and en- force a "Rule" as absolute, divine and essential, which, as it stands without qualification, is neither in the Scriptures nor in the Confessions of our Church. In his answer to this letter, dated November 3. 1875, Dr. Krauth said : No part of the affirmation at Akron is intended as be- ing withdrawn. The rule is simply defined as to its source, and that source, I always meant, and supposed the Council to mean, "accords with God's Word and the Confession." Those who regarded it as a new rule of order will, of course, find their relation to it changed, but no others will. If you will give me a little time, and keep out of the papers all unauthorized statements of facts and arguments from men, of whom, I suppose, there are a number anxious to rush into print, I shall be happy to take up Bro. Kunkleman's letter and reply to it. As the Doctor did take "a little time" before he was ready to commit himself to print, Dr. Seiss grew some- what impatient and urged an immediate answer in a note of November 22, 1875, in which he says: "You who are not pastors, nor in direct contact with the people, may not feel it. but the trouble is rising. Our paper must speak. I must give answer to the pressure which is more strongly alienating some of our best ministers and men from the General Council, than anything that has oc- curred. Unless some speedy and satisfactory explanation is given of the impression that has been made, I will be 208 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV- compelled to go with these people. Please clear the mat- ter up without further delay." This was followed by another note of December 4, 1875, in which Dr. Seiss says : I am glad that you will write now. We lost immensely by the delay. Friends have turned away from my church, relinquished their purpose to take pews, have said they will never enter it again, because of the impres- sions everywhere being put against us, by reason of the unfortunate touching of this fellowship-question. It is simply impossible to maintain ourselves on the Missouri ground. It will take the Indiana, and Ohio, and Holston Synods out of the Council at once. It will split the Pitts- burgh Synod and our own. Our men in the principal English churches cannot endure to stand under it. Right or wrong, the facts are stronger than the logic. The education of a hundred years cannot be legislated out by the crude utterance of a moment. Thus far our people have consented to follow us, not their feelings and convictions in the matter. The tide has now turned the other way, and it will dash all our English interests into speedy disaster if not utter ruin, unless a strong breakwater be thrown up. No mere placebos will answer now. I have an idea that you have not half taken in as true, what I have stated to you, or you would not have dealt with me in the case in a way which will bear the con- struction of indifference, if not trifling. This I was made to feel keenly when no response came to my last urgent note of Monday morning, November 22d, after having waited weeks beyond the time you had named. I could not, dared not, and therefore, did not allow the matter to hang any longer, not knowing when you would speak, or what. The statements as to the state and course of things were not the fabrication of my own imagination, but with solid information from all parts of the Church with reference to it, and results threatened. i875] THE EXPLANATION GIVEN. 209 You may not believe that things are as serious as they are ; but better believe it now than find it out when it is too late. Hoping that your proposed article may have the effect of helping to save us from the perils which have so un- necessarily, and without occasion, been precipitated upon us and our English churches especially, I shall await its coming with great interest. In the Lutheran and Missionary of December 16, 1875, Dr. Krauth published the First Article on the Purity of the Pulpit and the Sanctity of the Altar, from which we give the following main points : No action of the General Council seems to have excited more interest than this. The sectarianism of the country, true to the instinct of self-preservation, has pronounced against it, without qualification. Many thoughtful and conscientious men have expressed their strong approval of it. Others, no less conscientious and thoughtful, are perplexed, from an imperfect acquaintance with its mean- ing, or with its grounds, and ask for more light upon it As one who as chairman, or member, has served on every Committee to whose hands the questions touch- ing the purity of the pulpit and the sanctity of the Altar, have been entrusted by the Council, as one who was pres- ent at its last sessions and who thus has an essential pre- requisite to a full comprehension of the spirit of the action, and who, when called on, in the debate, asserted the pro- priety of the action, approved it then, and approves it now, the writer feels that the demand made from many sources that he should reply to these questions is not un- reasonable. Confessing as he did at Pittsburgh, in the first of the debates in the Body that "the logic and the history of the case" were with the practice which he could not then endorse, he has come to see that the true character of Christian love makes the same requisition with the logic and history; and that all conspire with the authority of 14 210 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. God's Word, and the witness of the purest confession of the Church in estabHshing the rule accepted at Akron, and affirmed in a completer shape at Galesburg. To cor- rect the misapprehension of which we have spoken, and others, we propose to explain the action of the Council. If after the explanation, it shall be deemed necessary, we may defend it The declaration at Galesburg is in fact in the harmony of a consistent maturing, with all the previous positive action of the General Council. It contradicts none of it; it completes it all. That action has not only always wisely avoided the foreclosing in any way of the pos- sibility of growth, but has throughout assumed the neces- sity of growth. The universal feeling has been that the condition of things was largely provisional. The self- educating power of the Body had been so marked that no one could believe that its limits had been reached. Throughout its whole growth on the questions which in- volve the purity of the Pulpit and the sanctity of the Altar, it never pretended or desired to preclude the most rigid disciplinary practice on the part of those who be- lieved that the principle acknowledged in the earliest ac- tion of the Council demanded such a practice, or made it the safer mode. Any one who will read the action unanimously adopted in Pittsburgh will see, that it is ex- tremely difficult, — to us it seems impossible — to accord with it practically under a rule short of that involved at Lancaster, affirmed at Akron, and re-affirmed at Gales- burg. The latest is but the riper affirmation of principle involved and acknowledged from the beginning, the more solid basis of a discipline recognizing a rule, which can only be a rule to a true Lutheran as he shall be convinced that it accords with God's Word, and with the confessions of His pure Church. It is an adult utterance, valuable in itself, and yet more in the spirit of the discussion which it elicited, and the harmony of views it demonstrated. The rule and the manner of its utterance showed a clear- ing away of misapprehension and of half-conviction, an intelligent and solemn fixedness of purpose, which made I I87S-6.] "A STORM OF SENSELESSNESS" 211 all present realize what a power for good the General Council has been, and how necessary it is for the Church. The General Council has shown throughout a spirit of searching, patience, gentleness and openness, which carry the promise of a great future. Through private correspondence Dr. Krauth asked the chairmen of the different Synodical delegations of the Galesburg convention for their opinion and judgment, on his statement in the Lutheran, December 16. They unanimously approved of his statement as correct, and essentially also of the spirit of his explanation. But the Editor of the Lutheran was not so well pleased with it. "The matter," he said, "needs much more thorough examination and closeness of thinking than has yet been given it in any of the discussions that have been had, and we propose now to open our columns for that exam- ination, using, of course, our editorial prerogative with regard to any article that may be offered." (December 23, 1875.) And a few weeks afterward, the Lutheran said editorially of Dr. Krauth's paper : "Having de- layed so long, and then, w'ith so much deliberation, hav- ing tied up his testimony with various statements and arguments, modifying and dulling the whole edge of it as against absolute exclusivism. his article has had the misfortune not to satisfy either side, but to excite and intensify the feelings on both sides." (January 13, 1876.) A perfect flood of communications on the mooted question swept over the Lutheran and Missionary in those months. Well might the Editor, who had himself in- vited them, say with Goethe's Zauberlehrling: "Die ich rief die Geister li'erd ich nimmer los!"* Dr. Krauth com- forted himself and his friends: 'T think, the very fury of this storm of senselessness will make it pass away the sooner. It will grow feebler every hour when the reac- * I cannot get rid of the spirits I called. 212 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. tion begins. Partisanship is great in a short race, but principle prevails in the long run." In order to make the situation in those days of violent conflict fully understood by our readers, it will be neces- sary to give them a few specimens of the communica- tions which the editor of the Lutheran admitted, as re- presenting a "much more thorough examination and closeness of thinking," and which Dr. Krauth, rather mildly, characterized as "a storm of senselessness." Dr. Reuben Hill, a man prominent in the councils of the Church, who had served the first English Lutheran Church in Pittsburgh as Dr. Krauth's successor (1860- 1866) saw in the action of the General Council nothing but an unwarranted assumption of hierarchical power, such as the Vatican had claimed, and Protestantism had resisted and defeated in past times. Suppose we put the same power which has been taken from the Pope and his College of cardinals into the hands of other men, what have we gained, and what is all our boasted freedom worth? If we create a council of men with power, from time to time, to issue decrees and establish rules, and send them down to us to obey, un- der pain of condemnation by the Word of God and the Symbolical Books, what have we gained by becoming Protestants? We were required before the Reformation to do nothing more than to put our judgment and conscience in the keeping of other men, and that is what is demanded of us here. If we have close communion and an exclusive pulpit this year, we may have the secret society dogma next year, and a mandate on usury the next ; then a law on wine or one regulating meat on Fri- day and other days; then the number of buttons on the shirt, and the length of the coat-tail. Why not? Such things have been done by men heretofore, and men are still made of the same material. The main objection to the late action of the General Council does not lie so 1875-6.] DOIVX WITH THE FOREIGNERS! 213 much against the matter as the manner of it. It is against the right to create new dogmas and impose them upon the Church, that the latter ought to enter its unaherable protest. And this the Churches of the General Council must do ; otherwise they will stand aside from the "Fun- damental Principles" on which they agreed to establish it. For, aside from the Bible, they know no authority but the Augsburg Confession. "What it leaves to the freedom of the Church, of right belongs to that freedom." And if our Churches suffer it to be taken away, they show themselves to be unworthy descendants of illustrious sires, they betray the holy trust that has been committed to them, and deserve the ignominious destiny that awaits them. Dr. S. L. Harkey who, in the year 1884 and 1885, held the position of English Recording Secretary of the Gen- eral Council, protested most violently on the same grounds, and raised the flag of the wildest nativism against the foreigners from Europe who threatened ruin to the Lutheran Church in America. It remains to be seen whether the General Council will attempt a hierarchical enforcement of its law upon free churches and free people; or whether those congrega- tions in their sovereign capacity, out of whom all power arises, will say to the Council. "Wait, till you are author- ized by us to make such a law for us." The attempt of forty or fifty men, clerical and lay, to legislate for the consciences of 500,000 communicants, without consult- ing them, is the grandest presumption that has been wit- nessed on this continent. . . .We have been reading the Bible and the Confessions of the Church for more than forty years, and do not need the help of any European Doctor of Divinity or Philosophy, to tell us what they teach. We propose to do our own reading and thinking and acting; and even if all Europe should come and ridicule our ignorance, or threaten us with violence. It is true, however, that we have some Americans, who all along in this controversy have acted as suppliant de- 214 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. pendents upon our foreign dictators, conceding that they were right in their demands, asking only for a Httle more time; and piteously exclaiming, "Have patience with us, and we will pay you all;" but happily, we think, they are in the minority. (February 3, 1876.) In another communication the same writer, with Luther and Webster as his authorities, proves triumph- antly, that the principle contended for by Dr. Krauth is against the whole spirit and language of the Apostles' Creed, more particularly the "Communion of Saints" in the third Article. "The Communion of Saints" in the Apostles' Creed requires all Christians to regard each other as upon a perfect equality, jointly entitled to a participation in all the rights and privileges of the children of God every- where, under all circumstances, and in all times. Abso- lutely nothing can be claimed by one, which is not the lawful inheritance of all. And it is impossible to intro- duce invidious distinctions among that class of persons here designated, being all true children of God upon earth. Unfortunately there were not a few utterances, even in the editorial columns of the Luthcj'an in those days, which seemed to indicate that Dr. J. A. Seiss himself was strongly leaning toward the position taken by these radicals. He charges against the Confessional position, that "it involves a polemic scholasticism, and exaggerated distinctivism, and an obscuration of the sacred lines of difference between the relative worth of doctrines, and remote details and fractions of doctrines, which has yielded our Church many apples of Sodom in the centuries past, and which, if given sway again, would bring like fruits, disable the Council, alienate and scatter its people, and dwarf its being, if not utterly destroy the best hopes of our Church in this country. At the very least it would be a great unwisdom to revive the 1876.] A LETTER FROM OLYMPUS. 215 ruinous scholasticism of the seventeenth century, as the proper thing for the Lutheran Church in America. . . . One 'Thus saith the Lord,' and one single word of Scripture, is enough to set aside all the logical conclusions in the world. And if the question under discussion be one of mere logical deduction, we only bring ourselves and the Church in peril by submitting to be governed by it as a divine requirement. It is here that the Apos- tolic monition applies, ' Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ.' " (Col. ii. 8.) In the editorial of October 12, 1876, just before the Convention in Bethlehem met, the Editor of the Lutheran made bold to say: "The Gales- burg Rule is simply a myth, a fable. There is no such rule." (!!) A refreshing oasis in the wilderness of those barren disputations was a contribution from the pen of Dr. Krauth's daughter, which was admitted into the Luth- eran, though it contained, in exquisite satire, a scathing exposure of the shallow Unionism that was on the ram- page. In a "Letter from Olympus" (February 5, 1876) the following picture was drawn of the ideal "Union- Church" : We had material for one strong congregation. We resolved to have a church that would satisfy all its mem- bers. The Rev. Felix Medium announced that he would preach any doctrine required, would be "all things to all men," but would like to retain the ritual of his sect. Whereupon the Vice-President sniffed and called him a Papist, and the Rev. Felix withdrew his proposition un- der cover of the text, "If any man take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." Soon afterwards a meeting was held to establish the doctrinal basis of the Church. Every man was armed with a Concordance, (alluded to so often in your columns as the Book of Concord,) and 2l6 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. with the help of that, one can support any system. A Concordance has this advantage over the fuller Scripture, that the latter, as the hymn on the widow's mite says, " May forfeit the blessing by giving too much." The Rev. Felix Medium addressed us most poetically. . He began with the passage about brethren dwelling to- gether in unity, but acknowledged that it failed to ex- press the utter height of love and peace and charity which would be required of us. We were not brethren, far from it; but it was deemed advisable that we should be united. Let us then go beyond the narrow view of the Jewish poet, and contemplate the fuller glory, where the wolf and the lamb, the young lion and the calf, dwell together. Let us enter into the kingdom as little children, and gambol, as it were, on each other's dens. He then summed up the main points of doctrine held among us, and showed us how near agreement we were on essen- tials. He assured us that if we refrained from questions which gender strife, a few years would make us a pros- perous and strong Church, with all the modern improve- ments. Some practical remarks were made by laymen, as to the necessity for cash payments, the advantages of hard woods, and proper modes of ventilation ; and then we organized the First United Denominational Church of Olympus. Each man pledged himself to pay five hun- dred dollars down ; the faith of the members was left to individual consciences ; and no doctrine was to be pub- licly taught until it had been adopted at a congregational meeting. Each member was also to receive five dollars a week in case of sickness, and the minister's life and furniture were to be insured. I regret to say that three families in our town declined to take part in the new organization, and curiously enough it happens that they all belong to your sect. I have had no opportunity of studying your theology, but I think it must be deficient in a power of assimilation, so to speak. Neither argument nor coaxing moved these Lutherans. For a long while they rode ten miles every 1876.] THE CONGREGATIONS TAKE PART. 217 Sunday, to a feeble little mission somewhere up in the country, and now. with a few more families, they have a tiny church of their own. Quite possibly they are "ex- clusivists," and think their seven-by-nine shanty is the only visible church in Olympus; when the fact is, it is scarcely visible across the street. Our Church is very flourishing. We have the highest spire, and the largest cabinet organ, and the most expensive choir in the county. We have a sewing society ; a "Green Bay-Tree" society for the young men ; a "Daughters of Jerusalem" society for the young ladies ; and a "Martha of Bethany" so- ciety for the monthly temperance tea parties. We have a fair every two years, and a strawberry festival regularly when strawberries are cheap : and we are thinking of an excursion to the centennial. I hope my letter may convince your readers that it is not necessary to be anything particular, doctrinally, in order to get up a "Visible Church." The great points are: i. — Avoid discussion; "we must not strive." "If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." "Knowledge puffeth up, but Charity edifieth." 2. — Be conciliating, and "love as brethren." 3. — Congregations are infallible; "no doubt, but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you." Paul is nothing, (he says so himself,) Apol- los is nothing, but the "way-faring men, though fools, shall not err" Yours most sincerely, Alexandrina L. Medium, nee Mortimer. In January, 1876, the Lutheran editorially published the veiled threat : "Our congregations which have hitherto been very little consulted in these matters, have been im- pelled to take them into their own hands ; and it cannot now be stopped. The Synods of next summer and au- tumn will be memorialized on the subject in forms, and to an extent, which will prove to the most unwilling what they have unfortunately too much ignored." St. John's and St. Mark's English Churches in Philadelphia did so memorialize the Synod of Pennsylvania. It was stated, / 2l8 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. "That it is our unanimous conviction and belief, that we violate no given law of God, and do not compromise any doctrine of the divine Word held and confessed by the common Lutheran Church, when, under reasonable circumstances and just limitations, we invite into our pulpit, or receive at our altar, ministers or people, whom we have cause to regard as sincere believers of the saving doctrines of the Gospel, and devout observers of its sacred ordinances, even though they be not of our own immediate connection." And yet, the pastor of St. John's himself. Dr. J. A. Seiss, was hardly in full accord with such views and such practice. In an editorial in the Lutheran he declared distinctly, "that it is altogether safest and best for all sides, not to give a general public invitation to members of other denominations to join with us in the Holy Communion. We have not given such an invitation for a decade of years or more ; and this, we believe, is the prevailing practice in the General Council." Meanwhile Dr. Krauth calmly and firmly pursued the even tenor of his way. He was particularly anxious that the good cause for which he was contending should not be sullied by the use of carnal weapons, by human passion and offensive personalities. With unwavering loyalty to his old friends who now, to his great sorrow, differed with him on this issue, he frankly and promptly criticized Dr. Ruperti's flings at "the spirits that constitute the edi- torial bureau of the Lutheran." I think, he writes to him (January 15, 1876), the personal allusions were simply calculated to produce bit- terness of feeling, and to close the hearts of the men as- sailed, and of their friends, to the truth. Dr. Krotel, Dr. Seiss and Mr. Kunkelman are men who love the Church, have conscientiously labored for it. are highly and justly esteemed in it, and are certainly entitled to the most courteous personal treatment. One of the most 1876.] IN QUIETNESS AND CONFIDENCE. 219 serious obstacles in the way of the advance of the truth, is the harshness of the men of the Synodical Conference, towards those who have not been able to see entirely with them. If we don't speak in their way, they abuse us with- out stint: if we do speak in their way, they say, we are dissemblers, and don't mean what we say. While you are doing good by standing up in the General Council for the truth, do good for the General Council by helping the Missouri Synod to look with justice and kindness upon it. for they cruelly misunderstand its real spirit. If the Gen- eral Council be broken down, it would be an immeasurable calamity to our Church. The Synodical Conference might pick up some of the fragments, but the larger part of it would be too disheartened to attempt a new organization, and would certainly not unite with any of the existing ones. Dr. Krauth himself quietly proceeded with his work of explaining and defending the confessional principle which had been pronounced by the General Council at Gales- burg. The work expanded wonderfully under his hands. Article followed upon article, until he had covered the Avhole ground in a series of fourteen essays, in which his vast learning, his inexorable logic and, above all, the depth and fullness of his personal conviction, combined to give to the Church the most profound and complete defense of "The Purity of the Pulpit and the Sanctity of the Altar," she ever possessed in this new world, or in the old. While the opponents of the strict "Rule" continued to consider all the different declarations of the General Council in the light of pastoral regulations, which would naturally and necessarily admit of "exceptions," and wished that the General Council had been satisfied with its Pittsburgh declarations, with which they claimed to be in perfect accord. Dr. Krauth had come to see, that even those Pittsburgh declarations, correctly understood 220 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. and logically applied, embodied the confessional prin- ciple, though he himself, at the time, had failed to recog- nize and appreciate their full bearing. He now read the fundamental principle of confessional discrimination in the pulpit and at the altar, into all the declarations of the Pittsburgh, Akron and Lancaster Conventions, and the whole development from Pittsburgh to Galesburg was to him, as it actually was in the history of the Council, a steady, unbroken progression on one line of faithful ad- herence to the Confession of the Church. "Our aim is to see whether, in the light which we now have, we can come to the full comprehension of our own language r for often nothing is harder than to comprehend the full force of our own words. We have often found a prin- ciple to the acceptance of which we had been brought in the providence of God, unfold and again unfold itself, until we have been astonished at the result. We have admitted the acorn and it has become an oak. The prin- ciple is unchanged; but the consistency of the acorn is- development into the oak. What a boy can crush in his fingers expands into that which defies the tempests for ages. Such is the principle in its outgrowth."* In the year 1876 the General Council met at Bethle- hem, Penna. The official action of eight of its District- synods on the Galesburg declaration was reported as fol- lows: In the Ministerium of Pennsylvania (76,033 com- municants) its delegation had stated the action at Gales- burg, together with the President's official declaration,, from which no appeal had been taken ; and declared its belief, "that the manifest intention which moved this action was not to coerce the practice of our congregations, but to set forth the true principle on this subject, and earnestly to direct their attention to it. The action was * Remarks on the floor of the Pennsylvania Synod, Reading, 1876. 1876.] SYNODICAL ACTION ON THE RULE. 221 meant to be not governmental but educational .... The Council set forth its conviction of that which is true and right on this subject, in the full persuasion that sooner or later it would be accepted by our churches." The New York Ministerium (27,600 communicants) accepted the Galesburg declaration as correct, expressed its approval of the same and exhorted its pastors to strive with wisdom and fidelity that this rule may ever more come fully into practice. The Pittsburgh Synod (10,759 communicants) ap- proved the action of the delegates at Galesburg. The District Synod of Ohio (6,677 communicants) ac- cepted the statement of its President who in his report communicated the action at Galesburg. The Michigan Synod (3,300 communicants) ap- proved the addition made at Galesburg to the first part of the Akron declaration, but desired the omission of the second and third parts with reference to exceptions. The Swedish Augustana Synod (33,265 communi- cants) simply re-afiirmed its Theses on Mixed Com- munion. The Indiana Synod (2030 communicants) endorsed the action of its delegates at Galesburg. They had voted against the Galesburg declaration, under the persuasion that to vote for it would have been equivalent to declar- ing any exceptions to the rule a departure from the Word of God and the Confessions of the Church. The Holston Synod (2700 communicants) adopted the Galesburg rule interpreting it according to the letter and the spirit of the Akron resolutions. The attitude of the different Synods and the lengthy and animated discussion of the whole subject in the Beth- lehem convention made it manifest, that all the endeavors of the past years to decide the matter by formal and bind- ing resolutions had proved unsatisfactory. Thus, after ten years of labor in this direction, the General Council 222 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. found itself at the very point where it ought to have be- gun the v^ork at Fort Wayne in 1867, and it was deemed necessary to order the preparation of a set of theses, by the President, which might work out a conviction of the correctness and the Scriptural character of the principle involved, instead of passing majority resolutions which would always be a stumbling block to those who were not convinced. This action of the General Council called forth the "105 Theses on the Galesburg Declaration on Pulpit and Altar Fellowship" which were at length discussed at the Philadelphia Convention, in 1877, and in several sub- sequent meetings. Soon after the appearance of Dr. Krauth's Theses, Dr. Seiss published "Twenty-Four Propositions on the Galesburg Declaration." {Lutheran and Missionary September 20, 1877.) In these he claimed to embody the real mind of the General Council on the subject. While the utterances of Dr. Krauth, in his fourteen Articles and the 105 Theses, prepared by the President by order of the General Council, were only to be taken as the private, personal views of one who looked "to the education of the Church in a particular Richtung," and who "introduced materials and shadings which do not profess to ground themselves on any direct expressions, understandings or conscious utterances of the General Council," it was assumed, that the "Proposi- tions" represented "a definite determination of that on which the General Council as such now stands, — precisely what the Council has reached in its official pronounce- ments." Such was the claim of the author of the Twenty- Four Propositions, who, for his own person, was con- vinced, "that the General Council in its proper selfhood has not said and cannot say, that the body of its ministers and people believe or admit that it is the requirement of God, and necessary to a proper Christianity, as held and 1877-81.] FRUIT OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL. 223 confessed by our Church, that all save confessed Lutiier- ans must needs be excluded from our Altars and Pulpits." Dr. Krauth certainly took a different view of the real position of the General Council. And he, the author of its Fundamental Articles of Faith and Church Polity; its President and leading theologian, through all these years of fiery combat ; the man whose declarations the Body had more than once adopted as its own official action, and whom it had formally charged with the pre- paration of the Theses; might justly be expected to know and to represent the mind of the Body. We have his final judgment on the attitude of the General Council with reference to this question, in a significant letter addressed to his successor in the Presidency, and printed by reso- lution of the Council in the minutes of the Rochester Convention (1881) in which he says: Our General Council has borne rich fruit for God's glory and the future of the Church. Most of all has she done a great work in the testimony for which she has been most assailed. In her principles of Pulpit and Altar Fellowship she has vindicated herself from the reproach of the avowed sectarianism which, in our day, is trying to usurp the place of Apostolic unity. May God keep her steadfast in the assertion of principle. May He make her willing to perish rather than to surrender it. May He make her whole life consistent with it, and may He bring all who love her to see eye to eye with her. We close this chapter with a few extracts from Dr. Krauth's vast correspondence on the mooted question. He has carefully preserved, bound up in a volume, not only the letters received from friends and opponents, but in many cases also copies of his own letters in answer to correspondents, showing how much importance he at- tached to this controversy, and how deeply he was moved and agitated until he had found his firm anchorage. 224 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. DR. W. A. PASSAVANT TO C. P. K. Pittsburgh, October 28, 1875. The action at Pittsburgh, Lancaster, Akron and Galesburg on the subject of restricted Communion has never been discussed in the Lutheran and Missionary, or, in other words, the reasons of such action have never been given in a loving evangehcal way in our Church papers. In consequence, — though there is a good degree of unanimity among ministers who have attended the Council, — there is, as you saw, dimness and confusion among many .... They are with the Council because they have confidence in you and other leading brethren, but they cannot explain or defend the action of the Council, and are at a disadvantage whenever anyone makes trouble in the congregations It now becomes necessary for some one to reply to Bro. K.'s inquiry. Who will or can do it as you? I would therefore beg you with all importunity to once more stand up for the truth as it is in Jesus, by a brief article or two. The writer then proceeds to give an outline of a reply such as in his opinion should be made. Among the points he mentions are the following : The question is not: Who is a Christian? But, with whom are we to commune? If with anybody who is pious in our judgment, — Baptist, Calvinist, Swedenborgian, Adventist, Roman Catholic, — then let us abandon our Confession of faith and give up our denominational and congregational existence. But if we cannot and ought not to judge our fellow Christians, — which God only can do, — then we must make our bond of union and com- munion what we believe to be the clearly revealed truth of Christ. Anything else but this is a mere human test and is not to be thought of for a moment. Christian consistency requires that in this matter of faith. — the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ, — we not only 1875-6.] LETTERS COXCERNING THE RULE. 225 do notliing to ignore it, but everything to honor it. The Communion is the highest act not only of accord with Christ but with His words or truth. And so it is the highest possible act of accord and fellowship with those who believe in Him and in His words. Christian fidelity to others who do not yet see the whole truth of Christ and yet love and serve Him in sincerity requires us thus to act. We must mildly but firmly bear our testimony against their wrong views and teachings. To go to the same table with those whom we know to be in error in regard to any truth which Christ has re- vealed, is not only to hold the truth of Scripture cheap, but to make such persons all the more settled in their errors, or indifferent to the importance of truth. All these principles accord with the teachings of Christ and our Confessions. We can do nothing against the truth, but anything for the truth. The more loving and gentle and the more strong and decided, the better. Say something, too, of this modern doctrine of indiscriminate communion. It is not the doctrine of historical Luther- anism or Calvinism. Little was known of it before the present century of Unionism, which grew largely out of the Rationalism and consequent indifferentism to all truth, and drew that false distinction of Fundamentals and Non- Fundamentals. I look to you in hope. To you more than to any other person is the General Council indebted for its fundamental principles and its noble testimony for Christ and His truth. This Body likewise has shown the highest possible confidence in your character and position by repeated elections to the presidency. DR. H. E. JACOBS TO C. P. K, February 8, 1876. If I had been at Galesburg, I might have, per- haps, been of some service in reporting your statement, and thus in preventing the unfortunate state of things in the Council. The Rule adopted, as understood with the 15 226 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. exceptions concerning Altar-Fellowship accords w^^^^^^ most sacred convictions. Concerning Pulpit-Fellowsh p I am ready for the rule without the exceptions, ihe chfe? difficulty that I have fdt. is as to whether the action was not too precipitate, considering the state of knowl- Tdge of our people Out of love of the weaker Brethren, fat first thought that the action might have been de- layed and the pressure from a quarter which wiU be satis- fied with no declarations however explicit might have been disreo-arded. From the various conflicting state- ments r^^d? I had also derived the impression, that beneath the rule there was the underlying principle, that any de- duction from detached portions of the Confessions was equally binding with the clear statements of the Con- fessions themselves,-and this was a position which I was not prepared to endorse. But your articles. . . .have put the entire action in a different light. You have com- pletely annihilated the whole theory of Unionism, and for it deserve the lasting gratitude of the Church While still it might be advisable to yield somewhat to the weakness of congregations and brethren, it the re- quest be made entirely upon the plea of a weakness that is still ready to be taught, yet when the principles at issue are themselves called into question, and the demand made upon grounds that would be utterly subversive of our Lutheran faith, as is maintained by some writers m the Lutheran, and will, I fear, be the prevailing sentiment among those who oppose the rule, I do not see how the e can he any receding. . . .If theses bearing on he whole range of subjects necessary to be understood for an in- telligent decision of the question could be discussed at Synod for several days before reaching directly the Galesburg action, my hope of a happy deliveraiice would be much brighter. Yet, the Lord reigns, and He wil un- doubtedly bring a blessing out of the present distress. 1876.] HOPE FOR ALL EARNEST MINDS. 227 C. P. K. TO H. E. JACOBS. February 19, 1876. I was particularly anxious to have your judg- ment on the Rule, although I felt sure that you would stand where your letter assures me you do stand. I rec- ognize now tlie hand of Providence in some of the things which at first I may have felt inclined to regret I intended to remain silent on the very ground of which you speak, a fear, that the crude state of opinion among us would make a sharper statement of principles reac- tionary, rather than progressive in its tendency. But when I was called on to speak I could not but speak my mind, and now I rejoice more than I can express to you, that I have had the privilege of bearing some part in waking the mind of the Church to this great question. It is in its fundamental principle not a Lutheran question but one for the whole Church of Christ. It is the question of the sacredness of principle, the question of fidelity in act to fidelity in conviction. I regard the announcement of the principle as educational only, and no one will go further than myself in concession to all the honest weak- nesses of Brethren and congregations. No force work, no haste but quiet, earnest discussion of principles is what we need .... I wish, you would write to our friend Dr. Seiss on the points on which you have written to me. He has a very great respect for your opinion, and the pa- per of this week shows how ill at harmony he is even with himself. His "Fencing the Altar" will, with the ex- tremists, impose on him the odium of standing in part with what they hate, and yet will not give him the com- fort of a clear and consistent adherence to the truth. With reference to the great future of our Church I think the present is the most hopeful era we have yet seen. That we have even an excitement on the subject marks a great advance. . . .My own convictions have become so clear, I have found so completely the ground toward which I have been struggling, that I am full of hope for all earnest minds, however miseducated they may have been. Noth- 228 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. ing fills a man with such faith in the truth as the posses- sion of it does. There are two great favors I would beg of you, one for myself, the other for our dear and bleeding Church For myself, that, if you see anything in my articles which either in principle or mode of statement, you think objec- tionable, you would very freely express your judgment to me Be assured that no amount of plainness will have any other effect upon me than to increase my gratitude to you, and to ponder the points you make anew. The other, which is for the Church, is, that as soon as you can you would write something on the subject. I am sure knowing as I do your modesty, that you cannot ap- preciate the force and value it would have. The defend- ers of the antagonism to the Rule are doing all sorts of mischief to their own cause. The one or two who are exceptions to this must, I think, feel very much ashamed of their company. Please write to me very soon, a good long letter I don't deserve letters for I am a wretched correspondent, but I do enjoy them when they come from a friend like yourself. DR. H. E. JACOBS TO C. P. K. February 12, 1876. It is as clear as possible, that if Drs. Seiss and Krotel insist either on the Pittsburgh or Akron resolu- tions, the difficulty will not be remedied; for the element which antagonizes the Galesburg declaration is just as ready to annull the previous decisions. They are both much nearer you than they are to S. L. H. or even J. A. K. May I, 1876. As you have asked me, and I have promised, to communicate to you any point in your argument where I dissented, there is one position to which I must allude. I am rather of the opinion that even on this point there is no real difference between us, but still I feel constrained 1876.] LUTHERANS MUST PREACH LUTHERANISM. 229 to notice it for fear that it is otherwise. If a Lutheran minister be invited into the pulpit of another denomina- tion, the motive of the invitation must be either to show a courtesy to the minister, or that the curiosity of the con- gregation be gratified, or that he may minister to their entertainment, or that their church may be kept open, or that they Hsten to him as God's ambassador. No minister should accept the invitation on any ground except the last. And if this be the ground, the congregation has no right to expect of him anything else except such teaching as he may deem most important for their edification. If they have sufficient confidence in his character as a minister to invite him into their pulpit, they can complain of an abuse of that confidence only when the end of his preach- ing is not their highest spiritual good, but some ulterior purpose. So far then as his call to preach to the congre- gation is concerned, there is no doubt as to his right to preach on any controverted point. There can be no call to preach the Gospel where a supposed call implies the denial of the right to declare all the counsel of God. The question then is not as to the right, but as to the gain for the truth that may be expected, from preaching, under such circumstances, polemical sermons. . . .1 believe that a true Lutheran minister can under no circumstances whatever preach a Presbyterian or Methodist sermon, even on subjects on which the two churches may be sup- posed to agree. There is a radical difference in the mode of thought, in the degree of emphasis placed upon com- mon doctrines, and in the relation that these doctrines bear to one another in the Lutheran and all other sys- tems. These differences reach to the very centre, con- dition the church-life, and more or less affect the teach- ing on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. In fact, the Lutheran Church emphasizes her distinctive doctrines so strongly, principally because she recognizes this intimate organic connection between them and justi- fication by faith. If invited therefore into the pulpits of other denominations, it becomes our duty to present this grand central doctrine with all possible clearness, to 230 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. guard it with the utmost care against the errors into which the system of the hearers makes them especially liable to fall, and on the basis of this doctrine to en- deavor to undermine the principle that lies beneath all their erroneous conception of God's truth; in other words to present the plan of salvation as it is taught by the Word of God, and confessed by our Church, even with- out evading those particulars in which we differ from the church in whose pulpit we are preaching, that we may be sure that there is no soul in our audience who in the world to come can charge us with the ruin of his soul, because of our want of clearness in proclaiming the Gos- pel. This seems to me to have been the plan of St. Paul at Athens, who did not make a professed attack upon the idolatry of his hearers, but upon the basis of the common ground on which they stood with him, gradually led them to the exposure of their errors. A direct assault would have arrayed prejudices against the Gospel, which would have closed the doors to all subsequent efforts. Not that I advocate covert instead of open attacks, but simply to make, in all occasional sermons in other churches, justi- fication by faith the primary object, and the reference to errors the subordinate, instead of the reverse. Now I believe that on this point you do not differ far from the position above given Your articles are very attentively read here (at Gettys- burg). One of the College professors, a layman and a strong partisan, after reading your third article, declared that the reasoning was so conclusive that, while he did not want to admit it and tried in every way to pick flaws in it, he found that it was useless, and he could do noth- ing else but admit its conclusions, ....1877. Concerning your Theses. . . .1 can, in general, heartily endorse them, but am not ready to be quite as rigid in the limitations of exceptions in admission to communion. Personally I have no trouble in regard to the pulpit, which I believe should never be filled, except i8-7.] ALTAR FELLOWSHIP. 23 1 by those whom the Lutheran Church has approved as ministers, and that, therefore, the preaching in our pul- pits of ministers of other churches, and of our own theo- logical students is wrong. But, with respect to tlie Altar, I believe that, as a pastor, I would be compelled by my sense of duty, to admit to the communion those who ac- cepted the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, and whose connection with a church not professing our faith, was due to the crime of our own Church, in not making provision for the spiritual wants of its children, rather than to any deliberate intention of abjuring our con- fession on this part. I have in mind the case of those who live where there is no Lutheran Church, who would prefer to be in a Lutheran Church, but. who, convinced that it was their duty to confess Christ before men, have united with a congregation that was not Lutheran, and who would be ready to join the Lutheran Church, if a Lutheran congregation were formed at their home. I freely acknowledge that, if they have proper conceptions of the true position of our Church and the true nature of our Confessions, they cannot be in this relation. Yet, I believe, that we must make allowance for a weak faith, and. on this account, we cannot limit our exceptions to the extent of the Theses. Neither can I agree with the position which assumes that other churches owe their origin and existence to their opposition to the Scriptural position of our Church. Just in so far as they are Churches they are in perfect accord with our own Church and God's Word ; and owe their existence as churches to those truths which they still hold in common with us. Their separation from us is owing to their error. If I could regard them as or- ganizations whose sole purpose is to protest against the doctrines of our Confessions, then, of course, there would be no alternative left, but to altogether abandon the ex- ceptions allowed by the Akron statement. 232 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. DR. S. FRITCHEL TO C. P. K. June 5, 1876. How I have longed to send you a word of sym- pathy and to express to you my joy and my gratitude for your testimony! My dear Brother, after all the Lord Jesus Himself must always be the true and only reliance of His servants. Even those who are of one mind and thoroughly united in their joys and sufferings, are not able to impart to each other the blessings and consola- tions of spiritual communion in such a measure, that the hearts of those who are in the heat of battle, should not often enough feel lonely, so that they can find their only consolation and joy in the assurance: The Lord is on my side. And, I think, I can fully appreciate the pain your present position affords you. The very nearest friends, in union with whom you have fought so many a good fight, borne such cheerful testimony, and suffered so much, are now against you The one thing that worries me most in this conflict is, that the odious ques- tion of nationalities is being mixed up with it, and, as I am grieved to see, not less on the German side than on the English. It is a sad thing, if churchly lines of de- markation coincide with national differences. It would seem to me a terrible wrong on the part of my country- men, if. at the very moment when a truly confessional Church of the English tongue is ready to be formed and consolidated they would repel their English Brethren by their carnal nativism, and narrowness, their lack of understanding and their incapacity to handle a purely churchly question in a purely churchly spirit Nevertheless I rejoice in the hope that truth will ulti- mately gain the victory with our English Brethren, even though for the present a majority should slide back into the former looseness. Since the Galesburg convention I have often been reminded of the time after the first Coun- cil of Nice. As there the high-water mark of the year 325, was followed once more by a terrible ebb-tide, thus the level reached at Galesburg may, for the present, in 1876.] DR. FRITSCHEL AND THE EXGLISH. 233 the case of many Brethren, only be a sign or a mark, and not the expression of their personal conviction. They may therefore easily become the prey of a reactionary movement, throwing them back from the goal already obtained. But real, mature progress, based upon inner conviction, can never be annulled. And this. I am sure, is the case, with the Galesburg resolutions, with the ex- planation given them in your articles. Here the English- Lutheran Church has reached a decisive point ("Knoten- punkt") in her development, from which individuals may possibly be thrown back again, but which can never be lost to the Church herself. I think, therefore. I may say to you with full assurance : Your work is not in vain. It may seem so for the present, but to the position which you represent belongs the future. There your testimony will bear its full fruit. When Delitzsch, in the beginning of the fifties, wrote on the question of Church-and-Altar- Fellowship. he lamented, that thus far it had been treated only in a categorical manner. Since then an animated dis- cussion of the subject has been continued, until v. Zezsch- witz once more took it up from a more comprehensive point of view. But none of the German Theologians treated the question as thoroughly as your articles, bas- ing it on the very foundation and the real character of the Lutheran Church and her Confession. And I am convinced that, though some of our English Brethren cannot yet be roused to a full understanding of this great question, your book. — for I take it for granted, that your articles will appear in book-form. — will be received with profound gratitude and joyful appreciation by the Church in Germany. It is my heart's desire to see the English and German sections of our Church in this country in free and organic co-operation, so that each side might preserve its own individuality and the possibility might be secured of their mutually influencing each other and learning from each other. I therefore cannot but thank God most profoundly, that the very best and deepest words that have been spoken on this question, which deals with the ver>' life and backbone of our Church and her 234 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. Confession, have come from the EngHsh side of the house in your articles. PROF. M. LOY TO C. P. K. Columbus, O., Easter, 1876. What some of us have been feebly trying to- do, for the glory of our dear Lord and the honor of His blessed Word, in the English language, you have recently been doing with great power. God bless you for it . . Knowing that it is a comfort to faithful workmen in the Lord's cause to know that others appreciate their la- bors, I thought it might even afford you some cheer tO' be assured that we prize your work, especially as you will hardly be able to pass through the crisis without suffering. April 27, 1876. I may say now that I left Reading* with brighter hopes than I entered it, and it never was my choice that the prospects opened there should be clouded so soon. But let that pass. You were endowed by our dear Lord for a great work in the English language. You have done much, and many hearts that beat warmly for the Church of the Augsburg Confession, praise the Master for it. But there was reason, as matters had been going in the Body of which you are the honored President, to fear that the influence of your great gifts would be lost to the cause of pure truth. The King in Zion is a wonder-working Lord : it seems all coming right again, and you can hardly know how many souls are rejoicing on this account. May God give you grace to stand firm in the conflicts which must come. C. p. K. TO PROFESSOR M. LOY, COLUMBUS, O. Philadelphia, April 20, 1876. My Dear Brother Loy : — I thank you very heartily for your kind note. It has been one of my greatest griefs for years that there should be any causes of separa- * Referring to the Convention of 1866. 1876.] THE GOOD FIGHT OF FAITH. 235 tion between myself and one for whom I had cherished the warm regard I fek for you. I never saw, till I came to see the truth, how deep reaching and pervading is the question which is now under discussion in the Church ; and a true apprehension of the Church as our own Church sets it forth, has relieved my mind of one of its darkest problems, and I thank God anew for having, of His great mercy, brought me to the side of such a Mother as our Church in her true character is. The fellowship of conviction has brought me other precious letters besides your own Our Church has a terrible battle before her, but with her great divine principles and God blessing her, she need not fear the issue. The true Church will always be relatively a little flock, but it will be none the less the hope of the world. Years ago, when I was in the midst of pestilence in a strange land, trying to do my duty, I found one text al- ways rising to my mind, "Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on Thee because he trusteth in Thee," and I never had a more perfect sense of safety, though I was surrounded by what men call peril .... And although my position now is one of trial, I realize the presence of my all-sufficient Saviour, and am not for a moment tempted to cease the good fight of faith. Know- ing that in my poor way I am trying to fight His battle, I can commit myself and the cause to Him. My daily prayer is : Help me to see the truth, and to be immoveable in maintaining it. I have been trying to discuss prin- ciples so as to help thoughtful men to a well-grounded conviction, rather than aiming at a simply popular treat- ment. But I have some cheering evidence that our laity are not all giving themselves passively to those who mis- lead them. You have been kind enough to write me a very precious letter of sympathy, but I must beg of you another letter, — a letter of suggestion and of warning if you think I need it for any reason. Verv trulv and gratefully your Brother in Christ, C. P. K. 236 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. C. P. K. TO REV. C. SPIELMANN, LANCASTER, O. Philadelphia, April 7, 1876. I am sorry to see that your health is so feeble, yet rejoiced to see that you are part of the wit- nessing host who "out of weakness were made strong" — and I pray that the rich grace and comforting presence of our Covenant God and Saviour may continue to be vouchsafed to you. I have not forgotten the happy visit it was my privilege to make you* and hope that in God's good providence we may meet again. I am very thankful that my poor efforts in behalf of the common faith have met the approval of other breth- ren very dear to me, from whom there seemed nothing to divide me except that I had not come into the clear light of conviction in regard to the pulpit and altar. I am constitutionally very hard to convince, and there- fore when I am convinced I am convinced very thor- oughly. If what I write is useful, I think it is by God's blessing, very much because it is a kind of indirect auto- biography. I try to carry the reader over the ground by which I reached my own convictions. I am aiming in my articles to reach principles, and to address those who are willing to think. The chaos which this dis- cussion has revealed is fearful, but I think that by the time God's providence in it has fully opened itself, there will be a great change. There are indeed tokens of the dawn of something better already. I have been saddened beyond expression by the bitter- ness displayed towards the Missourians. So far as they have helped us to see the great principles involved in this discussion, they have been our benefactors, and although I know they have misunderstood some of us, that was perhaps inevitable. They are men of God, and their work has been of inestimable value. I look as you do upon all disposition to encourage prejudices of race and language anywhere, but most of * At the Convention of the General Council in Lancaster, O., 1870. 18/6.] SILENCE NOT WANT OF SYMPATHY. 237 all in our Church — all attempts to create favor or dis- favor, on the pretences that anything is German or is English. In regard to the silence of pastors and professors in our Synod I would say I know that the silence is not the result of want of sympathy with the truth. Drs. Spaeth and C. W. SchaetYer have expressed themselves strongly for the rule. Dr. Mann, so far as I know, is favorable to it. Dr. C. F. SchaefTer I have not conversed with, but all his antecedents would seem to indicate that his judg- ment would be the right one. Professor Jacobs at Get- tysburg has, as you know, written an article in defense of the rule. I hope that our best men will ere long take ground unequivocally. I am not unaccustomed to standing alone, — yet not alone, and nothing except the approval of God and of conscience, cheers me so much as letters like that you have sent me. As you see dear Brethren who give me their sympathies and prayers thank them for me, and beg them to continue to pray for me. Your Brother in Christ, C. P. K. DR. J. A. SEISS TO C. P. K. October 23, 1876. I assume that I am to continue in the Lutheran another year. In that event a good understanding and more sympathetic help are imperiously demanded. Hence this note to you. Of course such imbecile criticism of the paper as we had at our stockholders' meeting is of small account ; but a few of us must stand and work together with more sympathetic unity, carefully avoiding aliena- tion of interest and aim, or live to see chaos worse con- founded. When we stood solidly together for our Eng- lish interests (the interests of our Church in America) against radicalism, and on our proper historic line of development, we were able to accomplish something. Just as there has been deflection from that, there has been 238 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. distraction, weakening and damage. God will overrule it for good, but it is not the order for true success. The great German interests must be considered, but I am sure we weaken ourselves and imperil our cause by any turning from our English Churches and tongue wherein we were born, or even seeming to allow that our centre of gravita- tion is to be found anywhere else. Your doctrines on the burning question went too far for me and for our situa- tion, and if pressed must only alienate and distract. But the attitude in which those matters are now officially placed renders them manageable, and gives room, oppor- tunity and call for us to try to unite forces for a new and harmonious departure, whereunto we have already attained walking by the same rule. Our respective po- sitions are such that much must needs depend upon the way you and I stand or move. This impresses me so deeply that I think it necessary for us to consider the matter together, and arrange for such a unity of plan, aim and understanding, that we can heartily defend each other and work in thorough sympathy as in some previous years. This I believe can be effected without com- promise or dishonor to either, and advantageous to both and to the great common interests we have so much in hand. I wish to confer about the paper, to have you in stronger sympathy and co-operation in its management, to have you contribute, and to have you join me to move for the common aim. I propose also to commence the in- sertion of a sermon from one of our preachers every week, and to begin with yours at Bethlehem, if you will furnish me a correct copy from your own hand. For this most directly I hereby apply, and at the same time for a free and candid personal conference over all the matters herein touched, provided it be agreeable to you to confer with me in the premises. J. A. S. t876.] doctrinal ARTICLES IN THE LUTHERAN. 239 C. P. K. TO DR. J. A. SEISS. October 23, 1876. Mv Dear Dr. Seiss : — I heartily concur, both in your judgment as to the desirableness of unity and your earnest desire for it. I am opposed to an English or German policy, and believe only in a Church policy — a Lutheran policy — a Christian policy; and there is no Christian policy whose heart is not Christian principle. I must be left free to maintain my convictions, but I shall try, as I have tried, to do it in the spirit of love and of justice to those who do not think with me. I am most cordially ■willing and desirous of co-working with you. Much of the happiest part of my official life has been spent in work in which we were conjoined heart and soul. Nor do I see that our difference in judgment on part of the questions now before the Church, nor our fraternal dis- cussion of it. should in any measure separate us. It is my desire to do all I can for the paper consistently with your wishes as its Editor. When Mr. Richards sent in the bill for the last year I expressed some surprise as I had been writing a good deal, and supposed that it was your own proposition that to a limited degree there should be allowed some compensation. That compen- sation I have not taken, and would not take except as it covered the subscription for the year, nor did I desire ■even that, if you found that the paper could not afford it. Mr. Richards explained that the reason of the act which surprised me was that my articles were inserted as a "personal favor." From his official position I assumed that he spoke by authority, and you can imagine that his explanation was not very stimulating to further author- ship. I write this not by way of complaint but of ex- planation. I hope we shall meet very soon, and should be glad if you would fix a time and place for meeting. In regard to my sermon I would say that I will very Avillingly prepare it for the Lutheran, but would not on any account be willing that it should re-appear with the 240 CHARLES PORTERFJELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. blunders and omissions in the Bethlehem report. Under all the circumstances that report was very creditable, but it would have been a miracle to have reproduced the sermon correctly. C. p. K. TO DR. G. F. KROTEL. September 12, 1877. I write to thank you for the kindly spirit in which you notice the theses in the Lutheran of this week. However we Brethren, who have so long labored together, and are endeared to each other by so many toils and sacrifices in common, may differ, in part, and for a time, on questions of importance, let us be fixed in the resolve that nothing shall alienate us personally, and that we will resist to- gether all efforts to drag pure questions of principle into, the slough of personalities. DR. G. F. KROTEL TO C. P. K. September 13, 1877. I read your letter with a great deal of pleasure, and fully share your earnest desire that none of these ques- tions may alienate Brethren who have labored together so long. You know that I have felt and talked strongly upon them, partly because I thought the positions takeui by the General Council entirely too much in advance of the comprehension of our people, and partly, because I have been and am still convinced, that there is a weak point in the strong logical chain which you have forged,, and which I trust, will be brought out in the gradual dis- cussion as it was at Pittsburgh. Your logic is inexor- able, and if one. to speak with the Germans, — says A. with you, he is almost or quite compelled to say B. The logical and inevitable conclusion of your argument would be such an exclusiveness, as was not even always seen in. iS;-.! DR. KROTEL'S LETTER. 24 1 Luther's day, and such as would render anything like an approximation to a better understanding- with others an impossibility. It has always been clear to my mind, that there must be a difference in the attitude we assume to the Romanists and Greeks, — and to the "Evangelical Denominations." If we refuse any and every kind of recognition to everyone that refuses to hold every point that we consider scriptural, or that holds any point that w^e consider unscriptural, where are the divisions to end? Is not this the very disease from which our German or- thodox Lutherans are suffering? Do they not, here and in Germany, unchurch each other, simply because they differ on some points on wdiich they insist as a part of God's truth? If they go on in this way, how numerous are the divisions of Lutheranism likely to be? Then, too, when I consider the ignorance of doctrine, and the prevailing indifference to it, even in our own Church, it always seems to me that these movements and doctrinal positions have been premature. They have prejudiced the minds of many. They are impatient of instruction. The clearly expressed conclusion is so abhor- rent, that they refuse to go, step by step, from the prem- ises to the conclusion. The heart has a great deal to do with our religion. The hearts of our people are set, in- stinctively, against the position, which can only be reached by a process of reasoning for which most of them have neither the head nor the inclination. Even the positions reached by representative men, at Pittsburgh, were in ad- vance of the people. These should have had ample time to work themselves into the marrow of their bones. Pray do not look upon these lines as any attempt to argue the point. I do not wish you to reply to them. The discussion at the Council will bring out all the points. We all, I trust, want the right. May God help us to find it. . . .Let me tell you what I told you before, — you work too hard. We cannot afford to lose you. No English pen has done such service for our Church, and the work is not at an end. 16 242 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. DR. H, I. SCHMIDT TO DR. C. P. K. October 4, 1877. My Dear Friend: — I feel myself constrained to say a few words to you relative to the admirable theses on the subject of pulpit and altar fellowship which you quite recently laid before the Church. I have read and studied them with great, with unmixed, satisfaction. The principle which you affirm and defend in them, is, as you earnestly maintain, grounded in the absolute agree- ment of our Confessions with the Word of God. That the several distinct portions of our Book of Concord do thus agree with the divine Word, no genuine confessional Lutheran will ever dream of denying. But, more than this, we believe that the Creed of no other Protestant Church exhibits that entire and perfect agreement with the teachings of sacred Scripture which we claim for our Confession. And accordingly, while we do not assume or presume to unchurch any other Protestant denomination, we must and do maintain, that, as our Church alone holds the primitive scriptural faith of the Christian Church, all others are, more or less, in error, either lacking essential elements of divine truth, or actually teaching unsound doctrine. Hence a^ vigilant guardianship of our sacred heritage requires us to avoid, as far as possible, all contact with such error. And this involves an exclusiveness, a modification of which could be justified only by an actual necessity. We safely assume that some one Protestant denomina- tion will eventually become the leading one in our country, and should, if poor humanity were capable of absolute consistency, absorb all others. If, as we be- lieve, the Lutheran Church alone holds the truth in its completeness, without admixture of error, she is fairly entitled to aspire to that high position, and I venture to hope that she will, in due course of time, be conducted to it by divine providence. But this consummation is not likely to arrive, if she virtually discards her pre-eminence i877.] EDUCATION, NOT THUMB SCREWS. 243 by cultivating' a free and easy fellowship, in her pulpits and at her altars, with denominations which she regards as, more or less, in vital error, and thus commits herself to the sanction of denominationalism and exposes her communion to the intrusion of what she cannot believe or approve. x\nd hence the necessity of normally eschew- ing such fellowship. The fact tiiat our people are not prepared yet to take such decided ground in principle and practice only renders that educational process which you so clearly indicate in Thesis I indispensably necessary. It is not proposed to put on the thumb screws, and to resort to coercive dis- cipline in order to compel conformity with the principle which you so powerfully advocate. It is proposed to carry out the ancient maxim, "Festina Lente," and to have patience, meanwhile employing all necessary and legitimate means to educate our membership up to the adoption and practical application of the principle so clearly and forcibly stated, and so admirably and con- clusively defended in your theses. I confess that I can- not appreciate the objections raised and the antagonism displayed, in one shape or another, against the principle and its ultimate necessary operation, which are the burden of your theses. What they advocate is nothing new in the history and practice of Protestant Denominations ; the Episcopalians and Close Communion Baptists hold to and enforce the rule of non-fellowship. . . .1 regard your statement of the principle or rule which will ultimately have to determine and govern the practice of the Lutheran Church as impregnable, and the arguments with which you defend them as unassailable, unanswerable, irre- futable, and as such they command my hearty and un- qualified consent. At the eleventh convention of the General Council, held in the Church of the Holy Communion, Philadelphia, October 10 to 16, 1877, the interest centred on the great problem of Church Fellowship. Dr. Krauth preached 244 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. tlie opening discourse on John viii. 48, with the theme : Religion and Religionisms. It was afterwards pubhshed by the students of the Theological Seminary. The Theses on the Galesburg Declaration on Pulpit and Altar Fel- lowship, prepared by order of the General Council by its President, were discussed for three consecutive days. The depth of Dr. Krauth's convictions, his unwavering and consistent fidelity to the confession of his beloved Church, his inexorable logic in debate, but at the same time also his patience, tenderness and generosity in the treatment of his opponents, were never more triumphantly con- spicuous than in that memorable debate. Dr. Seiss, to- gether with Dr. J. A. Kunkleman, led the opposition against the Theses, and at the very beginning of the dis- cussion the former offered a written protest against the first Thesis, charging, "that it introduces an unauthorized idea for quieting apprehensions, which is intensely decep- tive, inasmuch as profession is made that nothing legis- lative, coercive or disciplinary is intended or meant, and that we are not in a condition to decide those questions now, while yet, in this soft and insinuating way, the whole matter is sought to be summarily decided in ad- vance, in the most binding and coercive manner in which the mind and conscience of man can be bound." It was, to say the least, an uneven battle. Dr. Seiss himself, in the leading article of the Lutheran and Missionary, Nov- ember 1st, characterizes the discussion in these words: "The friends of the Theses had the great advantage in having their cause solidly and ably embodied in printed Theses, and in assigning the whole management of their argument to one man, the author of the Theses, the President of the Body. Whoever spoke, or whatever was said as bearing against the positions of the Theses, the author of them, if he did not volunteer to do it, was specially called on to make a reply, which was in every instance accepted, and always at great length; thus giv- 1877] AN EMINENTLY SUCCESSFUL MEETING. 245 ing to the presentation on that side a unity, individuahty, ampleness and power of much value to the cause of the exclusivists over against all dissent. On the more moder- ate side there was no such combination, concentration or consistency of presentation." Dr. J. G. Morris, of Baltimore, a member of the Gen- eral Synod, sums up his impressions of the convention in a letter to his friend Krauth (October 22, 1877) : "I was much pleased with the dignity of your Council, the gentlemanly tone that pervaded it, — no severity, no pas- sion, no excitement of any kind, — hard logic, sound reasoning, earnestness and evident sincerity all round." And Dr. C. W. Schaeffer, of Germantown, wrote (Oc- tober 18, 1877) : While I offer my congratulations to yourself personally, I feel as if I ought, at the same time, to offer them to the whole Lutheran Church on the happy, and as I be- lieve, eminently successful meeting of the General Coun- cil, just concluded. You have no doubt heard, as I have heard, from divers sources, evidence of good and deep impressions made by the truth, and of progress in the knowledge of it, in quarters where such progress is very desirable and important. It was a very happy thing that the discussion was confined to so few individual partici- pants, and that such full liberty was accorded to the op- position to state their case. The service you have ren- dered is inestimable, and the interest taken in your ex- planations of the true position, showed no sign of weari- ness, even to the end. I consider that it was a most happy termination of the discussion that the Council adjourned without having come to any positive declaration. This is in strict har- mony with the principle that we are pursuing a course of education, and I think that the proof will soon be manifest, that the late Council has done much in that direction. Again, my dear Dr. Krauth, I thank you and pray 246 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. that your years of usefulness as a teacher of science and a defender of truth in the Church of the Living God, may be very many. Two years afterwards the General Council held its twelfth convention at Zanesville, O., October 9 to 14, 1879. It was the last meeting which Dr. Krauth at- tended. He submitted the design for the seal of the General Council which he, together with the treasurer, Mr. W. H. Staake, had been instructed to prepare. The device represents at its base the open Bible, on the Old Testament side of which are noted the texts. Genesis i. 3, and Isaiah ix. 2. On the New Testament side the texts noted are Matth. iv. 16, and John i. 4-9. The Bible as shining with the light of its witness to our God and Saviour, to dispel the darkness of the world, is regarded on the device as the sun, whose rays are refracted in the seven arches of the rainbow. These arches are made to correspond i, to the Apostles' Creed; 2, the Nicene Creed; 3, the Athanasian Creed; 4, the Augsburg Con- fession and the Apology; 5, the Smalcald Articles; 6, the Large and Small Catechisms, and 7, the Formula of Concord. These seven forms of Confession widen from the point nearest the Word, so as to indicate the amplify- ing of the testimony. They are represented as rainbow arches, to mark their relation to the Word which is the suprerrie rule and source of the truth which they reflect, and on which they depend. Beneath is indicated the Con- tinent of North America, on the clouds over which, the rainbow rests. The legend of the seal is Sigillum Concilii Ecclesise Evangelicse Lutheranse in America Septen- trionali. All the inscriptions are in Latin. The seal was adopted, and the President of the General Council was ordered to act as its custodian. The discussion of the Theses on the Galesburg declara- tion on Pulpit and Altar Fellowship was continued. The 1879.] DR. KROTEL AT ZANESVILLE. 247 body as there constitutetl seemed almost unanimous in favor of the position taken by the Theses. Dr. J. A. Seiss did not attend the convention. Dr. G. F. Krotel was really the only one who openly declared himself against the Theses as representing the true mind of the General Council on this important subject. In a lengthy speech which was characterized by his usual candor and manliness, he rehearsed the whole history of the "Four Points" in the General Council since the first convention in Fort Wayne, 1867. He did not enter into an argument against the principle laid down in the Theses, but warned against any hasty action and advised that the Theses be sent down to the Synods and Conferences for thorough discussion. He frankly admitted in his account of the Zanesville convention in the Lutheran and Missionary, that, if a vote had been taken, the position of the Theses would have been endorsed by a sweeping majority. The motion was actually made for such a decision, but was strongly opposed by Drs. B. M. Schmucker and A. Spaeth; and Dr. Krauth himself, who had given the chair to the Rev. Phil. Krug, in order to participate freely in the debate, stated that, if he had been in the chair, he would have declared the motion out of order, as the Theses had been prepared, not for definite action, but for full and ample discussion. The personal relations between Drs. Krotel and Kra:uth remained undisturbed by their difference of opinion on the mooted question. 'T have every reason to believe," wrote Dr. Krotel. October 25, 1879, "that you have the warmest regard for your friends, no matter how much they may differ from you in some points, provided they are honest and outspoken. And your friends will do you the justice to say that it would be difficult to find, on any floor, or in any presidential chair a more courteous, fair and considerate opponent than yourself." 348 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XV. Dr. Krotel succeeded Dr. Seiss as Editor-in-Chief of the Lutheran and Missionary, October 30, 1879, but, to Dr. Krauth's great sorrow, resigned again February 19, 1880. "In spite of the fact that Dr. Krotel seemed to me not in the clear on some great questions, I yet have so much confidence in his integrity and fair dealing, and had received so explicit an assurance from him that the paper would be honest in allowing the presentation of unpopular truth, that I was greatly gratified at his accession to the editorship. But I constantly added, — the thing is too good to last. I have proved to be prophetic. Dr. Krotel's last number as editor will be issued next week. The cause of his resignation is dissatisfaction with the way in which the men who hold the larger number of shares of stock have acted. What my relations to the paper will be in the future I do not know. For the immediate present I am pledged to the publishers as well as to the paper for book notices." (Letter to Rev. A. Pflueger, February 13, 1880.) The indications contained in this letter show, what was no longer a secret among well informed friends at that time, that, unfortunately the former intimate per- sonal relations between Drs. Seiss and Krauth had been seriously, and, in fact, irreparably disturbed by the strain arising from their different attitude in the question of Church Fellowship. In January, 1879, Dr. Krauth had addressed a long letter to his former friend, in which, with much frankness and yet greater tenderness, he sought to remove the difficulties that threatened to separ- ate them. "One law of my life," he says in this letter, "has been not to allow private feelings to interfere with public duties. My whole nature is one which yearns for peace. I have been compelled by deep conviction to take the very unpopular side of a great question. All who profess to love truth and to reverence conscience su- i879.] A REJECTED APPEAL. 249 premely, ought to aid each other to a dispassionate hear- ing whether they reach the same results or not Either of us may be speedily called hence ; both of us may be. I have looked upon sudden death as that by which I shall most probably be summoned." But the answer to this appeal convinced Dr. Krauth that, under Dr. Seiss's editorship, "he could no longer continue harmoniously in a relation to the Lutheran, which would involve a high degree of mutual confidence." SIXTEENTH CHAPTER. PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY AND VICE-PROVOST IN THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA. I 868-1 883. The University of Pennsylvania, one of the oldest in- stitutions of learning in the United States,* grew out of an Academy and Charity School planned by Benjamin Franklin as early as 1743. His "Proposals relative to the education of youth in Pennsylvania" (1749) led to the organization of a Board of Trustees, chartered in 1753 as "The Trustees of the Academy and Charity Schools in the Province of Pennsylvania." Under the energetic management of Dr. Wm. Smith, a Scotchman and a clergyman of the Anglican Church, the institution became practically a College with a new charter, (1755) designating its Body and Faculty as "The Provost, Vice- Provost, and Professors of the College and Academy of Philadelphia, in the Province of Pennsylvania." During those first years of its history the institution showed a remarkable growth. In 1763 nearly 400 students were enrolled in its different departments. The graduating class of that year contains the name of J. Peter Gabriel Muehlenberg. Dr. Smith, who was recognized as the foremost scholar of his day in the Province, had been called by Franklin to the office of Provost in 1755. By *The following institutions are its seniors in chronological order: Harvard, 1636, (Cambridge, Mass.) William and Mary, 1693, (Williams- burg, Va.) Yale, 1701, (New Haven, Conn.) Princeton, the College of New Jersey, 1746, and King's College, afterwards Columbia, 1754, (City of New York.) 250 1762-89.] FOUNDING OF THE UNIVERSITY. 25 1 request of tlie Trustees he went abroad in 1762 to raise funds for the College. He was eminently successful in his efforts, securing about 20,000 pounds for the institu- tion. But this collecting tour, while a great financial success, tended to alienate the local friends of the insti- tution. Dr. Smith was suspected of influencing the minds of his pupils in the direction of his own political and re- ligious views. Though not an outspoken Tory, he was known to be opposed to separation from the mother country. This roused the antagonism of the General Assembly against the College, during the revolutionary struggle. In November, 1779, the Charter of the Col- lege was abrogated, the Provost, Vice-Provost and Pro- fessors of the institution were removed from their office and their rights and property were transferred to other hands. The College was henceforth to be known as the University of Pennsylvania, endowed by the Assembly "with an annual income of fifteen hundred pounds. The new Board of this "University of Pennsylvania" con- sisted of three classes of members: i. — Certain Govern- ment officers as ex-officio members. 2. — The Senior ministers of the following religious denominations : Epis- copalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, German Calvinists, Baptists and Roman Catholics. 3. — Thirteen individuals chosen for that position, like Franklin, Shippen, F. A. Muehlenberg and others. Christopher Kunze was the first Lutheran in the Board, and down to the time of Dr. Chas. W. Schaefifer's death (1898) the Lutheran Church has been represented in the University's Board without interruption. In July, 1784, the Trustees of the former College, Academy and Charity Schools memorialized the General Assembly, complaining of the act of 1779 as contrary to the constitution, and in consequence the old College was restored to its former rights (1789). Thus the two in- stitutions became rivals and it soon was made manifest 252 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVl. that both could not be sustained in a flourishing condition. Consequently, by an act of Legislature, they were con- solidated under the name of the University of Pennsyl- vania. (September 30, 1791.) Dr. Krauth was elected Trustee of the University, on February 6, 1866; Professor of Moral and Intellectual Philosophy, November 3, 1868; resigned his Trusteeship December i, 1868, and was elected Vice-Provost, June 3, 1873, and Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy, Decem- ber 8, 1882. The administration of Dr. Chas. J. Stille, as Provost of the University, (installed September 30, 1868) marks a new epoch in the history of the institution. Under him the University was transferred to its new site in West Philadelphia, and the first new buildings were erected and opened in September, 1872. "He brought to his work an enthusiasm which inspired enthusiasm, a tireless industry and persistence, a singleness of purpose and an unwearied concentration of effort which sur- mounted the most formidable obstacles."* An intimate friendship was formed between Dr. Krauth and Dr. Stille during their connection with the University. The Provost, Dr. Stille, ungrudgingly recognized the superior gifts and attainments of the Vice-Provost, Dr. Krauth. "He was regarded by all of us, his colleagues, as our chief. We recognized his thorough scholarship and his lofty aims, and in a body where such were the titles to distinction, he was recognized as facile princcps. For nearly fourteen years he was not merely a most efficient colleague, but my best and truest adviser and friend. I went to him in all cases of difficulty and I was always strengthened by his judicious advice and warm sympathy. He always encouraged in the kindest way my efforts to * Dr. Krauth in his address at the inauguration of Provost Pepper. 1879-] PARENTS AND COLLEGE DISCIPLINE. 253 advance the interests of the University." (Dr. Chas. J. Stille to Dr. B. M. Schmucker. September 9, 1883.) The difficulties to vvrhich Dr. Stille refers in his tribute, concerned particularly the true relations between the teaching and governing bodies in the University, and the possible danger of an interference with College discipline on the part of the Trustees. In view of a somewhat aggravated case which occurred in those days in the Uni- versity, the whole question of Discipline, its relation to parental authority, and to the teaching and ruling author- ities in the College, was thoroughly considered and dis- cussed by Dr. Krauth, both in private letters and in official reports. The views entertained by him deserve the at- tention of all educators in our country to the present day. They are substantially presented in full, in the following LETTER OF DR. KRAUTH TO CHARLES J. STILLE. LL.D. Provost of the University of Pennsylvania. 4004 Pine St., Philadelphia, November 10, 1879. Dear Sir : — The question of the relation of parental authority, to the discipline of the University, on which you have done me the honor of asking me to express an opinion, is a very vital one. In principle it involves, in one of its phases, the question wliether we shall have any discipline at all, and the meaning of that question as a finality is, whether we shall continue to have a University. Impatience of authority is so characteristic a weakness of our time and of our country, that the discipline of our great institutions of learning is with difficulty kept up to the necessary degree of strictness, even when it is sustained bv all the moral supports which are due to it. With the strongest of the moral forces to which young men pay deference, the parental authority, antagonistic to it, and claiming and exercising even tacitly, a superior- ity to it, or a power to restrict it either in its demands or 254 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap.XVI. its penalties, the discipline of a University would become a very sorrowful farce. When a young man accepts the privileges of the Uni- versity he subjects himself to its laws. He can enter the University on no other understanding. While he re- mains in the University he is bound by his own compact, made with the approval of the parent who sends him, to obey these rules. While the rules stand, no authority can absolve him from obedience to them. The professors claim no such power, the Provost claims none, the Board of Trustees claim none. The law of the University has no limitations except those which it embodies in its own provisions. The law is specially needed to protect the institution against the crudities and mischiefs of indi- vidual and temporary impulse. There is a power which can change laws, but none which can rightfully violate them, or authorize their violation, or shield those who have broken them. No parent can authorize his son to break the law of the University, or control in any degree the discipline by which the authorities think it necessary to maintain the supremacy of law, and to prevent further violation of it. A father can remove his son when he pleases, however fatal to the best interests of that son the removal may be, but he cannot force the University to continue to be responsible for his son's education, while he robs it of the power by which alone that responsibility can be fulfilled. If the permission of a parent be sufficient to protect a student from discipline, or to limit its extent in one case, it ought to be sufficient in another case and, indeed, in all cases. This would virtually involve that the parents, or, what would in most instances be really the fact, the students, through the parents, should be the controlling power of the University. The question, at bottom, would be, whether the faculty shall rule the stu- dents, or the students rule the faculty. These principles hold with peculiar force in the mat- ter of regular attendance. The difficulty of securing this in a great city, where the students do not board in common is specially great, and the provisions against i88o.] PROVOST AND VICE-PROVOST. 255 needless absence must, of necessity, be full, the penalties for wanton violation must be sufficient and must be car- ried through strictly without fear or favor. University law both as to provision and penalty must, in its own sphere, be supreme. It not only is so, but of right ought to be. The existing University law is not extreme in either, and any relaxation of it would be disastrous. The University law now embodies the greatest amount of gentleness consistent with safety. It is paternal rather than legal, moral rather than coercive, calculated to aid rather than to weaken paternal authority, and the home which impairs its efficiency, is fostering in its own sons a spirit which will re-act against domestic peace. Believe me very truly yours. C. P. Krauth. In September, 1880, Dr. Chas. J. Stille resigned the office of Provost and Dr. Krauth on his return from Europe (October 7, 1880) had at once to assume the duties of acting Provost. He gave so much satisfaction in the discharge of these duties, that his colleagues in the faculty unanimously petitioned the Trustees to elect him Provost. But the Board decided to leave on Dr. Krauth's shoulders the burden of the most arduous la- bors of the Provost, without conferring on him the honor of the office. A Committee of the Board of Trustees of the Uni- versity had prepared a report, proposing a new plan of organization. The plan was submitted to Dr. Krauth by the Hon. Frederick Fraley, LL.D., and his opinion was solicited. Dr. Krauth gave the most careful exam- ination to this important and far-reaching subject, and in a letter to Mr. Fraley of December, 1880, printed for the members of the Committee and the Board, frankly criticized that part of the new plan which had reference to the Vice-Provostship. The Committee recommended that "in the future many of the executive, supervisory, 256 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVl. and disciplinary duties heretofore discharged iby the Provost may be delegated to the Vice-Provost, under the sanction of the Board of Trustees." These duties were to be demitted by the Board of Trustees to the Vice- Provost "under the control and authority of the Provost." The proposed plan, said Dr. Krauth, makes a com- plete revolution in the character of the Vice-Provost- ship, as established and confirmed by the charters, statutes, by-laws, and history of the University from its foundation to this hour. . . .The Vice-Provost is not, as such, an aid to the Provost, not one who divides his duties with him or relieves him of his burdens, but who, in certain supposed conjunctures, takes his place. . . .He is directly responsible to the Board, and is in no sense "under the control and authority of the Provost." In the presence of the Provost, on duty, the Vice-Provost stands in the common relation of all the professors to him, and has no distinctive control and authority; when, and only when, the Provost is absent, or the office is vacant, do the powers of the Vice-Provost come into play. At all other times they are in mere potential abey- ance. They embrace in actual exercise all the control and all the authority which belong to the Provost when the organization is in its normal completeness .... The Vice-Provost under the new plan is not Vice-Provost of the University, but the Vice-Provost of the Provost, a purely personal aid of the Provost, relieving him of a certain part of his specified work, but with no authority of any proper kind, and with no direct official relation to the Board .... The plan is not an enlargement of the old office, but the destruction of the old office and the crea- tion of a new one. The practical difficulty of acting un- der it would invite constant trouble, and the most op- posite constructions might honestly be put upon the powers it actually confers. Dr. Krauth acutely and correctly foresaw how the actual working of the new plan would affect his own i88o-8i.] INAUGURATION OF DR. PEPPER. 257 work in the University. He succeeded to nearly every- thing which made any serious demands on the time of Ex-Provost Stille, in the internal administration of the University, while he had a larger share in the direct work of teaching, than either Dr. Stille or Dr. Pepper ever had. His daily duties as Chaplain, the examination into all the absences in the Department of Arts ; the ad- ministration of discipline, by direction of the Faculty, the giving of counsel where needed, the correspondence with parents, the preparation of special reports, the re- ception and other preliminary steps in the applications for scholarships, a general watchfulness over the inter- ests of the institution, with a host of duties, at once too trifling and too numerous for specification, — these all were added to what strictly belonged to the Vice-Provost- ship and made such serious demands on his time that he was temporarily compelled to cut down his time at the Seminary, and to decline remunerative engagements as a writer. Nevertheless, without murmuring, he assumed and faithfully performed the duties of acting Provost, with the additional labor imposed upon him. And at the inauguration of Dr. Wm. Pepper (February 22. 1881) he welcomed the new Provost, the main burden of whose office he was henceforth to bear, in a remarkably tactful and generous address, from which we present the follow- ing points : Whatever relative efficiency the best temporary ar- rangements may have, they involve, in some degree at least, a pause. The pulse of the machine beats more slowly. Expectancy is impotency. Inter-regna, vice- regencies, and all provisional governments are charac- teristically weak. A body needs one head ; and that head must be firmly united with it, not by mechanical, but by vital bonds .... Our Trustees have given us as Provost a native of the State for whose advantage first, though 17 258 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVI. not alone, our University was established. They have given us a native of the city for which our University has done so much, and which has so vital a stake in her prosperity. Our Provost comes to the service of his Alma Mater .... Our local feeling is gratified the more because local feeling had no illicit influence in the choice. The besetting sin of Philadelphia lies in the contrary direction. She is often the last to recognize the merit of her own citizens. Residence in her midst seems al- most a barrier to the honors she confers. She forgets her children who deserve well of her, and wonders why other places have so many more men of renown. The fame of her sons comes to her as an echo, and the echo must be very clear, before she deigns to notice it Great Universities are stupendous charities, and in one sense the greater they are, the more they cost, the more they need and the less they pay. They are not meant to make money, but to make men, and no University can make both. The University that deals, or is dealt with, in a niggardly way, will do neither. The Faculties welcome their new Provost because in the changes demanded for his official position he em- bodies great concessions to a need imperatively felt, and long and urgently pressed, — the need of a better organi- zation in respect to the relations of the Board and the Faculties. ... A Board may come to look upon the Facul- ties almost as if they were its personal servants. A Faculty may come to look upon a Board as if a Board were a mere contrivance for the supply of temporal means. "We employ you to do work for us," — sums up the impression upon the one side. "You pay us for our work," — is the tacit explanation of the bond on the other. The result is a hiring body, and a body of hirelings. The Faculty of a University is its soul — but without a Board of Trustees it might be a disembodied soul, or a soul without enough body to cover it decently. A University depends at last upon its Faculties. No buildings or en- dowments can be vast enough and rich enough to com- pensate for the want of able and devoted teachers. A 1868-83.] IN THE CLASS-ROOM. 259 Chapel of St. Ursula is not a University, however sym- metrical may be the arrangement of its empty skulls, or artistic the grouping of its dry bones. It is impossible to create living Universities out of dead professors. Here at least the theory of spontaneous generation will not hold. Nothing but life evokes life. DR. KRAUTH AMONG THE STUDENTS. One of his brightest pupils, who afterward became his successor in the chair of Moral and Intellectual Philosophy at the University, Dr. George S. Fullerton, describes this side of Dr. Krauth's work at the Uni- versity, as follows : The work done by Dr. Krauth as Professor of Intel- lectual and Moral Philosophy, and as Vice-Provost of the University of Pennsylvania, the influence of his learning, his patience, his kindliness and courtesy upon the suc- cessive classes of young men, who for fourteen years sat under his teaching, cannot but be regarded as a most important part of the work of his eminently active and useful life. Those who are familiar with the development of the intellectual life in the brighter minds among the stu- dents of our Colleges, know well, that the time when the mind is first awakened to something like real thought, is a time when a thousand questions present themselves for solution, questions which one has never before asked himself, and which are more readily asked than answered ; it is a time of unsettling, of troubled doubt, a passing away of the old, while, as yet, one has not attained to the new. And since, to quote the words of Dr. Krauth himself, "ignorance is neither innocence nor virtue," it is desirable that such a time should come, and that one should rise from the unquestioning faith of thoughtless- ness, to the deeper and firmer faith which is the result of difficulties met and conquered, of questions asked and answered. It would argue a great lack of intellectual 26o CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chav.XYL vigor on the part of the student, or poor instruction on the part of the teacher, if the meeting for the first time with these absorbing questions of metaphysics or ethics did not produce a mental fermentation, an activity of thought and of inquiry, which must modify more or less deeply the whole mental life. This new life is not a dis- ease, but a growth, it is not to be repressed, but fostered, and yet, a blessing in itself, it is not without its dangers. It was upon young men in this state of their intellectual life, that Dr. Krauth made his influence felt. It was not his learning alone that gave him the power which he had, broad as that learning was, but certain other qualities of mind and character, without which, his in- fluence would have been incomparably less. Of all his qualities, that one which perhaps impressed itself most strongly upon those whom he taught, and gave weight to his words, was his thorough honesty — his truthfulness, a quality by no means so common among teachers as it might be, and one which young men are always ready to recognize and respect. How natural for a teacher who has at heart the good of his pupils, and who fears the pernicious effect of some skeptical book or writer, to do injustice to the volume, represent unfairly and without their true force the arguments presented, or speak slight- ingly of the author as a man of no ability, as wilfully and blindly in error, as one desirous of doing harm. But young men who have been influenced by the arguments of a dangerous writer are not to be disenchanted by abus- ing that writer, a process which will only confirm them in their opinion of his power ; and an undue severity in speaking of an opponent, merely weakens the force of opinion. In his early life Dr. Krauth was perhaps too fond of sarcasm as a weapon, but at the time of his work at the University, his character had ripened into that sweetness and broad Christian charity which enabled him to speak with justice of an opponent, however dangerous, who was sincere and earnest, reserving his scorn for that baseness of life and character censured by men of what- ever creed or speculative views. It was this which made 1868-83.] QUESTIONS FAIRLY MET. 261 his opinions on men and books valued by his pupils, — the conviction that he spoke, not from policy, but his sincere belief. Those who were in his class a few years since, when a student who, having read some of the works of Mr. Bain, and being much troubled by the force of his reasonings, asked Dr. Krauth what he thought of the argument and of the man, will not forget the tenor of what he said, as compared with the way in which he shortly after spoke of another philosopher. "I consider Mr. Bain," said he, "a very able man, and a very learned man, but I think he is mistaken in several important points;" and then he set forth with fairness and justice, and without any personal reflections on the character or intentions of Mr. Bain, the points in which he regarded his philosophy as in error. How different was the warmth with which he spoke in referring to the life of another writer under discussion: — "He was a man of thoroughly selfish life, a sensualist, a libertine, a man of base character;" spoken in such a way, as to impress upon the student the truth of one fact, that a selfish, sensual, base life deserves the contempt of men of all creeds and all philosophies. In his teaching Dr. Krauth never refused to answer a question, indeed, he encouraged perfect freedom of dis- cussion in the classroom. And if he were in doubt as to the true answer to a question, he never hesitated to confess at once his ignorance, a confession which, how- ever, he was seldom called upon to make, as the wide extent of his reading, not merely in philosophy, but in natural history and general literature, and the accuracy of his memory, were a constant surprise to those whom he taught. He used to say that if one's mental develop- ment were such as to prompt him to ask a question, he was sufficiently advanced to receive a true answer. And though he did not believe that all truth is good for all persons, nor that one should suggest doubts to those who have none, he held that when a doubt does rise, it should be faced, that shutting one's eyes is neither courageous, nor satisfactory as a means of exorcism. Acting con- 262 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Cuat.XYL sistently on this principle in his intercourse with his pu- pils, he inspired in them that confidence in his sincerity which has been mentioned as so important an element in his power. It was Dr. Krauth's lot to teach what is usually con- sidered by College students a "dry" branch. Indeed, there are so few of them that ever get deep enough in the subject to see its significance, that it is hardly to be expected that they should take an interest in it. This class a teacher much reach rather through his personality than through his philosophy; and those who were incap- able of understanding the force of his arguments, or the value of his philosophical analyses, yet could learn and did learn from Dr. Krauth, whose whole intercourse with the students was a lesson in practical ethics. Teach- ing of this sort, those most inappreciative of the abstrac- tions of metaphysics could understand and appreciate. But his wide range of reading and his excellent memory furnished him with a fund of illustrations and examples which served to make interesting discussions which would otherwise have been dry to many, — novels, poetry, travels, all contributed their quota. In speaking of the intelligence of the brute creation, for example, and tak- ing the dog as a representative — for he was always fond of talking about dogs — he would refer to the scene in Oliver Twist, where Bill Sykes is represented as having made up his mind to kill his faithful follower. As he approaches the animal with this intent, it seems to guess his purpose from his face, and, contrary to all precedent, it avoids him, and takes care to keep out of his reach. This incident, the Doctor used to maintain, is not an exag- geration of canine intelligence. Indeed, the affectionate way in which he talked of dogs, used to remind those listening to him of Dr. John Brown, of Edinburgh, and his love for our humble friends. Or, in speaking of the intelligence or instinct of the lower orders of life, he would refer to his own exper- ience in the West Indies; his morning walk along the seashore, in which he discovered that a slight tap with 1868-83.] ILLUSTRATION AND ANECDOTE. 263 a cane would detach an unexpectant shellfish from a rock, but that, if it were first touched and warning of danger given, it would hold on with might and main. The witty man in Lothair says it is always a pity "when conversation falls into its anecdotage," and anecdotes told for their own sake, are possibly entertaining, but not very instructive nor edifying. With Dr. Krauth the anecdote had its point, and from its connection with the argument, proved its right to exist. The genuine humor, and occasional flashes of wit with W'hich he enlivened the classroom will be remembered by his pupils. On one occasion a student who had just seen in the newspapers a report of a remarkable case of trance-life, and wished Dr. Krauth's opinion respecting it, propounded the question, "Doctor, the papers say, there is a woman in New York who has been insensible, and has not eaten or drunk anything for twenty years, — ■ do you believe it?" "I can well believe that, Mr. C, our graveyards are full of such people." "Oh, but I mean, she is alive," hastily added the student. "Well, I don't believe that," said Dr. Krauth, "that puts a new face on the matter." His wit had sometimes a very salutary sting, and was an effectual stimulant. In examining a student on some lectures, in which he had dwelt at some length on the wonderful instinct of the bee, as shown in the formation of its cells, he asked what is the shape of a bee's cell, and received the answer, "Square." "Oh no, Mr. M.," quietly said Dr. Krauth, "the bee's cell is not square : I think you had better go and look at the bee, — but per- haps it would be as well for you to go first to the ant." It was his custom to call upon a student to recite from the beginning, middle or end of the roll, and the place where he would commence could not be predicted. But, having begun, he would go on in regular order from one name to the next, and the trepidation of those who had neglected to prepare the lesson or had found them- selves unequal to the task, and who saw their turn com- ing, was sometimes amusingly evident. If the hour were 264 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Cuw.XVl. drawing near its end, an attempt might be made to ward off the impending evil, by asking questions, which would have to be answered at length, and would take up the time until the ringing of the bell. On one such occasion, a student who saw himself in danger and was not suf- ficiently at home in the subject to ask an intelligent ques- tion, turned in desperation to his neighbor: "Quick! he is coming this way, tell me a question to ask him." The other suggested that he ask the Doctor to tell the class something about Simon's views on the subject of special providences — a request which he at once made, but not catching the name of the writer distinctly, he was com- pelled to mumble it. "Did you say Sismondi?" inquired Dr. Krauth. "Yes, sir," rejoined the querist, whose pur- pose was equally well served by either. Having declared his ignorance as to Sismondi's views on the subject, Dr. Krauth proceeded to call upon the student to recite, and as a result was compelled to credit him with a complete failure. "Mr. C," said he quietly, "if I were you, I would not let my enthusiastic studies in Sismondi so en- croach upon my time as to leave none for my regular lesson in philosophy." There was nothing dogmatic or authoritative in his method of teaching. Recognizing the fact that in meta- physics, if anywhere, a difference of opinion is to be tolerated, and that the value of the instruction is not in the number of truths inculcated so much as in the stim- ulus to thought, and interest in high subjects, he en- couraged a freedom of inquiry, and always allowed one to maintain his opinion by argument. The patience with which he would meet a pupil on his own ground, answer- ing kindly questions absurd in themselves, though pro- posed in good faith, could not but be admired by those who sat under his teaching. As an instance to the point will be remembered his kindly discussion with the stu- dent who tried to explain the intelligence of the dog, on the principle of "the absorption of the psychic." In his classroom there was a feeling of freedom, widely removed from the unwarranted freedom of disrespect, 1868-83.] HIS KINDLY COURTESY. 265 which helped to reheve the monotony of discussions for many uninteresting because not understood. Dr. Krauth did not require in the classroom an absolute silence or stillness, and if, when the subject was too deep for many of those present, the buzz of conversation became au- dible, he would gently remind the class that they were forgetting themselves, and at once order would be re- stored. On occasion he could be severe, but the trifling mis- demeanours of the classroom arise much oftener from thoughtlessness and a superabundance of animal spirits, than from intentional disrespect, and this he always took into account. A student, who had troubled him by con- tinuous conversation with his neighbor, was after one or two slight warnings called up to the desk one day after recitation. "Mr. R.," said Dr. Krauth, "I should dislike very much to spoil the grade of a man who recites so well as you do; don't you think you could talk less dur- ing recitations?" The man was a good scholar, but had been thoughtless, and the kindly reproof served its pur- pose, and made a lasting impression. Dr. Krauth would never have been called severe in the classroom, he was too gentle to be severe, and yet he kept excellent order. There was a dignity in his presence which made rudeness impossible, and a kindliness and courtesy which disarmed everything like opposition. This characterized all his intercourse with the students, whether as professor or as Vice-Provost. He would listen to the excuse for absence presented by a Freshman with the same polished courtesy with which he would listen to a professor. As an instance of his kindly humor, and uniform courtesy, may be related the story told by the colored assistant janitor, of the way in which Dr. Krauth called his attention to the fact that he had not kept clean the large inkstand on his desk. It seems, a number of flies had fallen into the ink, and had made it unfit for use. "Alfred," said Dr. Krauth, "I am sure, ink is not the natural element of those poor flies. Don't you think they would be more comfortable if restored 266 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVI. to their native atmosphere?'' The inkstand was kept clean after that. A chance chat with Dr. Krauth after hours, a meeting on the street or in the cars, was prized as a treat. He set the student at his ease at once, and whether the sub- ject were a question in philosophy, or the merit of a standard novel, his information seemed equally exact, and his mode of imparting it equally agreeable. Stu- dents generally expect to find a certain fossil-like char- acter in an old teacher, — rather expect him to be out of sympathy with their boyish enthusiasm over matters, to others than themselves, of little moment. But Dr. Krauth, in the many years since his own college course, had not managed to secrete enough silex to make a stu- dent ill at ease in his company, or unable to talk freely with him over the small concerns of college life. Those who were members of the Philomathean Society (an old- established literary club, meeting weekly at its rooms in the University for the purpose of debate, etc.,) when he was elected a judge in the yearly prize contests, will re- member the real interest he seemed to take in the efforts of the students, the gravity with which he listened to their discussion of deep themes, and the kindly way in which he announced the result of the judges' decision, putting it so that no one who had contested should feel hurt at his failure to take the prize. And after the contests, the pleasant hour which he spent in the Society's library, conversing with the mem- bers, inquiring into the affairs of the Society, now and then telling an amusing anecdote — which he did capitally, or perpetrating a pun, — and he was the father of some execrable puns, — was abundant evidence of the real in- terest he took in his pupils and their doings. Those of his pupils who kept up their intercourse with him after graduation, and had the good fortune to be honored with his friendship, must value most highly the stimulus for scholarly attainment, and the elevation of sentiment with which one could not but become imbued by an association with this true scholar and cultured 1868-83.] ENCOURAGEMEXT TO YO'JNG MEX. 267 gentleman. In a land wliere material prosperity is too often regarded as the one thing needful, where a narrow utility sets its value upon each branch of study, he im- pressed upon the younger men who conversed with him the truth, that the worth of a scholar's work is not to be measured by its convertibility into dollars and cents, but that a devotion to learning for its own sake will bring a peculiar reward of its own. He welcomed his young friends to his study, and placed at their service his li- brary. He took pleasure in directing them to the best books by the best authors, and, busy as he was, seemed not only willing but glad to sit down and spend an hour in talking over the subject into which he had led them. He greeted with that hearty commendation and encour- agement, which none knew better than he how to give, the early literary efforts of young scholars, — an en- couragement, which, coming from a source so highly honored, gave hope and vigor for further effort. Sus- cessful as was Dr. Krauth's work among the students at large, deep as was the influence of his character and learning upon his classes, it was in personal contact with him in his study and among his books that he was best known, and that his influence was deepest. It is difficult to speak with sufficient warmth of his uniform kindness and courtesy, his hearty encouragement and assistance, to younger scholars, who will look upon their acquain- tance with him as a most valuable factor in their intel- lectual lives. DR. KRAUTH AS A TEACHER OF PHILOSOPHY. The Rev. Geo. C. F. Haas, D.D., Pastor of St. Mark's German Lutheran Church in New York, and, for many years President of the New York Synod, furnishes the following description of Dr. Krautli's method in teach- ing Moral and Intellectual Philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania : At our first meeting with Dr. Krauth as a class in Philosophy (1874) he instructed us to procure "Outlines 368 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVI. of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy, by Murray," "Whewell's Elements of Morality" and "Krauth's Flem- ing's Vocabulary of Philosophy."* The latter we used only as a work of private reference, the former two we took up in the order mentioned, taking only selected por- tions of Whewell's Elements (embracing the elementary notions of morality and the chapter on Polity, more especially the rights, duties and moral character of the state, the social contract, the constitution, and representa- tive government) whilst we studied Hamilton's Psychol- ogy in detail. Dr. Krauth's method was to give us a number of pages to commit and recite upon. He did not require a verbatim memorizing of the text, but insisted on our closely adhering to the ideas presented. Where, indeed, a student began to ramble, or failed to express himself clearly, the Doctor would ofttimes inquire after the precise words of the author, it being an oft repeated saying of his, that the author's meaning could be best *A Vocabulary of the Philosophical Sciences. (Including the Vocabulary of Philosophy, Mental, Moral and Metaphysical, by William Fleming D. D., Professor of Moral Philosophy in the Uni- versity of Glasgow, from the second edition, i860; and the third, 1876, edited by Henry Calderwood LL. D.) By Charles P. Krauth S. T. D. LL. D., Vice-Provost of the University of Pennsylvania, Pp. XXIV., 1044, New York : Sheldon and Co., 1878. Fleming's Vocabulary, a standard English work of reference, had been edited by Dr. Krauth for the first time, and introduced to the American student of philosophy in 1S60. The edition of 1878 was the first com- plete American edition of the work, preserving what Calderwood had omitted. Dr. Krauth's additions from page 561 to 1044 just about double the volume of the book and much more than double its value. In the sphere of German philosophy, where Fleming was most unsatisfactory Dr. Krauth's additions and particularly his English renderings of German philosophical terms, are invaluable. But the combination of " two works by two writers, closely related, yet distinct" as Dr. Krauth himself says in his preface, makes the whole publication rather clumsy, and it might well be asked whether it would not have been better if he had written a book of his own, incorporating the best of Fleming's material. See also Dr. Robert Ellis Thompson's review in Penn Monthly, November 1877. 1868-83.] THOROUGHNESS AND ACCURACY. 269 given in his own words. He would lay great stress on our knowing the table of contents, order of chapters and subjects of a book, and often had the mere skeleton of chapter-headings and the like, recited and re-recited. As long as the student would continue to recite with any fluency at all. Dr. Krauth would but rarely interrupt him, even when he made some mistakes, so that it often hap- pened that one of the brighter students would recite the whole eight, ten or twelve pages of the lesson, in which case the next one would be called upon to begin from the beginning again. Very often, when the whole subject had been explained and recited, the Doctor would have one or two students summarize it again, or have them review chapters. When a student displayed hesitation in reciting, the Doctor would help him by doling out ques- tions which w^ere intended to help along, and which often almost contained the answer sought for. Mistakes or er- roneous statements he would most frequently correct by going back to the particular point, after the student had finished his part of the recitation. He was always open to questions from the students, and seemed delighted when they put their difificulties forth in such shape. When a student came poorly prepared, the Doctor seldom gave any evidence of disapprobation, unless it was an entire failure on the part of the student ; but his mark invariably showed a just estimate of the fidelity of the reciter. His silence was a sufficient disapproval of such cases. . . .He displayed an almost unlimited patience with those that were slow of comprehension, but would not tolerate any attempt at imposing upon him. A student attempting this would find himself invited to take his seat without further ceremony. Whether in or out of the class Dr. Krauth was always the finished Christian gentleman, kind, courteous and dignified to the students as to all others. His personality exercised an unmistakable influence upon his pupils. His aim seemed to be, not so much to cover the entire field of philosophical inquiry, as to ground his pupils thor- oughly in a sound psychology, and to instill into their 270 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chat. XVI. minds the fundamental principles of a true philosophy, and especially to fortify them against the false and speci- ous philosophy of the day. The Doctor never gave our class a system of his own in philosophy. His criticisms indeed proved his view to have been that of a moderate idealism, but apart from pointing out the fallacies in the realistic and also the ultra-idealistic systems, he never directly influenced his pupils as far as I know, towards any system. At this point we may properly introduce the testimony of his colleague and friend Dr. Robert Ellis Thompson, as one best fitted to appreciate Dr. Krauth's "Contribu- tion to Philosophy." In his address at the dedication of the Krauth Memorial Library in the Theological Semi- nary at Mount Airy, (June 3, 1908), Dr. Thompson said on this subject: His general attitude was sympathetic to the Scotch Philosophy and the natural realism of Reid, the founder of the School in opposition to Idealism no less than Materialism and philosophic Skepticism. But every man of that school has felt that Bishop Berkeley, the great Irish Idealist, is the first enemy they have to meet and refute, if Hume, the Scottish Skeptic, is the second. Dr. Krauth approached the subject from the historic side, and tmdertook an edition of Berkeley's "Principles of Human Knowledge"* which exhibits the entire discussion of the *Dr. Krauth's labors in the preparation of this edition of Berkeley extended over a course of several years. He meant it to be the standard edition, containing the text, the entire annotations of Fraser, who in the ablest manner vindicates the views of Berkeley, the entire notes and illustrations of Ueberweg (Professor in Koenigsberg, author of " Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie," died 1871) who with the greatest ability and moderation qualifies and criticizes them, and has surpassed all who have attempted on purely scientific grounds to meet Berkeley's views. He had read, by request, before the Prince- ton Club, consisting of the professors in both the institutions of that place, a few of the notes from Ueberweg, and Dr. McCosh and the entire body of the professors expressed the strongest desire that the edition should be published, and agreed in the opinion that it would meet a great want and have a wide circulation. 1868-83.] HIS PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS. 27 1 problem from 1710 to 1874 and discusses the question in the Hght of all the arguments on both sides. It is a mas- sive contribution to the history of philosophy, and grati- fies the admirers of Berkeley by showing how widely the influence of his book had been felt, and how it contributed to shaping the thought of Hume, Kant, Fichte and other great metaphysicians. It is the most candid of books, as well as one of the most learned, and gives its author a permanent place in the world's philosophic literature." Along side of Dr. Krauth's Berkeley, continues Dr. Thompson, may be placed his much smaller work, which contains a translation of the review of Strauss' "The Old Faith and the New" by Dr. Hermann Ulrici, along with a valuable introduction and notes by Dr. Krauth. Here also he exhibited his patience and thoroughness of method. The last word of the greatest skeptic of the century, in which he comes to the logical outcome of his earlier speculations in pure atheism, called forth a whole literature of attack and defense. Dr. Krauth collected it all and studied it all in the preparation of the book. Dr. Ulrici felt that the result was something far beyond his review in scientific value and practical effect, and entered into a friendship with his translator which lasted as long as they both lived. His library reflects his philosophical work very fully. He studied the great masters with zest and penetration, giving the first place among moderns to Leibnitz, but appreciating them all for their several con- tributions to the thought of civilized mankind. He was no captious critic of such men, and never thought it need- ful to exalt theolog}' by denying the worth of work done in other fields. He even had a value for such a pessimist •as Schopenhauer, as furnishing a needed corrective to the pantheistic exaggerations of man's natural goodness, and thus confirming the teaching of Revelation as to human depravity. DR. krauth's own STANDPOINT AS A PHILOSOPHER. The best presentation of Dr. Krauth's own views as .a philosopher, is found in an elaborate paper entitled "The 2/2 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap.XVL Strength and Weakness of Idealism," which he prepared for the Sixth General Conference of the Evangelical Al- liance, in the City of New York, where it was read on October 6, 1873. (See Evangelical Alliance Conference, New York, October 2-12, 1873, edited by Rev. Philip Schaff, D.D., and S. Irenseus Prime, D.D., p. 293ff.) The substance of this paper is also embodied in the Pro- legomena of his edition of Berkeley, pp. 122-142. Consciousness is defined as the mind's recognition of its own conditions. The cognitions of consciousness are admitted as absolute and infallible. But our interpreta- tions of consciousness and inferences based on these in- terpretations, may be incorrect. Only the mind's own states are positively known, nothing else. Based on this is the idealistic postulate : An idea can be like nothing but an idea. The subjective is not identical with the ob- jective. The idea is intellectual, the object is material. The idea is in my mind, the object is external to my mind. "The beings of the mind are not of clay." This repre- sents a certain speculative strength of Idealism. But at the same time it implies a great limitation. The con- sistent idealist cannot claim to know anything beyond this, that there exist ideas in his consciousness. He can- not know that he has a substantial personal existence, or that there is any other being, finite or infinite, beside him- self. The consistent idealist therefore will say that there is nothing he knows, thing or person, beside himself. The idealistic conception of man's personality forgets that the Ego is not the whole man, but only man's mind. (Cogito, ergo sum). Being conscious of our self, we are not conscious of the material nature associated with ourself. This would lead consistently to the absurdity that we have not substantial bodies, or do not directly know we have them. This, then, involves a false con- struction of the personality of man. There is no sort of 18-3] MATTER AXD MIND. 273 proof proper that man is spirit, apart from proof that he is also body. On the relation of matter to mind the ignorant physi- cist says: We know that there is matter, why go to an unknown something called mind? But this very asser- tion implies the priority of something kuozcing to the something knoivn. In asserting matter, the physicist had to postulate mind. On the other hand, Idealism dare not set aside the fact that the Non-Ego does operate on the Ego. Here is its danger of running into Skepticism and even Nihilism. In matter are hidden divine forces. It too is worthy of God. We cannot measure it, because we cannot measure Him. We cannot think too highly of spirit, but we can think too little of matter. Matter and Mind conjoined do not merely add their powers each to each, but evolve new powers, incapable of existence out- side of their union. Idealism makes much of the Universe as a thing of Thought, over against blind fate, aimless chance, evolu- tion without mind to guide it. It asserts plan, as before all evolution ; asserts that the entire phenomenal, physical and spiritual, finds its last root and cause in personal reason. But the failure or weakness of Idealism on this point is, that it denies the word, as the body of the thought, the medium through which it awakens thought, and by which mind is operative on mind. Berkeley is unsatisfactory in the explanation of the impartition of the divine ideas to us. He appeals to the omnipotence of God as capable of making direct impressions on the mind. There is a certain "Gnostic undervaluation of matter," in spite of the conception of the Phenomena of the Universe as language in which mind speaks to mind. But this is, after all, a language without words. (It reminds us of that striking saying of Haman, — "der Magus des Nordens," — that the language of nature con- 274 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chaf.XVI. sists of Consonants, to which the human mind must bring the vowels, as in the Hebrew language.) The confusion, obscurity and vacillation of other philosophical systems in their definition of substance, — ^'Das Ding an sich" — has been a feature of strength for Idealism. But the difficulties in handling this subject are even greater in Idealism. It is encumbered with the per- plexity of treating physical substance as if it were a fact, while it yet conceives of it as a fiction. In its interpretation of causality Idealism is not stronger than other philosophical systems. It is com- pelled to accept experience as a source of difficulties, while it dare not use it as a means of relief from them. An element of strength in Idealism is in its tendency to unity, a monistic conception and construction of facts, as in Pantheism, Materialism and the so-called "Identi- taets-Philosophie" (doctrine of identity). But Idealism shares in the weakness of Pantheism and Materialism, in that it finds unity not in the harmony of the things that differ, but in the absorption of the one into the other. As a matter of fact, of experience, the dualism of things spiritual and things material is admitted by all schools. Before they begin to philosophize, the materialist and the idealist agree on the phenomenal facts. But when they begin to philosophize, the materialist denies mind, the idealist denies matter, each being a dogmatist. There is no genuine proof that there is matter, which is not a proof that there is mind; no genuine proof that there is mind, which is not a proof that there is matter. Matter, isolated from mind is unknown; mind isolated from mat- ter is unknozving. They are not opposites but correlates, as subject and object. As Philosophy alone knows them, there can be no mind conceived without matter, no mat- ter conceived without mind. Materialism and Idealism are alike forms of direct self-contradiction. The principles of Idealism seem to be the most ef- i873.] IDEALISM AND REALISM. 2/5 factual forces to overthrow Materialism. One of Ber keley s practical incentives was the hope of acconinhsh .ng .h.s defeat of Materialism. His greatness is the rue estimate of the value of the soul, and of the majesty o the mmd. the evulence of the persomlity, the independent existence, the amazing faculties of the spirit of man Matter ,s for mind; the psychical rules the physical the sp.r,t ,s the educator of the organs; the Universe is ex! pressed thought and plan, conceived by mind for mind- the anguage m which the Infinite Spirit speaks to the created sp.nts; law the revelation of will; nature an eternal logic and aesthetic ; man an indivisible perso" h" essent.al personality inherent in the soul; the soul not the result of organism, but organism the result of soul 1 he Universe we knoiv cannot exist without mind There is no man s Universe outside of man is ?he relf'"^K °f ^'h°.™"&h-going extreme Idealism IS he reaction by which ,t promotes Materialism To make a real thing nothing is the best preparation for mak- mg I everythmg. Fichte, Schelling, Hegel lead to Feuerbacl, Vogt, Moleschott; Bacon, Hobbes^rnd Locke wh^t'tr"' . '^ '"'^ ^P'""^- " y™ "''ke men doubi what hey have seen, how can they continue to believe in that which they have not seen ? While the extravagances and mistakes of Realism are favorable to Idealism, a sober Realism becomes a most formidable antagonist of Idealism, and is admitted as moods Tr^p-'^; *' '''"'"'" ""■""' '" ''^ P^-'i-l rr %,,?"'■ "'*' ^^^des; "Idealism is speculative only. When ,t comes to action. Realism presses upon every man, even upon the most decided idealist. Idealism .s the true reverse of life." With this statement he passes judgment on his own system. Even Kant never reached the point at which he could pretend to say. on speculative grounds: Intelligo ~^s over agamst : Credo ut~. ^ 2/6 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chat. XYl. His heart went over from the philosopher's to the vulgar, and tried to stanch the wounds of the "Pure" with the bandages of the "Practical Reason." (Reine Vernunft — Praktische Vernunft). But the bandages of the "practical" could only be found in the repository of the "pure," and from thence Kant had removed them. His "reason" affirmed Idealism. His instinct clung to Realism. Kant perpetually unravelled in one what he wove in the other. The shroud of Penelope was never completed. All recent Idealism is the exaggeration or isolation of Kantian principles, but, if Idealism is Kant- ianism, Kant did not understand his own system. If his creed was idealistic, his faith was realistic. Recent Idealism is the disavowed, if not the illegitimate, child of the great thinker it claims as its father. In striking contrast Berkeley and Fichte are quoted as representing the truly noble and elevating features of Idealism over against its dangerous tendencies. In Ber- keley he praises the "sublime embodiment of the true philosophical spirit, the loftiness of its aims, the single- ness of its purpose, the invincible persistence of its fidelity to conviction. Without disloyalty to the practical turn of the English mind, he has been true to purely intellectual interests. He at least has not degraded philosophy to the kitchen. His works are a bulwark of the highest faiths, hopes and aspirations of the heart of man, and they are such, in part, because of their distinct assertion of the personality and freedom of God, the personality, freedom and accountability of man." Over against this he points to the " overweening Titanic arrogance " of some of the German idealistic philosophers, which even the noble nature of Fichte could not hide. The philosophy of the future, he concludes, is one which will be neither absolute Idealism, nor absolute Realism, but will accept the facts of both, and fuse them in a system which, like man himself, shall blend the two iB73] HEALTHY BIBLICAL REALISM. 277 realities as distinct yet inseparable, the duality of natures harmonized, yet not vanishing in the Monism of person. Its Universe shall be one of accordant, not of discordant matter and mind, — a Universe held together and ever developing under the plan and control of the one Su- preme, who is neither absolutely immanent, nor abso- lutely supramundane, but relatively both, — immanent in the sense in which Deism denies its presence, supramund- ane in the sense in which Pantheism ignores this relation. Its God shall be not the mere maker of the Universe, as Deism asserts, nor its matter, as Pantheism presents Him, but its Preserver, Benefactor, Ruler and Father, who, whether in matter or mind, reveals the perfect reason, the perfect love, the perfect will, the consummate power, in absolute and eternal personality.* It seems to us that, back of this outline of philosophical theory we can readily discern the healthy biblical Re- alism of the mature Lutheran Theologian to whom — over against the Zwinglian abstraction : Finitum, non capax Infiniti, — the great central and fundamental truth is the real union of the Visible and Invisible, the Heavenly and the Earthly, the Divine and the Human in the great fact of Incarnation, in the person of the Godman and in the objective reality of the divinely appointed means of grace, particularly the Sacrament of the Altar. This brief sketch of Dr. Krauth's philosophical stand- point would not be complete without adding some of the most characteristic and pointed statements from his in- troduction to Hermann Ulrici's Review of David Friedrich Strauss. Here he deals with the Materialism of the day. He fully recognizes its great power and the necessity of meeting it, not with dogmatic anathemas but *Dr. Krauth was an " Idealistic Realist," as Theo. E. Schmauk, then a student in our theological Seminary and Editor of the " Indicator" said in an appreciative tribute, at the time of his death. {Indicator, February 1883.) 278 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap.XYI. with a truly scientific and scholarly method of patient in- vestigation and close argumentation. His fearless love of truth, and his optimistic hope in its ultimate triumph over all error, are strikingly exhibited in this valuable "Introduction" which, with its 72 pages, constitutes more than one-half of the volume : Strauss as a Philosophical Thinker. Philadelphia, Smith, English & Co., Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1874. Materialism, he says, calls for an obliteration of what is noblest in the past, the abandonment of our richest heritages, and a total reconstruction of all the present, an abrupt change in all that tended to a future with roots deepest in the past. . . . All sciences have been made tributary to the false assumptions of the Materialism of our day. . . . The right use of science will most com- pletely overthrow Materialism. If so much science pro- motes Materialism, it is proof not that we need less science, but that we need more. . . . Only let the science be real science, and there cannot be too much of it. To appeal from science in its legitimate sphere, to authority, in behalf of religion, is not to secure religion but to be- tray it. Science and religion are occupied with two books, but both books are from one hand; in their true workings they are engaged in two parts of one great aim. Science moves ever toward the proof how supernatural is the natural ; Religion moves toward the proof how natural is the supernatural. For nature in the narrower sense, is, in her spring. Supernatural. . . . The more we know of nature, the more cogent becomes the necessity of the Supernatural. On the other hand, the Super- natural is within Nature, in Nature's broader sense. In this sense Nature is identical with the real. Everything is Nature that is not non-nature ; everything is natural that is not unnatural. The Supernatural is not to be construed as the contranatural, but as the natural itself in its supremest sphere, and God and His directest works are supernatural, because they are by pre-eminence i874] THE MATERIALISM OF THE PERIOD. 279 natural. . . . The sciences which represent nature, and the faith to which are committed the oracles of the Super- natural, must in proportion as they prove true to them- selves, prove true to each other. . . . All the intensest passions of our human life gather about some sort of battle. The unf ought is unfelt. The materialistic struggle more than anything else vitalizes the natural sciences — for thinking is, after all, the su- premest pleasure of thinking man. The intellect beats the material in all long races. . . . Those who know the facts, know that the philosophical spirit is the spirit which vitalizes all the material with the mental, and connects all phenomena with conceptions of the essence they repre- sent, all facts with truth, all effects with causes, all that is individual with the coherence of relations, all premises with inferences, all the transient with the ultimate. . . . All the physical sciences, as sciences, rest upon meta- physical data, and develop themselves toward meta- physical sequences. Materialism is popularized in our day. The magazines and papers are full of it. It creeps in everywhere, in the text-books, in schoolbooks. in books for children, and in popular lectures. Materialism has entered into the great institutions of Germany, England and America. Our old seats of orthodoxy have been invaded by it. . . . The }ilaterialism of our day is very versatile. It takes many shapes, often avoids a sharp conflict, assumes the raiment of light, knows how to play well the parts of free thought, truth and beneficence. . . . All the more securely does it pass in everywhere, so that we have Materialism intellectual, domestic, civil, philanthropic, and religious. . . . Much of the Materialism of our day is servile and dogmatic, implicit in credulity, and insolent in assertion. Professing to be independent of names, and calling men to rally about the standard of absolute freedom from all authority, it parades names where it has names to parade, and vilifies the fair fame of those whom it cannot force into acquiescence or silence. Claim- ing to be free from partisanship, it is full of coarse in- 28o CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVI. tolerance. It is an inquisition, with such tortures as the spirit of our age still leaves possible. The rabies theo- logorum of which it loves to talk, pales before the rabies physicorum of this class, sometimes as directed against each other, yet more as directed against the men of science or of the church, who resist their theories. . . . There are good and intelligent people who object even to an exposure of Materialism which may inci- dentally bring it to the notice of some, who, they imagine, would apart from such an exposure, have remained in ignorance or indifference as to the whole subject. . . . We answer : Ignorance is neither innocence nor safety. Knowledge, indeed, like all possessions, is capable of abuse. There is danger in whatever we do, and wher- ever there is danger in doing, there may be danger in leaving undone. There is danger of accident in exercise, there is the greater danger of loss of health in not exer- cising; there is the danger of choking or of surfeiting in eating, the greater danger of starvation in not eating. . . . Many men are drowned in swimming, many more men are drowned because they do not know how to swim. Hazard is the law of life, a law which becomes more exacting as life rises into its higher forms. Life itself binds up all hazards, and is itself the supreme hazard. He only never risks who never lives, and he who incurs none of the hazards of life, performs none of its du- ties. . . . But if ignorance were innocence and safety, the fea- tures of our time on which we have dwelt, show that ignorance here is impossible. The choice is not be- tween ignorance and some sort of knowledge of Ma- terialism, but between intelligent and correct impressions, and false ones. . . . Which shall the minds that are forming have : a knowledge of Materialism in all its strength without the antidote, or of Materialism falsely understated, with the possibility, almost certainty, that they will one day see that it has been understated, and rush to the conclusion that its opponents did not dare to let the truth about it be known; or shall we have Mater- 1873-4] LETTER FROM ULRICI. 281 ialisni fairly presented and fairly met? . . . The mere seeming to avoid fair discussion does more mischief than a real acquaintance with Materialism possibly can. To be cowardly is to be beaten without a battle. Materialism, with the arrogance common to all error, claims to be in- vincible. If it be not attacked, or its attack be declined, its explanation is invariably found in the fears of its antagonists. In a letter dated Halle, October, 1873, Ulrici thanks Dr. Krauth most heartily for his co-opefation and says : "While I am making only slow progress in my fight against prevailing Naturalism. Sensualism and Material- ism in Germany, as well as in England and France, it gives me all the greater joy to find some recognition and appreciation of my philosophical labors and aims in America. . . . Let us continue to work together for the preservation of the highest ideals of our human race, which unfortunately in our day are being attacked on all sides and threatened with complete overthrow." Dr. Phil. Scliaff writes (June i, 1874) : I thank you heartily for a copy of your Anti-Strauss. You have done excellent service to truth. Strauss' last book is his funeral dirge. He has completely refuted himself. As an idealist and pantheist he was respectable, as a mater- ialist and atheist he is contemptible. I always feared he w^ould end in materialism, or rather the nihilism of de- spair. For he was not a noble nature, but intensely selfish and close-fisted. THE LIBRARY. The building up of his private library was closely con- nected with Dr. Krauth's w'ork as a teacher in the Uni- versity of Pennsylvania and the theological Seminary. His interest in general literature, as well as in philosophy and theolog}', is reflected in his choice of the books that formed the chief treasures of his librarv. His ideas of 282 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVL what a library ought to be, are briefly stated in the "Re- ports on the Bucknell Library, Crozer Theological Sem- inary," by Drs. C. P. Krauth and Ezra Abbott in 1873, (published in pamphlet form, Philadelphia, 1874). It is not a mere accidental or aimless aggregation of books. It is an organism growing around a great central idea, conditioned by a well defined object, which is never lost sight of, but is carried steadily through on a well defined plan. The editions of books ought to be the very best, not the rubbish of the libraries of continental scholars, a rubbish of superseded editions, presentation copies of still-born books, defaced, ill bound and unbound works, the preservation of many of which is pure injustice to the paper-maker. The books ought to be not merely good books but the best; and not simply best, but the best of the best. . . . He praises the scholarly impartiality in the selection of books found in the Bucknell Library. The books have gone in purely on their merits. They form a Library, not a one-sided argument built up in one- sided books. You are not forced to learn systems from their opponents, or to make up your opinion by diligently reading everything that can be said on only one side of a subject .... Next to what it has, a library is rich in what it omits. Useless books are worse than useless in a library; they are pernicious. They hide and supplant the good books. They make hay-stacks to hide needles. A library should separate the sheep from the goats. ... In a general way books are of two classes: i. — The books out of which other books are made; 2. — the books which are made out of other books. No library is entitled to the name, which does not lay its foundation in books of the first class. The first class will make by themselves a library; the second will not. To the first class belong books which the teacher, the scholar, the investigator need, books which are so rare and hard of access in our i88o.] HIS VIEWS ON THE LIBRARY. 283 country. The student needs to know of this class of books long- before he can directly use them. He should look to them as something into which he is to grow. The mere knowledge that these books are. helps to make him a thinker, to give him broader views, and urges him to become a man of real learning and independence. The Bureau of Education in Washington invited Dr. Krauth (August 5, 1875,) to furnish "the introductory paper for a work on American Libraries in preparation by this Bureau, covering the section on Theological Li- braries." His name had been recommended by Dr. Ezra Abbott as "eminently qualified to perform the work." It was suggested that he should describe "the historical development of this class of libraries, progressive changes in their character, present condition as to size, means of support, denominational divisions, adaptation to the re- quirements of the theological Schools; and the principles which should govern the selection of books for a theo- logical library." This volume was intended for the ap- proaching centennial of 1876. Dr. Krauth's paper was to cover from eight to ten printed octavo pages, and was to be delivered by the first of September. Considering the extensive correspondence, especially the collection of necessary statistics, etc., which such a work required, the time set for its completion was manifestly too short, and we do not wonder that Dr. Krauth did not feel inclined to undertake it. In an elaborate article prepared for Stoddart's Re- view, we find the fullest statement of his views on THE library; what it is, and what it ought to be. A library is an organism. It is not a mere accidental or aimless aggregation of books. It must not only have the proper parts somewhere, but should have them in their right places and in their right relations. It cannot 284 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVI. be ordered from the bookseller by the three dimensions and the color of the covers, — three yards of novels and three inches of solid reading; the novels full calf, in crimson and gold, the solid reading in black half-split- sheep. As no mere aggregation of limbs, muscles, and bones makes a human body, as no jumbling together of beautiful features would constitute beauty, so no amount of books makes, as such, a library. There are ambitious cartloads of print, shot into shelves, which just as much make a library, as the heterogeneous masses of tables, chairs, crockery, looking-glasses, and tin pans which form the rubbish at an auctioneer's rooms, convert them into a well-furnished house. A true library must grow around a great central idea; it must be conditioned by well-de-- fined objects, which are never to be lost sight of, but are to be steadily carried through on an intelligent plan. It must have unity even in seemingly boundless variety. Could it embrace all books, it would unify them as a uni- versal one, and by its arrangement, convert the matter of a chaos into a world of beauty and order. As the blade of grass is a unit of harmonies in an idea, so no less is the universe the unit of total harmonies in one total idea, all relative ones within the absolute one. A true library, little or great in bulk, involves unity, not mechanical but organizing. We may call a dead, confused collection of books a library, as we call the jumbled fossil fragments of a fish, a fish, or as we call the remains of a man, a man. But as the real animal or man must have life, so must a library be a living thing, with a heart and brain ; it must be vital in its conception and in its growth ; the organ of intellect, the embodiment of moral intent. The plan of a library may be general or special, or partly general and partly special ; the method of each of these again may be aggregative or selective, or in part both. A library may be general. It may aim at covering the whole ground of literature in the widest sense of that word, which embraces all classes of books; the works i88o.] A LIBRARY MUST HAVE A PLAN. 285 which contribute to knowledge as well as those which minister to taste. Or a library may be special, designed for particular wants. It may cluster around the wants of an institu- tion ; it may be the library of a school, of a literary so- ciety, or of a college. It may narrow its sphere to the wants of a profession, — there are engineering, military, medical, legal, and theological libraries; it may devote itself to the rarities of bibliography, the incunabula, the products of world-renowned presses, such as those of Faust, Caxton, Aldus, the Stephens, the Elzevirs, the Diots, Pickering ; the copies whose glory is their margins, and tops, and material ; tall copies, large paper copies, uncut copies ; copies on vellum, tinted paper, asbestos, and other unusual material; copies with miniature paintings and illuminated initials; copies printed in silver, in gold, in colors ; books consisting entirely of engraved plates ; books that have belonged to illustrious men ; in a word, to all the qualities of books except their matter. The motto of the bibliomaniac is, *'The raiment is more than the body." To the bibliomaniac as such, the Bible as a divine book has no value. What he values is a copy which omits a not in the Commandments, the wicked Bible, as it has been called ; a Bible which has the parable of the vinegar in- stead of the vineyard; a Bible which represents St. Paul as solemnly assuring the Corinthians that he would not have them to be "burned" instead of "burdened." He knows the Geneva Bible by the one word "brteches," and the Parker (Bishops') Bible by one abominable pictured initial. The features of an edition of a Bible which recommend it to him, are those which unfit it for others. The book is tJie book to him because it inserts what does not belong to it, or omits what does. His travesty, on each new accession of a book of Heaven demonized by the printer, is, " Precious Bible, glad it's mine, Every part that's not divine." 286 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVI. Some libraries, as for example the Vatican, put their strength into manuscripts. Among the vandal glories of some is a collection of titlepages detached from the books to which they belong — the barbarous and senseless epicur- ism of a dish of nightingales' tongues. There is hardly a conceivable specialty which has not been made the basis of selection. Some libraries are made up of the com- monplace books about which everybody knows, and others rigidly exclude the class "which no gentleman's library is complete without," — the class of books which was Charles Lamb's special aversion. No one who has not examined the special collections or their catalogues, can imagine what a world of books there is, on topics on which the uninitiated would think there is nothing, and how unwisely men sometimes assume that the book they write, is first and alone in its class. Nothing is more delicious than the dreams of ignorance, and nothing so unpleasant as being roused from them. A library may be partly general and partly special. It may cover to some extent the ground of common wants, and yet have departments which are developed in larger proportions. Often a library whose main design is spec- ial, has a fair proportion of books of a wider scope. These do not of necessity break in upon its special character, for nothing can be so special as to have no links with the general. If the theologian, or lawyer, or physician is to be confined to one library, meant specially for his pro- fession, that library should embrace in some proportion good books out of many departments. The ocean needs constant additions of fresh water; without them it would become a vast pond of brine; the living things would perish, and at last instead of being the ever-moving and free, it would become a desert of salt. So in the pro- fessional library, kept too absolutely to its own technical stores, the salt itself ceases to be an element of health and preservation. In place of the glorious growth, like that of vegetation and animal forms, which it should pro- mote, it comes at last to be no more at best than a Salt Lake of Utah — dead waters bounded by dead shores. i88o.] THE LIBRARY LIKE UNTO A NET. 287 The catacombs of the intellectual world are stacked with munimitied minds, trophies of that spurious conservatism which embalms the dead, and tries in vain to keep them everlastingly unchanged, instead of aiming at conserva- tion from decay by the power of an ever-fresh and self- renewing motion. A library may break into pimples with pastry and comfit literature, or be starved by withholding all nutriment, or be driven into scurvy by being kept on barrelled meats. Its rooms should be a banqueting palace in a great park ; not a gloomy vault, where neglected worthies, surrounded by bats and crocodiles, and all the other sacred beasts of learned superstition, immortal in traditional balsam and aromatics, wait for a resurrection which never comes. The general library may be aggregative. It may aim at collecting everything with the most absolute possible fulness, selecting nothing, making no discrimination, put- ting out a great net, the bottom of which drags the bot- tom, and the top of which floats on the waves, bringing to land books of all classes to be put alike into vessels for keeping, treating the many sorts as all of one kind, the good and bad being alike good for it. Such approxi- mately general libraries are of immense importance. F'or what after all is absolute worthlessness in a book, such worthlessness as precludes any possible use of it for any person or for any purpose whatsoever? The historian •of morals may find his saddest, his richest, and most im- pressive lessons in books which but for the purpose of illustration, testimony, and warning, no decent man should touch. To verify the awful picture of heathen degradation drawn in the first chapter of Romans, Tho- luck is obliged to use the writings of some who were steeped in the foulness of which they bear witness. Who tell the secret of their era like Martial and the erotic Greek poets ; like Rabelais and Montaigne, like the dra- matists of the Restoration, and like Count Anthony Hamilton? The histories of Gibbon and Macaulay, of Parkman, Prescott, and Bancroft, show that the books which everybody reads largely, draw their material from 288 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVI. books which nobody reads. The exhaustive illustrations by which the names of Dyce and Furness are linked worthily and forever with the greatest name in dramatic literature ; the wealth of facts which has been gathered by Lecky and Lea in their classic monographs, teach us that the information we are all eager to have, must be wrought out from the forgotten mines to which very few can resort. The aggregations of a universal library cannot be too aggregative. A library which should give to us all editions of everything which has ever been print- ed, and all the manuscripts worthy of preservation which have ever been written, would be a something which would make the world give itself voice in Dominie Samp- son's exclamation. It would be the treasure-house of all scholars, the Eldorado of the bibliographer, the heaven of the bibliomaniac, for which the Panzers and Dibdens, the Peignots, Maittaires, and Brunets would barter their immortality. The general library may also be selective. Embracing many departments, it may aim only at having the most important books in each. This is the prevailing type of general libraries. It involves universality in plan with selection in detail. The special library may also be aggregative, aiming at an exhaustive collection in its own particular sphere ; or it may be selective, proposing to have only the most needed books in its class. The special theological library may aim at a universal gathering of theology; the law library at obtaining all law books ; or each may be select. Or a library may combine the two elements : it may be in part both selective as a general library and aggregative in special departments; and such a library may be very valuable. In a word, a library may be either wholly general or wholly special as to its plan or purport, or it may be both with limitations ; and may be aggregative or selective, or be both as to its method. These combinations render- possible a great variety of libraries. i88o.] PROPORTION, UNITY, METHOD. 289 The leading qualities of a good general library are these : Fairness of proportion and adaptation. A general library must, in the nature of the case, be a compromise. It cannot make "the weakest part as strong as the rest." To be something to everybody, it must abandon the hope of being everything to anybody. The general library is a compromise for the general wants of the body general. The special library is meant to meet the special wants of specialists, unless it be of that very common class whose special character seems to be, that it has no definite or indefinite class of wants to minister to. And yet the special library can only seem exhaustive by assuming a very narrow plan for a very narrow purpose. The li- brary must wisely limit, contract, expand with reference to all the interests it represents, and must be kept clear of the fantasies of every sort of doctrinaires. The general library must not lose sight of unity even in variety, nor of variety in unity. Unity does not exclude variety, but systematizes and guides it. Unity is not monotony, either in nature or in thought, but is a safeguard against it. The monotony of confusion — and the greater the variety in the things confused the worse it is — is the most distressing of all monotonies, and no variety carries you along so delightfully as that which works with spirit in the harness of order. The library must have a clear arrangement. There must not only be a place for everything and everything in its place, but there must be a third element, often over- looked, without which the other two are of little avail: there must be some sure method of recalling where the place is. The scholar in his study often follows nature's great method as wrought out in geolog}^ — the plan of arrangement by stratification ; he accumulates things in a pile in the order in which he uses them, inverted — the last first at hand, the first last, so that he knows about where a book is, by recalling the time when he was using it in his work, and gets it by a grand volcanic upheaval. But this artless plan will evidently not suit for public ^9 290 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVI. libraries. In order to the complete embodiment of the three principles of arrangement, there must be, first, a careful classification in the system of the library; second, a careful placing in order, and a careful restoration to their proper places of all books which have been removed ; third, careful cataloguing and indexing of the library; and, fourth, provisions for indications of the persons taking out books, for knowing at once in whose hands any particular book is, and a regular system as to the time of their return and the penalties which are to correct a disposition to delay. It is impossible to overestimate the value of order, classification, system in a library. "To know where to find things," says Quenstedt, though we are far from sure that he was the first to say it, "is a large part of erudition." The learned man no more pretends to carry all his learning in his head, than the rich man attempts to carry all his property in his pockets. The library should be so arranged as to express well-ordered learning and to aid it. The true librarian should be a man of learning, with a clear, logical brain, a thorough, general bibliographical knowledge of books, capable of pointing out to the beginner the best books in each department, and even to the scholar, at least the collateral literature of his sphere. The librarian should have broad powers of or- ganization, and such a man will make the library, as it stands, a world not only of good materials, but of har- monious beauty. This the true library must be. A good classification of the library is of the highest importance, for it forms a concrete definition, and its main qualities should be those of a good logical definition. It should embrace the whole in the harmony of its parts ; it should be on one principle ; it should be as simple as possible ; it should be clear, tangible, and practical ; it should avoid the abstruse, and should not rest on dark and doubtful postulates, to which only the contriver has the key. It should not be too artificial, but should aim at confining itself to distinctions easily marked by any one of ordinary intelligence. It should correspond strictly with its intent, i88o.] ARRANGEMENT OF A LIBRARY. 291 which is to put the Hbrary at the complete command of those who use it, to facilitate your finding what you are looking for, to aid you in knowing what you want, and to bring together what there is to supply that want. The books in the library should also actually be ar- ranged according to the system. There are libraries which are classified only on paper. The books themselves are in confusion. The books which touch each other in the system may be at opposite ends of the library. The shelves bring together bedfellows on the principle of misery. To give full efficiency to the system, it must be reflected by the shelves, as the best companion to the anatomical textbook is the skeleton with its parts in their proper relation. The library as it stands should be an index and guide to knowledge in its order, a teacher of system, a grand lesson in logic. It should reverse the result of the stratification of scholarly disorder; the first should be first, the last should be last. The plans of classification are very many, varying ac- cording to the conflicting judgments, and sometimes in accord with the wanton whims, of arrangers. There are plans whose elaborate ingenuity imposes upon us at first, which are yet essentially vicious. Of this class are what may be called the metaphysical. They are based on a certain theory as to the human mind, or of being in gen- eral. Ontological and psychological classifications of a library are nuisances. The inventor is trying to smuggle in his speculations in the shape of a catalogue. They are Trojan horses, insidious and deceptive, hollownesses stuffed with mischiefs. Prelari's arrangement of a li- brary is of this class. He lays a basis in the three primary faculties of the mind. — intellection, memory, and imag- ination. For the intellection we have science; for the memory, history; for the imagination, art. Science, history, and art then become subdivisions with reference to their common subjects, which are either God, man, or nature. In general the arrangement of the library should be the logical modified by the practical. The library should aim at possessing the most desirable 292 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVI. books for its ends. This will be admitted, and then the question will rise: What are the most desirable books? As the most general of libraries can only be relatively universal, and the great majority of libraries are, in their plan, selective, this question means, in part. What shall be the first aim of the aggregative and the constant aim of the selective in the choice of books ? In general the first aim of a library should be to get the best of the best. The aim of a public library may be said, in one aspect, to be twofold, — to supplement private libraries, and to supply the wants of those who have no libraries at all. For the first end it must aim at having what is relatively rare ; for the second, it must embrace what is generally necessary. But as provision for the first end also covers very largely the needs looked at in the second, a primary aim of the library should be, to bring together good books whose cost or extent puts them out of the reach of private purses, or involves a need for the space which can hardly be found in a private house. There are good books, too, whose use is real and necessary, yet is of such rare oc- currence that one copy will be enough for a community, — the books we do not want often enough to justify us in purchasing them, yet may want very greatly when we want them at all. Many of the indispensable books of a library are those which are most rarely used. A book which helps some great scholar once in a century, is of more importance than whole shelves of ephemeral works, which are early fingered into tatters, and then vanish into eternal oblivion. In all cases the best editions should be secured. The latest editions of books are often the best, but by no means always so. Even in growing books by living authors, where the latest editions, into which they have introduced changes, are needed, the earlier ones some- times have a special interest and value. A simple reprint is not properly a new edition. It is what the Germans call it, — a title-edition. An author does not always im- prove upon himself. Tennyson has spoiled some of the finest passages in his poems, for the sake of invidious or i88o.] THE VALUE OF OLD EDITIONS. 293 prosaic critics. Think of his substituting for *'The grand old gardener and his wife," "The gardener Adam and his wife," accepting the prosy pinchbeck for the gold which glowed in his own crucible. Even if the author does, upon the whole, change for the better, the earlier edition may have value for marking the growth in his views or for detecting changes in them. An author so grows away from himself at times, that it requires his own books to bring him to conviction and confession. To study Kant's Critique of the Pure Reason thoroughly, requires a comparison of its editions. Sometimes an older edition is desirable because, in books which cite it, the mass of references is to its paging. Earlier editions sometimes contain valuable matter, which has been omit- ted to make room for what is new, without swelling the size of the book. The writers — of Germany, especially — assume that the reader has access to the earlier editions, and hence treat a subject with greater brevity because it has been handled by them very fully before. The general characteristics of best editions are fulness of the matter, accuracy of text, and typographical beauty ; to which are sometimes to be added the most valuable annotations and the choicest pictorial illustrations. The library should possess the best manuals, hand- books, and other guides over the realm of knowledge. It should have the books that are right to begin with — the books that lead you on and map the way, so that when you have gone as far as they can accompany you, you know what is the next step to take. Books of reference should open to you their own sources, and help you to see to what they are tributary. This class of books, the books which distribute knowl- edge, points us to the most important of all the books which store it, the great originals and mines of learning and of thought. This is the class of books out of which other books are made. They are the primary sources which are referred to as ultimate authorities. Here be- long the works of immortal genius, which are constantly quoted as illustrations, or referred to as the common 294 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVI. Storehouse of wit and wisdom, of what is grand and of what is lovely, for mankind, those eternal things of beauty which are the joys of generations forever. Among the sources a conspicuous place is held by the best periodicals, which keep us abreast of the depart- ments of knowledge and of letters. Great books are reservoirs ; except in new issues, they are beyond addition and change. Good periodicals are flowing springs, and many of the great books are but gatherings of their waters. Good newspapers grow in value by keeping. They embody the practical philosophy and the living blood of the time. One day's issue of a paper of the highest order, gives more thorough insight into the actual motion and meaning of the time, than all the statelier historical documents which can be brought together. To read in its place, in an ancient New England paper, an advertisement in which a negro baby — like a superfluous puppy or a runt pig — is kindly offered as a gift to any- body who will have him and take care of him, gives such an impression of the actual existence and early decline of slavery in that part of our land, as no amount of dry annalistic detail could produce. Suppose that posterity could have had the issue of a Roman press at the era of Csesar's death, as ample as that of our greatest dailies, or that we had an Imperial Gazette of the Diet of Augs- burg, or files of papers during the Thirty Years' War, or in our own Revolution, as rich as the best newspapers during and since the great Rebellion, what light would irradiate what are now the darkest problems, never to be solved, and with what absolute identification we could live ourselves into the very breath and passion and power of those memorable times. The daily papers of our time, to him who can read them aright, are the grandest epic of the ages. We look in them for the water-mark of the highest flood of time. They are the "certain scales i' the pyramid," by which "they take the flow o' the Nile." So far from excluding good periodicals from the library, its earliest provisions should embrace them. Sift, but do not throw away. i88o.] IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL HISTORY. 295 Every general library should be debtor to its place and surroundings, unless they are so great as to require spec- ial collections of historical societies. It should be the storehouse of the locality. The fullest materials for the history of a place should be found in its library. The library should aim at being exhaustive in everything which bears on the social and educational, as well as the public life of the place, and on its institutions of every kind. If it be in a university town it should gather the catalogues, addresses, and lives of professors and pupils, everything by them and about them, even to, and indeed especially, the mock programmes, and all the other crudi- ties of young wit, everything in print and in manuscript which shall help to show what the place has been, and is, and which shall continue to keep up its history in the future. Local histories are the thread-roots of the larger histories. Let the local library, with ever widening circle, take in what belongs to its environments, but let it grow more and more exhaustive as it comes more and more closely on its centre. No interest is so high, and none compounds so rapidly, as that which accumulates on historical documents. Codices which a convent of beg- ging monks hold at hardly more than the valuation of their parchment, become so transcendently valuable, that an empire alone is thought worthy to possess them, and marks its jubilee of a thousand years by publishing them for the world. A tattered volume which was worth a few shillings or a few pennies, becomes a fortune. Two continents contest for the possession of a few ragged leaves. Anniversaries are solemnly kept and societies organized, to commemorate the purchase of a single book. If one perfect copy of Tyndale's first New Testament were found in England, we could no more buy it from her than we could buy Canada. The Englishman who would let it go out of the realm, would be looked upon by English bibliomaniacs as Americans look upon Benedict Arnold. The library will have regard also to the copies of its books. It will see to it that they are clean and choice. 296 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVI. It will avoid copies pared down to the quick by ignorant or unscrupulous binders, who do not seem to recognize that part of the value of every book, and quite the whole of the distinctive value of some books, is in the margin. Take away the blank part of some books, and a metamor- phosis has come over them like that of Punch's pic- turesque, hair-matted, beard-tangled, Abrahamic-looking mendicant, who being retained by the artist as a model, for some shillings in advance, makes his appearance the next day, in grateful and respectful recognition of the esteem in which he holds his patron, transformed by the barber's shears and razor into a villainous old tramp, with smooth cheeks, short hair, and intolerable shabby primness — ruined for art. Copies of books once the property of great men, and in which they have made their notes, are increased in value ; but copies should be avoided which are marred by the inane annotation of common scribblers, the pestilential Dogberrys, who may give us no clew as to who they are, but write themselves down very distinctly what they are. Happily, in one direction, this class rarely have books of their own to ruin for the market, but they must be watched, for they steal into libraries and shake their dead flies into the richest ointments. Compared with the in- decent weaklings who take such liberties — worse than theft — with books which do not belong to them, the book- worms and other confessed vermin of the library are, in their artless mischief, models of infant innocence. Let these choice copies of good books in the best edi- tions be well bound. Let the covers be strong, well adapted for constant use and long wear. Let them be in sober colors, which do not show handling; neat, but not too elegant to be used with comfort. Let them not torment, and distract you from the inside, with terrors about the outside. Have the lettering such that the back clearly tells what the reader wishes to know before he takes the book down — the name of the author, the general subject, and in some cases a notation of the date and of the press. A great general library inevitably gathers i88o.] BOOKS WHICH ARE NO BOOKS. 297 practical illustrations of many varieties of binding, but it should besides aim at having specimens of special beauty, adaptation, and ingenuity, something character- istic of the renowned hands whose exquisite taste and elaborate manipulation have elevated some forms of bookbinding to a place among the fine arts. In the select library beware of ballast. It is not a suf- ficient reason for accepting a book that you get it for nothing. That is often the dearest way of getting books. Libraries which make it a main dependence, are like people who trust to slop barrels for their family supplies. Many a rubbish heap which cheats itself with the idea that it is a library is crowded with books poor in themselves, or defective in the edition, or broken in the set, or muti- lated in the copy, or useless ; filling the space needed for good books; hiding what there may be of merit, and decoying the reader into hopeless waste of time, whether he spends his time on the trash that is there, or throws it away in searching for a better something which it will never furnish to his hand. The select library may be rich in valuable omissions. x\s the universal aggregative can- not be too aggregative, the select cannot be too select. It may well winnow away all the parasitic books, the feeble plagiarisms, the books whose "pulse is theft," the books without brains and without morals, ribs of death beneath which a soul can never be created ; vague books which give us no nourishment, no pure enjoyment, no impulse ; and most of all the bad books, which poison and destroy. In a word, let the library have books which are books, and avoid the books which are no books. A book is a book although there's nothing in it ; but it must have much in it to be a book. (Stoddart's Rcvietv. Vol. I, No. 6. Philadelphia, April 17, 1880.) Considering the care and scholarly ability with which Dr. Krauth's own library had been selected and built up in the course of years, we do not wonder that some friends seriously thought of purchasing his private library for the University of Pennsylvania. At that time, (October, 298 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVI. 1879,) he estimated the number of his books at 15,000, with a money value of $30,000. As he had, for a number of years, avoided purchasing books which were in the University Hbrary, there would have been but few dupli- cates added to the University library through this trans- action. Besides, his library was richest just where the University had the greatest needs, in Bibliography, Literary History, Biblical Science, Philosophy and Theology, the Fathers and Reformers, History, Bio- graphy, Liturgies, Encyclopedias and Dictionaries, and some of the rarest great illustrated works. It may be doubted if there was another private library in this coun- try in which the proportion was so great of the books out of which other books are made, and which had such a ratio of books which are not to be had elsewhere. His collection of important Bibles was almost unique in America. The library also contained a large number of Editiones Principes and of the books from renowned presses, Aldine, Stephens, Elzevir and others.* It was indeed a kind providence which overruled the final disposition of this library in such a way, that, in the eternal fitness of things, " per varies casus, per tot discrimina rerum " it not only became the property of the Lutheran Theo- logical Seminary of whose faculty the owner had been the brightest ornament; but that, through the liberality of a generous donor, at last, — twenty-five years after Dr. Krauth's death, — it found a suitable, safe and worthy home in the magnificent "Krauth Memorial Library" at Mount Airy, which was fonnally opened and dedicated on June 3, 1908. * Not only did his library contain a choice selection of rare books, I think I never saw a more select professorial library — but he knew them, and when I wanted a point he would put his hand upon the book needed. He said to me once " If you only possess six books, put them together in a certain order of subjects." (Caspar Ren^ Gregory. Letter to A. S., Athens, July 7th t886.) SEVENTEENTH CHAPTER. LITERARY ACTIVITY DURING THE DECADE 187I-1881. THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION. Foremost among the products of his busy pen during the latter part of Dr. Krauth's hfe, stands his Magnum Opus, "The Conservative Reformation and its Theo- logy," published by J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, 1 87 1. The preparation of this work had been urged by some of his devoted friends in Pittsburgh, who gen- erously offered to pay for the stereotype-plates. The original plan of the book appears from the fol- lowing letter to Mr. Thomas H. Lane in Pittsburgh. 4357 Spruce St., Philadelphia, January 24, 1870. My Dear Friend: — I have not been able up to this time to write definitely in regard to the expenses which would be involved in the issue of the "Conservative Theology of the Reformation as developed in the Augs- burg Confession." I could not go to a publisher until I clearly framed to my own mind what I would like to have done. My plan has recently matured. I have ready for publication a full discussion of the only remaining point on which I have hitherto not been ready to publish, and I now feel that I should be glad if the Providence of God should open to me the means of publishing what has involved the earnest labor, to so large an extent, of the last twenty-five years of my life. Such a volume as I would wish to publish would contain perhaps 500 solidly printed octavo pages. I would wish it printed in the general style of the latest volumes of Clark's Foreign Theological Library. The volume would match pretty 299 30O CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVII. well the translation of Tholuck's John, but the page would contain more. I would put into it to a consider- able extent what I have published especially in pamphlet form, revised, with everything local or personal re- moved. I would give the matter I present, the form in which I would wish to think of it as meeting the eye of men, when I have gone to my rest. The range of topics would be something like this : I. — The nature of obligation to the Confessions, with some account of them all, especially the Augsburg Con- fession. The Review of Dr. Shedd's History of Doc- trine. II. — Original Sin, a full Commentary on the second article of the Augsburg Confession. III. — The Person of Christ, with special, but not ex- clusive reference, to the sacramental presence. Review of Dr. Harbaugh. IV. — Baptism. V. — The Lord's Supper. VI. — Private Confession. VII.— The Mass. VIII. — The Liturgies of the Reformation. IX. — Christian Liberty in its relation to the usages of our Church. X. — The Liturgical Movement in the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches. XL— The Sabbath. If there be room, matter on the ministry, the Unity of the Church, and so forth. There are some other things which I would like to introduce, if the space allowed. In an appendix, as they would fill but a few pages, I might put the documents of the General Council which are from my pen, the call, the fundamental principles, the Constitution. Perhaps also the Constitution of the Seminary. I propose also to have a copious Index of things and authors. I think the volume as I project it would, if the judgment of friends as to the part of it which has already appeared may be relied upon, meet 1870-71.] THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION. 301 a general want of our own Church, of our clergy and intelligent laity, and of our divinity students, and would be welcome to many out of our Church, who wish to know us, or whose principles in many respects coincide with our own. As he was ready to put the closing pages of the book into the stereotypers' hands, he wrote again to Mr. Lane (February 16, 1871) : If the book is adapted to the ends for which I have prayerfully prepared it, it will far more than double the value of my life to Christ and His Church. To you and ]\Ir. Black I owe the opportunity of gathering into a garner the harvest of years of my labor. I have tried to make my book a source of strengthening in the faith and of healing. Though its discussions go over contro- verted points and are so far controversial, I do not think there is a word in it of personal harshness seemingly, as I know there is none in reality. I do not think that any topic in the book occupies more space than its importance entitles it to, and there are many topics which I wished to discuss which I have been obliged to lay aside, — I hope not forever. Nevertheless the book has grown and will occupy more than 800 pages. I have tried to make it as nearly as I am able, what I believe is most needed. There may be an honest difference of opinion on some points as to exactly the best shape of a book for the Church's needs, but I hope that the Providence of God, and the final judgment of the Church, will show that my judgment in the case has not been wholly mis- taken. While I have tried to be thorough, I have also tried to avoid the scholastic, the technical and the pe- dantic. A thoughtful man, with a knowledge of nothing but English, can read the book from beginning to end without any perplexity from the use of learned citation. In the final shape of the book, which was dedicated to the memory of Dr. Charles Philip Krauth, the "ven- 302 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVII. erated and sainted father" of the author, the original plan was considerably modified so as to make it a much more harmonious unit. Its main force was concentrated on the antagonism between the "Conservative Reforma- tion" as represented in the Lutheran Confession, and the radical Reformation, represented chiefly in Zwing- lianism; the eclecticism of the "Lutheranizing" Anglican Church having been disposed of in the preface, by that brief and comprehensive sketch which is one of the finest and most striking productions of Dr. Krauth's pen. After a historical introduction, setting forth the Oc- casion and Cause, the Chief Organ (Luther) and the Chief Instrument (Luther's New Testament) of the Con- servative Reformation, Article IV treats of the Lutheran Church, Article V of the Confessional Principle of the Conservative Reformation, Articles VI and VII of the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord, Ar- ticle VIII of the History and Doctrine of the Con- servative Reformation, and the concluding six Articles, IX to XIV, of the specific doctrines of the Conservative Reformation, Original Sin, Person of Christ, Baptism and Lord's Supper. The really original part of the book, containing mater- ial which- had never been published before, is found in the articles on the Lord's Supper, covering considerably more than one fourth of the whole book. The rest con- sists of reprints of Review articles, pamphlets, contribu- tions to Church Papers and Class notes dictated to the students of the theological Seminary and partly printed before. We can trace their origin almost from page to page to the date of their first publication, as far back as the year 1849. It cannot be denied that those different publications of earlier years have not always been joined together with- out flaw, betraying the temporary character of their original composition. Statements have been left stand- I iSji.] THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION. 303 ing, which belong to an earHer stage of Dr. Krauth's theological development, and were clearly superseded by his famous declaration of 1865 (See page 115). Such oversight furnished weapons to his antagonists which they were not slow to use, as Dr. J. A. Brown in his criticism of Dr. Krauth's theses on the Galesburg declara- tion quoted passages from the Conservative Reformation, written in 1862. (See: Theses on the Galesburg Rule. Quarterly Reviezv, October, 1877.) We miss an explicit statement with reference to the fundamental doctrines of the Lutheran Church, which were so prominent in the controversies of those days. We also believe with Dr. J. A. Brown* that the introduction of that extensive philosophical argument on our knowledge of objective realities (matter) by inference or faith rather than by actual cognition, (Conserv. Reformation, pp. 787-796) might better have been omitted from a discussion of the real presence of Christ in the Supper. But Dr. Brown completely misunderstood and misrepresented Dr. Krauth's intentions, when he said, that "he has ventured into the most misty mazes of metaphysics to find support for his arguments," while the author clearly intends to show "the entire disability of philosophy to disturb, by any established results, the simple Faith which rests on the direct testimony of the Word." (Conserv. Reform., page 787. ) In spite of these minor defects and imperfections the "Conservative Reformation" was at once recognized, both in America and in Europe, by Lutheran writers as well as by those belonging to other denominations, as the standard work on the Lutheran Church and her doc- trines in the English language. It may be of interest to our readers to see some of the estimates of this book * Dr. Krauth's Metaphysics of the Lord's Supper. Quarterly Review, January 1872. 304 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVII. as they appeared immediately after its publication in 1871. Dr. Caspar Rene Gregory, the co-worker and successor of Dr. Const. Tischendorf in Leipzig, writes in the Biblio- theca Sacra (April, 1875) : The book has no equal in the presentation of the Lutheran Church. The ease of its style, the carefulness of its research and the solidity of its argument commend it to every scholar. Dr. C. F. SchaefTer, Chairman of the faculty of the theological Seminary in Philadelphia, says in a letter to the author (May 20, 1871) : My Dear Brother : — I cannot express in adequate terms my gratitude to you, not only for the beautiful volume which you have kindly sent me, but also, and pre- eminently, for the service which you have rendered to the Church of Christ by your new work, "The Con- servative Reformation and its Theology." I congratu- late you sincerely that you have been enabled to confer so rich a boon on the Church; the appearance of the work really constitutes an era in the history and the theo- logical literature of the widely-extended Evangelical Lutheran Church. No work of such importance, or sO' precisely suited to the wants of the Church in this coun- try, has ever yet appeared. I have read, or rather, studied, it only in part ; but I feel very happy that at length so powerful a statement and defense of revealed truth has been given to the Church. The subjects which you discuss have occupied me in my studies during the last forty years, and I have examined some of the best works referring to them. But you have succeeded in appropriately grouping together materials as none before you, as far as my knowledge extends, have yet doner and you have invested these subjects with a new interest. I did not believe that originality was any longer possible in this department : but your researches, aided by a theo- logical library, such as doubtless no other theologian, at least in the United States, possesses in such completeness,. iSji.] APPRECIATIIE LETTERS. 305 and your combinations are as new and striking as they are well established by documentary evidence. The extraordinary accuracy of your historical statements, the sound logic apparent in your reasoning, the adaptation of the matter to the existing wants of the Church, the vast learning which you have gained and have here made of direct and practical utility, are conspicuous features of the work. The discussion of these subjects has unavoidably brought you into conflict with other denominations who entertain diverse views. I honor you for the combination of a manly and fearless candor with courtesy, freedom from intolerance, and with a sincere love of the truth. I confess that I have not yet met, in the whole range of theological literature, in English, German, or French books of weight and learning, with such an exemplifica- tion of the "suavitcr in modo, fortiter in re," as your book presents. Your work must be of incalculable advantage to the several communions which differ in faith and practice from the Evangelical Lutheran Church. They have be- fore them, in it, sound reasoning and unquestionable his- torical facts. And I find, too, as another feature of the work, that while it requires the theological reader to em- ploy all his resources in studying it, a layman of ordinary intelligence is fully competent to understand and to be instructed and influenced by it. If active measures are adopted to make the value of the book known, every one of our Christian families would feel anxious to possess such a treasure. I hope to learn very much as I proceed in my study of it. With very sincere thanks. I am your brother in Christ, Charles F. Schaeffer. 1204 Mount Vernon St.. Phila. Dr. G. F. Krotel writes from New York to the author (June 9, 1871) : Dear Doctor: — Please accept my heartfelt thanks for a copy of "The Conservative Reformation," which I 3o6 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVII. have now read through, from the first hue to the last, not with the thought that a book hke this could be disposed of by a single reading, but to count over the jewels in the casket, so as to examine them more closely and to use them more fully hereafter. I look upon your book as the noblest contribution to the literature of our Church, in the English language, and I doubt whether a similar complete and exhaustive work can be found in any other. It will do more than anything that has been written, to make the doctrines of our Church plain to all earnest and intelligent inquirers outside of our own ranks, and among those who call themselves Lutherans, it will be recognized more and more as an unanswerable refutation of all the perversion and slander that have been em- ployed against our faith, and as a rich storehouse from which thousands will draw for their instruction and con- firmation. A volume like this will speak in every theo- logical seminary in our Church, and although young men may be prevented from going to Philadelphia, the Norton Professor will have an extraordinary chair in every lecture-room. The theological world was before in- debted to you for some noble productions, but your best friends often wished that you could see your way clear to embody the results of your prolonged studies espec- ially in the department of our own theology, in a work equal to the claims of the subject and your scholarship. I think we have reason to hail the book now before us as the ripe fruit for which we have longed. While every part of the book is exceedingly valuable, the Church owes you special thanks for the extensive and most thorough treatment of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, and I do not know where to find a treatise like it. Dr. H. E. Jacobs, in an extensive review of the book, first offered to the Gettysburg Quarterly Review, and, as it was refused by the editors, published in the Mercers- burg Review (January, 1872,) says: The spirit in which this work was written, was jealousy for the truth, which shuns all disguises, and in all things 1 iSji.j DR. NEVIN'S REVIEW. 307 seeks after clearness, definiteness, certainty. ... It is the most learned and profound of all theological works prepared by American divines. One of the most appreciative reviews, which fully grasped the significance of the work both for the Luth- eran Church and for Protestantism at large, appeared in the Reformed Messenger (October 4, 1871,) from the pen of Dr. Krauth's friend, Dr. J. \V. Nevin. He says : Dr. Krauth is known as one of the first writers of our country. The gentleman, the Christian, and the scholar are happily blended in his person. He is one of the pil- lars of his own Church on this side of the Atlantic, and one of the ornaments of our American Christianity in general. The subject of the volume before us is of vital signifi- cance, not only for the Lutheran Church, but for the Protestant world at large. For the cause here main- tained is not just that of Protestantism over against the Roman Catholic Church. It is what is styled the Con- servative Reformation, a title which looks not to Rome only, but quite as much to the opposite of Rome, and im- plies that all reformation, other than Lutheran, must be considered not conservative ; in other words, radical and unsound. In this view the book, however peaceful and loving in tone, is in fact severely polemic in spirit toward all Protestantism which is not strictly of the original Lutheran type. It is not a lamb-like apology- for Old Lutheranism, the most that was to be thought of here in America a generation ago ; it is a formidable lion- like assault, we may say, on the entire Reformed Con- fession, technically so-called, to which this stood intoler- antly opposed in the i6th Century. The Reformed, or non-Lutheran, confession has since fallen asunder into so many other names, and, in this country especially, has so lost all sense for historical confessionalism, that few belonging to it have any clear apprehension of what the generic title really means ; and for this reason our 3o8 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVII. American denominations generally may be slow to un- derstand, or feel at all, the force of the great issue in which they are here really involved. It should be borne in mind, however, that not only our Reformed Churches, properly so called, Dutch and German, but all our evan- gelical sects, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Metho- dists, Baptists, and others (not excepting the Episco- palians), belong generically, and in a way deeper than all these distinctions, to the Reformed wing of Protestanism in difference from its Lutheran wing ; so that they are all of them in truth put on trial by this book of Dr. Krauth, and called upon to give account of the faith that is in them, not as divergent from one another (that is of secondary superficial moment), but as all diverging to- gether from the conservative and only sound Protestant orthodoxy of the old Lutheran Confession. So great is the question here at stake ; and such the mighty challenge it presents to our whole American Christianity, outside of the Lutheran Church. At the same time, as already intimated, the challenge is not of a sort to be treated with contempt. It is not the cry of blustering ignorance, nor of fanatical rant. The book is of the heavy artillery order, large in size (840 pages octavo), ponderous in bearing, vigorous in style, and energetic in thought. No one who has seen Dr. Krauth in his own magnificent library (one of the finest in the whole country), or who has known anything of his laborious studies in past years, can undervalue or doubt his qualification for the task he has here under- taken. It may be doubted if any other man in our coun- try could have handled this particular subject with the same ability, or the same amount of historical learning. Simply for the literature of the subject, the book is a thesaurus of information, which of itself may be taken as a sufficient argument of its more than common worth. I welcome this learned work of Professor Krauth as a most important contribution, not only to the cause of true and sound Lutheranism among us, but also to the i87i.] DR. NEVIN'S REVIEW. 309 cause of true and sound Protestantism in general, so far as our American Church is concerned. The work marks the advance of a highly interesting and significant restorational movement in the historical life of the American Lutheran Church itself. We all know that half a century ago, Lutheranism in this coun- try had fallen away almost entirely from the distinctive peculiarities of what Lutheranism was confessionally in the 1 6th Century. In becoming English especially, it was supposed to have gone through a sort of evangelical regeneration, which consisted largely in forgetting its own shibboleths altogether, and taking up those of Puri- tanism and Methodism. It affected to be in this way "American Lutheranism," something quite ahead of all mediaeval fooleries, and fit to figure in the 19th Century. It is not to be forgotten accordingly, that when we, of Mercersburg, groping toward the truth in our poor, stumbling Reformed way (even so lately as only thirty years since), began to bear testimony to sacramental and churchly ideas, so far only as they had been the common heritage of the two great Confessions in the beginning, we found no countenance or backing whatever from the Americanized Lutheran Church. On the contrary, it took the lead in defending the anxious bench as virtually a surrogate for Baptism, in denying all mystical character to the Lord's Supper, and in helping forward the hue and cry, by which it was attempted from all sides, in those days, to overwhelm with theological odium the German Reformed Church. We need to recall this to mind now, only to see how much is involved in the great change which has since, in so short a time, come over the spirit of the Lutheran Church in this country, as indicated by the everv-- way massive defense of the "Conservative Reformation," which is presented to us in Dr. Krauth's book, and the book, as I now say. deserves to be wel- comed, both as an evidence of this favorable change, and as an important contribution to its progress. But in the view already referred to, I hold it to be of valuable account also for the cause of our Evangelical 3IO CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVII. American Protestantism generally. Whatever other issues and questions this may have to do with, in the progress of its multifarious denominational existence, one thing is certain : these are only of relatively secondary significance over against the issues that lie at the ground of Protestantism itself, first in the protest against the Roman Catholic Church, and then, secondly, in the rup- ture of its own two great Confessions, by which it be- came at the beginning Lutheran and Reformed. No man can be a true Protestant who has not seen and felt keenly the truth which there is, and has been from the beginning, in the old Catholic Church. And just so, no man can be an intelligent Lutheran or Reformed Protest- ant who has not come to understand and feel the confes- sional edge of the system opposite to his own. Luther- anism, affecting to be the sum total of the Reformation, and having no sense or appreciation for Reformed Christianity (Swiss, French, Belgic, English, Scotch), must ever fail to do justice to itself, or to be what it should be for Protestantism at large; and just as little can the Reformed Confession do justice to itself, or know the meaning of itself in the world, without regard to the relation with which it has been bound historically, to the great Lutheran Confession, from the beginning. But of this we have had thus far almost no sense whatever in our reigning American denominationalism. Our differ- ent branches of the Reformed Church — Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopalian, Low Dutch, Congregationalist, Baptist — have been in the habit all along of ignoring Lutheranism almost entirely (true Lutheranism I mean, and not the hollow name of it simply), as if it had ac- tually long ago died out of the life of Protestantism, and had nothing further to do with it, no more than Roman- ism itself. Strange fate of Luther, may we not say, to be everlastingly magnified among us, and yet thus on all sides put to shame, through the quiet repudiation of what he held to be the only true idea of the Gospel ! Even in our theological seminaries, as a general thing, no earnest regard has been had, either to Lutheran history i87r.l DR. XEl'LVS REIIEIV. 31 1 or Lutheran divinity. In this way faith has been simph- fied, and theology made plain ; but the result is a com- paratively one-sided, shallow development of theological thought, and a much poorer Christianity every way, than we would have had, if the old confessional issues had not been thus summarily thrust aside. In these circumstances, then, it is a matter for real congratulation, I repeat, that the Lutheran Church is in a fair way to become far more of a power in our country than it has heretofore been ; and there is room to look also for the resurrection of a live Lutheran theology among us, in the spirit of the Augsburg Confession, which may yet force its claims on the attention of our one- sided (and therefore more or less lop-sided) Reformed Protestantism, so as to exert upon it in the end a sanitary modification in which both Confessions may have reason to rejoice. Dr. Krauth's book, too respectable a great deal to be lightly overlooked by our un-Lutheran denominations, is a highly interesting phenomenon or sign of the times in this view. It marks a sort of epoch in what may yet prove, as it certainly ought to prove, a new, far-reaching departure in the theological life of our land. It remains to be seen, however, whether it will gain any hearing or not, where it ought to be heard. Altogether it is a curious question, how far genuine old Lutheranism has any chance to live here in America, speaking the English language, and breathing the crisp air of the 19th Century. Dr. C. E. Luthardt, in Leipzig, wrote to the author (December 28, 1874) : With great interest and joy I noticed your work, this learned historical and dogmatical defense of our Luth- eran Church and her doctrine, and I thank God that in you He has given to our Church in America such a well- equipped and influential representative of her theology. Considering the great and trying work of our Church in America in the practical field, we must be all the more 312 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVII. thankful to God that theological science also is repre- sented in such a comprehensive and prominent manner. I thank you for the service you have done to our Church through this great work, and which you are constantly doing by your activity as a scholarly theologian. The more the Lutheran Church is hemmed in and handi- capped in Germany, and the darker the prospects are for her future, so that it may be doubted whether she will still have a future before her, the more we are comforted and encouraged by watching her progress and prosperity in America. Over against such general and hearty appreciation of the value of the book, it may seem strange that the Lutheran and Missionary treated its appearance with peculiar reserve, not to say indifference. It did, indeed, announce the appearance of the "Conserva- tive Reformation" in its issue of June 29, 1871, as one of "three grand volumes, which together make as noble an exhibition of divine grace and truth, in the history of the Church, as can be produced. These works are EccLESiA LuTHERANA, by Dr. Seiss; The Lutheran Reformation, by Dr. Greenwald; and The Conserva- tive Reformation, by Dr. Krauth." The Lutheran and Missionary likewise published some private letters and communications from Drs. C. F. Schaeffer, T. Stork, G. F. Krotel and H. I. Schmidt, of Columbia College, New York, and reprinted the main part of Dr. Nevin's review. But editorially it made very little of "The Conservative Reformation." This attitude finds its explanation in a letter from Dr. J. A. Seiss (July 7, 1871,) in which he says: I have not yet had time to read it, so as to make up a digested judgment of it, but I have read enough to make me feel that we are all under the greatest obligations to you for writing it, and to our God for enabling you to i87i.] DR. JOEL SWARTZ'S ARTICLE. 313 write it. I also agree with Dr. M. (Morris?) that more should be made of it in our paper, but as the whole busi- ness interest of its publication is in another house, which has never shown us any favors, I, for one, have not the heart to do for that house what I would very cheerfully award to you and to the book. The truth is that it has been a considerable disheartenment to me, after all the personal sacrifices I have made, and am still making, to get up a book-store for our Church, that a book so im- portant, so particularly identified with our own Church, has to be accepted and worked in the business interests of another house, to the public discredit of our ow^n establish- ment. I do not mention this in the way of complaint or censure, but simply to explain why it is impossible for me to feel the same enthusiasm in this desirable publica- tion which I would like to show. And I am sure, when you look at all the relations and facts in the case, that you will not think or feel the less of me, for candidly adverting to the unfavorable attitude for doing what I think the book eminently merits. Dr. Joel Swartz, a prominent member of the General Synod, wrote an appreciative article on the "Conserva- tive Reformation," published in the Lutheran Observer. Dr. Krauth thanks him in a letter dated January 4, 1876, in which he says : Most of the book was written while I was in the Gen- eral Synod. None of it was written in a polemical spirit against any portion of the Lutheran Church. . . . Your article (The Catholicity of the "Conservative Reforma- tion") has better expressed than anything that has been written about it, part of the spirit and intent of my book. I do not believe any man living has an intenser desire than I have, for the true unity of the Church of our Lord. If I am very Lutheran it is because the Lutheranism I love is so truly Catholic, not in the sense however of latitudinarianism, syncretism or pseudo-unionism, but in this, that it fixes on the real centre of unity, to wit, the 314 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap.XVU. pure Gospel, and offers in its Confessions the most per- fect Symbol on earth of that Gospel. I believe that the greatest work we Lutherans can do for the unity of the whole, is to secure unity among ourselves. I am opposed to Unionism because I am desirous of unity. Just as far as my book helps Lutherans to be Lutheran, — that is, New Testament Christians holding the old faith and living the new life — just so far does it contribute to the great end for which we are all laboring, the building up of the great Church Catholic of our Lord. INFANT BAPTISM AND INFANT SALVATION IN THE. CALVINISTIC SYSTEM. In the "Conservative Reformation" Dr. Krauth had stated (p. 434) that the Calvinistic system places the salvation of infants on the ground of divine election, and speaks of elect infants; and hence, in its older and more severely logical shape at least, supposed not only that some unbaptized, but also that some baptized infants are lost. Dr. Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology which appeared shortly after the "Conservative Reforma- tion," took exception to these statements in such a man- ner that he compelled Dr. Krauth either to defend his position, or to accept the reference of Dr. Hodge as a correction. Dr. Hodge says : We are sorry to see that Dr. Krauth labors to prove that the Westminster Confession teaches that only a certain part, or some of those who die in infancy, are saved; this he does by putting his own construction on the language of the Confession. We can only say that we never saw a Calvinistic theologian who held the doc- trine. We are not learned enough to venture the asser- tion that no Calvinist ever held it; but if all Calvinists are responsible for whatever a Calvinist has said, and all Lutherans are responsible for everything Luther or Luth- erans have ever said, then Dr. Krauth as well as ourselves will have a heavy burden to carry. i874.] INFANT SALVATION. 315 Dr. Krauth took up the gauntlet in a review of Dr. Hodge's Systematic Theology, written for the Mercers- burg Rez'iezv (Vol. XXI, p. 99) and afterwards pub- lished in more complete form by the Lutheran Book Store (Infant Baptism and Infant Salvation in the Calvinistic System. Philadelphia, 1874. 83 pages.) Dr. Thomas G. Apple urged him to furnish an article on this subject. In the year 1869 his elaborate and scholarly article on The Liturgical Movement in the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches, had appeared in the Merccrsbiirg Review. And now Dr. Apple writes (November 29, 1873) : It will be a favor to have you appear in our Review again. . Just now the tendency is toward Pan-Presby- terianism. After awhile, I trust, a greater question, the drawing together of Lutheran and Reformed may come forward. Looking to this I am prepared to see Cal- vinism sifted, and if it convicts some of our own theo- logians of earlier times of being on the wrong track, — all right! We do not stand there now. Dr. Krauth's argument is in substance as follows: The Calvinistic system places the salvation of infants on the ground of a divine election of individuals, distinctly rec- ognizing elect infants, and thus the existence also of reprobate infants. It teaches that all infants deserve damnation, that the election of God alone can save them, and that this election does not extend to all infants ; thus making the conclusion irresistible that some infants must perish. It further maintains a "certain presumption," that the children of unbelievers are lost. It denies that the time of the child's death is in any way connected with the probability of its election. It holds that the rights of infants in the Church are hereditary rights, and thus runs out into a Judaizing construction of the covenant, especially by teaching that the neglect to have a child 3i6 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVII. baptized, cuts off that child from the covenant. A doubt that the parent is elect, casts doubt on the presumption that the child is elect. According to logical Calvinism, no parent can have any real assurance in regard to any particular child that it is elect, sanctified and in the covenant. The relation of the Calvinistic system to the means through which infants are brought into a state of grace, is thoroughly examined. Calvinism rests the validity of Baptism not on what it brings, but on what it finds. Baptism is not a means of grace, according to the Cal- vinistic system, but grace is a means of real Baptism. We are baptized not in order to obtain grace, but be- cause we are supposed already to have it. Calvinism gives prominence to the idea that non-elect infants re- ceiving Baptism, receive no benefit; that Baptism should not be administered to the children of unbelievers ; that this class of infants is not only unfit for Baptism, but also incapable of salvation. It presents no logical ground against the Anabaptist rejection of infant Baptism, and grants that it does not know, whether in any one case the Baptism of an infant is anything more than a mere form which, in no case, conditions or bears upon the salvation of the child. Although it maintains not only the possibility, but also the absolute necessity of the regeneration of infants, it knows of no means for that regeneration, and no assurance of faith that that particu- lar child is regenerate. In the controversies between Calvinism on the one side, and the Romanists. Pelagians and Arminians on the other, the Calvinistic theologians unhesitatingly affirmed that all children of unbelievers dying in infancy, as well as many infant children of believers, are lost. The various efforts to modify such a doctrine are recounted, made by milder Calvinists who shrank back from it. Some have virtuallv resorted to the Romish doctrine of a 1 874] CALF IX ISM CHALLENGED. 317 liiiibiis infantuui, maintaining that non-elect infants were consigned to eternal woe, but punished there in the mild- est way. Others tried to believe that reprobate infants are annihilated at death. Others, like Dr. Hodge him- self, in opposition to their system, believed that all who die in infancy are saved. Still others have manifested a Lutheranizing tendency by holding, in opposition to their system, the objective force of Baptism, and maintaining that sacraments are not only signs and seals but also means of grace. Finally Dr. Krauth challenges the de- fenders of Calvinism to produce a solitary Calvinistic standard or divine, from the first Helvetic Confession to the Westminster Confession, or from Calvin to Twiss, in which or by whom, it is asserted or implied, that all who die in infancy are certainly saved.* Dr. Hodge's answer to Dr. Krauth's argument and challenge is contained in the following letter. Princeton, April 15, 1874. My Dear Sir: — I have to thank you for a copy of your article on Infant Salvation in the Calvinistic System. I feel greatly indebted to you for the kind manner in which you speak of my theology, and for the more than kind manner in which you speak of me personally. I am very sensible of my obligations to you for your favorable judgment. Your paper proves that you are far better read in Calvinistic Theology than I am. In preparing my book I determined to present the doctrines of the Reformed, Lutheran. Romish and Remonstrant Churches in the language of their acknowledged standards, and refer * " Dr. Krauth, younger but better read in history than his oppon- ent, — we are loath to say it, for one is a perfect stranger to us, and the other was once our admired instructor, — has been quite too much for Princeton's giant. David has slain Goliath." The American Church Review, October, 1874. 3i8 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVII. only for illustration to their theologians. The Reformed Symbols nowhere teach the necessity of Baptism to the salvation of infants. The Symbols of the Lutheran and Latin Churches do expressly teach that doctrine. This seems to me to make a great difference. The Reformed do indeed teach that none but the elect are saved ; but their Symbols do not teach that children dying in infancy are excluded from the number of the elect. All Cal- vinists therefore may consistently believe in infant sal- vation, and I have never seen or known a Calvinist who disbelieves it. I do not, however, intend to discuss the question, and regret that there is any point on which you and myself are constrained to differ. Respectfully and affectionately, Your friend and brother, Charles Hodge. A few years after this controversy, which culminated in this remarkably frank and honorable letter, Dr. Charles Hodge departed this life ; and when his son. Dr. A. A. Hodge, prepared a memoir of his father, he asked Dr. Krauth to contribute his estimate as to his father's place in the current history of theology. What I wanted from you, he says in a letter of De- cember 8, 1879, was the truth, but the friendly side of the truth, as to his position in the course of American Theology and Theologians. Such an estimate is im- possible without perspective, and perspective is impossible without proportionate distance, either of time or of space or of general position. It seems to me that your opinion would be more discriminating and valuable than that of any other man in the United States, because I think you have the proportionate distance. You are one with him at bottom, because you both stand up for the old con- fessional and classical theology of the Reformation. You neither have part with the rationalistic dry-rot of the present age, nor with its latitudinarianism and unhistor- 1862-83.] PERSONAL TIES WITH PRINCETON. 319 ical Low-Chiirchism. And yet you belong to different grand divisions of the kingdom. ... It is not a eulogy I want, but a critical estimate of his place as a theologian, yet a critical estimate not as dry and rigid as will be proper fifty years hence, but as will be congruous in a Memoir prepared for friends and pupils, by his son, a year or two after his death. The result of this correspondence was the insertion in Dr. Hodge's Memoir of the very words Dr. Krauth had used in his polemical article, to skietch the personality and the theology of his beloved and venerated antagonist! His tribute closes with these characteristic words : "Next to having Dr. Hodge on one's side is the pleasure of hav- ing him as an antagonist ; for where conscientious men must discuss a subject, who can express the comfort of honorable, magnanimous dealing on both sides — the feeling that in battling with each other, they are also battling for each other, in that grand warfare whose final issue will be, what all good men desire, the establish- ment of truth." For more than twenty years, the personal relations and literary associations between Dr. Krauth and the faculty of the theological seminary at Princeton, particularly Drs. Green, Shields and Chas. Hodge, were of the most intimate and pleasant character. His honest and con- sistent Lutheranism never interfered with their high appreciation of his scholarly attainments, and of the graces of his strong Christian personality. Whenever he came to Princeton, the families of those professors competed for the pleasure of entertaining him. He was frequently asked to contribute articles for the Princeton Rez'iezv. He was invited to "take part in a series of sermons to be preached to the students by eminent clergy- men" between September, 1874, and April, 1875, in the College Chapel and in the First Presbyterian Church. 320 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVIL "Any sermon that suits poor sinners will suit us exactly," — added Dr. Hodge to this invitation. When the American Oriental Society, of which Dr. Krauth had been elected a member in Boston, May 21, 1862, met at Princeton in the fall of that year, Dr. W. Henry Green urged him to attend, and to favor it with a paper on "The internal History of the authorized Eng- lish Version of the Scriptures,'' a subject, writes Dr. Green, "in which you are deeply interested, and upon which you have probably bestowed more thought and study than any man in the country." In October, 1869, Dr. Green addressed a note to Mr. Lenox in New York, stating that Dr. Krauth wished to see his collection of Bibles, with a view to the prosecu- tion of his researches into the history and constitution of the English versions, and offered his further services to Dr. Krauth in this direction. A few weeks later he writes : "I hope that you were able to call on Mr. Lenox at the time suggested, and found your visit to his library satisfactory. ... I requested Dr. Schaff to insert a paragraph in the preface to that volume of Lange upon which I was engaged (The Song of Solomon) expressive of my acknowledgements to you for your kind assist- ance. He did so, and it appeared in the proof; but he subsequently thought best to erase it, as nothing similar was desired by either of the other contributors to this volume. I accordingly avail myself of this opportunity to thank you renewedly in private, and to explain why a more public acknowledgment is not made as I intended and desired." Dr. Krauth's own impressions of Princeton are described in a note to the Lutheran and Missionary (November 6, 1862) : We were there but one full day, but we made good use of our time. In the house of Professor Green, sur- i862.] A DAY IN PRINCETON. ^21 rounded with all that a refined hospitality could suggest-; in the library of the Theological Seminary, in the lecture room of our host; in the hurried yet pleasant interviews with Dr. Hodge and Professor Moffat in their homes ; in wandering around under the fine old trees ; in listen- ing to the learned dissertations read before the Oriental Society in the library of old Nassau Hall, and to the frank discussions which followed them; in mingling in the evening with the large circle of cultivated and de- lightful people who met at Professor Green's; in these and in other pleasant things, which seem to us now as if they could not be crowded into a few hours, we spent a day which will forever hold its place among the happiest days of our life. We can understand now the idolatry of affection with which the students from Princeton look back to it. It is a social and literary Paradise. There was no end, through all those years, of sug- gestions and solicitations of work, for Dr. Krauth's fertile pen. Dr. B. M. Schmucker from time to time reminded his friend of his early intention to translate- Melanchthon's Loci Communes into English. The Rev. Fr. Wyneken in Cleveland, one of the fathers of the Missouri Synod, urged him to bring out Chemnitz' Examen Concilii Tridentini in the language of the coun- try, as the only scholarly and scientific antidote to Romish aggressiveness. Dr. H. E. Jacobs would have liked him to write a historical introduction to the new English edition of the Book of Concord, as he knew him to be actually engaged in preparing a history of the Formula of Concord. Dr. Phil. Schaff solicited his co-operation in the Anglo-American edition of Lange's Biblework, offering him the translation of Lange's Commentary on Genesis, "Which takes the lead of the Old Testament part of this Opus Magnum. You can in this way make your labors spent on Delitzsch available for the benefit of the theological public, with far better prospect of success 322 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVII. than by a separate publication of Delitzsch in English." When the time for the meeting of the Evangelical Alliance in New York approached, in 1873, Dr. Schaff hoped to secure the services of his friend by the follow- ing letter: On Board the "Algeria," September 24, 1873. Will you prepare a brief address on the "Genius of the Reformation," or on the "Supremacy of the Bible," or on "Bible versus Tradition," in view of the Vatican decrees. ... I know you have no sympathy with the Alliance, but this General Conference is an immense international and interdenominational Christian (not ecclesiastical) meeting, and will not compromise your confessional conscience in the least. I am quite anxious to have you associated with it, both for your sake and for the Lutheran Church, especially since Dr. Schmucker's death. Please answer Yes immediately. In haste. P. S. The final outcome of this correspondence was Dr. Krauth's paper on "The Strength and Weakness of Idealism," read before the Evangelical Alliance in New York, October 6, 1873. In August, 1878, the Rev. Reuben Hill came forward with a generous offer to undertake the establishment of a Lutheran Review, Dr. Krauth to be the Editor, in which case Mr. Hill would superintend the business department, and run the financial risks if no one else could be found who would be willing to do so. Dr. Krauth responded to these propositions (August 23, 1878) as follows: I. — I think the wants of our Church require very im- peratively a theological Review or its equivalent, taking the general position of the General Council so far as that position is established, and encouraging thorough discus- sion, looking to its establishment in points yet unsettled. 1878.] A LL'THERAX REVIEW PROPOSED. 323 I have felt this so deeply that I have for years been talk- ing about a "Bibliothek" in which I desig-ned to attempt doing what I could, to supply the want which seemed so urgent. . . . 2. — You know the pressure of my duties in the two institutions and of outside cares. You perhaps do not know that, to eke out an insufficient income, I do no little literary labor* outside of my direct work, and that it pays me very handsomely, and is the chief source from which I replenish my library. I try to make my pen pay for my books. On the other hand I believe, that I might bring to the position of Editor some special advantages. I love the sort of work it involves. I have much material and am constantly producing more. I would gather around me a corps of valuable co-workers. I have some good plans in connection with such a work, which would be original and attractive. Who would publish ? Where would the Review be printed? 3- — If I took the Editorship of the Review I would at first consider it best that I should take it alone, t I could do more perfectly and with less expenditure of time what I would think necessary, than if I had some one whom I was bound to consult. Divided responsi- bility is a great source of weakness. ... I believe that with a vigorous publisher the Reviezv might be made a success financially, in that moderate way which belongs to such undertakings. But if it be granted that a Reviezv is needed, and that I think is certain, it is still an open question whether I am the right person to undertake it. Could you not find some one whose time is less absorbed, whose personal popularity would aid the work, and who has not drawn forth the opposition which some of my views have elicited? I do not seek the position, and if in the judg- *Referringtohis work on Johnson's Encyclopaedia, of which he was Associate Editor, and his contributions to Appleton's Encyclo- paedia and Potter's Bible Encyclopsedia. t Mr. Hill had put the question under this point : Would you be willing to share the labor of such work equally witii Dr. Seiss? 324 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap.XVU. ment of Brethren some one else should take the headship of the Reviezv, if one be established, he will find in me, if he desires it, one of his heartiest co-operators. When the Lutheran Church Review was finally estab- lished by the Alumni Association of the Theological Seminary, in 1882, Dr. Krauth was appointed Editor-in- Chief. A CHRONICLE OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION. Quite different from the tone in which the contro- versy with Dr. Chas. Hodge had been conducted, was the battle waged by Dr. Krauth against Dr. Jas. Allen Brown on a comparatively small question of chronology in the history of the Augsburg Confession, which cul- minated in the publication of "A Chronicle of the Augs- burg Confession."* Here, for once, the diagnosis of the phrenologist, who found in Dr. Krauth the "bump of combativeness without destructiveness," might have seemed to be no longer applicable. For in this case Dr. Krauth treated his antagonist with unsparing severity, and with a grim determination not only to expose his "fictions and blunders" as a historian, logician and theo- logian, but to attack his very character as a man. Never in his life do we find Dr. Krauth so utterly out of patience with his opponent, and so relentlessly bent on demolishing him. The completeness of our narrative requires at least a brief notice of the occasion and the subject of this con- troversy. In the fall of 1877 Drs. J. G. Morris and J. A. Seiss arranged a free conference of Lutherans, the First Free Diet, "to discuss living subjects of general worth and importance." It was held December 27 and 28, 1877, in St. Matthew's Church, Broad and Mount * Lutheran Monographs. A Chronicle of the Augsburg Confes- sion by Charles P. Krauth, D.D., I.L.D. A question of Latinity, by Henry E. Jacobs. D.D., Philadelphia, J. Fred. Smith, 1878. i877-] THE FIRST FREE DIET. 325 Vernon St.. Philadelphia, and was attended by some 120 pastors and students, and about 50 laymen of the Luth- eran Church. Thirteen papers were read and discussed, eight of which were prepared by members of the General Synod, and five by men of the General Council. It was just ten years since the disruption at Fort Wayne and the organization of the General Council, and here for the first time the leaders of the two hostile camps met again face to face for personal conference. While the debates throughout were certainly conducted in a spirit of courtesy and charity, it was hardly to be expected that all traces of former irritation and friction should have completely disappeared. There were repeated clashes between some of the leaders. When Dr. Krauth had read his paper on "The Relation of the Lutheran Church to the Denominations around us" — as Dr. Morris himself had formulated his theme in a letter of August 31st — Dr. Brown at once assaulted him with the charge that he had departed from the theme "as originally published," and had changed it on his own authority. Later on. Dr. F. W. Conrad's paper on the "Characteristics of the Augsburg Confession" became the immediate occasion for a question of chronology, whether the Augsburg Con- fession had been sent to Luther a third time, between May 226. and June 25th, for his final approval. Dr. Brown denied this and challenged Dr. Krauth to prove it, taking quite undue advantage of a typographical erratum in the Conservative Reformation,* which any intelligent and fair-minded reader will at once discover as such, by a comparison with page 239, where the correct date is given. The question was, indeed, a very small one in itself, but of considerable importance to Dr. Krauth, as he had taken special pains in the Conservative Reformation to prove that the Confession in its final * See page 234, June 3d, which ought to read July 3d. 326 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVll. shape had been submitted to Luther and had received his approval, over against Rueckert and other Rationahsts and Unionists, vv^ho contended that Luther was purposely kept from active participation in the Confession, inas- much as it had been intended to be more or less of a compromise with Rome! But, after all, this controversy in which Dr. Krauth put on his full armor to crush his antagonist, reminds us strongly of Moltke's saying, that we must not shoot pheasants with heavy artillery. When shortly after this controversy Dr. J. A. Brown was stricken with severe affliction, Dr. Krauth's heart went out in kindliest sympathy for him. He writes to Dr. H. E. Jacobs (January 3, 1880) : "Poor Dr. Brown! We all feel very sad in thinking of the awful calamity, — in some sense worse than death, — which has fallen upon him. I hope he may be restored, and that his later days may be days of peace." And again (April 10, 1880) : "Poor Dr. Brown! How completely his calamity softened the hearts of those to whom he had been most unkind! I hear with great pleasure of everything which looks hopeful in regard to his recovery, and I have a conviction that, if he is ever able to resume labor, he will repair some of the mistakes he has made." Dr. Brown died June 19, 1882. THE PREDESTINATION CONTROVERSY. On the great Predestination Controversy which led to a rupture in the Sy nodical Conference in the year 1880, Dr. Krauth did not publish anything during his lifetime, however anxious the two contending parties, who charged each other with Calvinism on the one hand and with Synergism on the other, were for an opinion from one who was so well qualified to be an impartial judge. In a letter (February 13, 1880,) to the Rev. A. Pflueger, of Thornville, O., a member of the Joint Synod i88o.] THE DOCTRI.XE OF ELECTION. 327 of Ohio, he refers to the matter in the following language : I have not read Dr. Walther's exposition of the doc- trine of election, but I purpose, as soon as I can command leisure, to write something whose object shall be to show that the New Testament doctrine, confessed by our Church, in regard to election, as fully as the most ex- treme Calvinism, gives all the glory to God and ascribes to Him the total merit of our salvation, both as secured and applied, and yet clearly and properly makes man responsible for his own destruction. When that time comes I shall hope to study what Dr. Walther has written. I think the appearance of "Altes und Neues"* a matter of doubtful expediency, and as to Dr. Walther's Crypto- Calvinism, which, in its historical sense would mean a conscious Calvinism furtively evading responsibility, I am sure this charge is groundless. That still renders it possible that there has been an unconscious approxima- tion to Calvinism. Luther is constantly claimed by the Calvinists and I have known intelligent Calvinists . . . who are entirely satisfied with the Formula of Concord on the ''Five Points." Yet, the claim and the satisfaction are both groundless. The truth in the Formula so strictly follows the line of Scripture thinking, that it is hard to get a spear's point under the scales of its armor. My own conviction about Luther is, that he was never a Cal- vinist on the "Five Points," but Augustinian with some aspects of coincidence and many of divergence, even where he was nearest Calvinism. On the last Sunday in October, 1882, when Dr. Krauth was, for the last time, a guest at the table of his son-in- law, the conversation turned on the lamentable contro- versy concerning the doctrine of election. We urged him to write out his views on the subject and to give them to the Church, inasmuch as many were looking to him for * A periodical published by the opponents of Dr. Walther. 328 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVIL counsel and instruction in this complicated matter. He said he knew it was his duty to speak and he would try to do so, if the state of his health would permit. After his death we found among his papers the following article, written in a trembling hand, and evidently of a fragmentary character. It was his intention to add a number of points which were to show what language on the disputed question was Calvinistic, and what was not. Under the form of a review of a little tract of Dr. Walther he says: The time is well spent in any discussion which is de- voted to clearly settling, what is the question? If the disputants in the Synodical Conference agree upon a statement, made in simple good faith, as to what are the points on which they are one, and what are the points on which they differ — we may hope for final peace. Till they can do this, the more they discuss the doctrine of election the more they will muddle the mind of the Church, and the further they will be from a decision. The question. Is our faith a cause of God's election or an effect of it? must be carefully defined before men can wisely take sides upon it. Considered as a question of the relation between man and God, the answer would be made in one way. Considered as a question covering the case between one man and another, the answer would be reversed. What is the cause of my faith? The generic action of God's election or choice. He chose to provide redemp- tion for lost man. He chose that a divine-human Saviour should consummate it. He chose that the Spirit should apply it. He chose the Word and Sacraments as organic instruments of it, and these links of choices form the generic chain of election. This election is the cause of faith. Without it there would be no object of faith, no vocation to it, no overcoming by grace of natural in- ability. From this point of view, "Predestination, or the eternal election of God pertains only to the good and i882.] THE DOCTRIXE OF ELECTION. 329 beloved children of God and is the cause of their salva- tion." (Formula of Concord). It is very clear, too, why this predestination of God is in such sense the foun- dation of our salvation, "that nothing but the triumph of the gates of hell could overthrow it." For if "this pre- destination" is overthrown, we have no elected salvation, no elected Saviour, no elected work of the Spirit, no elected means of grace — all are gone. And the bare possibility of faith goes with them. And from this point of view is manifest why it is so great and obvious an Error "that not alone God's pity and the most sacred merit of Christ, is the Cause of the divine election of God, but that there is also something in us which is a Cause of the divine election, for the sake of which Cause God has chosen us to eternal life." Our faith is the out- come and practical finality of this election — an effect in which the cause comes to its consummation. Now comes the other question, no longer as between man and God, but as between man and man. Election as generic contemplates all men alike — its redemption is universal ; its Saviour, the Saviour of all ; its Spirit the gift purchased for all ; its means are objective forces, whicli put all men to whom they come on a common plane of responsibility, and above the simple condition of natural helplessness. Why do men in completely parallel relations to this election move in opposite directions? The one believes, the other disbelieves. Is the election of God in any sense the cause of the difference? The answer of the Calvinist is : Yes. The answer of the Lutheran is : No. The election of God is indeed the cause of the faith of the one. but it is neither positively nor negatively, neither by act nor by failure to act, the cause of the unbelief of the other. Hence it is not the cause of the difference. I choose (or elect) to offer bread to two beggars. The election of bread for his food and the election to offer it to him are the proper cause of the reception of the bread on the part of the one, but they are not the cause of the rejection on the part of the other. The first concurs in mv election, but his concurrence is 330 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVII. the effect, not the cause, of my election. The second refuses, but his refusal is not the effect of my election, but an effect in spite of it. As between me and the men the decision must be, that the acceptance of one is no more than the refusal of the other, the cause of my elec- tion. But between the one and the other the difference is made by the willingness to receive — wrought by me through the oft'er — and the unwillingness to receive, wrought by the man himself in spite of the offer. Faith is not the cause of our general election. That must be admitted by all. (But neither can it be the cause of our particular election, for the particular is only pos- sible, and indeed only thinkable, as the result of the general.) But it is the cause of the difference between the man who receives the benefits of this (the?) election, and the man who refuses them. This faith is foreseen indeed, but it does not become by that the cause of the election — it is foreseen as an effect of the election and therefore cannot be considered as the cause, it is a finality in the work of God in the restoration of fellowship. It is, as a condition, part of the election, and cannot there- fore be the cause of the whole. There is a noticeable difference between our Lutheran divines in the sixteenth century and those of later date, but we do not believe there is a conflict. In the sixteenth century the struggle was for the true doctrine of election. As the warfare with Calvinism grew hotter there was a fierce conflict with the error of reprobation. Luther and our earlier divines over against the Pelagianism of Rome, made most prominent election as it is related to the grace of God — and in this relation it is the cause of faith — the faith is conditioned by the election of God as its necessary pre-supposition. The later divines over against the absolutism of Cal- vinism brought into prominence election as it is related to the responsibility of man. In this relation, election is not the cause of the difference in result, for while faith is the result of it in the believer, want of faith is not the result of it in the unbeliever. 1870-83.] BIBLE REVISION COMMITTEE. 331 Faith is the actual condition of the appHcation of elec- tion or its determination at this point. No doubt there are expressions in both directions which, if isolated, are open to objection and incapable of harmony. The Formula of Concord is midway between the tendencies, and avoids the extremes of both. {The Lutheran Church Review. Vol. II., pp. 68-71.) WORK ON THE BIBLE REVISION. The Convocation of Canterbury, "the cradle of Anglo- Saxon Christendom," on May 6, 1870, appointed a Com- mittee of eminent Biblical scholars and digiiitaries of the Church of England, to revise, for pul)lic use, the author- ized English version of 161 1, and to associate with them representative Bible scholars of other Christian denom- inations using this version. The American Committee of Revision was organized in 1871, by invitation of the English Revisers, and began active work in 1872. Its chairman. Dr. Philip Schaff, invited Dr. Krauth in 1871 to join the Committee, as a member of the Old Testament Revision Company. He promptly accepted the appoint- ment for which he was so well qualified, not only on account of his "rare biblical and general learning," as "the most scholarly representative of the Evangelical Lutheran Church," but particularly in view of his ex- tensive studies on the history of the early English versions, whose results he had published in a series of articles on Bible Revision and History of the Authorized Version, in the Lutheran and Missionary, February 6 to June 20, 1862. How greatly his person and work were appreciated by his colleagues in the American Revision Company, is shown by the tribute placed upon their records at the time of his death, written by Dr. Phil. Schaff. It ends with these words : 332 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVII. In his theological views Dr. C. P. Krauth was a Luth- eran of Lutherans, being a zealous defender and main- tainer of the Augustana, pure and simple, and he headed the reaction which has been going on for a generation in our country, against the influences which were thought to assail the integrity or the authority of the venerable Confession of Augsburg. But while he strove with all his might for the preservation of Lutheran doctrine and order, he cherished a catholic spirit and took a cordial interest in the prosperity of all evangelical Christians. He became a member of this body from the commence- ment, and, although hindered, sometimes by professional engagements, at others by the state of his health, from being as regular in attendance as was desirable, his presence was always an advantage, and his large acquaintance with the early English versions of the Scriptures, and with the best idioms of our tongue, made his suggestions often of very great value in the settle- ment of a disputed issue. Li personal intercourse he was one of the most delightful of companions, genial, courteous, full of resources, sparkling with wit and anecdote, yet always preserving the elevated tone of a Christian gentleman. . . . Our country has produced few men who united in their own persons so many of the excellencies which distinguish the scholar, the theo- logian, the exegete, the debater and the leader of his brethren, as did our accomplished associate. His learn- ing did not smother his genius, nor did his philosophical attainments impair the simplicity of his faith. All gifts and all acquisitions were sedulously made subservient to the Gospel of Christ. He illustrated his teachings by his life, and has left behind him a memory precious and fragrant not only in his own large communion, but to multitudes beyond its pale. In the ''Anglo-American Bible Revision by members of the American Revision Committee, printed for private circulation," (New York, 1879,) Dr. Krauth published an article on the "Older Eng-lish and the Authorized ,879.] T^/ZE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 333 Versions," probably the substance of the paper read before the American Oriental Society at Princeton, by request of Dr. W. H. Green. (See page 320.) The con- cluding paragraph pays this glowing tribute to the EXCELLENCE OF KING JAMES's VERSION. The Bible of 161 1 encountered prejudices and over- came them; it had rivals great in just claims and strong in possession, and it displaced them ; it moved slowly that it might move surely ; the Church of England lost many of her children, but they all took their mother's Bible with them, and taking that, they were not wholly lost to her. It more and more melted indifference into cordial admiration, secured the enthusiastic approval of the cautious scholar, and won the artless love of the people. It has kindled into fervent praise men who were cold on every other theme. It glorified the tongue of the worshipper in glorifying God, and by the inspiration indwelling in it, and the inspiration it has imparted, has created English literature. Its most brilliant eulogies have come from those who, hating Protestantism, yet acknowledged the grandeur of this book, which lives by that Protestantism of which it is the offspring, that Protestantism to which, world-wide, it gives life as one of its roots. When, to him who has been caught in the snare of unbelief, or drawn by the lure of false belief, every other chord of the old music wakes only repug- nant memories, its words have stolen in, too strong to be beaten back, too sweet to be renounced, once more the thunder of God's power, the pulsation of God's heart. Its faults have been hardly more than the foils of its beauties. It has so interwoven, by the artistic delicacy even of its mechanical transfers, the very idioms charac- teristic of the sacred tongues, that Hebraisms and Hellen- isms need no comment to the English mind, but come as part of its simplest, its noblest, its deepest thought and emotion. Its words are nearer to men than their own, and it gives articulation to groanings which but for it 334 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVIL could not be uttered. It has lifted the living world to the solemn fixedness of those old heavenly thoughts and feelings, instead of dragging them by low, secular phrase out of their high and holy thrones, down to the dust of the shifting present, or leaving them dim and dreary be- hind the fog of pedantry. It has fought against the relentless tendency of time to change language, and has won all the great fields ; words have dropped away or have deserted their meaning, as soldiers are lost even by the side which conquers ; but the great body of the army of its ancient but not antiquated forms, among the sweet- est and the highest speech beneath the voices of the upper world, remains intact and victorious. The swords of its armory may have gathered here and there a spot of rust, but their double edge has lost none of its keenness, and their broad surface little of its refulgence. It has made a new translation, as against something old and fading, impossible, for it is itself new, more fresh, more vital, more youthful than anything which has sought to sup- plant it. We need, and may have, a revision of it. It- self a revision of revisions, its own wonderful growth reveals the secret of the approach to perfection. But by very virtue of its grandly closing one era of struggle it opened another, for in human efforts all great endings are but great beginnings. A revision we may have, but a substitute, not now — it may be never. The accidents, of our Authorized Version are open to change, but its substantial part is beyond it, until the English takes its place among the tongues that shall cease. The new revision will need little new English. Its best work will be to reduce the old English of the old version, to more perfect consistency with the text and with itself. That version is now, and unchanged in essence will be, per- haps to the end of time, the mightiest bond — intellectual, social, and religious, — of that vast body of nations which girdles the earth, and spreads far toward the poles, the nations to whom the English is the language of their hearts, and the English Bible the matchless standard of that language. So long as Christianity remains to them i88i.] THE REVISED VERSION. 335 the light out of God, the English Bible will be cherished by millions, as the dearest conservator of pure faith, the greatest power of holy life in the world. THE REVISED VERSION. In noticing the "Comparative Edition" of the New Testament, published by Porter & Coates, Philadelphia, Dr. Krauth gives his judgment on the merits and prospects of the Revised Version as follows : The revision of 1881 is in many important respects a great advance on that of 161 1. It presents a far more accurate text, it is far more faithful to the grammatical and other linguistic niceties of the Greek; it is more strictly consistent with the original and with itself, than the so-called Authorized Version, — the Authorized hav- ing to us no other species of authority than the new. As a companion to the received version it is invaluable. . . . Every New Testament student should have it. Of all this there ought to be no question, and among the un- prejudiced there is none. . . . The real and serious question is not whether the new is good. It is good, very good, and in certain respects much better than the old. But is it the best work for which we can reasonably hope? Nothing is faultless, but is this revision so nearly the consummation of a wise wish, that it would be hazardous to decline it as a finality, to insist upon another effort tow^ard perfection ? We are not sure that it is. We grant the difficulty connected with the mere fact of change. Right or wrong, the pathos, the melody, the associations with all that is sweetest and most sacred, cling to the old. Our childhood received its impressions in its words, our saddest hours brightened in the phrase of its promises ; terror and tenderness of Law and Gospel came to us in its interpretations of God's mind. The roots of our soul are struck deep into it, and our eternal hopes open out into its firmament. Only in theory is the English Bible distinguishable, to the mass of readers, from 336 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chaf.XVU. the very Bible itself, and what is taken from it, seems to them so much stolen from the legacy of God. We try to allow for all this. It is not in us to look as dis- passionately on the new, as if we had never known the old. But after all our effort at allowance, it seems to us that in grave respects the new falls below the conceiv- able — and perhaps below the attainable. Its new elements have not the inspiration of genius, which is such a marked and confessed feature of Luther's, and of the English Revision of 161 1. It bears traces of the Committee room, and of the conjunction of very unequal powers, and of imperfect affinities, whose divergences were adjusted by the votes of majorities. Many beauties of the old vanish into the accuracies of the new — and if we cannot have both, it is better to have accuracy without beauty, than beauty without accuracy. But is it not possible to have both? May not a beautiful accuracy be substituted for a beautiful inaccuracy? Painstaking and scholarship are manifest in the new, but with them goes, at times, a mechanical hardness, suggestive rather of an interlinear than of a translation in the highest sense — thought for thought, and power for power. You rarely meet in it, what strikes you as a felicity. The delicacies and niceties by which the best English has the power of mirroring the beauties and subleties of a great original, do not always seem to be in the mastery of the Revisers. Their training seems to be too purely theological, and their style too narrowly that of their books. They have taken up the ocean too much by the spoonful. They have brought us by their analyses to a nearer understanding of the properties of salt water, but the roar and swell and ripple of the sea are hushed. The work often seems done word for word, at the expense of sentence for sentence. Each part is right, and the whole is wrong. It must have been a strong sense of the imperfection of the English work, at some points, which led the American Revisers to insist upon an appendix of insoluble dissense. If the revision of 1881 is meant as a finality, the Amer- icans should not have asked this, — and the British should THE NEW REVISION NOT FINAL. 337 not have tolerated it. But it seems to us clear that this revision, though in the main so good, cannot be accepted as a finality precisely as it stands. After the judgment of Christendom has been completely expressed upon it, let it be taken up again. — let the Revisers on both sides of the Atlantic have a distinct understanding as to their part in it, and let the effort be renewed to give to those who use the English tongue, a translation which shall, beyond rational dispute, be to the nineteenth century what Luther was to the German, and Tyndale to the English of the sixteenth century, and our Authorized to the seven- teenth. And let it not be forgotten that the Authorized was the last of a series, running through nearly a century. It was slow in displacing its predecessors. Such authori- zation as was given it amounted to little in the struggle. It triumphed by its inner excellences, and the Version which displaces it must be great indeed — so great that no amount of time and effort needed to produce it should be considered excessive. (June 30, 1881.) BOOK REVIEWS. Apart from his scholarly theological contributions to the Lutheran and Missionary, and for years after he had ceased to write for the paper on those graver subjects, Dr. Krauth continued to have charge of the "Library," as a reviewer of the latest publications. His extensive reading, his familiarity with the best products of English literature, his exquisite taste, his keenly critical eye, to- gether with his own poetical talent combined to make him particularly well fitted for such work. For years, as a member of the Shakespeare Club in Philadelphia, he had taken an active part in the scholarly researches and studies of that societv. His book notices are throusfh- out characteristic of the man, not only in their free play of wit and good-humored satire, but likewise in their whole-souled sympathy with everything that is truly human, — Homo sum, nihil humani a mc alicnum pnto. 22 338 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVII. Some of his prettiest and most pointed utterances are contained in these notices ; as, for instance, when he says of a famous orator : "He has formed his habit of think- ing to the ear, and hence his productions are necessarily- diminished in their power to the eye." Or, when he dis- poses of a certain collection of biographical sketches with this advice to the editor: "Before he puts a man's life in, he ought to make sure the man had one." We present, by way of illustration, some extracts, showing first the general animus and the principles he followed as a literary critic ; and then a few specimens of reviews of well-known writers. JUST CRITICISM. There is nothing so much needed in this country, in the notices of books, as a manly expression of the honest opinion of the reviewer, and a definite statement of what he believes to be their faults. Almost all our reviewing praises or blames in the lump; pronounces sentence or acquittal without pretending to sum up the evidence. No book should be condemned on a general charge, nor accepted on a commendation which specifies nothing. HUMOR AND GOOD HUMOR. The propensity to look at the ludicrous side of things is a very dangerous one sometimes. If any man suspects himself of it, it would be well for him to be very cautious. There is no sin which will be visited upon him more remorselessly by some of his race. The vice of humor seems to be regarded by some sober men as the most dreadful to which any man can be ad- dicted, and they would account for the fact that it is not forbidden in the Decalogue, solely on the principle on which an old legislator omitted to attach a penalty to parricide, — that it was so wicked a thing that he took it for granted nobody would commit it. And yet, Luther overruns with it, the old Puritans i86i-62.] STEALING AS A FINE ART. 339 reveal it, heightening its zest by their invincible gravity. Some of the most exquisite humor is found in the "Pil- grim's Progress," and the sacred writings themselves, not only exhibit the higher forms of wit, such as irony and sarcasm, but there sometimes meet us even in them, the less grave turns of word and thought in which wit delights, and that mixture of the sense of the ludicrous, with a tenderness of the human creatures it involves, which generates playfulness. Let us allow every man to be himself in things inno- cent. Our race is a rational reflection of the great thoughts of God that are seen in the Universe ; and where so much around us shows that God meant it to be glad, if we will be morose, let us not make a virtue of our severity, and if we will not be happy with the happy, let us at least not put an embargo upon their smiling. (September 6, 1861.) PLAGIARISM. Plagiarism is one of the fine arts. It requires genius, which devotes itself to its one great mission of stealing. We do not chronicle these masterly practices against ourselves, by way of complaint. Far from it. We are rather flattered by them. Your true master-plagiarist only steals what is worth stealing. He will not be put off with a pocket-comb or a pen-knife, when he can get hold of a gold watch or a well filled port-monnaie. He is not easily deluded into stealing counterfeit notes. He in- stinctively reads the men who look as if they carried that kind. The good taste which our too ardent admirers show, therefore, in what they take, will go far in cover- ing any objections the scrupulous might feel, as to the way in which it is taken. Go on then, ye benefactors of your readers, sustained by the consciousness, that your disinterested sacrifice of yourselves inures to their good. Your loss is their gain. . . . After all, what you steal does not impoverish us, and makes you rich indeed. Let your discriminating enterprise go even further: 340 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVII. " We like the part you stole the best, Take courage, friends, and steal the rest." (February 13, 1862.) SKELETONS. We once asked a bookseller, renowned among the sons of Levi for his skill in combining good wares with low prices, "What class of books is most in demand among clergymen?" We are sorry to say that his reply was, "Skeletons!" "There is a skeleton in every house," to be sure; but the clergyman has often too many skeletons in his house : he puts them there himself, and seems to look upon them without terror. And yet we are not going to put the blame of the whole thing on the poor ministers. As long as the present inhuman and pagan demands which a remorseless Church makes upon ministers as to the number of services and bulk of matter continues, so long will books which furnish the straw for this im- moderate brick-making be written, bought and used. The sun-baked bricks (and such are most sermons) require something to hold them together, and the wholesale maker of them must depend upon other hands to help him to furnish the "tale." Many a poor parson is so stinted in his salary, that his library contains very little more than a tattered hymnbook, and a Bible whose small print is almost illegible from constant thumbing. This parson, with these very limited intellectual tools, is worked all week like a horse in a bark-mill. He visits more sick people than many a doctor does, settles more difficult questions of all kinds than a judge, corresponds extensively as one who feels that he must take some care of the Church at large, receives visitors without end, does his wife's shopping, or nurses the baby while she goes out to do it, and is worried and overtasked all week. Saturday comes, and after Saturday is the in- exorable Sunday. Two sermons are to be preached. Where are they to come from? Not from his poor head. i86i.l THE SKELETON IK THE PARSONAGE. 341 Not from a thousand books, by an exquisite mosaic-work process, inlaying solid theology with scores of nice little things from the best modern poets and writers for the magazines. He has not the books for this. No brother, heaven-sent, comes along to relieve him. Nobody, just then, wishes to exchange. What i-/za// he do ? "To steal, or not to steal, that is the question." Stealing rises up before him in the garb of a dire necessity, or apparelled almost like an angel of virtue. I would rather starve myself, he argues, than steal ; but can I allow an affection- ate people to starve? and starve they must, if I do not steal. They care not whence my matter comes. I will steal ; or no, I will not steal. I will fix what I borrozv, on my memory, and — extemporize. My people thank Heaven that their minister don't read his sermons. They know that there are but two ways of getting a sermon: one is for the man to write it, and then it is his own ; the other is to extemporize, and then they are sure it comes from above. — He yields to the fatal attraction of Pulpit Aids, laying to his soul the flattering unction that he only borrows. Whatever may be his doubt as to the proper name of the process by which he uses what is not his own, of one thing he is assured, and that is. that if he is put among the thieves, his congregation ought to go with him, not merely on the principle that "the receiver is as bad as the thief," but yet more on this ground, that they drove him to his evil courses. Beyond all doubt, the books which furnish aid for the pulpit, in the form of outlines, are often used to solve the difficulty raised by a certain famous paradoxical wish. They teach a man to swim without going into the water, or, rather, they put bladders under his arms, and he can then go in anywhere safely. If Providence has favored him with a good, light, natatory head, arranged after the style of the bladders, and evidently made to swim, he is sure, between the three, not to sink. He may rise to the reputation of a great sensationalist, and be considered a model swimmer. Books of this class are very ancient. Luther speaks of a work of the sort famous in his day, known by the 342 CHARLES, PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVII. title, "Dormi Secure," Sleep Soundly. The words of the title were supposed to be addressed to the preacher, as much as to say, Here everything is made to your hand. You need not any more be "sleepless to give your hearers sleep." Put this under your pillow and take your nap. When you are done, take it from under your pillow, and in three minutes you will be able to give your people their nap in turn. It was a sort of double-edged anodyne, and no doubt greatly aided the slumbers of both priests and people. A venerable pastor of our Church, contrast- ing the amount of attention now given to homiletics, with the very little which was said about it in his day, remarked, that the whole course given him in that department by his preceptor, consisted in the solitary precept to make a skeleton with a very large number of heads. The result would be, that by the time he had said a little on each, his sermon would reach the due length. The Pulpit Aids simplify the process still further, furnishing the heads (unfortunately not the head) to hand. Nevertheless, a plausible reasoner might urge, that there are men who have good inventive powers, rich in matter, but either from defect of the logical faculty, or, from want of train- ing, are unskilful in arranging their matter. Such men, he would say, may take the meagre skeleton, and clothe it upon with the muscle and fibre of their own mind, till a living sermon results from the union. They treat an outline from another hand as Shakespeare treated the old plays, which he took as mere threads, on which he strung the orient pearls of his fancy. But allowing that there is some force in this, it is nevertheless a source of regret that such men should borrow anything from others ; for if the thread is proved to be stolen, doubts are thrown upon the pearls. If a man is arraigned for stealing pearls, and it is proved that the thread was stolen, the jury are not apt to be .very easy of belief as to his honestly getting the more precious part. But there is a legitimate use to which sketches of sermons may be put. As the full sermon is to be studied for the physiology of homiletics, so the skeleton may be i86i.] INTELLECTUAL ASSIMILATION. 343 examined to make ourselves familiar with the anatomy of it. For it is not without a real analogy, that the out- line derives its name from the bony frame-work of the body. That is a poor body which is all bones, or in which they reveal themselves at every point; but that would be a very sorrowful body which had no bones. The highest order of thought always has a hard, well- arranged, organic skeleton under it ; even as in physical nature, while the lowest forms of life are boneless, the highest are all vertebrate. Now a man may buy a skele- ton, not with the expectation of adopting it, but with the purpose of studying it. The study of somebody else's bones may give him useful hints as to the care and health of his own. A man can, indeed, no more make the product of another mind, as such, an organic part of his own mind, than he could wear in his body another man's skeleton. Digestion is the indispensable pre-requisite to concorporation. Bread, as bread, can never become a part of a man's body ; but it goes through the subtle pro- cesses of assimilation, until at last the matter that once was bread, becomes an organ of the mind in the brain, and its instrument in the hand. So must the thoughts of others before they can be re-produced, be assimilated, and then do they become parts of us. Authors ought not to be men-stealers, but they are of necessity cannibals, perfect anthropophagi. While, therefore, it is very im- proper to steal an author's book, it is highly moral to digest it. He would prosecute you if he learned you had stolen it, but would be entirely pleased to know that you had "literally devoured it." THE SCISSORS AND THE PASTE-POT. "The pen," says a modern dramatist, "is mightier than the sword." We add, the scissors are mightier than the pen. With the scissors for the analytic, and a good stiff paste for the synthetic, men may be authors without thinking, and may establish a strict coherence between paragraphs apparently destitute of all natural connection. (August 16, 1861.) 344 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chaf.XYU. RELIGIOUS LIGHT LITERATURE. As in general literature the mass prefer the light and flimsy to the substantial and useful, so it is in the religious world, — the class of books most largely published and bought belongs to light literature. They lack thought, matter, moral force, doctrinal decision and earnest pur- pose. They are accidental books, not books which reflect a sublime vocation, — they are books which men viay write, — not books which men must write to relieve their consciences from the dread of arraignment before the Judge for burying the talent entrusted to them. . . . Many of the best popular religious writers of our day a're, at best, mere gold-beaters, though what they beat is not always gold. They seem to imagine that pounding can put something into bullion, — or that thought, like homoeopathic remedies, is potentiated by minute division. Paganini did musical miracles on a single string ; Ole Bull and others have followed him in this walk; but none of these fiddlers of renown, we believe, make the whole concert one of isolated cat-gut. But in our popular religious literature, we are often invited to several con- certs on the same string, and are entertained through each of them by a vigorous sawing on a single note. . . . The taste of the religious world is greatly vitiated, the tone of piety lowered and spiritual things rendered dis- tasteful to the thoughtful, by the excessive wishy-washy- ness of much of the current religious literature. . . . Some of these books have romantic titles, which fairly cheat the young people into picking them up as sen- sational novels, crammed with murder and matrimony. But all the artifices are vain, — they remain just what they were, sermons, pardonable when delivered, because their author had no time to make them better, — but unpardon- able when deliberately issued, as if there were anything in them worth reading. You may shatter and batter the vase as you will. The scent of the roses will stick to it still. i86i.] IF DOUBTFUL, DON'T. 345 Nothing is more certain tliat these books are very Hght, than this, — that they are terribly heavy. This easy writ- ing is terribly hard reading. Nobody really enjoys them, nobody is the better for them. One page of Howe, Baxter, Bunyan, Leighton, Edwards, Arndt, Bogatzky, of Chalmers or of James is worth whole shelves of this genus. (November 14, 1861.) NOVEL READING. We wish, once for all, to protest against any one trans- ferring to us the work of his own conscience in regard to the matter of novel reading. While we believe that there are some novels which may be read sometimes, by some people, we believe that there are many novels which should be read by no one, and some which should be read by very few — and that there are some for whom it would be best to read no novels whatever, not even the best. We would not consciously pollute our pages by noticing even the names of novels unfit for all ; and in noticing those whose record will be found in this paper, we never mean to recommend them to all. The advice of a faithful pastor, or of some other judicious Christian friend, should carry more weight with it than any com- mendations which can possibly be bestowed upon this or that work of fiction. If you, good reader, doubt in conscience whether you should read a novel, you sin if you read — no matter who seems to countenance it, editor, pastor or friend. If, after honestly enlightening your conscience, you are clear on the question of duty, then you need no endorsement. Wherefore, know all men by these presents, that any readers of the Lutheran who read novels, do it on their own responsibility. Against bad or dubious novels, against extensive reading, even of the good, we enter a protest — and even that little reading of a very few of the purest and best, with which our con- science has no trouble, we recommend to no one. So few are willing to draw the line, that total abstinence here, as in the case of intoxicating drinks, seems to be the only absolute safety against abuse. 346 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAU TH. [Chaf.XYIL WIT. Sydney Smith is known to the milHon mainly as a great wit, and he is worthy of his renown. But those who have read his works know that with him, as with all good men whom God has endowed with that most fascinating gift, wit was not an end, but the means to the end. Like other forms of eloquence, it is to be prized or censured, as it is used or abused. Like every power of human thought or human language, it is hallowed by its consecration to great ends, or desecrated by perversion to unworthy ones. How exquisite are the humor and wit of Addison, directed as they are, to the correction of social evils, and to the interests of morality and religion. How mighty an engine against the Jesuits were the Provincial Letters of Pascal. There was no weapon of the Reformation which its enemies more dreaded, than the wit of Luther. Luther, indeed, had, beyond any other German, a large measure of the sort of wit which strikes the English mind. He is irresistibly comic at times. Serious as are the pursuits of clergymen, we believe there is no class of men in which there is so much real wit and humor. God meant it to be so. The power of seeing things in the aspect which makes us smile, is a shield from much that is painful in our lot, and is often the best weapon we can use in staying what is ridiculously wrong. We could do infidelity and evil no greater good, than to surrender to them a weapon, whose effectiveness they understand so well. Men will laugh, and how much better is it that they should laugh with the truth than at it. Conjoin wit with principle, direct it to good ends, temper it with benevolence, guard it from excess and from working out of its true sphere, and you have in it a new safeguard for truth and goodness. (November 6, 1862.) JEREMY TAYLOR. Taylor has been called the Shakespeare of divines. It has been suggested that he should rather be called the Spenser. The fact is, he is neither, if any parallel in in- i86i-62.] ENGLISH MEN OF LETTERS. 347 tellectiial character is desig-ned, but is as positively him- self as Shakespeare is Shakespeare, or Spenser Spenser. Richly florid in his fancy, and gorgeous in his language, he yet, on due occasion, was a model of majestic, close and sustained reasoning. When he is most poetical, Milton hardly surpasses him ; and when he is most logical, Chillingworth himself is not more masterly as a reasoner. For universal use, the two volumes we notice probably take the first rank. We would call them solid gold, were it not for gems richer than gold, with which they are thick inset. Taylor was an early love of ours; his works were one of the earliest gifts of one who gave them, because he loved him and loved us. BULWER AND DICKENS. How varied is genius. We notice side by side the two greatest living novelists — alike in nothing except the pos- session of the most fascinating and most indefinable of gifts. Dickens and Bulwer are supplementary and com- plementary to each other, as writers of fiction. The one irradiates poverty and lowliness with sunshine. The other touches life among the high-born, with the magic of his own peculiar refinement of mind and style. Dickens is most perfectly understood by men, and Bulwer by women. Where Dickens is greatest, Bulwer is little, and where Bulwer is incomparable, Dickens is very much worse than nothing. Among the humbler and middle walks of life, Dickens is princely as a creator; among the highest he is a mere caricaturist. Where Bulwer sketches the humble well, it is in the relation of dependence. He sees them in the reflected glory of their superiors. He loves best to put them where Dickens never puts them, if he can help it. Bulwer is aristocratic and scholarly. Dickens is of the people, and his education has been drawn from men direct, much more than from books. Bulwer has been a great reader in every direction, and loves to make a display of his learning, as he well may, for he does it with great felicity. Dickens' allusions to 348 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVII. books are few, and his books are always of the class well known to everybody. In our boyhood, Bulwer and Byron were generally spoken of as two very charming, very immoral, and con- sequently very dangerous writers. Poor Byron, we are afraid, we must abandon on all the charges, although we do not consider him either as charming as he is regarded by young readers, or as dangerous as he is represented in the pulpit oratory, which draws its inspiration from Pollok's Course of Time. Bulwer we do not believe, even in his most vulnerable period, to have been open to the charge of conscious immorality, as Byron undoubtedly was. What a writer says, in the consistency of the char- acter he draws, is not to be accepted as the sentiment of the writer, nor as such to be pleaded against him. Byron, not without a little logic in his wit, urged in defense of the utterances of the Arch-enemy in Cain, that it was quite impossible to represent the devil as talking like a clergyman of the Church of England. A writer may however be held responsible for sketching — even with the object of exciting abhorrence — characters so essen- tially and irredeemably vile, that mere acquaintance with them will do more mischief than any possible reprobation of them can do good. Beyond all doubt, the combination of fascinating manners and of moral frivolity in Pelham, lured many readers to lower views of moral obligation, charmed many of the thoughtless and undecided into false estimates of the relative value of fine manners and of deep principle. In Eugene Aram, also, there may be dangerous fascination to the class of minds which have a disposition to think that energy of all kinds naturally runs out into crime. But neither in Pelham nor in Eugene Aram, was it the aim of Bulwer to produce these results, and we believe those who read them most per- fectly in the tone and spirit in which they were con- ceived, felt none of these mischievous effects. "The last of the Barons" was the first attempt of Bul- wer in historical romance, on English ground. It re- quired no little courage to seem to enter at all upon i86i-8o.] BULIVER AND DICKENS. 349 the walk of the great magician of the North, but Bul- wer's success justified his boldness. "The last of the Barons" is one of his finest works, displaying great read- ing in the history of its era, as well as great richness of imagination. In "Devereux," he portrays a man of the last century. Bolingbroke and other great men of the period appear, but more as accessories than as the main figures. In the "Last days of Pompeii," Buhver reveals the extent of his reading in the Ancient Classics. Most stories of the time of the Greeks and Romans fail to awake any deep interest in the heart of the reader. They smack of the Dictionary of Antiquities. Everybody is a lay-figure to display the antique upon, and like the lay- figure, has liinges rather than joints. Bulwer rose above the difficulties of his task, and there is probably none of his stories more deeply pathetic than this. WHiatever apology may be necessary for the earlier Bulwer. none need be made for him in his ripest and latest stories. They are pure and purifying, breathing largely a morality which is not of this world. The "Cax- tons" is worthy of the place which the Lippincott house has given it. It is a book, the charm of whose story, great as it is, is secondary to the soundness of its prin- ciples and the general excellence of its tendency. dickens' letters. There has probably never been a man who felt himself more absolutely than Dickens did. His self-consciousness smacked of the pantheistic. He took everything into himself, and transfused himself into everything, with an ardor which makes his writings wholly unique. The true children of his mind — as distinct from the personalized humors and oddities, which are the ballast of his writ- ings — were as real to him as the children born to him in his home. This identification was one of the secrets of his great power. He was a passionate Actor who played himself into books, which bring to the fireside of the reader the charm of the stage, the power of the drama, 350 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVII. without its machinery and its draw-backs. His novels fell spontaneously into plays. This irrepressible individuality of Dickens imparts in- terest to the most trivial of the letters in this collection : the best letters assure him a high place, in the noble, al- most lost, art of letter-writing. His letters, with the self- depicture, indirectly afforded in his Sketches, Tales and Novels, and often directly in the prefaces to them, give us an Autobiography of him, full and honest. The part amplest in bulk, and richest in matter, in this life-sketch- ing from his own hand, is found in the letters. How they abound in picturesque suggestions to the artists who were to illustrate his works, the author's words often transcending the pictures they were meant to guide. What revelations they make of his feelings in the progress of his books, of sympathetic ideal joys and sorrows, which were as real as those which were awakened in his actual life. Hardly could he have loved his own girls, as he loved little Nell, or any boy, even of his own boys, as he loved little Paul. His heart broke itself, and healed itself, with its own imaginings. His letters illustrate his devotion to friends, his warm appreciation of the notice of the great, and his love of flattery, from whatever source. We see in them how well he thought of those who thought well of him; how qualified, in general, was his admiration of the works of others; and how unquali- fied was his admiration of his own. His appreciation of little children, and especially of the young folks at Gad's Hill, is something beautiful and touching. Of what irresistible drollery, of what scathing fierceness he was capable — how lambent and how consuming his words could be. Who so illustrated overwhelming labor, rol- licking fun and boundless enjoyment — the massive tread of the burdened elephant, the mischievous agility of the monkey, the hearth-rug antics of the kitten? To whom can we go for such inimitable hittings-off of character, such delicate discriminations, and such frantic burlesque ? Who has been more princely in his benefactions, and more sorrv in his meanness? What an accumulation of evi- i88o.] CONTRASTS IN DICKENS' CHARACTER. 351 dence do his life and letters present of vanity, egotism, selfishness, and truculent coarseness, and on the other hand of ever}' quality with which these weaknesses seem incompatible. How pure are his sketches of nature, and how undisguised was his admiration of gaudy waist- coats and superfluous jewelry. What exquisite senti- ment he breathes, and what a passion for good eating, and for drink, not "from the liquid brook," he reveals. His books are the apotheosis of cooks and innkeepers. The man who has come into so many homes to soften asperity, and to mitigate sorrow, lived in a long series of excitements. His descriptions range from the lowest realistic to the highest fantastic, from the hard minutiae of disgusting things, to the melodramatic, all goblins, limber legs, masks and blue flames. What snobbery, what vulgarity, what wit, and humor, and pathos, what immortal suggestion and sweetness are bound up with the pitiful littlenesses, and the transcendant power of this inconsistent being, this majestic genius ! All these, and how many things more, pass before us in these fascinat- ing letters — the panorama of a hemispheric mind. Had his moral dignity been on the level of his genius, what a consummate man he would have been. Forster's life of him would not then have been one of the most melancholy books ever written, from which readers who had idolized Dickens turned away, heart-sick with the feeling that the man had destroyed the works, and that they could no more read him wMth the old delight. But his genius w^ins the world back. Our judgment may take its cold tone from his biographer, but our hearts will be fired by the old magic. The letters justify the conflicting verdict of the head and of the heart. We have seen how they sustain those who think harshly of him, but they will none the less be read, and none the less awake an admira- tion which will outlive "the pity of it." In the pure power of amusing and delighting, we have read no collection of letters equal to Dickens's. His genius is an electric light in which the merest filament brightens till it dazzles. The tension of his later life is such as to pro- 352 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap.XVIL duce a sense of exhaustion in the reader. Dickens put himself upon the rack and fainted more than once before he died. To work as if Hfe had no relaxation, and to devote himself to amusement, as if life had no work, was the disastrous and impracticable combination at which he seemed to be aiming. Had he not lived so fast, both in toil and pleasure, he might be living yet. His love of money, his passion for stage efifect. his intense desire for applause, which took him so much out of authorship into playing and dramatic readings, helped to weaken and lower, and at last to kill him. He robbed all generations to come, of what might yet have been the outcome of his affluent imagination ; and what a poor compensation for this is his fame as a reader, and the transient delight which he gave in that character. His brain, nerves and stomach were stimulated to their highest pitch. His vivacity almost reached the excesses of mania. He worked off one excitement by another. A constitution to which moderation might have given full and healthy play for fourscore years, broke down when all the intellectual powers of this marvellous child of genius were yet in untouched vigor. MISS MULOCK. We confess to something more than an admiration for Dinah Maria Mulock Craik's maturest stories. We love them. Each comes to our fireside like the embodiment of a saintly woman, a real presence of sweetness, innocence and love. We shall never forget when our heart was first won. After days of intense pain we once lay, helpless still, but able to enjoy home voices; unable to read, but happy in being allowed to listen ; and the first book from human hand, that was chosen, was "John Halifax, Gentle- man" — a book with but one fault — its pathos is almost too melting to be borne, too like a real breaking of heart. What silent, sweet tears has it called to human eyes, and what powers of love and resignation, not of earth, has it put into human hearts — and the books which followed it are like it. Christianity could stand, as of God, had it i88o.] AN VNEMOTIOXAL PHILOSOPHER. 353 no evidence, but that it has shaped such women as Dinah Alulock. and has opened such springs of light and peace, as flow through her best works from the eternal source itself. Dr. McCosh. (The Emotions.) This book is the outgrowth of Dr. McCosh's personal dissatisfaction with the account of our feelings and emo- tions, given in other books. The words used to mark these mental conditions, are, he thinks, very vague and ambiguous, even in the most perfect languages, living and dead. Dr. McCosh proposes to relieve the obscurity of the account, and the inadequacy of the phrases, by separating the emotions from the feelings, and by renew- ing the attempt to analyze, describe, and classify the emo- tions as distinguished from other mental qualities. By giving due proportion to the psychical and physiological in the emotions, he hopes to secure the bodily its due, without furnishing any succor to Materialism. Dr. McCosh, as becomes a philosopher, writes of emo- tion without much display of it. Even the most animat- ing of passions — love — he discusses with nothing sug- gestive of the tone of courtship or of the honeymoon, but rather of a serene, almost Platonic, approach to the era of the golden or the diamond wedding. His whole manner of treating it has a salutary ten- dency to correct the indiscreet ardor and over-estimate, into which youthful minds might be drawn by such delineations, for example, as those of his talented, but somewhat impulsive countryman, Robert Burns, who illustrates the emotions perhaps as well as Dr. McCosh does, but who, on the other hand, seems incapable of philosophizing about them at all. Nothing apparently could be better suited to the present needs of Princeton, than a quieting or even a sedative mode of discussing the passions, as the tendency of late in that venerable and flourishing seat of learning seems to be toward an emotional vivacity, not wholly in keeping with the sobriety naturally expected from lovers of learning. Dr. 23 354 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVII. McCosh has largely drawn upon the physiologists for what might almost be styled recipes for expression, but the faces of students in mischief or under discipline would have furnished living subjects for more vivid pictures than Bell or Cogan or Darwin ever drew. There is one conspicuous merit in Dr. McCosh's style. He rarely writes a sentence which has to be read twice to see its meaning. This is one of the sources of his great and deserved popularity. If you are not quite sure that you have seen to the bottom of the thing, you are always sure that you have seen to the bottom of President McCosh's view of it. That at least is lucid, however ob- scure the subject may be. The style of the book before us, however, though generally clear, is a little slip-shod at times. Dr. McCosh is one of the most rhetorical of metaphysicians, and his wealth of illustrations sometimes tempts him to profusion; and unguarded profusion is in danger of running into inelegance. Dr. McCosh abounds in allusions to general literature, without impressing us with the idea that he has a very thorough acquaintance with it. We read with special closeness the chapter on the Ludicrous, to see whether it helped to remove the odious charge, made more especially by that lawless satirist, Sydney Smith, that appreciation of wit is not one of the strong points of the Scotch character. With the modest caution which ever marks your true reviewer, we must reserve our decision on so grave a question, but this will not preclude the remark that the seriousness of the chapter in question borders on solemnity — and yet to some the chapter may be brimming over with "Sport which wrinkled Care derides," and its humorous sug- gestion may evoke "Laughter, holding both his sides," for if Dr. McCosh be right in supposing that the familiar passage in which Barrow describes wit, could not have been uttered "without exciting the laughter of his con- gregation," the cis-Atlantic and trans-Atlantic ideas of the ludicrous have a wider gulf than the ocean between them. i88o.] UNAUTHORIZED BOOKS OF WORSHIP. 355 Dr. AlcCosh has made no very large use of any authors except those who write in English. This has perhaps added to the clearness of the book, but not to its depth or richness. No writer on any great philosophical theme can afford to ignore France and Germany, and no philosophy more than the Scotch needs fresh blood from other venis. It is impossible that anything should come from Dr. Mc- Cosh's pen which should be destitute of value, and have a tendency other than good in the main. He has attained a great and just renown as an able vindicator of some of the most sacred interests in the world of thought. This book, which is far below the standard of his best works, nevertheless proves itself, in common with them all, clear, wise, and practical. Yet it strikes us as rather homiletical than philosophical. Much of it reads as if it had formed part of a series of sermons — and very good sermons they w^ere, or w^ould have been — but sermons, even good ones, are the lurking place of platitude. In them it may be pardoned, but it seriously injures a book. SUNDAY SCHOOL SONGS. A model notice, kindly forwarded with this book, describes it as "all sweetness." We find "White Robes" sutificiently colorless to deserve its name, and with noth- ing in it to pre\'ent its use in such Sunday Schools as make non-committal sweetness their standard. It has neither index of words, nor any discoverable plan ; the melodies are such as are common to compila- tions of its kind; the harmonies are largely made up of good-natured octaves and fifths which put nobody out. Turning from the musical features, which we com- mitted to the judgment of a friend, we would say a word about "White Robes," as a collection of hymns. The book belongs to the abundant and ever-increasing class which helps the Sunday Schools to undo the proper work of the church. The Sunday School needs to be guarded rigidly in this matter of unauthorized books of w^orship. But just where caution is most needed, it is 356 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVII. most neglected. There is no mercy for the Httle ones of the church who in their confiding helplessness, need it so much. These books substitute for healthy Christianity, with its self-renunciation, their namby-pamby egotism, with its weary round of misused, pious phrases. Nothing could be worse than their style, except their matter, which is a compound of vague sentimentalism, running over sometimes into pagan inanity, of Pelagian self-glorifica- tion, under the mask of humility, of every kind of affecta- tion which departs from the truth in nature, and the truth in grace, of vain repetitions, of sonorous nonsense, and of nonsense not sonorous. "White Robes" is not worse than some others in its class — that would be next to impossible — but it is a fair representative of the whole, and our warning is not meant for it apart from its class, but for it, in its class, and for its class with it. TEMPERANCE JEWELS. Furnished with "White Robes," some weeks ago, we are now, by the kindness of the same house, fitted out with "jewels," which, from their very title, we are pre- pared to find of the purest water. The title of the book naturally awakens sympathy, for temperance is so great a virtue, and all departures from it, whether in eating, drinking, dressing, singing, or the issue of music books, are so pernicious, that anything which promises to aid its beneficent work gives us great pleasure. Nor was our sympathy diminished when we found, as we expected to find, that this book specially purposes to aid in checking the awful and widespread vice of drunkenness, and to do what it could, both by prevention and cure, to correct an evil whose mischief no language can overstate. To its general intent therefore we give our most cordial ap- proval. Nor will we deny that in executing its purpose, it has gathered some beautiful and impressive verses, and some very popular music. With this our commendation ends. The conception of this book rests almost entirely upon the current false hypothesis, that the corrective i88o.] INTEMPERATE TEMPERANCE. 357 of drunkenness is to show vividly what drunkenness makes — its wreck and despair. The true problem is to reach what makes drunkenness — to cut up the roots of the evil ; to prevent it, rather than to postpone effort to the time when we may attempt to cure it. Smallpox is rarely reached by medicine, but it is prevented by vaccina- tion. The most fearful picture ever drawn by the words of man, of the horrors that wait upon confirmed drunken- ness, fall below the frightful images which haunt the consciousness of the drunkard. He may be dull, and unimaginative, but Dante's Purgatory and Dante's Hell have no such picture as a faithful transcript of his soul would present. This book, like nearly all of its class, with all its intensity of language, bears a stamp of un- reality, has a trademark character, and in a weak senti- mentality, with stereotype thought and stereotype phrase, dandles with its awful theme in the vein of the forcible- feeble. It hurts everything, however true, by overstate- ment. It assumes homes to be "almost divine," ap- parently by mere exclusion of strong drink, and overdoes things generally, as if intemperateness in drink were to be overcome by intemperateness in speech. Fiends howl, and pandemonium rages, and blue lights glare, and snakes bite, and demons dance with a persistent vigor and repeti- tion, smacking more of the melodrama than of real life, and often by their absurdity provoke laughter, when the thing itself is of the gravest sadness. There is a homoeo- pathic treatment, if not in bulk, yet in principle; the maudlin in drink is checked by the maudlin in verse. Next to the under-world, the army and navy are drawn upon for illustration. Banners wave on every page, armor is put on, trumpets blare, drums beat, the boys fall into line and fill up ranks, swords are drawn from their scabbards, bayonet charges made, forlorn hopes rallied, ramparts scaled, guns spiked, the other side whipped fearfully, and our side triumphant on the field, intoxicated indeed, but only with joy, and tossing of¥ bumpers, but positively with nothing but cold water. Or ships are sailing. If with no other beverage but what is 358 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVII. in their water casks, they bound over the billows with all sails spread, the crews singing merrily, and only stop- ping to "flash their toplights," the storms all hushed, or regarded with disdain. Or if they be in port (the harbor, not the beverage), they ride with firm anchor, which never slips, and with strong cables which never break. But if the ship deals out grog, she drifts along under black clouds and a stormy sky, her rudder unshipped, her anchors lost, her pilot, captain and crew inebriated, until at last she strikes on a rock, and goes down with every soul on board — in water undoubtedly, but alas! not of it. Occasionally the railroad is drawn on, and the importance of looking for the lights and putting on the brakes is urged, but the nautical and military carry the day. The writers no doubt are opposed to the license laws, but they use the so-called poetic license — after carefully removing it from the domain of all law — to an alarming, or, shall we say, to an intemperate extreme. One writer makes Salvation rhyme with Contagion, altogether in the style of Mrs. Gamp, who would have pronounced the former word "salvagion." Another of the poets, with an astounding mingling of metaphors, sings : "Let me bear the cross, Make it my daily food." A friend remarked that certain reviews in a certain paper were "a little severe." The critic, thus criticized, said, "Tell me frankly, what were the severest things in the notices ?" and the reluctant complainant faltered out, "The quotations." To this severity we are obliged to come, in self-vindication. One of the poems will interest the naturalist and the moralist equally. It commences with a line rather startling for a total abstinence hymn book — "My pretty bird, pray what do you drink?" But if the unwary reader thinks the artful question is pre- liminary to getting the bird to "take something," he will find himself very much mistaken. The question simply prepares the way to ascertaining to what the bird owes its clear voice. The question frankly owns its purport, by urging in an insinuating way, "You need strong elixirs, I should think. This clime [New England?] is i88o.] A COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION. 359 so severe." Need we inform the reader what the bird (wliich turns out to be a robin) does drink? We will not insult his intelligence by doing so. In the next stanza, with a daring we should hardly have expected of a lady — for we feel morally confident the author is a lady, and a very young one — she ventures near enough to a "dear bee," whether the domesticated bee, or the "bumble-bee," is not stated, most probably the latter, as its habits are more strictly ascetic than those of the tenant of the hive — and asks the "dear bee," "What tonic do you use," "Midst unhealthful dews?" The "dear bee," with a per- sistent firmness in striking contrast with a familiar reply in Pinafore, says, "I'm always, yes, always, I'm free to take a sup," "The tonic found in Flora's cup." Next the "sweet rose" is appealed to, to account for the redness of her cheeks, and the excellence of her spirit. And here it saddens us to see something of a reprehensible artfulness, an approach to the adroit but unworthy practices of a detective, in an attempt too obvious to be concealed or denied, whose aim is to mislead the rose, and to get her into damaging admissions in regard to herself, to which she is cunningly prompted by the suggestion. "Wine gives a glow of good health, 'tis said. If used exactly right." But the "fair rose," seeing through this deep device, and treating it with beautiful disdain, "Curled her pretty lip," and informed "E. A. H." tliat she drinks rain and "pure dew drops ;" let us hope not those "un- healthful dews," which it w^as feared in the second stanza, might undermine the constitution of the "dear bee," and reduce him to the use of tonics. This ought to be convincing if there be anything in the repertory of a young lady's logic which can convince anybody, and yet some people who are on the wrong side will not be convinced. Even people who grant the conclusion, and stand by cold water (not excluding milk, tea, chocolate, coffee, and lemonade) might urge that the premises are parallel with those which put in similar shape might run thus : 360 CHARLES PORT ERF I ELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVII. "My pretty bird, pray what do you eat? That keeps your voice so wondrous sweet?" The robni sang, in merry note, " Fresh insects for a singer's throat ; Fresh insects, fresh insects, fresh insects straight for me." Will those who thrust themselves into great move- ments without vocation, ever realize that silly argument weakens what it is meant to help? We would particularly desire that books which are designed to aid in the temperance work should be adapted for young men, whose perils are so great, and whom it is so difficult to get to serious thought upon the subject. When books meant to recommend sobriety, make it ridiculous, what shall be done ? Here is something, com- mencing, "Where are you going so fast, young man?" which goes on to charge him with having a cup in his hand, and tells him, "A serpent sleeps down in the depths of that cup," "A monster is there that will swallow you up." In another of these songs it is announced, "We're com- ing, We're coming," "Our watchword is 'temperance,' let Bacchus beware, For the pledge of our army will bring him despair." "Old King Alcohol's army we'll surely put down; He's slaughtered his thousands, but now he must yield. For our legion has risen and taken the field, We're coming, We're coming." With this modest esti- mate of themselves, come on "the fearless and free, Like the winds of the desert, the waves of the sea, True sons of our sires, who did battle of yore. When the foe's haughty tyrants ran wild on our shore." When we con- sider what injury good causes have to endure at the hands of those who undertake to do them service, we can only wonder at the providence, which preserves them from being driven clean out of the world. EIGHTEENTH CHAPTER. JOURNEY TO EUROPE AND LUTHER-BIOGRAPHY. 1880-1882. It was most natural that the Church should look to the author of the Conservative Reformation as the man best fitted to give her, some day, an English biography of Dr. Martin Luther. Through his whole life he had closely studied all the scenes and all the actors in the great drama of the Reformation. He had so profound an understanding of the mind and life-work of the great Reformer, so familiar an acquaintance with his writings, and so enthusiastic an admiration and love for him: and he himself was known to us all to have such brilliant gifts of thought, description, grouping and portraiture, that we allowed ourselves to anticipate with delight a result which would do high honor to the writer, to our Amer- ican Church, and to the great subject of portraiture. (Dr. B. M. Schmucker, Memorial p. 17.) As far back as 1861 the Board of Publication had requested him to write a Life of Luther, "adapted to the minds of children," not exceeding 160 pages. In August, 1879, the Pittsburgh Synod asked him by formal resolu- tion to give to the Church such a biography. In an editorial reference to the action of that Synod, in the Lutheran and Missionary (December 4, 1879,) Dr. Krotel remarks : We are persuaded that a life of Luther by Dr. Krauth would possess* the very features that are missed 361 362 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVIIL in Koestlin's, and that, as regards life-like portraiture, beauty of style and adaptedness to our wants and tastes, he would give us a life of Luther that would at once take rank as one of the best biographies of the day. We sincerely hope, he will go to work at once, so that the book may be ready in 1883. Ever since that time we find in his correspondence frequent references to this project. Thus in a letter to the Rev. A. Pflueger, (October, 1879,) : "I should like very much to write a life of Luther, but at the present time I am too busy to think seriously of it. Per- haps I may, if my gracious God be pleased to spare my life, write a sketch or study of Luther's life, preparatory to a possible more extended life in after years." And to Dr. Jacobs: "If my life and health are spared I may one day think of the Life of Luther." (January 3, 1880.) And again: "I am thinking yet more seriously of the Life of Luther. My friend Dobler is very full of it, and my visit to him recently has tended to brace me up, but the work is appalling." (April 10, 1880.) After the meeting of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania in Lan- caster he writes to his daughter, who was on a visit to her friend. Miss Weyman, in Pittsburgh, (June i, 1880) : "I reached home Thursday evening, having had a pleas- ant time at Synod. A resolution was unanimously passed, (offered by Dr. Spaeth) requesting me to pre- pare a Life of Luther, to be ready for the 400th anni- versary of Luther's birth, 1883. ... I am getting ready every day for Luther. Ask Miss Harriett, if she has anything illustrative of Germany." He fully realized the truth of what his friend. Dr. Robert Ellis Thompson, had said in the Sunday School Times, in a review of Peter Bayne's Martin Luther, his Life and Work: "Luther still waits for his English bio- grapher. He must be a man who has given the best i88o.] EUROPEAN TRIP ARRANGED. 363 years of his life to it. who has mastered, not a part, but the whole of the German literature of the subject, who has read through all the Reformer's works, and much contemporary writing besides, and who has so steeped himself in the thought of the time, and, above all, of its hero, that he can interpret it to our age." In addition to all this he felt that, to give life to his por- traiture of the Reformation-Hero, the biographer must be familiar with the scenes of his life, having visited and studied the Luther-places of the Fatherland. In the providence of God this requisite also for the Luther-Biographer was to be promptly suDDlied in Dr. Krauth's journey to Europe. Some time in the Spring of 1880 Mr. J. W. B. Dobler, cashier of the West Side Bank. New York, happened to be on a visit to Dr. Spaeth in Philadelphia. He had planned to send two of his children to Germany, to finish their education, and had asked Dr. Spaeth's advice and co-operation in the matter. Thus it happened, that after some correspond- ence, the two met in Philadelphia. At the table, inci- dentally, the remark was made that Dr. Krauth had never been in Germany, and it was pointed out, how desirable, yea indispensable, a visit to the Fatherland would seem to be, for the future biographer of Martin Luther. Mr. Dobler was deeply impressed with that conversation, and with his characteristic determination at once set to work to interest some friends of Dr. Krauth in a plan to furnish him the means for a journey to Europe. He succeeded in a very short time, and about the middle of June Mr. (now Judge) Wm. H. Staake and Dr. Spaeth had the pleasure of delivering to Dr. Krauth a handsome check, which was to enable him to undertake the journey to the Luther-land. Dr. Krauth acknowledged the gift in the following note to Dr. A. Spaeth : 364 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVIII. 4004 Pine St., Phila., June 17, 1880. My Dear Brother: ... I was strongly impressed at first with the con- viction that I could not go. The reasons were twofold, first, that I thought the time would be too short, and secondly, I feared that my University duties might neces- sitate an earlier return than I might, under ordinary circumstances, be obliged to make. But a long talk which I had yesterday with Dr. Stille satisfied me that I can do a great deal in the time I should have, and that tem- porary arrangements could be made in regard to the Uni- versity matters, which would obviate the difficulties in that direction. I, therefore, gladly accept the generous kindness of the dear friends who have made practicable the great dream of my life. I seem to myself to be get- ting ready to leave the world, and enter on another state, so long and absorbingly has the vision of visiting Europe floated before my imagination. I go, not for pleasure, though I anticipate a great deal of the purest pleasure of my life, nor for health, though I believe that I shall come back relieved of the strain of overwork. I shall go with a sense of vocation for a work which the Church has laid upon me — a work, than which nothing more con- genial could be offered me. As the work has shaped itself into plan for some months, I have more and more longed to depict the Germany amid whose influences, in nature, art and man, our great hero was divinely edu- cated.* I have been reading with eagerness all the books I could command which shed light on this theme — to-day my relief map of Germany came — and an hour on the spot, a look at the place, will in many cases be all that is *When he visited Germany it was clear that he had a knowledge and a ready knowledge, not merely of Luther and of the external incidents of Luther's life, but as well of all the prominent German theologians, and of the history and intercalations of their doctrines, a knowledge such as scarcely any one in Germany possessed. (Caspar Ren6 Gregory, Letter from Athens, July 7, 1886.) i88o.] DEPARTURE FOR EUROPE. 365 needed to close up, in sharp and well dctined outline, the picture I wish to have in my mind. I wish to get ready to sail on the steamer Illinois which leaves this port June 26. I shall be truly grateful for any hints which will help me in making my voyage and journey happy and profitable. Believe me, my very dear Brother, w^ith deepest Christ- ian affection and gratitude, ever vours, C. P. K. Dr. Krauth was fortunate in securing for his journey the genial companionship of the Rev. Dr. Jacob Fry, then pastor of Trinity Church, in Reading, Pa., whose practical turn of mind and whose kindliness of heart proved to be of the greatest value on their common pil- grimage. Dr. Krotel sent him a pleasant farewell : "I content myself with writing a line or two, simply to wish you a prosperous voyage and a real good time on the other side, especially in the land, and in the homes and haunts of Luther. I have no doubt that you will richly enjoy your visit and that, like a busy bee, you will come back richly laden, to the Lutheran hive in America, and our mouths will in due season be filled with the sweetest of honey." (June 24, 1880.) On Saturday, June 26, 1880, the travelers embarked in the S. S. "Illinois" from Philadelphia for Oueenstown. Dr. Fry published some interesting sketches of their trip in the Helper, September to November, 1880, and in the Lutheran and Missionary. We can only give a bare outline of the itinerary, adding a few personal letters of Dr. Krauth, written from abroad. On Wednesday, July 7th, they landed at Queenstown : "Thanks be to a gracious God for His tender mercies." — After a visit to Killarney and Dublin (St. Patrick's Cathedral) they crossed over to England, and spent a pleasant Sunday with Dean How^son in Chester. Dr. Krauth paid a flying visit to Edinburgh (Roslyn Castle 366 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVIII. and Chapel) and joined his companion again in London, where they attended service in St. Paul's on Sunday, July 1 8th. From London they crossed over to France, — "The earthly so living, the spiritual so dead" — and spent four days in Paris. After four days in Cologne they went up the Rhine on the S. S. "Deutscher Kaiser," Dr. Krauth reading aloud the "Legends of the Rhine," as they passed the enchanting scenes along the river. In Mayence a genuine surprise awaited the travelers on coming down to breakfast in their hotel, which we relate in Dr. Fry's own words : "During the night Mr. J. W. B. Dobler, of New York, with his son and daughter, had arrived at our hotel, and had left word for us to breakfast with them. He had left New York shortly after we sailed from Philadelphia, and had been visiting Scotland and England, and after crossing to the Continent came upon our trail at Cologne in rather a curious way. Entering a store to purchase some photographs he discovered a package with Dr. Krauth's address in the Doctor's own handwriting, and on inquiring ascertained that the Doctor had been in the same store but two days previously. Pushing on he overtook us at Mayence just in time before we started for Frankfurt a. M. Like cold waters to a thirsty soul is it, to meet friends in a foreign land. After breakfast we strolled together through the Cathedral and other interesting places until eleven o'clock when we parted, — he to take his children to Esslingen to complete their education, and we for Frankfurt." Having spent their Sunday in Frankfurt they proceeded to Worms, Speyer, Heidelberg and Stutt- gart. From there Dr. Krauth paid a visit to the Spaeth family in Esslingen, and continued his journey to Ulm, Constance, Lindau on the Lake of Constance, Munich, Augsburg, Nuernberg, where he made a stay of four days. Then the start was made for the Luther places i88o.] THE STRAIN OF SIGHT-SEEING. 367 proper, Coburg, Schmalkalden, Moelira, Eisenach (Wartburg), Erfurt, Leipzig. The University vacation having then just commenced they missed Luthardt, Dehtzsch. Kahnis, Ahlfeld and other prominent men whom they would have hked to meet. From Leipzig the journey was continued to Jena, Halle, Eisleben, Mans- feld, Magdeburg, Wittenberg, Dresden and Berlin. Their seaport, Antwerp, was reached on September i8th, and a whole week was given there to a much needed rest, after the fatigue and exertions of their hurried trip. Dr. Krauth had, by this time, discovered "that a very large part of his mission to Germany would be omission." And Dr. Fry sums up their experience in these words : "Not only have we found a want of time to see all w^e desired and had noted down, but also a want of strength wdierewith to do it. The strain on muscle, heart and brain, in constant sight-seeing, espec- ially such scenes as Europe presents to the American traveller, is enormous. When our voyage commenced I congratulated myself, that for the first time in an un- usually busy ministry of twenty-six years I was about to have an extended period of rest. But, alas. I have never known a month of more weariness and exhaustion than that of July just past. Yet, if change of occupa- tion be rest, both of us have found it. It has been so far a complete revolution of duties, habits and customs of life, and therefore has about it a life-renewing novelty and charm, in spite of all its weariness and fatigue." September 25th they embarked on the S. S. ''Belgen- land" and arrived in Philadelphia on Thursday, October 7th. Five days afterwards, in a quiet little family circle at "Cranford Cottage," Dr. Krauth performed the mar- riage service that united his daughter Harriett to his colleague in the Seminary faculty, Dr. A. Spaeth. 368 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVIII. LETTERS FROM ABROAD. C. P. K. TO HIS DAUGHTER. Imperial Hotel, Cork, Ireland, July 7, 1880. My Dear Daughter: — The Imperial Hotel is rising and falling. The side- walks are rolling over each other and this note-paper glimmers and swims away — but I must nevertheless, amid this wild disturbance in all the settled forms of nature, drop you a line on this night, the first in this new old world. Before I was out of bed this morning I composed certain conjectural lines which have been verified already — as thus : O yes, we have heard of Kate Kearney In the land of potatoes and blarney, Where the rain from the sky Never lets you get dry, But adds to the lakes of Killarney. To-morrow, July 8th, we start for Killarney, Friday (night) we shall hope to reach Dublin; Saturday, the tenth, we shall possibly cross to England and may spend Sunday at Chester, in which case we will probably hear your friend Dean Howson in his own pulpit. I think this first day has given me a taste of the enjoy- ment and annoyances of travel. Dr. Fry has been a very nice companion, and I am very glad he is with me. Each of us has the sort of knowledge and turn which the other needs. We shall hardly get to Paris before week after next, and until then I must remain ignorant of matters at home. God grant that all the tidings may be cheerful, and that nothing may obstruct a happy journey and safe return. Dublin, July 9, 1880. Reached Dublin at five P. M. and took a drive to the points we were most anxious to see. We made our I i88o.] IRELAND AND ENGLAND. 369 longest stay at St. Patrick's Cathedral, especially anxious to see the places associated both in life and death with Swift and Stella. The white haired old verger, or whatever they call him, who took us around, held up his hands at some remark of mine and said : "The enthusi- asm of the Americans is wonderful. They know more of the old Dean of St. Patrick's than the Irish do." When he pointed to the spot beneath which the bones of Swift and Stella lie. and I asked him: "On which side of Stella does the Dean lie?" the old man with his black skullcap and his venerable thin face, looking reverend enough to be a Bishop, seemed to be utterly discom- fitted. Chester, July 11, 1880. We had a fine boat, and although it was raining part of the time, I had nothing to mar the crossing from Dub- lin to Wales. Everywhere we find the people full of warmheartedness toward Americans, even our defects being considered as specially fresh and jolly. So far from any repulsion being shown, they make advances to us. As we swept along in the trains, the seaside being to our left, we saw several of the summer resorts, the children digging and wading, and everything reproducing itself as Leech and Du Maurier love to picture it. Punch has been the best of all preparations for visiting England. We reached Chester at five. To-day we had a grand treat. We went to the magnificent Cathedral of Chester, heard with deepest emotion and pleasure the first service in which we have participated in England. I sent my card with a few words to Dean Howson, and received a message from him that he desired to see me. After service he was waiting for us in the Chapter, still wearing his official dress. He received me most cordially, invited us to breakfast to-morrow morning, an invitation which I declined, as I start for Edinburgh. I cannot convey to you the solemn and happy impressions the journey is making upon me. If I could only have the enjoyments and benefits of this week as the fruits of my coming, I 24 370 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVIII. should feel that my voyage had not been in vain. By Wednesday I expect to be in London, perhaps by Satur- day in Paris. To Dr. a. Spaeth. RosLYN Inn, Scotland, July 13, 1880. My Dear Doctor Spaeth : I feel that a letter to you from this region is especially the proper thing, since to you I owe the fixed purpose to come to Edinburgh, and now that I have been in Edin- burgh I realize that to have missed coming would have been to lose one of the supremest enjoyments of my trip. I am struck from the beginning with the general kindliness of the Scotch, their courtesy and reliableness. Everywhere names, sights and sounds reminded me that I was among a noble race, which retains its individuality through all the political combinations and changes. Edin- burgh is a pure diamond. Other great cities are mix- tures of jewels of the first water, and jewels of no water at all. But Edinburgh is so complete, makes a unique impression, blends and harmonizes so many beauties and glories, and makes the old and the new relieve each other — the old, old history and the living present kiss each other there. I think it quite impossible that I should have had a greater delight than I have had here. The number of good book stores testifies to the literary character of the people. The statues which are so numerous show their appreciation of their great men. But their statues of a national character prove that they are not narrow. The monument to Prince Albert is the most touching memo- rial I have ever seen. It is noble in itself. But as a tribute to greatness whose heart was goodness, it is ex- quisite. To-day I came to Roslyn Chapel and Castle, the rain pouring, but I am so full of delight that I shed rain like a duck. I feel my youth renewed. I think I feel about as Methusalah felt when he was eight years old, going on nine. i88o.] THE BEAUTY OF EDINBURGH. 371 TO HIS DAUGHTER. Paris, July 20, 1880. In the evening, July 11, we again went to the Cathe- dral at Dean Howson's suggestion, in preference to the afternoon. The service was of a more popular char- acter, chiefly in the number of hymns that were sung, and the audience was very large. The sermon was preached by Mr. C. After service Dean Howson again took us in charge. In the evening we walked through the strange two- story side street called " The Rows." We soon were glad to leave them, as they were filled with a crowd of people of the lower, and some of them of the baser, sort. There was a degree of roughness and coarseness sur- passing anything we are likely to see in a place of equal publicity and respectability in America. We made a complete circuit of the walls. Such quaintness, such oddity, such historic suggestions as were blended at every point, made it novel and enchanting to us beyond expres- sion. On Monday, July 12, Doctor Fry and I parted to meet in London on Wednesday, July 14. I went to Edin- burgh. My impressions of that city I have given in a letter to Doctor Spaeth from the old Roslyn Inn, near Roslyn Chapel and Castle. Edinburgh in its totality is like a consummate work, in which one artistic mind has availed itself of all the natural beauties and grandeur of the location, has excluded all disharmonies, and has asso- ciated the scenes of history with places worthy of them. We saw the bathing machines ; the operations of agri- culture and gardening, the harvesting and hay-making, the lovely gardens; the sheep with their shepherds and sagacious dogs. In the parks we saw lawn tennis ; in the meadows cricket. Everywhere some poetical phrase received an interpretation which vivified it. You must go through a great English Cathedral to appreciate fullv Milton's epithet, "Cloistered," in II Penseroso. I have 3/2 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVIII. dearly loved our English poets, but I know now that a visit to Great Britain is needed for a perfect appreciation of them. On Wednesday I left Edinburgh. Our route took us through Newcastle-on-Tyne, to which coals need not be carried. I saw the glorious old Cathedral at Durham, the grand Muenster at York; we passed in sight of the Cathedral of Peterboro, with its enchanting surroundings. There the headless body of Mary Queen of Scots was laid in the grave. In the evening I reached London, and found that Dr. Fry had been at the Inns-of-Court Hotel for a day. Thursday, July 15, we visited the British Museum, Regent Park and the Zoological Gardens, and from the tops of the omnibusses took general views of London. Friday, July 16, we visited St. Paul's, and before we began our explorations, heard the choral service as it pealed and ebbed along the lofty arches of the nave. We then went to the Tower, the saddest place I have ever seen. Later in the day we visited the Albert Memorial, erected by the Queen "and her people." It is very grand, but did not touch me as much as the memorial statue of the Prince at Edinburgh. Saturday, July 17, we saw the Parliament buildings and Westminster Abbey. If I could see but one thing in London it would be the Abbey I should choose, and next to it the Tower. On Sunday, July 18, we attended service at St. Paul's, which did not impress me as much as the service at Chester. The sermon, though not a strong one, was better than either of the Chester sermons. The tone of Cathedral preaching as we have heard it is lifeless, moral- istic and some of it rationalistic. The Church of Eng- land must be revolutionized, or must continue to lose its hold on the masses. Nuernberg, August 15, 1880. .... I have been in this quaint, fascinating old city about four days, wandering around nearly all the time alone, coming on surprises and finding things for myself. I visited the house where Hans Sachs lived, a broad i88o.] NUERNBERG AND HANS SACHS. 373 building of four stories, with sharp high-tilted roof, in a street which we would consider narrow for an alley. The house bears on it a tablet with an inscription giving the date of his birth and of his death. The guild of shoe- makers is still in no inconsiderable force in the old neigh- borhood. By his house is a workshop, with a life-size portrait of him in oil, well painted. I then wandered to the Platz, where his monument stands. It is very fine. He sits with his leather apron on, the folds of his dress partly hide a number of books which are about him; his writing paper is held in one hand over the back of a book, and in his other hand he holds a pencil as if just struck with a thought, and about to commit it to writing. He wears the cute, sweet, nice look which belongs to him. The little garden-like enclosure around the monument is filled with little rosebushes, all of which were in full bloom. ... As I walked around the monument, turning my eyes to it from the various points of view, a boy passing with a bundle had his curiosity excited by wit- nessing mine, and laying his bundle on the top rail stood leaning on his elbows gazing at the statue. When I reached him I leaned with my elbow near his and said : " Wissen Sie, wer Hans Sachs war?" He said with a startled air : " Nein !" Then, w^ith deep solemnity, I said : " Hans Sachs war ein Schuh- Macher und Poet dazu." and walked slowly away, the boy now alternating his gaze between Hans Sachs and myself. This afternoon I took a long walk by a new route along the river Pegnitz, which I have been studying from every point of view. I extended my walk to the St. Johannis-Kirchhof, the ancient and marvelously rich burying ground of the city. Used for centuries, it is, of course, crowded in every part. Securing the aid of the janitress, I visited the most interesting points — the Sta- tions, the grave of Kraft. Behaim, Pirkheimer and Al- brecht Duerer. But these left unseen the grave I most 374 CHARLES PORT ERF I ELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVIII. wished to see. At last I stood by the resting place of the grand old Meistersinger. I asked the woman in the worst German probably that has ever been spoken since the tongues were divided at Babel, if I could get flowers in the neighborhood. The good old soul understood me and took me outside of the walls to a gardener's. I brought from thence a bunch of rosebuds, white, crim- son, red and pale pink, set round with evergreens. I went back and laid it reverently on the grey century-worn stone at the base of the inscription in raised metal, and said : " Fuer meine Tochter."* TO HIS DAUGHTER. Berlin, September 12, 1880. My visit to Dresden was pleasant, though I was too weak to attempt to see much. My weakness is not all the result of travel, but is perhaps partly connected with the vitiated atmospheric conditions common to nearly all the German cities. I wonder that they are not swept out of existence by typhus fever. ... I am satisfied without knowing what the medical theory is, that the Pest or Plague of the Middle Ages was Typhus. At Witten- berg I ceased to wonder that the pest had dispersed the University more than once. The stagnant pools around it are frightful. ... So far as I could note, Dresden seemed to me exceptionally clean and wholesome. . . . My days are rapidly drawing to their close. I have finished my Luther places and now, great as my enjoy- ment has been, I sigh for home. TO DR. A. SPAETH. Leipzig, August 25, 1880. .... We are enjoying greatly our journey. I trust that God will permit me to return with my mind and heart enriched for the work of the future. I trust that * She was particularly interested in the old Meistersinger and Nuernberg, his picturesque home, as she was preparing, at that time, an English translation of Wildenhahn's Hans Sachs. i88o.] AUGSBURG AND COBURG. 375 the beloved brethren of the Seminary will kindly bear the increased burden connected with my absence until October. Remember me to them in much love when you see them. TO HIS DAUGHTER. Antwerp, September 21, 1880. Expect to sail on Saturday. The probabilities are that we shall have some rough weather, but I have no fears or anxieties. C. P. K. TO DR. H. E. JACOBS. CoBURG, Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha, August 17, 1880. My Dear Friend and Brother: There are not many days in which you do not come into my thoughts, but you have been specially in them since I have, in person, been following the line of travel in which my studies moved for so long a time, when your sympathy and co-operation were so precious and valuable to me. August 1 1 I was in Augsburg. I saw the mighty Dome in whose shadow, and within whose walls, so many of the movements of the Diet took place. I entered the "Chapel-Room" of the old Bishop's palace, in which the Confession was read. From Augsburg I went to Nuernberg, that quaint enchanting old city, and there I lingered for four days. Yesterday we started for Coburg. The town itself is not without interest to the pilgrim of our Church. In the Moritzkirche Luther preached more than once in 1530, and in it is buried John Casimir. Among its preachers were Justus Jonas and John Gerhard. In its Gymnasium John Gerhard lec- tured, and Buddeus and Cyprian were teachers. Among its pupils was Seckendorf, in his schooldays here a page of Duke Ernst the Pious. But the grand interest of the place centres, of course, in the "feste Burg," which God gave to Luther in the grand old Veste Coburg. Long before we reached the town the glorious massive fortress lifted its walls in our sight. We climbed part of the way 376 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVIII. and then were glad to take a carriage. The forest as you rise still lies wild beneath you, though with many traces of pruning and care which do not belong to Luth- er's time. In many places the hill-side almost ceases to slope, and the descent is sheer. It is little wonder that such a fortress, with the soldiers of Gustavus Adolphus to hold it, was assailed in vain by Wallenstein. The chambers of Luther are substantially as when he occu- pied them — his sitting room and his bed-room. The furtive knives of relic-mongers have left a large part of Luther's bedstead and of his chair. On the sitting-room table is a bust of Luther, his cup, various things carved from Luther's beech-tree, and on the shelves editions of his writings, from the oldest to the Erlangen inclusive. In the Gewehrsaal, in addition to the collection of fire- arms, are portraits, full length, among which are Gus- tavus Adolphus, Wallenstein and Tilly. The Reforma- tion room, next to Luther's chambers, interested and delighted us. . . . The outlook from the walls of the fortress is beautiful beyond description, and Luther with his passionate love of nature enjoyed it to the full, when his heart was not overwhelmed with anxiety for the Church. The thickets of which he writes so often as the harbouring places of birds, are not entirely gone, but as the noisy host of the Diet to which he delighted in com- paring them, sleeps in dust, so their feathered repre- presentatives seem to have vanished. The "Dohlen. nnd Kroehcn" seem to hold their Diets no more. We saw nothing of the " Zu-ii.-Ah-Reiten," we heard nothing of the "Geschrei Tag unci Nacht ohne Aufhoeren, als waeren sie alle trunken, voll imd toll." After wandering around upon the walls, we wandered about the Castle below — the twilight gave us privacy, and I sang: "Ein feste Burg" — not by note. Luther says of his time at Coburg that he was treated as a prince. He had, we know, access to every part of the grounds, and the keys to all the chambers. Never in the life of the theologian, per- haps, has the reality had such a charm of romance, such a magic of poetry as in Luther's. His majestic life had i88o.] THE BIOGRAPHY BEGUN. 377 a setting not unworthy of it. His surroundings were symbols of his character and of his work. No man can feel Luther's life, still less write it, who does not know where he was, as well as what he was. Believe me ever your devoted and grateful friend, C. P. K. WORK ON THE LUTHER BIOGRAPHY. After his return from Europe Dr. Krauth lost no time in taking up the work on the Luther-Biography. He had been an indefatigable, systematic worker all through his life. But the amount of work accomplished by him on the Luther-Biography, in the comparatively brief period of a few months, is truly amazing, when we remember that, even before he embarked for Europe, that insidious disease, which finally carried him off, had begun to under- mine his vitality, so that he complained in his private correspondence of a feeling of "good-for-nothingness," which was quite uncommon with him. It is manifest that he threw himself into the work with a fervor and enthusiasm worthy of his best days. On April 22, 1881, a little more than six months after his return, he deliv- ered a lecture on " Luther and Luther's Germany " in tlie Young Men's Christian Association Hall, Philadel- phia, for the benefit of his former congregation, St. Stephen's, in West Philadelphia. This lecture embodied the results of his studies on Luther, carried on for many years ; it reflected the glow of inspiration which his visit to the Luther-lands had kindled in his soul; and, at the same time, it was a surprising testimony of the actual amount of labor performed in the preparation of his Luther-Biography. For that lecture consisted chiefly in extracts from a manuscript of more than 400 pages written in his own hand, and covering the life of Luther up to the Diet of Worms in 152 1. In some sections it is only an outline or framework, which he evidently in- 378 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVIII. tended to fill out at a later time. But most of it presents a continuous narrative of Luther's Life up to that time, together with a detailed statement of the literary ma- terial to which he had reference, particularly the passages in the different editions of Luther's works. We present a few extracts from the introductory part of his manuscript, to give to our readers an idea of what this biography would have been, if he had been per- mitted to complete it. Luther's Germany. Germany is one vast Mausoleum. Its dust is made of the forms of the mighty. Their graves lie thick in the old church-yards. The pilgrim moves among the dead for weeks together, and as he lingers among the tokens of the mortality of ages, with the bones of the great men of the eras at his feet, as generation after generation rises and passes and fades from his view, an indescrib- able solemnity comes over him. The world of the dead seems the real world. The living seem but a little rem- nant shut out of that true world. We who are among the petty cares and strifes of the hour, are like a weak wild host, which clamours around the great, closed gate of a grand city, into which a procession has passed so deeply, that the sound of its music grows faint upon our ear. Our life, as we call it, seems so dead, and the living life seems all beyond — the happy life among the dead who live forever — the faithful and the true, faithful to the truth and true to the faith. Germany is the central bond of Europe. It is the key- stone of the grand arch of politics and histories in the modern world. The old writers call it " the noble and the mighty," and its people sing to-day : " Deutschland, Deutschland ueber Alles, ueber Alles in der Welt." (Germany over all, over all in the world.) The vener- able geographer of the sixteenth century, Sebastian Muenster, not satisfied with putting on his chart of Ger- many its mere name, adds : " Seat of the Roman Em- i88r.] EXTRACTS FROM THE BIOGRAPHY. 379 pire. Seat of all useful arts and handicrafts. Spring of new arts; Mother of Heroes, sages and scholars; a pure temple of the true fear of God and of all virtues." One of her poets has sung: Of all the lands on eartli that be The German land's the land for me, Whose dews are heaven's blessing : And though nor gold nor jewels rare, Yet store of men and maidens fair And corn and wine possessing. (AU. WiLH. SCHREIBER, LONGFELLOW, tr. ) Another poet has answered the question : Whicli is the German's Fatherland? Far as the German accent rings And hymns to God in heaven sings That is the land, There, brother is thy Fatherland ! (E. M. Arndt.) And another poet has asked : Know ye the land where truth is told Where word of man is good as gold? The honest land where love and truth Bloom on in everlasting youth ? We know that honest land full well, 'Tis where the free-souled Germans dwell. This great land sweeps from the Alps to the Northern Sea; great are her rivers, her mountains, her lakes and resources — but her history, her people are her glory, a noble people patient in endurance, grateful for their gifts and faithful in the use of them. THUERINGIA. In the heart of Germany there lies a region of wide extent, embracing smiling meadows, flourishing towns and cities, rivers winding through deep-cut valleys and bounded by lofty mountain ranges. This region is rich in the associations of romance, all shining, as in an amber haze, with the sad and soft light of great historic memo- 380 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XVIIL ries. In the days of old this region was a kingdom. The kingdom has long ago been swept away by the ocean swell of the surges of time — the land has been divided and sub- divided, and the fragments of fragments have been tora and torn again ; it has been parcelled among many lords and incorporated piecemeal into many lands — but the old name lives and flames inextinguishably. It has been among lands like the Hebrews among the nations. You must search for it under ten names in modern maps, if you look for it in the states which have its parts, but a good Atlas will somewhere group them all, and you will find that their name, its name, is Thiieringia. The Thueringian region has been pronounced as next after the borders of the Rhine, the loveliest in Germany. Thueringia is so homelike, meeting the wanderer with the welcome which we expect from an old dear friend. He who approaches it from the Alpine regions finds in it relief from the power of grandeur which is almost pain. The traveller who has been jaded by the long monotonous journeyings over the flats of Northern Germany, finds his heart beating with a new life as soon as he enters this enchanting land. Nature unfolds to him at every step new charms — rich and richer, bold and bolder — luxuriant wildness and lavish beauty, picturesqueness rising to sub- limity, and grandeur softening away into loveliness. The trees wear a more vivid green. Glorious mountains form the undulations of this land, thick with impenetrable forests, which renew themselves more swiftly than the hand of man destroys them, or, stripped of their trees and refusing to be clothed again with foliage, are bleak and glaring. Her romantic meadows offer themselves for the festal time, and bold rocks cast their gigantic shadows, and the colossal strata baring themselves on the surface, show the bonds of the world that is, to the world that faded out long ago. The people of this region are simple, true and upright. In the valleys and on the mountain-slopes of the Thuerin- gian Forest have continued to dwell the ancient German soundness at the core, the true-heartedness, hospitality. i88i.] THUERINGIA, THE MEMORABLE LAND. 381 purity of purpose, invincible fidelity and trustiness. The dull-eyed peasant of the German Low-lands is often almost as passive and mute as his cattle — in Thueringia even the poorest cottage may know the charms of music. Around the sacred shades of these majestic forests still wander the spirits of the ancient German romance : the kindly old sages of the times of the fathers still live in the unforgotten words which lie treasured on the lips of this people, and in the home-circles of the peasants is heard many a song pulsating with the joyous heart of childhood, and worthy of a wider world. Here the wild and wonderful realm of the spectre and goblin and fairy is still in power, and exercises a secret sway over the souls of men: for mountains will always be the homes of the divine poetical influences which shape human character. Over the whole land hovers the spirit of the olden time — the soft rustling of its wings not wholly sunk into silence. The work of the mighty, who are on earth no more, is not clean gone. The trees and the crags which soar heavenward are its memorials. The very ruins of castle and fortress strike us with awe. They bring us into the presence of the heroic deeds and romantic loves of those, whose ashes rest scattered and cold through those vales and mountains. " Many a square mile of Thuer- ingian soil," says an enthusiast, " is worth more, is more memorable than the whole Mark of Brandenburg, with Pommerania thrown in." (Friedrich Gottlob Wetzel, Motto in Bechstein's Wanderungen durch Thueringen.) NINETEENTH CHAPTER. THE END. 1881-1883. During the last two years of Dr. Krauth's life — we may say it without presumption — his relations and his visits to the parsonage of St. Johannis Church, Philadel- phia (161 5 Girard Avenue), were the bright spots in a period of gradual decline and increasing gloom. Even in former years he had, indeed, been no stranger in that house. He loved to attend the services of St. Johannis Church, which he characterized as " the nearest approach to the ideal of congregational worship." And he liked to be there not only as a hearer and a communicant ; he had the ambition also to take a part of the service and ta officiate in Luther's language, reading the liturgy and assisting at the administration of the Sacrament of the Altar. And after these services he used to take dinner at the parsonage, and spend a few hours in pleasant inter- course with its inmates. And when the shadow of death fell upon that house and, after years of suffering, its mother was taken away (December, 1878), he was the very first to visit the bereaved family, to bring them sweet words of consolation, and to lead them in prayer to the throne of a living and merciful Saviour. But now. that his own beloved daughter had taken her place in that household as the second mother, he himself joined its fellowship with all the warmth of his sym- pathetic, tender heart. He relished — sometimes with a kind of astonished smile — his new dignity as "Grand- 382 i88i-82.] iriTH HIS GRANDCHILDREN. 383 father" of a merry set of children, to which he found himself so suddenly promoted. There was no end of fun and mirth when he would yield to their begging, and treat them to the most ludicrous impromptu translations of some English nursery rhymes into German. Now and then he would take the older boys on a walk to the little brooks and ponds in the outskirts of the City, to catch tadpoles and fish, and to gather plants for the aquarium. He took the greatest pleasure in impressing upon their youthful minds a realization and admiration of God's greatness and wisdom in the works of nature. He would show and explain to them any new features in his own beautifully kept aquariums, and again inspect their col- lections with the eye of a connoisseur, to give them the benefit of his experience and advice. In January, 1882, about one year before his own death, he stood with us at the coffin of his first grandchild, the only one he lived to see, which was taken from us as a babe of two weeks. His eyes filling with tears, he said : "Oh, what a wretched thing this life would be, if we knew no living Saviour above!" Thus he faithfully shared our joys and sorrows, our only regret being, that owing to his multifarious duties and his increasing physical debility, his visits gradually became few and far between. It was difficult to realize, even then, that they were, in fact, the last golden rays of a setting sun. " My overworked life has been in a sort of crisis all this winter. Sometimes I have been obliged to take food to the Uni- versity with me, and once or twice I had to eat on the side streets. Even my after-supper-time, of which I am so jealous, has been broken into." (Letter to his daughter, January 4, 1881.) In the summer of i88t he sought recreation in a trip to the Delaware Water Gap. St. Lawrence River. Mon- treal. Quebec, the White Mountains and Boston. In the following year he spent his summer at Mount Desert, 384 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIX. Bar Harbor, Maine. On the way he visited his son Charles at Sommerville, near Boston, and after his return he paid a flying visit to his daughter at Cape May Point, N. J. He writes from Bar Harbor to Mrs. Spaeth : July 12, 1882. I stopped at Portland, Bath and Rockland, enjoying the scenery very greatly. The sail from Rockland to Bar Harbor was very delightful. We had a clear calm day. The shores and islands were in sight all the time, and although we encountered some ocean swell, I was not in the least sick. I arrived in Bar Harbor last Saturday week about 3 P. M. Professor W., Mrs., Miss and Miss B. W. gave me a very cordial reception, and I soon felt myself quite at home. I have a comfortable room. The hotel is plain, substantial and free from restraint. The company is a very agreeable one, and I have been intro- duced to all the nice people. The island fully sustains the impression made by descriptions in books and by friends. There is scarcely an element of beauty and sublimity which is not to be found here. Rugged moun- tains, the Bay, the Fjord, the open sea, lakes, streams, forests ofifer themselves to the eye. The drives are many and varied; the sea-side objects are very rich, and the botany of the island is attractive. The temperature is always cool in the shade: even in the hottest days you will not suffer unless you walk in the direct rays of the sun. As to my health, I can hardly make a definite report. I think I am safe in saying that I have not lost anything; I have escaped the exhaustive heat of the City and have not had a single attack of the prostration which came to me daily at home. I am well enough to partici- pate in a quiet way in the enjoyments which offer them- selves here. I am very glad that I came. It was during these last two summer-journeys to the North and East that he penned his "Cosmos" and "Microcosmos" — which we might properly call his "Nunc Dimittis" to this "bonnie world." COSMOS. IN THE RHYMES OF A SUMMER HOLIDAY JOURNEY. LOVE NOT THE WORLD. 1 John ii. 15. Dxus Cheat kt Cokskrvat Nati-ram— Causa Peccati Est Voluntas Malobi'm [Ood creates and conserves nature— the cause of sin is the will of the evil.] Confessio Augustana, Art. XIX. I. What is that we may not love? Not the world our God has made, All the power and goodness there By His lavish hand displayed. Lovely are her crystal streams, Lovely are her valleys wide. Glorious are her mountain heights. And her pulsing ocean side. 3. Firmamental soar her trees, Sweetly bloom her lowly flowers; Twining in the solar hand, Weave the chaplets of the hours. 4- Lithesome boughs sway to the breeze. Gauntly bow the whispering pines, Wind-waves quiver through the corn. Into beauty's boundless lines. 5- Priestesses in fragrant robes, Alchemists of nature stand, Earth to subtlest air transmute, Swinging sweetness o'er the land. »5 385 386 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Cha^.XIX. 6. Quiet lakes, mid bending hills, Circling isles of greenery, Bound in mirrors doubling realms. Cloud and rocks and fringing tree. 7. Brooks through shadows glinting swift. Leap to snow in wild cascades. Then in hushing murmurs glide. Slanting by the humming glades. From the lowlands to the fells Music fills the happy air, All the plentitude of song. Plea and love and joy, is there. Nature lifts herself to art, In her darling infant, man, All the grand and beauteous grasps In his tiny fingers' span. 10. Genius, with transfigured light. Makes the paltry canvas glow, Chilly walls leap into flame With the glories of the bow. II. Bronze and marble palpitate With a hidden human heart. And the warmer throbs of life Force their rigid lips to part. Discords pitch her harmonies To a tone more wildly sweet, And the low, deep notes that jar Make her scale of praise complete. 5 1.] COSMOS. 387 13- Boundless life asks boundless death, Powers of growtli need powers that quell, Nature's war is nature's peace, And her balance, ill with ill. 14. For her ills are secret good. All her pangs are hidden balm. Sorrow ripens to her joy. And her tempests guard her calm. 15- Spotless nature cannot err. Docile in divine control, Evil dwells alone in will. Guilt in conscience, crime in soul. 16. Flames that lap the martyr's pyre, Floods that drown the innocent. Storms with wide-spread rage and wrack Move within their Lord's intent. 17. By His law the fire consumes. By His law the torrents roar. Earthquakes heave, and rend the land. And the waves o'erwhelm the shore. 18. All of nature God creates, All of nature God conserves, Nestling in His mighty hand. Never from its purpose swerves. 19- Not in fiame, or flood, or storm. Lies the horror, lies the sin, Bent and forced is that without By the stress of hell within. 388 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chav.XJX. Dark in freedom, shade of God, Finite will, o'er nature's powers — Self-impelling, self-impelled — In its gloomy grandeur towers. Will of evil, evil makes, Will defiant in offense. By the sufferance of its God, Mightier than omnipotence. Will perverse thrusts back the cry Nature shrieks against the strong, When the saintly weakness dies By the ravening jaws of wrong. 23- Vainly flood and flame and storm. Wrath and torment fiercely lower. Holy souls upon them sweep. By their power, beyond their power. 24. Sinless death is not an ill. Only nature's sweeter sleep Waking to life's other day, Fresher for the slumber deep. 25- Pain is nature's sharpest need. In ordeal's solemn hour, Discipline of law and love. Power repressed by purer power. 26. In the crucible of woe Sinks the metal from the dross, And an endless age of bliss Rises from the transient loss. i88i.] COSMOS. 389 27. To the Sovereign King of kings Naught is little, naught is great ; Heedful of an insect's chirp, Careless of a monarch's hate. 28. We who spell but word by word, Cannot read the mystery. But the long, last pages lie Open to the Deity. 29. That alone is good for each, Which the good of all must be, That divinely best for time, Which is best eternally. 30. 'Tis a fair and wondrous world, Passing wondrous, passing fair; Miracle on miracle Crowds the earth and sea and air. 31. When from thine enchanting form, All that veiled its beauty fell In the light of morning stars, He who made thee, loved thee well. 32. He whom wonder cannot touch. When thy new-born graces stood In those awful eyes of love, Spake, and called thee very good. 33- Still the marvel of his work E'en in shattered loveliness, Wakes our deepest awe and joy Only than its Author less. 390 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH.[Cuaf.XIX. 34- Loveliness, that must be loved, Breaks with a resistless wave, Day and night, and night and day, Till it dies upon our grave. 35. Ever, ever, ever on, One effulgent, shoreless stream, Paling fancy's latest touch. Making wildest dreams a dream. 36. Jewels of a million thrones Glitter in the trodden grass. Marshalled in unnoting eyes, Glories upon glories pass; 37- Sunshine in the dark of hills, Rifts in clouds o'er smiling plains, Breaths of dew on parching leaves, And the late and early rains; 38. Mute processions, drear and bright, Morn and eve, come trooping on. Midnights blazing into noons. Hosts with banners round the sun. 39- From the deeps that pierce the sky To the depths of deeps below. All that wins the heart to bloom. And the God within to glow — 40. World of nature, these are thine, Thoughts of God in form of sense, Down — till vanishing in least. Up — till lost in the immense. i88i.] COSMOS. 391 41- Thou for man, and man for thee ; Ah! did he accept thy part, Thou wouldst draw him close to God, Life to life, and heart to heart ! 42. Symbols of the still, small voice Lie upon thine open hand. And the thunder of God's power Thou wouldst help him understand! 43- With the music of thy march Step the chroniclers of time. Sister-world of worlds of worlds Knit in unity sublime! 44. Vaster orbs are not thy peers. In thy presence hushed their pride, Here our God was manifest. Here the Incarnate lived and died. 45- Not the world our God has made, God is love, His work is love; And the light which plays below Glimmers by the light above; 46. But the world which sin has made, And the world which man has marred, Blighted with the curse of wrong, With the bolts of justice scarred; 47- Cay and godless in her shame. Flaunting on in pomp and pride, Filled with cares of wealth and fame, Careless of the Crucified. 392 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Cuap. XIX. 48. Yet the world we may not love, Melts into a happier day, When at God's transforming word Sin and death shall pass away. 49- When the hating world shall cease. And the hated world grow bright. With the sun of righteousness In redemption's holy light. SO. When the voices from the throne, And from all the worlds above. Mingle with the sobbing joy Of the world won back to love, 51- Through the love of Him who loved, Through the death of Him who died, Through the life of Him who lives, Faithful to His faithless bride. 52. O, for that transcendent change Which her bridal shall recall. And with robes of spotless white. Cover o'er her crimson pall ! July, 1881. MICROCOSMOS. A SEQUEL TO COSMOS. I. Flower-sown Desert, beach of towers, Blending on thy bosom fair. Beauties of the blooming soil. Grandeurs of the earth and air — i882.] MICROCOSMOS. 393 Granite amphitheatres Overlook thy battling sea, Mazes of harmonious tints. Hung with richest tapestry. 3- Nature's woof in Nature's warp. Interwoven sweet and wild. Green with crimson, fire in dew, Tenseness melting to the mild. 4- To the ripple of thy birds Ripple soft thy lake-born streams, Infancy to music sleeps. And the waking thinks he dreams. S- Snowy clouds thy skies o'erdrift, Mingling heavenly hue with hue. Like thy lilies' spotless white Bathing in the nether blue. Fire thy cradle at thy birth. Ice thy later swaddling-band, Thou art grown to ripest grace. Fondling of the sea and land ! 7- Glowing waves that roll no more. Surfs of flame, eternal stone. Rear thy billowing palace-walls. Fix for thee thy matchless throne. On thy scarred yet lovely face Beams the record of thy past. Nursling of the mighty main. Weaned and from her bosom cast. 394 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. KIX. 9- On the eternal pivot hangs Tidal time, thy lunar day, Emerald walls with crisping copes, Pendulating into spray. 10. Microcosmos, great in small, Cameo of the age-cut land. World in faithful miniature, Set in jewels of the strand — II. God hath made thee ! — that were proof, All the forms of proof above. Beauty is the heart of Heaven, And the God we love is Love ! Lake Flora, Mt. Desert. July, 1882. After his return from Mount Desert it seemed for a little while as if his health had been really benefitted, but ere long his strength broke down completely. Now and then he dragged himself wearily to the University and to the Seminary. His last visit to the latter institution was on December 4, 1882, to attend a meeting of the Trustees of the General Council. His intimate friend, John K., Shryock, thus tells the story of his last interview with him : The very last time he was down town he visited me as was his wont, at my place of business, and he seemed dull for the first time. I succeeded in cheering him up, and we gradually drifted into our ordinary joking way with each other. Here let me say, that no matter how we talked, or what we ever talked about, he never once left me without becoming serious, and without saying some- thing that indicated the clergyman. Upon his rising to go away I, as usual, accompanied him to the door, and he^ i88_'.j •'BETTER, BUT NOT WELL." 395 as usual, bade me goodbye. He clasped both my hands in his, and looking- into my face with tears in his eyes, said with deep feeling: "O, my boy, it is well for you and for me that we have a Saviour to make uj) all our deficiencies." With these last words he walked aw^ay, but after a few steps he turned about and waved his last goodbye with the dear hand that had so often clasped mine in as true a friendship as man can ever know this side of heaven. When next I saw him, his soul had gone into the presence of his Saviour, who "made up all his deficiencies." In his obituary notice, read before the American Philosophical Society, March 16, 1883, Dr. F. A. Mueh- lenberg says : On his return from the last trip (to Mount Desert), in answer to a question of one of his friends as to his health, he replied with sadness, as though looking for- ward to an unfavorable result, "better, but not well." The truth of this became painfully manifest when he resumed his duties in the University. He was very far from being well. His associates observed that his vivacity and vitality, and his powers of endurance were rapidly decreasing. Especially marked was this decline in the daily chapel services. Each succeeding day, through increasing weakness, he brought his chair nearer to the reading desk, until the day before he was ordered by his physicians to relinquish all his duties, they were placed alongside of each other, and it was with difficulty he could stand up to perform the devotions. By this time his friends at the University had become thoroughly alarmed about his condition. Mr. F. Fraley wrote to him (December 18, 1882) : "I have requested Dr. Pepper to meet me this evening, when we will arrange for the earliest possible action of the Trustees. I shall do everything in my power to relieve you and contribute to your comfort. I hope a period of rest will restore you 396 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIX. to health." Similar hopes were expressed in a touching letter from Dr. Passavant, which we insert below. Neither his nor Mr. Fraley's letter reached Dr. Krauth's eyes. The "rest" they wished for him was to come in another form! Pittsburgh, Sunday, December 17, 1882. My Dear Friend and Brother Krauth. Grace and Peace. .... You are continually in my thoughts, and, fail- ing to see you in Lancaster, and since in Philadelphia, where I expected to have been, I have no way left but to sit down and write you a brotherly letter. I have heard incidentally that you have given up your Herculean work in the two institutions, to try that absolute rest from brain work, which you so much needed even last spring. Most heartily do I rejoice in this, dear Doctor, for that was a superhuman toil, not so much in the actual work done, but in the preparations for it, and in the burden- some sense of a conflict of duties which wears out both mind and body. It seems to me as if the voice of Christ said to you : "Take your rest noiv," after such exertions, and that the sign of distress which exhausted nature hangs out under such a load, must be heeded, unwilling as you are to do so, and eager as your spirit is for the con- flicts before us in the high places of the field. But I must not weary you with words. I write only to assure you of the deep gratitude of a great communion for what God has enabled you to do for His suffering and sorrowing Church. I can scarcely believe it when I look back two score years, and think of the current of un- churchly sentimentalism, down which we both and so many others were floating — never suspecting where we would be drifted. It is of God's sweet mercy, that we were "called through the Gospel, enlightened by the Holy Spirit and sanctified and preserved in the true faith," in the midst of the elements of error and sectarianism on i883.] ECCE, QVOMODO MORITVR JUSTUS. 397 every side. How blessed to have been led in a way we knew not of. and to have been all the time in the en- circlings of our Father's arms! The ways of God have been wonderful and full of mercy. I constantly praise Him that out of the deep soul-troubles of life God led you to direct us to better ways, as He had directed you, and that now, though compelled for a time to rest in your tent, you are permitted to see the host of Israel, under Christ her heavenly King, moving onward to new and more glorious conquests for our Lord. The leaders in this new warfare, men like Drs. N. and N., and others whom God is raising up for this blessed work, have entered into your labours, and they are not insensible of the services you have rendered. But, what is of such unspeakable importance, is, that not man, but Jesus Christ is the recipient of the glory — all the glory, and in this we both rejoice, yea and we will rejoice. On December 1 5th he lay down on the bed from which he was no more to rise, a thoroughly wearied and exhausted man, who desired nothing but rest. He asked to be left alone with his God. Even when his nearest and dearest would peep into his room, he would, with a tender word of greeting and a loving look in his eye, sign to them to withdraw. There was no posing in the last moments of this brave warrior who had fought a good fight, who had finished his course, who had kept the faith. Silently, peacefully, almost unnoticed, he passed away at mid-day, January 2d, in the year of the great Luther centennial, 1883. "When his last Finally for this world came, when the partings and the tears were over, when he entered upon that last journey which each of us must take alone, he was yet not alone, for he passed from the fellowships of earth into the brother- hood which embraces heaven and earth in its scope, into the great company which no man can number. 398 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chap. XIX. 'Tis human fortune's happiest height to be, A spirit melodious, lucid, poised and whole : Second in order of felicity I hold it, to have walked with such a soul." * The funeral was held on Friday, January 5th. At eleven A. M. a brief service was conducted at the house by the Rev. John K. Plitt, pastor of St. Stephen's Church, with which Dr. Krauth had been connected for years, first as its pastor and then as a member. It was one o'clock when the funeral cortege reached St. Johannis Church, where the public service was to be held. The faculty of the University of Pennsylvania, tog-ether with a large number of students ; the Board of Directors, and the students of the Theological Seminary, and many pastors, not only from the Synods of Penn- sylvania, New York and Pittsburgh, but also from the General Synod, formed the procession that entered the church, which was draped in mourning. The choir of St. Johannis opened the service with the Chorale : "Wenn ich in Todesnoeten bin" (Melchior Frank, 1651). Dr. B. Sadtler, President of Muehlenberg College, read the ninetieth Psalm, followed by the New Testament lesson, I Thess. iv. 13-18. Dr. J. A. Seiss, President of the Board of Directors of the Seminary, and at that time also President of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, offered prayer. Dr. C. W. Schaeffer, Chairman of the Faculty, delivered the address in English. Dr. G. F. Krotel followed with prayer in the same language. The choir then sang the Responsory "Ecce quoinodo moritur Justus" by Jacob Gallus (1591) with its beautiful re- frain: "Et erit in pace memoria sua." This was fol- lowed by a German address by Dr. W. J. Mann, and a *Dr. Robert Ellis Thompson, in his Baccalaureate sermon, preached before the graduating class of the University of Pennsyl- vania, on Sunday, June loth, 1883. i883.] AT REST. ^gg prayer in the same language by Dr. H. Grahn, the Presi- dent of the first District Conference. The great congre- gation slowly passed the coffin, for a last look upon that countenance which had once been so bright with life and genius and pleasantness, but now in the coldness of death spoke of the sufferings through which the departed had passed. The pall bearers were Professors Jackson and Kendall from the University, and Messrs. Wharton Barker, Horace Howard Furness, Thomas Lane of Pittsburgh, J. K. Shryock, Henry Beates and Reuben Miller. The remains were conveyed to North Laurel Hill, where Dr. B. M. Schmucker conducted the services at the grave. His resting place is only a few steps to the right from the main entrance of that cemetery. A plain granite cross marks the spot. H Dr. Krauth, with his wealth of gifts, his compre- hensive aesthetic and philosophical culture, his inexhaust- ible humor and sparkling wit, his exquisite taste and knowledge of the world, his personal magnetism which even disarmed his antagonists, had thrown himself into the current of the prevailing spirit of the times, if he had bowed to the idols of the day, he would have become one of the most popular and most lionized men of our time and our country. But he esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt. He who was so free from petty narrowness or pharisaic zealotism, was denounced as a bigot on account of his consistent faithfulness to the Confession of his Church. He who loved peace above everything, except the truth, and who could see some good everywhere, was driven into perpetual controversy. And yet, in these very contests in defense of the pure faith, he possessed in an eminent degree that rare charisma, which enabled him to conduct the warfare without personal bitterness, full of anxiety that there 400 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. [Chaf. XIX. should be no injustice done to the adversary and no abuse of the weakness of the weakest of his opponents; he fought principles and not men. The testimony he has left behind cannot die with his death. Here also the Saviour's words may be applied: "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.'' LIST OF DR. KRAUTH'S PUBLICATIONS REVISED AND ENLARGED, FROM THE LIST GIVEN IN DR. B. M. SCHMUCKEr's MEMORIAL, PRINTED FOR THE MINISTERIUM OF PENNSYLVANIA. 1846. Articles in the Lutheran Observer, during absence in Europe of Dr. B. Kurtz, from April loth to Sept. nth, 1846. 1847. Article on "Private Communion," against Dr. B. Kurtz. Lu- theran Observer, July 23d, 1847. 1847. Benefits of the Pastoral Office : Farewell Discourse on leaving Second English Lutheran Church, Baltimore. Baltimore. 8vo. 1849. The Person of Christ. Translated from H. Schmid's Dog- matik. Mercersburg Review, Vol. I. 272. May, 1849. pp. 34. 1849. Chrysostom considered with reference to Training for the Pulpit. Evangelical Review, I. p. 84. July. pp. 20. 1849. The Relation of our Confessions to the Reformation, and the Importance of their Study, with an Outline of the Early History of the Augsburg Confession. Evangelical Review I., p. 234, Oct. pp. 29. 1850. Harn on Feet Washing. Evangelical Review I., 434, Jan. pp. 4. 1850. The Articles of Torgau, translated. Evangelical Review II., 78, July. pp. 7. 1850. The Transfiguration. Evangelical Review II., 237, Oct. pp. 29. Separately printed. An Exegetical Homily. Gettsburg. 1850. pp. 36. 1851. Popular Amusements: Discourse delivered at Winchester, Va., June 8, 1851. Winchester. 8vo., pp. 32. Second Edition 1852. pp. 38. 1852. Dr. Martin Luther, the German Reformer: Review of Koenig and Gelzer's Luther. Evangelical Review III., 451, April. pp. 41. In Conserv. Reformat., with additions, p. 22-74. 1852. Works of Melanchthon; Bibliographical Notice; A Review of Corpus Reformatorum. Evangelical Review III., 575. pp. 8. 1852. The Bible a Perfect Book : Discourse before Bible Society of Pennsylvania College and the Theological Seminary. Evan- gelical Review IV., no, July. pp. 28. Separately printed. Gettysburg. 8vo., pp. 38. Second Edition. Revised 1857. Reprinted in the Lutheran Church Review 1906. July and October. 26 401 402 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. 1853. The Church as set forth in the Confessions of Christendom ; translated from Guericke's Symbolik. Evangelical Review v., 17. July. pp. 18. 1853. The Services of the Churches of the Reformation, on the Basis of Alt's Cultus ; translated with additions. Evangelical Re- view v., 151, Oct. pp. 39. Separately printed. 1854. The Unity of the Lutheran Church : Sermon for Reformation Festival, by F. V. Reinhard ; translated. Evangelical Re- view v., 352, June. pp. 13. 1854. The Old Church on the Hill : At the Burning of the old Luth- eran Church at Winchester, Sept. 27; with an original ode. Winchester. 8vo., pp. 24. 1856 to i860. Contributions to the "Missionary," edited by Dr. Passavant. 1856. Tholuck's Commentary on John: Introduction; translated. Evangelical Review VIL, 301, Jan. pp. 46. 1856. The Former Days and these Days : Thanksgiving Discourse, Nov. 30. Pittsburgh, W. S. Haven. 8vo., pp. 35. 1856. The Lutheran Church and the Divine Obligation of the Lord's Day. Gettysburg. Henry C. Neinstedt. pp. 53. 1857. The same in Evangelical Review. January, 1857. pp. 44. 1857. History of Theological Encyclopaedia and Methodology in the Evangelical Lutheran Church from the middle of the 17th to the beginning of the 19th Century. Evangelical Review IX., 278, Oct. pp. 15. 1857. The Altar on the Threshing Floor : Thanksgiving Discourse, Nov. Pittsburgh, W. S. Haven. 8vo., pp. 35. 1858. Tholuck's Commentary on John, Chap i ; translated. Evan- gelical Review IX., 301, Jan. pp. 38. 1858. Select Analytical Bibliography of the Augsburg Confession. Evangelical Review X., 16, July. pp. 14. Separately printed. 1858. Poverty : Three Essays for the Season. Pittsburgh, W. S. Haven. 8vo., pp. 48. 1859. Tholuck's Commentary on the Gospel of John ; translated. Philadelphia, Smith, English & Co. 8vo., pp. 440. 1859. Introduction to Seeker's The Nonsuch Professor. Published by Shryock, Taylor & Smith, of Chambersburg. i860. Christian Liberty in Relation to the Usages of the Evangelical Lutheran Church Maintained and Defended : Two Sermons at St. Mark's Church, Philadelphia, Mar. 25. Philadelphia, H. B. Ashmead. 8vo., pp. 72. 1860-76.] LIST OF PUBLICATIONS. 403 i860. Fleming's Vocabulary of Philosophy; Edited, with Introduc- tion, Chronology brought to i860, Bibliographical Index, Synthetical Tables, and other additions. Philadelphia ; Smith, English & Co. i2mo. i860. The Evangelical Mass and the Romish Mass. Evangelical Review XII., 263, Oct. pp. 57. Separately printed. Gettys- burg, pp. 64. 1861. Became Editor of Lutheran and Missionary Oct. 31. Articles on Bible Revision and History of the Authorized Version, Feb. 6th to June 19th, 1862. The Ministry and Church Polity, March ist and 15th, June 7th, 1861 ; July i6th, 23d and 30th, Aug. 20th, Sept. 3d, 1863. Liturgies, Oct. 19th, i860 (May 29th, 1862) ; June 5th, June 26th, .\ug. 14th, Sept. 4th and 25th, Dec. 4th and nth, 1862; Jan. 25th, Feb. 22d, March 8th, Oct. nth, Nov. 15th and 22d, 1866; Jan. loth, Feb. 14th, March 28th, April 25th, May 2d, Dec. 19th, 1867. Lutheranism and Calvinism. Feb., 1868. (4 Art.) Litur- gieal Controversy in the German Reformed Church. Aug., 1869. (3 Art.) Pulpit and Altar Fellon'ship. Dec, 1875- June, 1876. (14 Art.) 1863. The Evangelical Lutheran Church: her glory, perils, defen.se, victory, duty and perpetuity. Reformation Festival Dis- course at St. John's, Nov. i. Philadelphia. Smith, English & Co. 8vo. pp. 15. 1864. Address at Installation in Theological Seminary in Philadel- phia, Oct. 4. Ev. Rev. X'VL, 434. July, 1865. pp. 14. Separately printed. Most of it in Conservative Reformation. 1865. The Two Pageants : On the death of Abraham Lincoln. Dis- course in Lutheran Church, Pittsburgh, June i. W. S. Haven. 8vo., pp. 23. 1866. Baptism : The Doctrine set forth in the Holy Scriptures and taught in the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Ev. Rev. XVII. 309. July. pp. 60. In Conservative Reformation, p. 426 seq. 518 seq. Published in pamphlet form by T. S. Schrack. 72 pages. 1866. Call for the Convention which formed the General Council. .'\ug. 10. 1866. Fundamental Principles of Faith and Church Polity of General Council, presented at Convention, Reading, Dec. 12-14. Pro- ceedings p. 10-14. 1867. Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine, with special reference to its statements in regard to the Confessions and Doctrine 404 CHARLES PORTERFIELD KRAUTH. of the Lutheran Church. (Lutheran and Miss. Jan. and Feb., 1864.) Ev. Rev. XVIIL 56. Jan. pp. 27. In Con- servative Reformation, VIIL p. 329-354. 1867. The Person of our Lord and His Sacramental Presence. The Evangelical Lutheran and Reformed Doctrine compared. Review of an Article by Dr. E. V. Gerhart. Ev. Rev. XVIIL 395. July. pp. 42. In Conservative Reformation, X. p. 456-517- 1867. Jubilee Service : An Order of Divine Service for the Seventh Jubilee of the Reformation. Philadelphia : J. B. Lippincott & Co. i2mo. pp. 24. 1868. The Augsburg Confession, translated, with Introduction, Notes and Index. Philadelphia. Tract and Book Society of St. John's Church. April. 8vo. pp. 1. 91. 1869. Luther's Translation of the Holy Scriptures : the New Testa- ment. Mercersburg Review, Vol. XVI. 180. pp. 20. 1869. 56 Theses on the Ministerial Office; prepared for the Minis- terium of Penna. 1869. The Reformation : Its Occasions and Causes. Ev. Rev. XX. 94. Jan. pp. 18. In Conserv. Reform, p. 1-21. 1869. The Liturgical Movement in the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches. Mercersburg Review, XVI. 599. pp. 49. Pub- lished in Pamphlet form, Lutheran Bookstore, 807 Vine St. Reformed Publication Rooms, 54 N. Sixth St., Philadelphia. 1869. Reply to the Pope's Letter. G. C. Min. 1869, p. 14. 1870. A Historic Sketch of the Thirty Years' War. In The Iron Age. Fatherland Series. Philadelphia. Lutheran Board of Publication. 1870. pp. 169-236. 1870. The New Testament Doctrine of the Lord's Supper, as con- fessed by the Lutheran Church. Mercersburg Review. XVII. 165. pp. 72. 1870. Theses on Justification for the General Council. Min. 1871, P- 57- 1871. Address in behalf of the New Lutheran Church (Broad and Arch Sts.) pp. 8. Lutheran Bookstore. 1871. The Conservative Reformation and its Theology. Philadel- phia. J. B. Lippincott & Co. 8vo. pp. xvii, 840. 1872. Franz Delitzsch, his Life and Works. In A Day in Capernaum. Philadelphia. Lutheran Board of Publication, pp. 18. 1872. Notes in Class — System of Descartes. Penn Monthly, HI. 1872. The Prophecies of Isaiah. A new and critical translation from Franz Delitzsch. Prefatory Note. 1873-79] LIST OF PUBLICATIONS. 405 1873. An Introduction to Luther's 95 Theses. In The Great Reform- ation. Lutheran Bookstore, pp. 30. 1874. Infant Baptism and Infant Salvation in the Calvinistic System. A Review of Dr. Hodge's Systematic Theology. Philadel- phia. Lutheran Bookstore. 8vo. pp. 83. In Mercersburg Review. Vol. XXI. 99. pp. 61. 1874. Caesar and God. Luth. and Miss., Nov. 26, 1874. Printed separately the same year. Lutheran Bookstore. 1874. Report on the Bucknell library, Phila. 1874. pp. 6. 1874. Ulrici's Review of Strauss' Life of Christ. Introduction. 1874. The Strength and Weakness of Idealism. In Proceedings of Evangelical Alliance, New York, p. 293-301. And in Pro- legomena to Berkeley's Principles. 1874. Berkeley's Principles. Prolegomena, notes of Ueberweg and original annotations. Phila. Smith, English & Co. 8vo. pp. 424. 1874-75. Thetical Statement concerning the Ministry of the Gospel. Lutheran and Missionary. December 31, 1874. January 7 and 21. February 18. 1875. 1875. Constitution for Evangelical Lutheran Congregations, sub- mitted to the General Council. 1876. One Faith. Sermon preached at the opening of the Conven- tion of the General Council in Bethlehem, Pa. The Luth- eran, November 2. Reprinted in the Lutheran Church Re- view, 1907. April. 1877. Theses on Pulpit and Altar Fellowship, prepared by order of the Gen. Council. 8vo. pp. 32. Reprinted in the Lutheran Church Review, July and October, 1907 ; January and April, 1908. 1877. Religion and Religionisms. Sermon before the Gen. Council, Phila., Oct. ID. 8vo. pp. 2>2. Reprinted in the Lutheran Church Review, April, 1907. 1877. The Relation of the Lutheran Church to the Denominations around us. Read at the first Free Lutheran Diet, Dec. 27. Philadelphia. J. F. Smith, 8vo. pp. 27-69. Printed separ- ately, pp. 43, 1878. 1878. A Chronicle of the Augsburg Confession. Luth. Monographs I. Phila. J. F. Smith, 8vo. pp. 92. 1878. Vocabulary of the Philosophical Sciences, Second edition of Fleming. New York. Sheldon & Co. pp. 109 additional. 1879. The Authorized Version and English Versions on which it is based. Anglo-American Bible Revision. New York, p. 22-36. 4o6 CHARLES PORT ERF I ELD KRAUTH. 879. Congratulatory Address at the Inauguration of Prcs. Dreher, Roanoke College, Salem, Va. pp. 7. 880. The Library. Stoddart's Review, I., 6. Philadelphia. April 17th. 880. Introduction to "Doom Eternal," by Rev. J. B. Reimensnyder. Phila. Nelson S. Quiney, pp. 6. 880. Remarks at the Funeral of Dr. C. F. Schaeffer. Schaeffer Memorial, Phila. 8vo. p. 10-12. 881. Address of Welcome at the Inauguration of Provost W. Pep- per, University of Penna. Feb. 22. pp. 12. 881. Cosmos, in the Rhymes of a Summer Holiday Journey. Phila. i6mo. pp. 24. 882. Microcosmos. A sequel to Cosmos. Lake Flora, Mt. Desert, July, 1882. Printed for friends. 882. The Pulpit and the Age. Lutheran Church Review, Vol I. 10. January, pp. 6. The Lutheran, April 20. 882. The Sermon : Its Material and its Text. Lutheran Church Review, Vol. I. 81. April, pp. 19. 883. Church Polity ( from Notes of Seminary Lectures by G. C. Gardener. ) The Lutheran Church Review. October ; and April and October, 1884. 884. The Controversy on Predestination. The Lutheran Church Review. January, pp. 4. Contributions to Encyclopedias. Of Johnson's he was Asso- ciate Editor, and the following articles have his signature: Bud- deus ; Cause ; Communicatio Idiomatum ; Concomitance, Sacra- mental ; Concord, Book of ; Concord, Formula of ; Conditional, Philosophy of the; Consubstantiation ; Faith; Faith, Confessions of; Faith, Rule of ; Fall of Man ; Fatliers of the Church ; Figure, Gram- matical and Rhetorical ; Final Causes ; Flacius ; Foreknowledge ; Foreordination ; Francke, A. H. ; Free-will ; Fundamentals ; Heresy ; Hierarchy ; Inquisition ; Jacobs, M. ; Karnak ; Knox, John ; Lord's Day ; Lutheran Church ; Lutheran Church in the U. S. ; Manetho ; Mennonites; Metaphj-sics ; Monophysites; Monothelites ; Mysticism; Nestorians ; Pantheism. See Index, Vol IV., p. xiii. Unsigned : Krauth, Charles Philip. The article in McClintock & Strong's Encyclopedia, though his initials are attached, was not written by him, but by one of the Col- laborateurs on the basis of material furnished by Dr. Krauth, and he was annoyed that it was accredited to him. He also furnished Articles on Luther or the Lutheran Church to Appleton's Cyclopedia and Potter's Bible Encyclopedia. 1842-82.] LIST OF PUBLICATIONS. 407 Introductions. — He furnished the Introduction to Dr. Seiss' Psalms and Canticles. Prof. M. Jacobs' Sketch of the Battle of Get- tysburg, 1864, Brown's Self-Interpreting Bible, 18C5. Illustrirte Heilige Schrift. The Father's Story of Charlie Ross, 1876. TRANSLATIONS OF HYMNS— POEMS. Dies Irae, in Luth. and Miss. Feb. 11, 1864. Puer Natus, in Sunday School Book, No. 70. Ein Feste Burg, in Jubilee Service, No. 19. Det kimer nu til Julefest. S. S. Book, No. 71. Original by Bishop N. F. S. Grundtvig. To the Hands of the Lord Jesus : after St. Bernard and Paul Gerhardt, prepared for Wildenhahn's Paul Gerhardt, 1880. A number of original poems appeared at different times in different papers from 1842, in the "Annual" (Baltimore) to 1882 in the "Workman" (Pittsburgh). Among them: A Tribute (to the memory of his first wife), Winchester Republican, Dec. 30, 1853. The Spring Evening, Linnean Journal, Dec, 1847. The Birth of Eve, Missionary, July, 1859. Apostles' Creed, 1864, Luth. and Miss. Class Song (University of Pennsylvania), 1869, Anonymous. The Palm, 1879. The Poor Saint. First Sunday after Trinity. The Cloud of Witnesses. 2 Kings 6 : 16. The Dread Answer. Psalm 106: 15. The Lamb's Bride — The Church Triumphant. The City of God. The Land of Light. Fervent Prayer. The Orange Tree. i INDEX. Abbott ; Rev. Ezra, Reports on Bucknell Library, ii. 282 ; esti- mate of C. P. K., ii. 283. "Abstract " of Maryland Synod ; i. 111-114; C. P. K.'s notes on, i. 1 12, and note: forerunner of Definite Platform, i. 114; covers real doctrinal position of Gen. Synod, (S. S. S.) i. 346. Adam ; George, sponsor of C. Ph. K., i. 2. Age; reverence for, ii. 88. Aimless Battle ; the, from edi- torial, L. & M., ii. 114. Allan; Rev. W. O., i. 242, note. Alliance ; Evangelical, London, 1846. Delegates to, i. 74 ; its " Summary of doctrine," i. 341- (New York) C. P. K.'s paper on Idealism, ii. 272, 322. Altar on the Threshing Floor ; the. Thanksgiving Discourse ; " truly prophetical," i. 299. America a Blessing to Others ; edit. L. & M. quoted, ii. 59. her debt to the Reformation, i. 168. Lutheran Church in, i. 316- 318; Early Fathers of, i. 316; unmistakably Lutheran, i. 318; decline of historical Lutheran position, i. 319; unionism, i. 319-320; her growth in the faith, ii. 53 ; her duty to her children, ii. 57; her grand problem, ii. 173. the Confessions and, i. 167. 168. American Lutheran Church ; view of Real Presence, Article quoted, 1. 162; why American? i. 166, 167; vocation of, (S. S. S.) i. 339; to be saved by Def. Platform, i. 359; defined by C. P. K., ii. 105, 106; lacks three elements, ii. iii; "quite ahead of medi?eval fooleries;" odium cast on reviving church- liness in Reformed circles, ii. 309. American Lutheran Church vs. Ev. Lutheran Church in America ; from edit. L. & M., ii. 104-I12. American Lutheranism ; a " mon- grel Methodistic Presbyter- ianism," (Reynolds) i. 179; in its genuine sense, i. ^^7 \ "• 2,7; of the New School, i. 342; the proposed " Protestant Confession," (S. S. S.) i. 342; Necessity of a Standard, i. 345 ; true and false, ii. 32 ; and the Lord's Day, ii. 119, 120; and the German Reform- ed Church, ii. 309. American Lutheranism Vindicated (S. S. S.) i. 375. ^tote. American Philosophical Society ; obituary notice of C. P. K. (Dr. F. A. Muehlenberg) ii. 395. Another Victory to be Won ; from edit. L. & M., ii. 74- Apology for our Existence ; from edit. L. & Home Journal, ii. 29. Apostolic Method of Realizmg True Ideal of Church, (Sprech- er) reviewed by C. P. K., ii. 157-158. Apple ; Rev Thomas G., urges C. P. K. to write for Mercers- burg Rez'iezc, ii. 315- Aquinas ; hymn quoted, i. 157. Arndt's True Christianity trans- lated ; recommended by Gen. Synod (1833) i. 33 1- 409 4IO INDEX. Articles of C. P. K. in Observer, i. 35; 82; 121; 162; list of, i. 74, 75 ; Articles written in Winchester, i. 174; in Evan- gelical Review, i. 173; ii. 116; from 1854-1859, i. 298; in Missionary, list of, i. 300-301 ; (cf. i. 376) ; on the Gen. Synod, (Miss. 1857) i. 381, ff. ; Doctrinal Basis of, i. 385, ff. ; Duty of, at the Present Crisis, i. 402, ff. see also Luth- eran and Missionary. Association ; Lutheran, for News- paper and Periodical Publi- cation, its organization, ii. 32, 34; its power and duties, ii. 47- Audin quoted, i. 125. Augsburg Confession ; A Chron- icle of the, ii. 324, and note. the, 25th Article re- ferred to, i. 76 ; loth Article in the Amer. Luth. Church, i. 163; (cf. i. 404,) defense and bibliography of, i. 302; a safe directory (Gettysburg Semi- nary, 1826) i. 336; this refer- ence introduced by S. S. S., i- 337 ; substantially correct, S. S. S.) i. 339; amendment proposed, (S. S. S.) i. 342; " normative authority " sug- gested, i. 345 ; 7th Article misused, i. 355 ; A Plea for, (Dr. Mann) i. 361; the Church's duty toward, (C. Ph. K.) i. 369; upheld by Pittsburgh Synod, (1856) i. 37^-379 \ the Symbol of Luth- eran Catholicity, i. 387 ; the loth Article and the Gen. Synod's Formula of Doctrine, (C. P. K.) i. 404: Preface quoted (opinions of diverse parties') ii. 80; and the Sab- bath Question, ii. 116, 117, 122. Augustan Age; the, i. loi. Authority of Synods, ii. 170-171 ; 173- Bachmann; Rev., supply at Can- ton, Baltimore, i. 45. Baker; Henry S., (brother-in- law) letter to, i. 239. Jacob, (father-in-law) letter to, i. 221 ; his hospitality, i. 271. Virginia, (second wife) i. 270 ; letter to, i. 273. William B., (brother-in-law) letter to, i. 260. Baltimore Convention; (Missions of Gen. Synod 1852) Nine Sj^nods represented ; C. P. K. quoted, i. 195. pastorate of C. P. K. see under Krauth, Charles Por- terfield. Barker ; Wharton, ii. 399. Bassler; Rev. G., President of Reading Convention, ii. 174; and of General Council, ii. 177- Baugher; Rev. H. L., teacher in Gettysburg Gymnasium, i. 28, 27; Professor in Pennsylvania College, i. 29; ordination ad- dress, i. no; "Abstract" of Maryland Synod, i. in; the " Pacific Overture," i. 362 ; Committee of West Penna. Synod, ii. 168. Bear; Col., of Hagerstown, i. 52. Beates ; Henrv, ii. 399. Beaumont and Fletcher ; Motto for Catalogue of C. P. K.'s library, i. 70. Becourt ; Count, i. 3. Bee and the Ant ; the, ii. 263. Berkeley's Principles, ii. 270, note: 271. Bible a Perfect Book ; the, quoted, '■ 73.. . Revision ; American Commit- tee organized 1871, Dr. Philip Schaff Chairman ; C. P. K. member of Old Testament Revision Company, ii. 331 ; his work (Dr. Schaff 's tri- bute) ii. 331-332; Excellence of King James's Version, INDEX. 411 Bible Revision; Continued: (from article. C. P. K.) ii. aZ', the Revised Version, (review, C. P. K.) ii. 335. the, the nurse of freedom, i. 128; and the bibliomaniac, ii. 285. Bibles; C. P. K.'s collection of. ii. 298. Bibliothcca Sacra ; Prof. Moses Stuart on the Real Presence, i. 114-115; 117. (cf. Stuart); notice of Conservative Re- formation, ii. 304. Bird ; Rev. F. M., connected with L. & M., ii. 52. Bittinger; Rev. J. B., C. P. K. in college, i. 31. Bittle ; Mrs. Louisa, (aunt) i. 5. Rev. David F., President of Roanoke College, i. 5. Black ; George, assists in publish- ing Conservative Reforma- tion, ii. 301. ■" Blatter aus dem Wanderbuche." Dr. W. J. Mann, quoted, i. 354- Blind, happier tlian the Deaf and Dumb; the, i. 212. Bloomerism ; mock defense of, ii. 21. B. M. S.— Dr. Beale M. Schmuck- er. Bomberger ; Rev. Dr., proposes to C. P. K. work on Herzog's Encycl. i. 312. Books ; the love of, i. 189. two classes of. ii. 282. Boy's appetite for reading, i. 38. Brandt ; Rev. Alex., pastor in Santa Cruz. i. 218. Breckenridge ; Rev. S. F., ii. 177. Brobst ; Rev. S. K., his desire for seminary, ii. 139; delegate Gen. Syn. Fort Wayne, ii. 157. Broken English vs. broken pro- mises, i. 267. Brown ; Rev. J. A., in East Penna. Synod moves rejection of Definite Platform, i. 360; signs Pacific Overture, i. 362 ; attacks Dr. S. S. S., i. 410; elected as a compromise, to succeed S. S. S. in Gettysb., ii. 140, note; controversy with C. P. K. over doctr. position of two Seminaries, ii. 146; on Committee of W. Penna. Syn., ii. 168; rejected as delegate by N. Y. Syn., ii. 169; witness for Gen. Syn.. in congrega- tional litigation, ii. 176, 177; the Gettysb. Professors' oath under cross-examination, ii. 177; Conservative Reforma- tion misrepresented, ii. 303 ; controversy with C. P. K. at First Free Diet, ii. 324, 325; C. P. K.'s sympathy in his affliction ; his death, ii. 326. Bulwer contrasted with Dickens, ii. 347 ; his early and later works, ii. 348. Burke's ambitious wish, i. 36, note. Burkhalter Professorship, ii. 141. Burning of the Old Church on the Hill, (sermon quoted) i. 265. flF. Byron; hatred of Horace, quoted, i. 2>Z< 41 ; contrasted with Bul- wer, ii. 348. Caes.\r and God ; see Politics and Religion. Calvin; a gigantic mind, i. 124; his interpretation of Scrip- ture, i. 134; signed the Augs- burg Confession, ii. 95. Canada ; Synod of, represented at Reading convention, ii. 174. Canton ; C. P. K.'s first charge, i. 43 ; conditions in, i. 44 ; 45 ; 59; pastoral work in. i. 47; 50; 53; 56; a pastoral visit in, i. 48; "conciliating the Uni- versalists," i. 49. 50. Carlstadt a fanatic, i. 133. " Castles of theory on foundations of fog," ii. 61. Catechism, basis for a popular theology, i. 184. 412 INDEX. Catechisms, concerning the Lord's Day; Large, ii. 121; Small, ii. 122 ; of Council of Trent, ii. 117; Westminster, ii. 122. Cathedrals and churches ; Chester, ii- 369; 371; Durham; Peter- boro; St. Paul's; York, ii. ^72 ; English cathedrals and Milton, ii. 371 ; tone of the preaching, ii. 272 ; Westmin- ster Abbey, ii. 2,72. Catholicism and Romanism, i. 68. " Charlie " in West Indies, i. 227 ; 234 ; 254 ; letter from, i. 243. Ch. B.— Church Book. Chemnitz's Loci ; influence on C. P. K., i. 160. Chester; Dean of, see Howson. Christian Liberty; (two sermons) Maintained, quoted, ii. 5-9; Defended, ii. 9-12 ; misused by radicals, ii. 16. Sabbath ; Divine obligation of, see Lord's Day. Chrysostom ; address to Alumni of Gettysburg Sem., {Ev. Revieiv) quoted, i. 158-160. Church and its members ; the, ii. II. Book; features of, antici- pated in report of C. P. K. and B. M. S. to Va. Synod, i. 155; work of the Committee; C. P. K.'s active part in, ii. 190; his work on Special Col- lects, ii. 191. Development on Apostolic Principles; (S. S. S., Ev. Re- viezv) quoted, i. 345. Fellowship Question in Gene- ral Council, ii. 195, ff. ; dis- turbed Synodical and personal relations, ii. 196; C. P. K.'s position traced in its logical sequence, ii. 197 ; the future of Protestantism involved; C. P. K.'s position at Pittsburgh convention of G. C, ii. 199; exchange of pulpits, ii. 200; (cf. i. 222) the Iowa rule " would simplify the question," ii. 201 ; the only consistent position, ii. 204 ; Galesburg Rule the " riper affirmation of principles involved from the beginning," ii. 210; views of German theologians, ii. 233. Paper; the ideal, ii. 45. Papers ; Individual and Offi- cial, Edit. L & M., ii. 46, 47. Polity ; Fundamental Princi- ples of. Theses by C. P. K. ; discussed at Reading conven- tion ; basis of G. C.'s Consti- tution, ii. 174. in America ; Our, Arti- cles, L. & M., ii. 170. Civil War ; the, ii. 59, ff. Classics and Modern Literature, i. 39- Clerical Robes, see Gown. Cline ; Rev. J. P., signs license of C. P. K, i. 43. Cobia family, Charleston, S. C, i. 151- Coburg; castle of, ii. 375, 27^- College Days, i. 36. of Philadelphia ; see Smithy Dr. Wm. students classified, i. 41. " Combativeness without destruc- tiveness," ii. 78. Commentaries, (C. Ph. K.) i. 58. " Common sense only good for common things," ii. 83. Concord ; Formula of, on Elec- tion, ii. 331. Confessions ; Oecumenical and particular, ii. 199; 202. the, {see also Augsburg Con- fession) C. P. K.'s relation to,^ i. 72; 157; 160, (B. M. S.) ; 167 ; their relation to Refor- mation (Ev. Review) i. 166; Congregational singing; deteriora- tion deplored, (1848) i. 331. Congregations ; Constitution for, work in G. C. : different posi- tion taken by C. P. K., and B. M. S., ii. 192; discussion of Scriptural offices in congre- INDEX. 413 Congregations ; Constitution for, Continued: gation; C. P. K.'s position finally approved by G. C, ii. 193- " Connivance at error, intolerance towards truth," ii. 90; i. 419. Conrad ; Rev. F. W., preaching in Washington, i. 151; letter quoted, ii. 48; on Committee of W. Penna. Synod, ii. 168; reads paper at First Free ' Diet, ii. 3^5- Rev. V. L., i. 214. Conservative Reformation and its Theolog>', 1871 ; C. P. K.'s Magnum Opus; its original plan sketched, ii. 299 ; topics proposed, ii. 300; "the harvest of years of labor " ; dedicated to memory of C. Ph. K., ii. 301 ; its plan as modified for publication, ii. 302 ; its com- posite character misused, ii. 303 ; recognized as the stand- ard English work on the Lutheran Church, ii. 303 ; let- ters : from Dr. C. F. Schaef- f er, ii. 304 ; from Dr. G. F. Krotel, ii. 305 ; from Dr. C. E. Luthardt, ii. 311; reviews quoted : Dr. C. Rene Gregory, ii. 304; Mcrccrsburg Rcviezc, (Dr. Jacobs), ii. 306; Re- formcd Messenger, (Dr. Nevin), ii. 307; "a thesaurus of information ;" a challenge to all non-Lutheran Protes- tants, ii. 308 ; its value to Protestantism, ii. 310; edi- torial indifference of L. & M., ii. 312; appreciative article in L. Observer (Dr. Swartz), ii. 313; Infant Baptism and the Calvinistic System, {q. v.) ii. 314- '■' Consistency of the acorn is de- velopment into the oak," ii. 220. 'Constitution for congregations ; see Congregations, Const, for. Controversy ; on private com- munion, i. 75 ; against Amer. Lutheranism, ii. yy, ff. ; in its own nature not unfriendly, ii- 77 \ 319- Cookman; Rev. Alfred, of Pitts- burgh, i. 288. Rev. Mr., Methodist local preacher, ii. 2. Country; Our, sec Our Country. church, in Old Virginia, i. 209. C. P. K.— Charles Porterfield Krauth. C. Ph. K. — Cliarles Philip Krauth. " Daily papers .... the grandest epic of the ages," ii. 294. D'Aubigne; Merle, Calvin and Luther compared, quoted, i. 134- Deaf and Dumb Asylum, Staun- ton, Va., i. 210. Definite Platform; the, (1855) a confession without a confes- sor, i. 357 ; " an anonymous pamphlet," i. 360; 361 ; author- ship avowed later, i. 357; to be received unaltered, i. 358; analysis of ; comparison with Augsburg (Confession, i. 358; its reception, i. 359 ; con- demned by Ev. Revicxv, i. 360; rejected by East Penna. Synod, i. 360; refuted by Dr. Mann, i. 361 ; accepted by various bodies, i. 359; 412; opposed by C. Ph. K. (L. Observer'), i. 7,y7,; defended by S. S. S., i. 375 ; Dr. Kurtz's relation to, ii. 86; testimony of Pittsb. Synod against, i. ;iyy ; ii- 133; T38; the Christian Sabbath, ii. 120. note. Delitzsch on Church Fellowship, ii- ^i?- Demme; Dr. C. R., tribute by C. Ph. K., i. 10; eminent in Homiletics, i. ir; early work toward theological seminary, ii- 139- 414 INDEX. Dickens ; Bulwer and, ii. 347 ; Dickens' Letters, ii. 349; his greatness and littleness, ii. 350, 351. Diehl; Rev. G., Editor of Ob- server, ii. 30 ; takes stock in Lutheran and Missionary, ii. 33. Diet ; First Free, 1877. Convenes in St. Matthew's Phila., ii. 324 ; the Language Question ; C. P. K. quoted, i. 171 ; Dr. J. A. Brown's assaults on C. P. K. ; a question of chronology, V- .325- Discipline; College, relation of parental authority to; letter from C. P. K., ii. 253, 254; University law must be su- preme, ii. 255. Divine Truth ; edit. L. & M., quoted, ii. 5s. Dobler ; George, and the Seminary Library, ii. 146; Luther Bio- graphy, ii. 362. J. W. B., plans C. P. K.'s trip abroad, ii. 363 ; meeting, in Mayence, ii. 366. Doctrinal difficulties, i. y2> \ faced and overcome, i. 156. Documents; object and value of, ii. loi. Dogmatik ; Schmid's. see Schmid. Doll; Katherine, (grandmother) i. 2. Maria, i. 2. Dull (Doll) family, Philadelphia. i. 27. " Dumb watch among thinkers," ii. 114. Duncan ; Dr., of Baltimore, i. 97 ; 99- Dr. John, of Edinburgh, in St. Thomas, i. 242, note. E.-kST Pennsylvania Synod; or- ganization (1842) ; relations with Penna. Synod, ii. 25-27 ; rejects Definite Platform, i. 360; endorses address of West Penna. Synod condemn- ing Penna. Ministerium, ii. 168. " Easy writing is terribly hard reading," ii. 345. Ecclesiastical Standards, (Lint- ner) quoted, i. 355. Edinburgh ; beauty of ; Roslyn Chapel; Castle, ii. 370, 371. Editor and Preacher, Edit. L. & M., ii. 39. Editor's life ; the, ii. 84. Ehrenfeld; Rev. G. F., ii. 177. Eichelberger ; Rev. L., i. 80. Elders and Deacons in Luth. Church since Muehlenberg's time, ii. 193 ; usage adopted from Reformed and Presb. churches, ii. 193-194. Lay ; a modern invention, ii. 195, see Congregations, Con- stitution for. Teaching and Ruling, differ- ent views of C. P. K. and B. M. S. ; the latter supported by prominent Luth. theologians ; C. P. K.'s view finally approv- ed by G. C, ii. 193 ; article on, quoted, ii. 194. Election; the doctrine of. ii. 328- Endress ; Rev. C, a founder of Gen. Synod, i. 343. Ernest ; Rev. J. A., ii. 177. Error ; three stages in progress of, ii. 89 ; 166. Europe; C. P. K.'s trip to, 1880; necessary for his work on Luther Biography ; action of friends, ii. 363 ; difficulties cleared away, ii. 364 ; embarks June 26th ; lands in Queens- town, ii. 365; outline of itinerary, ii. 365-367: extracts from letters : England and Ireland, ii. 368; the first week, ii. 369 ; London ; the Tower, ii. Ti?'^ '• Scotland ; Edinburgh, i^- 370; 371; renewing his youth, ii. 370; Augsburg, ii. 375 ; Nuernberg, ii. 372-373 ; Coburg, ii. 375; Leipzig; Ber- lin, ii. 374; re-embarks. Ant- werp, Sept. 25th. ii. 375; 367. I INDEX. 415 Evangelical Review ; established 1849, i. 12; a power for con- servative Luthcranism, i. 13; C. P. K.'s interest in; "fac- tious and fanatical opposi- tion" to, i. 175; letters from Dr. Reynolds, i. 175, ff. ; sec also Correspondence under Krauth, Charles Porterfield ; Articles by C. P. K., i. 173; 178; 257, }iote; 261 ; 298; 303; Dr. Reynolds gratified, i. 178- 179; Review "killed dead" by Old Lutheranism (Kurtz), i. 179; must be sustained, i. 207, note; 258; C. P. K.'s sugges- tions for improvement, i. 307 ; themes proposed, i. 309; worth more than money, i. 311; partly the organ of conserva- tives, i. 348 ; condemns Defin- ite Platform, i. 360. Everett's Oration at Gettysb. Na- tional Cemetery, ii. 71. Ewald ; Susanna, i. 2. Extempore preaching, i. 62 ; in St. Thomas, i. 252. Eyster ; Rev. W. P., ordained with C. P. K., i. no. Faith ; Fundamental Principles of, Theses by C. P. K., dis- cussed at Reading convention ; basis of G. C.'s constitution, ii. 174. Fathers ; the, worthy of close study, i. 159; described by Dr. Kurtz {Observer), i. 344; his view criticised, i. 356. Faust ; the art of, its probable origin, ii. 84. Fellowship ; Church, sec Church Fellowship. Fifth Year of its Life; quoted from edit. L. & M., ii. 51, ff. First Best Thing for our Country ; from edit. L. & M., ii. 70. Fleming's Vocabulary of Philo- sophy, ii. 268, note. Forbearing One another in Love ; from edit. L. & M., ii. 79. Former Days and these ; the, Thanksgiving Discourse, i. 299; Forster's Life of Dickens; one of the most melancholy of books, ii- 351- Fort Wayne; see. Gen. Synod, 1866, and Gen. Council, 1867. Fraley, Hon. Frederick, submits plan for re-organizing Uni- versity to C. P. K. ; letter from C. P. K., ii. 255-256; last letter to C. P. K., ii. 395- Franckean Synod ; organization (1837) and position; its standing legally defined, ii. 129; disapproved of, by Gen. Syn., i. 331 ; applies for ad- mission (York), ii. 128; Dr. Pohlman's Comm. report, ii. 129; debate characterized by C. P. K., ii. 130; delegates ad- mitted, ii. 131 ; action of Penna. delegation, ii. 131, 132 and note. Franklin ; Benjamin, plans for educating youth in Penna., ii. 250; member of first Board of University, ii. 251. Fraternal Address ; quoted, ii. 164- 167 ; its reception by Synods, ii. 167. Free Conference vs. general Church organization, ii. 175. Friederici ; E. T. H., Principal of preparatory department, Get- tysb. Gymnasium, i. 28; 37; teacher of German, i. 33. Fritschel ; Rev. Sigmund, C. P. K. and the Confessions (Kircli- lichc Zeitschrift) i. 72; repre- sents Iowa Synod at Akron, ii. 204; letter to C. P. K. ; the language question, ii. 232-233. Fry ; Rev. Jacob, Pastor in Read- ing; accompanied C. P. K. abroad ; sketches of the trip, ii- 365, 366 ; rest or unrest, ii. 367 ; " a very nice companion," ii. 368. 4i6 INDEX. Fuerst's Hebrew and Chaldee Dic- tionary, i. 71. Fullerton ; Dr. George S., Profes- sor in University of Penna. ; describes C. P. K. among his students, ii. 259. Fundamental Doctrines ; defined by C. P. K., i. 389, ff. ; growth in his conviction concerning, ii. 112. Furness; Dr. Horace Howard, ii. 399- Galesburg Rule ; action of Swed- ish Augustana Synod, ii. 204; Dr. Ruperti's propositions ; text of the Rule, ii. 205 ; its ef- fect on the Church ; understood in two ways, ii. 206; J. A. S. and the Rule, ii. 206-207 ; the Rule explained by C. P. K., ii. 210; "pastoral regulations" or " confessional principle," ii. 219-220; action of District Synods, ii. 221 ; C. P. K.'s 105 Theses before G. C. ; 24 Propositions of J. A. S., ii. 222; correspondence of C. P. K. concerning the Rule, ii. 224, ff. ; Galesburg and First Coun- cil of Nice, ii. 232. G. C. — General Council. Geissenhainer ; Rev. F. W., pastor in Montgomery Co., i. 2 ; a founder of Gen. Synod, i. 343. General Council ; the, first steps in Ministerium of Penna., ii. 164; Fraternal address issued, ii. 164-167; its reception by the Synods, ii. 167-169; the Reading Convention (1866), ii. ^72)'< Synods represented; Theses of C. P. K. on Funda- mental Principles of Faith, and of Church Polity, ii. 174; position of Missouri and Nor- wegian Synods ; Free Confer- ence or General Church-or- ganization? ii. 175; the privi- lege of debate; outline of Con- stitution adopted, ii. 176; effect of rupture with Gen. Synod on local congregations ; litigation over church pro- perty; ii. 176-177; First Con- vention, Fort Wayne (1867) ; C. P. K.'s opening sermon: the General Council, its Diffi- culties and Encouragements, ii. 183; Order of Service (Ch. B.) discussed, ii. 191-192; Constitution for congregations recommended to Council (1875); minority report by Dr. B. M. Schmucker, ii. 192; cf. Congregations, Constitu- tion for. Church Fellowship question in Gen. Council ; re- quest of Iowa Synod concern- ing (1867), ii. 195; its effect in the body ; the doctrinal basis of the G. C. at stake, ii. 196; discussion at Pittsburgh (1868) ; report of Comm. (C. P. K. chairman) adopted; ii. 198 ; western synods not satis- fied ; Wisconsin Syn. with- draws; the Minnesota ques- tion (Chicago, 1869), ii. 202; report on Fundamental error- ists (Lancaster, O., 1870) not representing views of C. P. K. ; withdrawal of Minnesota and Illinois Synods, ii. 203 ; Akron, O., (1872) Iowa Synod renews its request ; G. C. urged to adopt C. P. K.'s de- claration as its official state- ment ; the Lancaster declara- tion as defined in Akron, ii. 204 ; Dr. Ruperti's proposi- tions (Galesburg, Ills., 1875) lead to adoption of Galesburg Rule, q. v.; text of the Rule, ii. 205; C. P. K.'s official de- claration, ii. 205-206; G. C. misrepresented by Synodical Conference ; misunderstood by Missouri Synod, ii. 219; Beth- lehem, Pa., (1876) action of eight district synods on Galesb. Rule reported, ii. 220; INDEX. 417 General Council; Continued: C. P. K. ordered to prepare Theses on Rule, ii. 222; Phila- delphia, (1877) ; discussion begins, on 105 Theses on the Galesb. Declaration on Pulpit and Altar Fellowship, ii. 222; 243; J. A. S. publishes 24 Propositions on the Rule, claiming to present true posi- tion of G. C., ii. 222 ; official character of C. P. K.'s utter- ance, ii. 223 ; opening sermon, (C. P. K.) Religion and Reli- gionisms; discussion of Theses; Drs. Seiss and Kun- kleman lead the opposition, ii. 244; Zanesville, O., (1879); last meeting attended by C. P. K. ; he submits design for seal adopted by G. C. ; discussion of 105 Theses continued, ii. 246 ; Dr. Krotel's position ; warns against hasty action ; C. P. K. declares Theses prepar- ed for discussion only ii. 247; review of C. P. K.'s work in G. C., ii. 189. General Councils ; abuse of, ii. 186. General Synod; the Charac- teristics: " an honest effort " to preserve the Church, i. 320 ; " an offspring of reviving Lutheranism," i. 320; 383; or- ganizes educational and mis- sion work, i. 330; societies founded by, i. 330; Luther's " peculiar views " abandoned by majority, i. 333; funda- mental doctrines rejected by many, ii. 114; never sub- scribed to articles on Abuses, ii. 116; inconsistency of posi- tion, i. 348 ; three classes of men in, i. 397, 398; ii. 136; its formula of doctrine ambi- guous, i. 402; influence of its "middle party," ii. 137; how used in case of Franckean Sj'nod, ii. 138; how the Pitts- burgh resolutions were modi- 27 fied, ii. 138; a voluntary con- federation, ii. 75 ; no longer a general body, ii. 165. Chronology: 1818. First proposed by Penna. Synod (Harrisburg), i. 323- 1819. Plan for general body discussed (Baltimore), i. 323. 1820. Organized in Hagcrs- town, i. 324; two currents in, i- 327, 330; Founders of, i. 343; ii. 98; Constitution of, i. 329 ; it ignores Lutheran standards, i. S33 ; 343 ; claims right to revise confession of faith, i. 335. 1821. First regular conven- tion, (Frederick, Md.) i. 324. 1823. Withdrawal of Penna. Synod, i. 324 ; and Synod of New York, i. 338. 1825. Theological Seminary established, i. 336, 339; recog- nition of Augsb. Confession, i- 338 ; 388 ; such subscription "a solemn farce," (C. Ph. K.) i. 370 ; 403. 1839. Disapproves of Franckean Synod, i. 331. 1841. A Life of Luther ap- pointed to be written, i. 331. 1842. Adopts German Li- turgy' of Penna. Synod, i. 350. 1845. Unionism; relations with Reformed and Presby- terian Churches, i. 333. 1847. Publishes translation of Penna. Synod's Liturgy, i. 154- 1848. Endorses " Apostolic Prot. Union " of S. S. S., i. 333. 1850. Convention in Char- leston, S. C, i. 151; opening sermon, the Lutheran Church in America (C. Ph. K.) quoted, i. 365. ff. ; 403. 1853. Return of Penna. Synod, (Winchester, Va.) i. 349- 4i8 INDEX. General Synod; Continued: 1855. Convention in Day- ton, O., i. 354; Definite Plat- form, i. 356; raises storm, i. 360, 361. 1856. Pacific Overture, i. 362. 1857. Convention in Read- ing anxiously awaited, i. 379; impossible to satisfy both sides, i. 380; compromise pro- posed on basis of C. P. K.'s articles on Gen. Synod, i. 409. 1859. Pittsburgh conven- tion ; admission of Melanch- thon Synod, i. 411, 412; C. P. K.'s position, 412, 413. 1864. Convention in York, Pa., ii. 127; diverse counsel (L. & M., and Observer) ii. 127, 128; application of Franckean Synod, ii. 128; Dr. Pohlman's report approved by C. P. K., ii. 129; a " crisis" in Gen. Synod, from edit. L. & M., ii. 130; admission of Franckean Synod; protest by Penna. delegation, ii. 131 ; signed by other delegates ; Penna. delegation withdraws, ii. 132 ; Constitution unsatis- factory; Dr. Pohlman's pro- posed amendment ; action of Pittsburgh Synod on Definite Platform partly adopted, ii. 133; cf. i. 2i77', this course approved by Observer, ii. 133; and bv Penna. Synod, ii. 134; 138. 1865. Amendment of doc- trinal basis rejected by four synods, ii. 135; adopted by, eighteen, ii. 136. 1866. Convention in Fort Wayne, Ind., ii. 157-160; list of delegates from Penna. Synod, ii. 157; their creden- tials refused, ii. 159; a pre- concerted program, ii. 155, 156; decision sustained by majority; delegation with- draws ; Dr. Passavant's pro- test, ii. 160; final withdrawal of Penna. Synod, ii. 161 ; this action misrepresented, ii. 162; 168. General Synod ; the. Formation of, (Dr. Krotel) i. 321-326; Theo- logical Characteristics of the Era of its Formation (C. P. K.) i. 326, ff . ; Doctrinal Basis of. Interpreted by its Leaders, i. Z32, ff.; by S. S. S., i. 2,^7; by C. P. K. (article) i. 385, ff. ; Her Name and her Foun- ders (C. P. K.) ii. 96. General Synod ; the. Three Articles on, C. P. K. in Missionary , 1857, i- 381-409- German language ; the, great treasures in, (C. Ph. K.) i. 88; importance of, (C. Ph. K.) i. 106. people ; the, ii. 379 ; 380. Germany ; Future of Luth. Church in, ii. 312. Luther's, ii. 378. Gertier ; Dr., i. 3. Gettysburg; C. P. K.'s fondness for, i. 59; preaching in, i. 60; dedication of National Ceme- tery, ii. 71, y2. Quarterly Review, refuses Dr. Jacobs' article on Con- servative Reformation, ii. 306. Seminary in, founded 1825, i. 336 ; 388 ; the " Abstract " of Maryland Synod represented its teaching, ( S. S. S. c. 1850), i. 114; C. P. K. thought of for second Professorship, i. 149, 182 ; his own feeling, i. 183 ; his love for his Alma Mater, ii. 146, 147. Gibbons ; his " silly sophism," i. 40. Gilbert ; Dr. David, Professor in Penna. College, i. 29; letter from, ii. 2. Rev. D. M., " Lutheran Church in Virginia," i. 153; 270. I INDEX. 419 " Going to do, stop going and do," ii- 54- Golden; Hon. E. S., ii. 177. Government ; Civil and Ecclesias- tical, reply to Dr. Walther, ii. 171-172. Gown ; preaching in the, C. P. K. in St. John's, i. 152; in the West Indies, i. 235; 258; Dr. Kurtz in the gown, ii. 16. wearing of the, controversy in St. Mark's, ii. 3; 15; a church question, not congre- gational, ii. 4; exclusively Protestant usage, ii. 9 ; sup- ported by Ministeriuni ; Dr. Kurtz's sermon against, ii. 13; arguments against, (S. S. S.), ii. 14; desirable, not essential to true Lutheranism, ii. 20. Graff; Mr., of Pittsburgh, i. 273. Grahn; Rev. H., German prayer at funeral of C. P. K., ii. 399. " Great books are reservoirs good periodicals are flowing springs," ii. 294. Green; Dr. W. Henry, of Prince- ton, C. P. K.'s friendship with, ii. 319; 320; urges C. P. K. to prepare paper for Am. Orien- tal Society ; introduces him to Mr. Lenox ; acknowledges help in Lange's Commentary (Song of Solomon) ii. 320. Greenwald ; Rev. E., proposes division of Synodical terri- tory, ii. 27. Gregory; Dr. Caspar Rene, C. P. K.'s library, ii. 298; reviews Conservative Reformation (Bibl. Sacra) ii. 304. G. S. — General Synod. Guericke, Allgem. Christl. Sym- bolik ; translation from, i. 257. Haas; Rev. G. C. F., President of N. Y. Synod; C. P. K. as teacher of Philosophy, ii. 267. " Halle'sche Nachrichten ;" pro- posed translation ; recom- mended by G. S., i. 331. Harkey; Rev. S. L., resents the influence of foreign dictators {see Ruperti), ii. 213 214; de- fends the rights of the " Com- munion of Saints," ii. 214. Rev. S. W., signs license of C. P. K., i. 43 ; favors " New Measures," i. in. Harms ; Claus, his prophecy ful- filled, i. Z22. Harn's Feet-washing ; reviewed by C. P. K., i. 310. Hasselquist ; Rev. T. N., repre- sents Swedes by letter, to Reading Convention, ii. 174. Haupt; Prof. Herman, Penna. College, i. 29. Hay ; Rev. Chas. A., translates, with Dr. Jacobs, Schmid's Dogmatik, i. 23, note; sketch of C. P. K. in college, i. 30; visited by C. P. K., i. 273; signs Pacific Overture, i. 362; denounces " Ministerial Ses- sions," ii. 26, 27. Hazelius ; Dr. Ernest L., German teacher of C. P. K., i. 28; 2,7; predecessor of C. Ph. K. in Seminary, i. 11. Hebrew ; and Classics ; C. P. K.'s earliest love in languages, i. 71. Hebron Luth. church ; litigation in, ii. 177. Heinitsch ; C., ii. 157. Heiskell ; Catherine Susan (moth- er), i. 26. family, i. 27. Peter (grandfather), indul- gent to little Charles, i. 27; letter from, i. 34. Helfersley; Mrs. Sarah, catechu- men of C. Ph. K., i. 26. Hengstenberg; Christology of, i. 127. Henkel; Rev. S. G., with D. M. Henkel publishes transl. of Symb. Rooks ; C. P. K.'s as- sistance invited, i. 174; import- ant contribution to Luth. liter- ature, i. T94; C. Ph. K. takes Augsb. Conf. i. 206. 420 INDEX. He that is not against us; from edit. L. & M., ii. 8i. Hill; Rev. Reuben, opposes the Galesb. Rule, ii. 212; corn with C. P. K. about founding Luth. Review, ii. 322-323. Hodge ; Dr. A. A., letter to C. P. K., ii. 318. Dr. Charles, see also Infant Baptism; C. P. K.'s personal relations with, ii. 319; 321; his tribute to, ii. 319. Hofman; Rev. J. N., transl. Arndt's True Christianity, i. 331. Holston Synod adopts Galesb. Rule, ii. 221. Home Missions ; importance of, to Luth. Church, i. 260. Houpt; L. L., ii. 157. Howard; Rev. Dr., of Pittsburgh, i., 288. Howson ; Dean, cordial reception to C. P. K., ii. 369; 371. How to Make a Paper Succeed, edit. L. & M. ii. 54. Hubley; George, of Pittsburgh, i. 271. Humor and Good Humor, ii. 338. Hutter ; Rev. E. W., mentioned, i. 361 ; installation of C. P. K. in St. Mark's, ii. i ; Eulogy of Dr. Kurtz reviewed by C. P. K, ii. 82. Idealism and Realism, ii. 275-277. Strength and Weakness of, ii. 272, ff. " Ignorance is neither innocence nor virtue," ii. 259; ("nor safety ") ii. 280. Inauguration of Zachary Taylor, i. 212. Indiana Synod opposed to Galesb. Rule, ii. 221. Indicator; the, C. P. K.'s interest in, ii. 145 ; his method of teaching described, (Dr. Schmauk), ii. 145, 146. Infant Baptism and Infant Salva- tion in the Calvinistic System ; statements in Cons. Reforma- tion questioned by Dr. Hodge, ii. 314; C. P. K.'s reply, (Mercersburg Rev.) ; after- wards in book form, (1874), ii. 315 ; Dr. Hodge's letter, ii. 317; "David and Goliath," ii. 317, note. Insulanus ; Dr. G. F. Krotel, ii. 206. Intelligencer ; Ev. Luth., edited (1826-7) by Dr. D. F. Schaef- fer and C. Ph. K., i. 8. Iowa ; Synod of, represented at Reading Convention, ii. 174; raises question in G. C. on Church Fellowship, ii. 195 ; its own position, ii. 195 ; 198 ; de- clared by C. P. K. (1870) the only consistent one, ii. 204. See General Council. " Irishman ; the Greek," i. 38. Jackson ; Professor, ii. 399. Jacobs ; Rev. Henry Eyster, transl. of Schmid's Dogmatik, i. 23, note; The Sabbath Question, (Ev. Reviezv), ii. 123; letter to C. P. K. concerning this article, ii. 124; Hebron case, ii. 177; letters to C. P. K., Galesb. Rule, ii. 225 ; 228 ; 230 ; theory of unionism annihilat- ed, ii. 226; reply of C. P. K., ii. 227 ; Lutheran ministers in non-Lutheran pulpits, ii. 229; altar fellowship, ii. 231 ; de- fends Galesb. Rule, ii. 237; lit- erary work proposed to C. P. K., ii. 321 ; letter to, from Coburg, ii. 375. Rev. Michael, teacher in Get- tysb. Gymnasium, i. 28; 37; Professor in Penna. College, i- 29 ; 53 ; and the Pacific Overture, i. 362. Jacobus; Rev. Dr., of Pittsburgh, i. 288. J. A. S. — Rev. Joseph A. Seiss. Jefferson ; " Father of the Uni- versity of Virginia," ii. 61. INDEX. 421 Jubilee Service, ii. 181 -182. Jubilees; Reformation, 1817, i. 321, 322; 1867, ii. 183. Kaufmann; Rev. A., transl. Tholuck's John, i. 304. Keck ; Heinrich, i. 2. Keller; Rev. Benjamin, C. P. K. confirmed by, i. 34. Rev. Ezra, teacher in Gettysb. Gymnasium, i. 28. Kendall ; Professor, ii. 399. Kinsolving; Mrs. Julia (sister) letter to, quoted, i. 141 ; letters from, quoted, i. 305; 306; her character, i. 305 ; 307 ; her death, i. 306; her sons, i. 307. Rev. G. Herbert, (nephew) Bishop of Texas, i. 307. Rev. O. A., (brother-in-law), i. 26 ; letter from, quoted, i. 306. Kirchliche Zeitschrift; In Me- moriam (Dr. Fritschel) quoted, i. 72. Knauff; Henry, ii. 34; with H. W. Knauff, publisher of Lutheran and Home Journal, ii. 28. Knox ; Rev. John P., pastor in St. Thomas, i. 216; 221. Kohler ; Rev. J., ii. 139. Krauth ; Charles Philip, (father). Chronology: 1797-1818. Birth May 7th, and baptism, i. 2 ; early years, i. 6; studies medicine, i. 7; theological training, by Dr. D. F. SchaeflFer, i. 7. 1818. Assistant to Rev. Abr. Reck, Winchester, Va., i. 8. 1819. licensed by Penna. Min., i. 8; pastor in Martins- burg and Shepherdstown, i. 8 ; 138. 1820. Marriage, i. 26. 1824. Death of wife, i. 26. 1826. Editor of Ev. Luth. Intelligencer, i. 8; Director of Gettysb. Seminary ; President of Synod of Md. and Va. ; called to St. Matthew's, i. 9. 1827. Moves to Philadelphia, i. 9; friendship with Dr. Demme, i. 10. 1833. Professor of Biblical and Oriental Literature in Gettysb. Sem., i. 11. 1834. President of Penna. College, i. 11; second mar- riage, i. 28. 1849. First contr. to Ev. Review, quoted, i. 20. 1850. Synodical sermon in Charleston, i. 151 ; quoted, i. 365 ; 403 ; resigns Presidency of College, i. 12; 200. 1850-1861. Editor of Ev. Review, i. 12. 1867. Death, May 30th, i. 24 ; tablet, i. 25 ; Conservative Reformation dedicated to his memory, (1871), ii. 301; i. 6. Personal traits: accuracy and thoroughness, i. 6; 13; love of reading, i. 6; 14; re- tentive memory, i. 13; linguis- tic attainments, i. 11; 13; 14; character and bearing i. 11; attractive personality, i. 16, 17; benevolent and unsel- fish, i. 16; despised duplicity and meanness, i. 17; re- markably reticent, i. 12; modest and unassuming, i. 14, 15; of "crystalline sincerity," i. 17: head of his family, i. S; in conversation, i. 17; in the pulpit, i. 15 ; deep religious convictions, i. 18; in bereave- ment, i. 139; 306; irenical dis- position, i. 8; 15; 18; 363; 368; wrote too little, i. 15; 203; 308. Theological position: stated by himself, i. 8 ; 18; influence of Dr. Demme, i. 10; firm in his convictions, but averse to strife, i. 15; 18; described by C. P. K., i. 19; ii. 81; by S. S. S., i. 374; the Augsb. Corrfes- 422 INDEX. Krauth; Charles Ph.; Continued: sion, i. 19; Schmid's Dog- matik, i. 20 ; 199 ; Symbolical Books, i. 21, ff. ; Definite Plat- form, i. 372 ; Pacific Overture, i. 362; C. Ph. K. claimed by both sides, i. 19; 20; 364; the real weight of his influence on the conservative side. i. 20 ; 365 ; decidedly antagonistic to Amer. Lutheranism, i. 364 ; cf . ii. 132, note ; not afraid of the truth, i. 108. ICrauth ; Charles Porterfield, Chronology: 1823-1830. Birth, March 17th; baptism; his middle name ; mother's death, i. 26 ; childhood in Staunton, Va., and Philadelphia ; his first school ; his " little hatchet ;" reminiscences of St. Mat- thew's, i. 27. 1831. Enters Gettysburg Gymnasium; his teachers, i. 28. 1834-1839. His father's se- cond marriage, i. 28, 29; Penn- sylvania College, i. 29; his teachers, i. 29 ; 41 ; 42 ; Philo- mathean Society, i. 29; his col- lege years, (Hay), i. 30; (Bit- tinger) i. 31; Article: College Days, i. 36; the college poet, i. 31 ; 41 ; early poems, i. 32 ; 42 ; begins a " regularly irregular journal," i. 2^ ; " hates Ger- man," i. :iz\ confirmed (1837) by Rev. B. Keller : enters Theol. Sem., (1839); his teachers, i. 34. 1841. Graduates from Sem., i. 34; licensed at Hagerstown, i. 43 ; 47 ; 52 ; pastor in Canton, i. 43 ; 46 ; private studies, i. 44; 51; 69; 70; first sermon, i. 46 ; first baptism, i. 47 ; de- velops a love of close, pro- tracted study, i. 52 ; gives les- sons in German, i. 53 ; threat- ened with nervous break- down, i. 52, 53. 1842. Leaves Canton, i. 44; 60 ; ordained in Frederick, Md., i. no; called to Lombard St. church for six months ; a brilliant preacher, i. 61. 1843. Re-elected in Lombard Str. church, i. 61 ; holds pro- tracted meetings, i. 64; 91 ; in- terested in S. S. work, i. 67 ; address quoted, i. 68. 1844. Appointed by Synod of Md. to prepare sermon on Luth. view of Lord's Supper, i. 114; reviews Prof. Stuart's article on Real Presence, i. 117; careful preparation for this work, i. 119; marriage, i. 77- 1845. Resigns in Lombard Str. ; farewell sermon printed ; re-elected, i. 78 ; excused from delivering sermon before Synod, i. 135. 1846. Supplies Dr. Morris's pulpit, i. 74 ; 109 ; writes edi- torials of Luth. Observer, i. 74 ; ii. 28 ; drafts a Liturgy, i. 67. 1847. Controversy with Dr. Kurtz on Private Communion, i. 75 ; much discouraged in Balto. ; final resignation, i. 78 ; 79; pastor in Shepherdstown, i. 80; and Martinsburg, i. 138. 1848. Death of little Susan, i. 138, 140; 182; pastor in Winchester, i. 141 ; suggested for second professorship in Gettysb. Sem., i. 149 ; delegate to Gen. Synod, i. 151 ; contri- butes to Mercersburg Rev., i. 199; friendship with B. M. Schmucker. i. 142 ; 160 ; 187 ; correspondence with him, (1848-52), i. 142, 143; 182- 192 ; change in theological views substantially complete, i. 160 ; 166 ; preaching in Wash- ington, i. 151. INDEX. 423 Krautli ; Charles P. ; Continued: 1849. Calls from various congregations, (1849-1854), i. 150; received into Synod of Va., i. 154; Secretary of its Home Miss. Soc, i. 186; birth of son, i. 199; Chrysos- tom, the " banner article " of Ev. Rcvieiv, i. 158; his interest in Rcvicxv, i. 175; 180; 189; literary work, i. 183, 184. 1850. Delegate to Gen. Synod at Charleston, S. C, i. 151. 154- 1851. Introduces Liturgy of Gen. Synod, i. 191 ; call to New York declined, i. 150; preaches in St. John's and St. Mark's, Phila., i. 152; sermon on Popular Amusements, i. 145 ; warm friendship with J. A. S., i. 149; Trustee of Gettvsb Sem., i. 194. 1852. Wife's health failing, i. 152; 214; visit to West Indies ; arrival in St. Thomas, i. 216; call to Dutch Ref. congr., i. 216; 221 ; in the par- sonage, i. 221; 248; preaching " as a Lutheran," i. 222, (cf. ii. 200: 2); most remarkable event of his life, i. 242; ex- perience with yellow fever, i. 217; 232, 22,3; 251, 252; 254; ii. 235 ; interest in early mis- sionary work in tropics, i. 217- 218; literary work, i. 257; 261 ; invited to take part in Hen- kel's transl. of Symb. Books, i. 174. 1853. Four months in Santa Cruz, i. 218: return to Amer- ica, i. 220; 261 ; death of wife; A Tribute, i. 262 ; Dr. Rey- nolds' plans for C. P. K., i. 180. 1854. Elected President of Va. Synod, i. 156; sermon: Burning of the Old Church, quoted, i. 265-270. 1855. Revival in Winches- ter, i. 310; first call to Pitts- burgh declined, i. 271; 310; visits Pittsb., i. 273 ; second call, i. 274; protest in Win- chester; call declined, i. 275, 276 ; second marriage, i. 270 ; bridal trip to Pittsb. ; C. Ph. K. asked to intercede ; third call accepted, i. 282; letter of acceptance, i. 286; leaves Win- chester ; resignation quoted, i. 287. 1856. Success of C. P. K.'s pastorate in Pittsb., i. 291 ; 292 ; made Doctor of Divinity, i. 288; frames action of Pittsb. Synod on Def. Platform, i. 377; ii. 115; "preparing for the battle," (against S. S. S.), i- 375- 1857. Hopeful attitude of C. P. K.. i. 380; cf. ii. 115; series of Articles on Gen. Synod, i. 381, ff. ; kindly feel- ing of S. S. S., i. 410. 1858. Death of Mrs. Kin- solving, i. 305 ; C. P. K. ap- proached by St. John's, Philada. ; Pittsb. friends pro- test, i. 290, 291 ; defends S. S. S. against charge of unsound doctrine, i. 411 ; Three Essays on Poverty, quoted, i. 218-219. 1859. Opposes admission of Melanchthon Synod to Gen. Synod; offers motion qualify- ing its admission, i. 412; pub- lishes transl. of Tholuck's John, i. 303 ; unanimous call to St. Mark's. Philada., i. 291, 295 ; resolutions of Pittsb. Council, i. 295 ; resigns in Pittsb., i. 297 ; pastor in St. Mark's, ii. i, ff. ; the gown conflict, ii. 3, ff. 1860. Edits Fleming's Voca- bulary of Philosophy, ii. 268; Two Sermons on Christian Liberty, ii. 5 ; A Melanch- thonian Pronunciamento, quot- ed, ii. 15; received into East 424 INDEX. Krauth ; Charles P. ; Continued: Penna. Synod, ii. 25 ; edits Lutheran and Home Journal, ii. 29. 1861. Autocracy of Tailor vs. Liberty of Church, quoted, ii. 18, 19; resigns St. Mark's, ii. 23, 24; Editor-in-Chief of Lutheran and Missionary, (1861-1867), ii. 28; 34; 57; 58; requested by Publ. Board to write a Life of Luther for children, ii. 361. 1862. Member of Am. Oriental Society, ii. 320; Arti- cles on Bible Revision and History of Authorized Ver- sion, (L. & M.) ii. 331. 1864. Supplies St. John's, ii. 180; Philada. Seminary es- tablished, ii. 127; 139, ff. ; C. P. K. first English (Norton) Professor, ii. 141 ; replies to charge at installation of Fa- culty, ii. 143 ; branches assign- ed to him, ii. 144. 1865. Received into Min. of Penna., ii. 27; appointed on Ch. B. Comm., ii. 190; The Two Pageants, (tribute to Lincoln), ii. j^; a mistake mis- taken, ii. y^ ; declaration of his position on Fundamentals, ii. 114; and retraction of all utterances contrary to it, ii. 115; controversy with Dr. Brown over doctrinal basis of two Seminaries, ii. 146; death of two children, ii. 178. 1866. Trustee of University of Penna., ii. 252; Tribute to Dr. Kurtz, ii. 82 ; delegate from Penna. Synod to Gen. Synod at Fort Wayne, ii. 157; questions Dr. Sprecher's right to refuse credentials of dele- gation, ii. 160; (cf. General Synod;) doctrinal position of Penna. Synod revised, as pro- posed by C. P. K., ii. 161 ; he writes the " Fraternal Ad- dress," ii. 164 ; address before Pittsb. Synod, ii. 162; 169; prepares way for proposed general body in articles on Church Polity, ii 170; pastor in St. Stephen's, ii. 181 ; the Reading Convention, ii. 173; Theses on Fundamental Prin- ciples of Faith ; and of Church Polity; basis of General Coun- cil's Constitution, ii. 174; Ar- ticles on Liturgies, (1866- 1867), ii. 190. 1867. Death of C. Ph. K, i. 24; ii. 178; Jubilee Service, ii. 181 ; two Christmas Hymns, written for St. Stephen's S. S., ii. 182; General Council or- ganized, ii. 127; 183; abstract of opening sermon, ii. 183-189; Church Fellowship question, ii. 196; C. P. K.'s position the gradual outgrowth of his confessional principles, ii. 197. 1868. C. P. K. witness in litigation over church pro- perty, ii. 176; 177; lecture in Kittaning (Life Questions), ii. 177; reply to Encyclica of Pius IX., ii. 189 ; Church Fel- lowship ; Pittsburgh declara- tion, ii. 198; C. P. K.'s posi- tion, ii. 199; Professor of Moral and Intellectual Philo- sophy in Univ. of Penna. ; re- signs as Trustee ; friendship with Dr. Stille, ii. 252 ; tribute of latter to C. P. K.'s scholar- ship and character (1883), ii. 252. 1869. Translation of Augsb. Conf., ii. 118; C. P. K. begins work on Special Collects for Ch. B., ii. 191 ; the " Minne- sota Question," ii. 202. 1870. Theses on Justifica- tion, ii. 189 ; Committee's re- port on Minnesota Question; not C. P. K.'s view ; not satis- factory to G. C, ii. 203. INDEX. 425 Krauth ; Charles P.; Continued: 1871. C P. K. convinced that Iowa position is the only consistent one, ii. 204; cf. ii. 202; "Conservative Reforma- tion," ii. 299 ; C. P. K. mem- ber of Old Testament Revi- sion Company ; " the most scholarly representative of the Luth. Church," ii. 331. 1872. C. P. K.'s declaration on Church Fellowship accept- ed as G. C.'s official statement (Akron), ii. 204. 1873. Vice-Provost of Uni- versity of Penna., ii. 252 ; " Strength and Weakness of Idealism," Evan. Alliance, New York, ii. 322 ; see ii. 272, ff. 1874. Berkeley's Principles of Human Knowledge, ii. 270, 271 ; Thetical Statement of Doctrine concerning Ministry of the Gospel. (1874-1875) ii. 194. 1875. Prepares draft for constitution of congregations, ii. 192 ; invited to furnish paper for work on Amer. Libraries (Bur. of Education, Washington), ii. 283; Gales- burg Rule. ii. 205, 206; first Article on Purity of Pulpit, Sanctity of Altar; quoted, ii. 209 ; C. P. K.'s statement ap- proved by chairmen of all Synodical delegations at Gales- burg, ii. 211. 1876. C. P. K.'s position at- tacked by correspondents and editor of L. &r M., ii. 214; his defense of his opponents against Dr. Ruperti ; " carnal weapons" condemned, ii. 218; 14 articles continued, on Pul- pit and Altar, ii. 219; "an indirect auto-biography," ii. 236; C. P. K. ordered to pre- pare Theses on Galesburg Rule, ii. 222 ; correspondence concerning Rule, ii. 224-243 ; carefully preserved, ii. 223. 1877. 105 Theses on Pulpit and Altar Fellowship, ii. 189; 222 ; C. P. K. representing mind of G. C, ii. 223 ; Ser- mon : " Religion and Religion- isms;" debate on Theses; C. P. K.'s position unassailable, ii. 244; First Free Diet, ii. 324 ; Paper : " Relations of the Luth. Church to the Denomi- nations around us ;" clash with Dr. Brown, ii. 325. 1878. Theses on the Sab- bath, ii. 124; Fleming's Voca- bulary, new edition, ii. 268; offered editorship of proposed Reviezv, by Dr. Hill, ii. 322. 1879. Designs seal of G. C. ; attends the Council for the last time, ii. 246 ; requested by Pittsb. Synod to prepare Life of Luther, ii. 361. 1880. Resolution of Penna. Synod asking C. P. K. to pre- pare Luther Biography, ii. 362 ; European trip arranged, ii- 363-364 ; see Europe ; fail- ing health, ii. 2>77 ', C. P. K. acting Provost of Univ. ; Trustees petitioned by Faculty to elect him Provost ; letter to Mr. Fraley concerning re-or- ganization of University, ii. 255, 256; C. P. K.'s burden under new plan, ii. 257. 1881. Address at inaugur- ation of Provost Pepper, ii. 257-258; lecture on Luther and Luther's Germany, ii. 377 ; summer trip, ii. 383 ; Cosmos, ii. 385 ; letter to A. S.. work of G. C. ii. 223 ; first grand- child, ii. 383. 1882. Editor-in-chief of Lutheran Church Review, ii. 324; summer at Mt. Desert, ii. 383, 384 ; " better but not well," ii. 395 ; Microcosmos, ii. 392 ; his Nunc Dimittis, ii. 426 INDEX. Krauth ; Charles P.; Continued: 384 ; urged to write on Pre- destination, ii. 326-327; last visit to Seminary, ii. 394 ; Dean of Faculty of Philoso- phy, Univ. of Penna., Dec. 8th, ii. 252 ; alarm in Univer- sity over his condition, ii. 395. 1883. His death, Jan. 2d, ii. 397 ; his funeral, Jan. 5th, ii. 398 ; his grave ; summing up his character and work, ii. 399- Personal traits: faithful as a pastor, i. 143, 144; 183; in- terest in Home Missions, i. 260 ; in Charity, i. 302 ; a true Christian patriot, ii. 59; hatred of slavery, i. 290 ; dignity in his presence, ii. 265 ; influence of his personality, ii. 260; 269; polished courtesy, ii. 265 ; love for children, i. 313; ii. 383; with his own children, i. 313- 315; modest estimate of him- self, i. 183; humility, willing- ness to learn, i. 74; ii. 228; 235; optimistic, i. 299; 376; 381; ii. 50; 278; love of close, protracted study, i. 52 ; 92 ; 119; 143; 178; 312-313; mak- ing the most of his time, i. 35 ; 51; 59; 86; 202; 207; 215; 259; ii. 147; accurate memory, ii. 261 ; keen sense of the ludi- crous, i. 31; ii. 78; "mind worked with amazing celer- ity," i. 31 ; wonderful gift of language, ii. 145 ; master of a precise, beautiful style, i. 173; love of nature and natural science, i. 215; ii. 383; 384; 385, ff. ; fondness for Shak- spere, i. 31 ; ii. Z2>7 ! enthusi- astic student of Liturgies, i. 155; ii. 190; just and kind as a reviewer, i. 117; ii. 2>2i7, 338 ; " a little severe," ii. 358 ; hearty encouragement to younger scholars, ii. 267; " ideal teacher for ideal stu- dents," ii. 14s ; honest and truthful as a teacher, ii. 260; 262 ; patient, kindly, courteous in class-room, ii. 259 ; 264 ; 269; discipline gentle but ef- fective, ii. 265 ; his wit a stimulant to students, ii. 263 ; apt illustrations used, ii. 262 ; his fearless love of truth, i. 147; ii. 278; hard to convince, but convinced very thorough- ly, ii. 236; a lover of peace, i. 50; 172; ii. 248; his joy in believing, i. 156; conscious- ness of his special mission, i. 172; 193, 194; willing to en- dure hardness, ii. 147 ; invinci- ble power of his logic, ii. 145 ; 244 ; combative, not destruct- ive, ii. 78 ; fighting principles,., not men, ii. 82; 218; 240; 400; kind and considerate to an- tagonists, ii. 78; 244; 247; loyalty to old friends who dif- fered from him, ii. 218. Krauth Correspondence. Letters from C. Ph. K. to C. P. K.: preparing sermons ; " cultivate the German," i. 51 ; comment- aries unsatisfactory, i. 58 r writing sermons, i. 87 ; to Baltimore, i. 88; 91; 93; 105 r 106; read less, study more, i. 90 ; anxiety about son's health, i. 91, 93; showy preaching, i. 94; doctrine of the Trinity, i. 97; Dr. Arnold's Life, i. 106; the Lord's Supper, i. 107; the Real Presence, i. T08 ; to Shep- herdstown, i. 197; death of little Susan, i. 139; birth of grandson, i. 199; Penna. Synod, i. 201 ; reviewing the Review, i. 204 ; wanted, a champion, i. 205 ; Review un- der a cloud ; Symbolism and vital godliness, i. 208 ; call to Pittsb. ; sympathy for Win- chester, i. 2S:y ; aversion to Definite Platform, i. ^72 ; con- curs in views of C. P. K.. INDEX. 427 Krautli Correspondence; Con- tinued: (Gen. Synod and Def. Platf.), i. 380; death of Mrs. Kin- solving, i. 306; Dr. S. S. S. pleased with C. P. K., i. 410. Letters from C. P. K. to C. Ph. K.: Canton, i. 49, ff. ; first meeting of Synod, i. 52; studies in German and He- brew, i. 55 ; the folly of verse writing ; English reading, i. 56 ; from Baltimore, i. 86 ; 91 ; 93; 94; 96; 100; more books, i, 89; abstract preaching, i. 92; preparation for preaching, i. 95; Bible study, i. 97; the Trinity, i. 98, 99: C. P. K.'s library, i. 99; Philippians 2: 6, i. 102; Exegesis and German, i. 102, ff. ; pastoral work, i. 105; the Lord's Supper, i. 107; Dr. Morris, i. 108; discourse on Lord's Supper, i. 135; death of little Susan, i. 138; call to Winchester, i. 141 ; new hymn book, i. 198; from Win- chester, i. 198; 200; 310; 311; Article on Transfiguration, i. 202, 203 ; importance of Re- view ; Reformation library desired, i. 207; from St. Thomas, i. 252 ; from Santa Cruz, i. 257; return from W. L, i. 220; death of Mrs. Krauth, i. 262 ; leaving Win- chester, i. 287; first impres- sions of Pittsburgh, i. 289; St. Marks, i. 292, 296 ; Ev. Re- viezv, i. 307-309 ; from Pittsb., i. 311, 312. 313; Calovius, i. 375 ; not inclined for Platform war, i. 376. Krauth family ; ancestors ; emigra- tion to America, i. i. Catherine Susan Heiskell (mother) i. 26. Charles James, (grand- father) i. I ; Sec. German Society, i. 2; his death, i. 5. Philip, 2d, (son) i. 78; 213 ; sec Charlie. Edmund A., (uncle) i. 3, 4, 5. Eliza Anne, (aunt) i. 2. Frederick Keller, (cousin) i. T. Harriet Brown, (stepmother) marriage, i. 28; her goodness, i. 29; letter to, i. 58. Harriett Reynolds, (daugh- ter) i. 78; letters to, i. 24; 314; contrib. to L. & M., ii. 215; letter to, (Luther Biogr.) ii. 362 ; letters to, from Europe, ii. 368; 369; 371; 372; 374; 375; transl. Wilden- hahn's Hans Sachs, ii. 374, note: marriage, ii. 367; letter to, (Bar Harbor) ii. 384. John Leyden, (great uncle) i. i; 7- Martin, (uncle) i. 2. Julia Heiskell, (sister), see Kinsolving. Katherine, (daughter), death, ii. 179. Katherine Doll, (grand- mother), i. 2; 5. Louisa, (aunt), see Bittle. Mary, (aunt), see Taylor. Robert Lane, (son), death, ii. 179. Taylor, (uncle), i. 3, 4. Susan Heiskell, (daughter), i. 78; death, i. 138. Reynolds, (wife) i. 77; 100; letters to, i. 139; 140; 144, (Popular Amusements) ; 152; 209-213; her letters from West Indies, i. 232; 253. Virginia Baker, (second wife), i. 270. William Theodore, (uncle), i- 3- Krotel : Rev. G. F., quoted, i. 325- 326 : succeeds C. P. K. in St. Clark's, ii. 24; proposes union of Synods, ii. 27; first connec- tion with L. & M.. ii. 51; Associate Editor L. & M., ii. 58; Editor L. & M.. ii. 58; 428 INDEX. Krotel ; Rev. G. F. ; Continued: Professor extra-ordinary in Phila. Sem., ii. 141 ; delegate to Gen. Synod, Fort Wayne, ii. 157; defends action of Penna. Synod, ii. 168; the Galesb. action, ii. 206; C. P. K. defends him against Dr. Ruperti, ii. 218; letter from C. P. K., (105 Theses), ii. 240; his reply ; his own position de- fined, ii. 240-241 ; his candor and manliness in G. C, ii. 247 ; personal relations with C. P. K. undisturbed, ii. 247; 306; succeeds J. A. S. as Editor-in-Chief of L. &- M., (1879); "too good to last" (C. P. K.) ; resigns position, ii. 248 ; letter on Cons. Reforma- tion ; " the noblest contribu- tion " to the English literature of our Church, ii. 306; Eng- lish prayer at C. P. K.'s funeral, ii. 398. Krug; Rev. Philip, ii. 247. Kunkleman ; Rev. J. A., opposes Galesburg Rule, ii. 206; de- fended by C. P. K. against Dr. Ruperti, ii. 218; joins Dr. Seiss against 105 Theses in G. C, ii. 244. Kunze ; Rev. J. Christopher, leader in N. Y. Ministerium, i. 320; first Lutheran in Board of Univ. of Penna., ii. 251. Kurtz; Rev. Benjamin, going abroad, i. 74; 108; edits Ob- server, i. Ill; condemns Ev. Review, i. 179; objects to long- windedness, i. 135 ; the Gen- eral Synod, i. 196 ; 343 ; ap- pointed to write Luther Biography, i. 332; doctrinal basis of Gen. Syn., i. 335 ; vigorous support of S. S. S., i. 334; the Fathers, i. 344; connection with Def. Plat- form, i. 357; ii. 86; Melanch- thon Synod, i. 411; sermon against the gown, ii. 13; re- viewed by C. P. K., ii. 15 ; the " dusty fathers" ; C. P. K.'s rebuke, ii. 17, 18; influence over Luth. Observer, ii. 30; protests against Gen. Synod's action at York, ii. 134; Eulogy by Dr. Hutter; kindly review by C. P. K., ii. 82, flF. Rev. Daniel, a founder of Gen. Synod, i. 343. Laird; Rev. S., Delegate to Gen. Synod, Fort Wayne, ii. 157; Hebron case, ii. 177. L. & M. — Lutheran and Mission- ary. Lane; Dr., criticism of Luth. Ob- server, i. 177. Thomas H., influence in bringing C. P. K. to Pittsb., i. 177, note; 284; visits Win- chester, i. 273; letter from, i. 288; letters to, i. 274; 279; 283; 284; 285; ii. 178-179, (death of the children) ; ii. 299, (plan of Cons. Reforma- tion) ; his assistance in pub- lishing this, ii. 301 ; pall bearer, ii. 399. Language Question; the, in Phil- ada., i. 9; why the English was feared, i. 169; 171; losses in the West, i. 181 ; difficulties connected with, ii. 42 ; factor in need of new Seminary, ii. 149-150; out of place (Dr. Fritschel) ii. 232. Lehman; H., ii. 157. Library; Bucknell, Reports on, ii. 282. Development of C. P. K.'s, in its relation to his work : a boy fond of reading, i. 27 ; 38 ; a " voracious reader," i. 30 ; Anthon's Classical Dictionary, i. 34; profound admiration for the Classics, i. 39; familiarity with English literature, i. 39 ; 172; ii. 369; 37'^-272; sys- tematic reading, i. 44; Bible study in the original, " pars- INDEX. 429 Library; C. P. K.'s, Continued: ing carefully," i. 51; 55; 92; interest in Exegesis, i. 71 ; 92; the solid foundation of his theological position, i. 72; 157; books lent or given by C. Ph. K., i. 49; 52; 58; 69; 70; 87; 89; 198; 199; ii. 347; C. P. K. pleased with his father's choice, i. 56 ; studying " with a few books," i. 50; 57; taking up German, i. 55; 71; 100; 102; an " extra polish," i. 186; buying books, i. 56 ; 57 ; the Hebrew fever, i. 70; 71; 92; 94; 104; Chaldee grammar re- ceived, i. 58 ; seven hundred volumes his joy and pride, (1844), i. 69; 99; how classi- fied, i. 99-100; he knew his books, i. 70; ii. 298, note; the library catalogued ; motto from Beaumont and Fletcher, i. 70; "secret satisfaction in his books," i. 87; study of the Confessions, i. 72 ; his works on Exegesis, i. 90; German reading, i. 104 ; 109 ; warm in- terest in Liturgies, i. 155 ; lit- erature of the Reformation periods, i. 161; 207; reading French, i. 186; specializing in confessional literature, (1849), i. 167; 186; 187; "strict ab- stinence " from book buying, i. 186; getting books vs. using them, i. 187 ; the love of books produces contentment, i. 189; " so hungry " for books, i. 190; 191 ; Luther books, i. 194; 200; 203; ii. 364, note; yil \ a " very fair show " in parch- ment and stamped hogskin, i. 198; "some very valuable books," i. 200 ; " very ancient, rare and rich works," i. 203 ; " leaning too much to the ancients," (C. Ph. K, 1850), i. 204 ; Fathers and Church History; Chrysostom, i. 158; " quite a decent patristic library for a country parson;" list of the Fathers (1852), i. 207; nature books, i. 215; the library in 1855, i. 287 ; works on the Augsb. Confession, i. 302; books of practical reli- gious character, i. 310; trad- ing for a fine edition of Chrysostom, i. 313; preparing for the battle, (1856); "gathering up" Lutheranism; looking eagerly for Calovius, i- 375 ; " elegant books " to " swop for any old Lutheran trash," i. 376; C. P. K. among his books, ii. 267; 308; his library at the service of his friends, i. 149; 192; ii. 267; books collected in translating Ulrici, (1874), ii. 271; the library reflecting his varied interests, ii. 281 ; plans to pur- chase it for the University, ii. 297 ; its value and scope in 1879; large ratio of rare books ; the collection of Bibles, ii. 298; the library presented to the Lutheran Theol. Semi- nary (1883) ; the Krauth Me- morial Library, (1908), ii. 298. Library; the, aim of a good library, i. 187 ; ii. 284 ; 289 ; 292-293 ; specializing in, ii. 286; "catacombs of the intel- lectual world," ii. 287 ; the general library a compromise, ii. 289 ; the local library ; ac- cumulative value of historical documents, ii. 295 ; the poor parson's library, ii. 340. What it is, and what it ought to be ; Stoddart's Re- viezv, ii. 283-297. Life Questions of Lutheranism, Life Questions of Christian- ity; (Lecture), ii. 177. Lincoln's Address at Gettysburg, ii. 72. Lintner ; Rev. G. A., " Ecclesiasti- cal Standards" (Ev. Review), quoted, i. 355. 430 INDEX. Literary Criticism ; extracts from C. P. K.'s reviews, ii. 338-360; Just Criticism, ii. 338; "quota- tions " the severest part of book notices, ii. 358. Liturgies of the Churches of the Reformation, i. 259. Liturgy of Penna. Synod, (1842) ; translated, i. 154; changes pro- posed by Comm. of Va. Synod, (C. P. K. and B. M. S.), i. 155 ; see Church Book. Lochmann; Rev. A. H., ii. 168. Rev. George, Reformation Jubilee, i. 322; a founder of Gen. Synod, i. 343. Rev. W. H., i. 362. London ; general views of, ii. 372. Lord's Day ; Augsburg Confession and the, ii. 116; 117; 122; C. P. K.'s position concerning, ii. 115; 118; 119; 120-126; in the Large Catechism, ii. 121 ; in the Small Catechism, ii. 122; views of prominent Luth. theologians, ii. 125, 126; Romish vs. Evangelical views, ii. 117. " is the Word's Day," ii. 122. Luth. Church and Divine Obligation of, from art. (Ev. Review), ii. 116. Lord's Supper ; the, see also Real Presence and Sacramental Presence ; letters from C. Ph. K., i. 107; 108; Dr. Nevin's views, i. 107. Loy; Rev. M., Ed. of Luth. Standard, ii. 47 ; opening ser- mon, Reading Convention, ii. 174; correspondence with C. P. K., ii. 234. Luthardt; Dr. C. E. Letter from. Cons. Reformation, ii. 311. Luther Biography ; desired by Gen. Synod (1841), i. 33i ; various authors proposed ; never published, i. 332; C. P. K.'s fitness for the work, (B. M. S.) ; action of Pittsburgh Synod, ii. 361 ; approved by Dr. Krotel, ii. 362; C. P. K. " getting ready for Luther," ii. 362 ; the " ideal biographer" (Dr. Thompson), ii. 362-363; C. P. K.'s journey abroad, ii. 363, fif. ; see Europe ; enthusi- asm for the work ; almost continuous narrative up to Worms ; over 400 pages, ii. 377-378 ; extracts from Mss., ii. 378-381. Martin, not the first Pro- testant, i. 68 ; most vigorous of controversialists, ii. 78; to be viewed with candor, i. 124; his profound reverence, i. 130, 131; Calvinism, ii. 327; his wit, ii. 346 ; in Coburg, ii. 376. Lutheran and Home Journal, i860; (the quarto Ltitheran), ii. 28. and Missionary; the, 1861, ii. 28, ff. ; on the true consti- tut. basis of Gen. Synod, ii. 31 ; program, ii. 34; not partisan, ii- 35, 36; pressing need of, ii. 41 ; Civil War, ii. 48 ; 52 ; high literary standard, ii. 49; in- creasing strength, ii. 51 ; C. P. K. resigns editorship to Com- mittee (1867), ii. 57; his work, ii. 58; L. cS- M. a power for confessional Lutheranism, ii. 154; storm over Galesburg Rule, ii. 206, ff. ; C. P. K. on Purity of Pulpit, Sanctity of Altar, ii. 209; 2x9; 239; en- dorsed by chairmen of Galesb. delegations, ii. 211; atten- tively read in Gettysb., ii. 230; Editor of L. & M. invites cor- respondents to " more thor- ough examination and closer thinking," ii. 211 ; a " storm of senselessness," ii. 212, flF. ; editorial position of L. & M. strongly radical, ii. 214; ex- posure of shallow unionism, ii. 215; the congregations and the Rule, ii. 217; "per- sonal allusions" condemned by INDEX. 431 Lutheran and Missionary ; Con- tinued: C. P. K., ii. 2i8; tribute to C. P. K.'s power in debate, (ed- itorial, J. A. S.) ii. 244-245; Dr. Krotel Editor-in-chief ; C. P. K.'s gratification ; Dr. Krotel resigns, ii. 248; C. P. K. unable to continue his rela- tions to L. & 3/., ii. 249. Lutheran Church ; the, in danger of dying of pure dignity, i. 126; article on, quoted, i. 129; true position conservative, (C. Ph. K.), i. 371; an acknowl- edged power, i. ;i77 ; ii. 58 ; an honest church, ii. 95; if a failure, a failure forever, ii. 98; her doctrines cannot be changed, ii. loi. Literature ; need of, in America, i. 169 ; 182 ; Sym- bolical Books transl., i. 206; see Henkel ; Gen. Synod recommends Arndt's True Christianity, i. 331. Observer, 1833 ; see also Kurtz, Rev. B. ; not repre- senting Church, i. 177; hostile to Luth. Confessions; Dr. B. Kurtz's influence over, ii. 30; he made it a power, ii. 85 ; outspoken radicalism, ii. 31 ; dissatisfaction with, ii. s^'. "a dark and bloody ground," ii. 84; i. 344; a powerful rival, ii. 33; influence of the Lutheran, ii. 84; new editors, ii. 85; Fundamental Doctrines, ii. 113; violent articles against Penna. Synod, ii. 153. Lutheran View not invented by Luther, i. 121 ; defined, i. 122. of Real Presence; art. prepared for Luth. Observer, 1846. quoted, i. 121-134. Lutheranism ; Historical, Defend- ed, from edit. L. &■ M., ii. "j"]. Old and New School, i. 316; of the Fathers of the Church in this country (Dr. Mann), quoted, i. 317-318; Evangelical (C. P. K.), i. 401; not to be tolerated but to rule, ii. 100; " genuine Christianity," ii. 112; a test of Lutheranism, from edit. L. & A/., ii. 103. Lutherans not non-Catholic Pro- testants, ii. 189. Lutherische Zeitschrift; Rudel- bach and Guerike's, i. 199. Luther's Cradle Smile, i. 93. Germany, ii. 378. Lyman ; Rev. Dr., of Pittsburgh, i. 288. Mann ; Rev. W. J., Henry Mel- chior Muehlenberg, i. 317; Doctrinal position of F'athers, i. 318; Convention of Gen. Synod in Dayton, i. 354; "A Plea for the Augsburg Con- fession," i. 361 ; connected with L. & M., ii. 52; debate on the Sabbath, ii. 124; first German Professor in Phila. Seminary, ii. 141 ; Chairman of Comm. to prepare Frater- nal Address, ii. 164; Gales- burg Rule, ii. 227 1 German address at C. P. K.'s funeral, ii. 398. Marsden ; Rev. J. H., Professor in Penna. College, i. 29. Martinsburg, Va. ; birthplace of C. P. K., i. 26; with Shepherds- town, C. Ph. K.'s first charge, i. 8; consecration of ceme- tery, i. 26. pastorate of C. P. K., see under Krauth ; Charles Por- terfield. Maryland and Virginia; Synod of, organized 1820, i. 1 10 ; repre- sented in org. of Gen. Synod, i- 324- Maryland ; Synod of, prominent men in ; C. P. K. licensed, 1841 ; ordained, 1842, i. no; New Measures vs. Symbolism, i. Ill; Abstract of Doctrine, i. Ill, fif. 432 INDEX. Mass ; the Evangelical and the Romish, {Missionary) i. 376. Materialism, ii. 278, ff. May Day Coronation ; Article ( Observer) , 1. 82. Mayer; Rev. Philip F., founder of Gen. Synod, i. 343 ; chose C. P. K. as his successor, i. 290. McConaughy ; Mr. and Mrs. David, i. 77- McCosh ; Dr., The Emotions, ii. 353 ; a lucid writer, ii. 354. McKee; Rev. D., ii. 177. Meade; .Rev. Wm., Bishop of Virginia, i. 269. Mechell ; Dr., Bishop of Toulouse, i. 3- Melanchthon ; his character, i. 124; the Real Presence, i. 164; Loci Communes ; new ed. undertaken by C. P. K., i. 174; 187 ; a cherished idea, i. 207. Synod ; representing advanced Am. Lutheranism, i. 411. Melhorn; Rev. J. K., ii. 177. Mercersburg Review ; Person of Christ, transl. C. P. K., i. 157; 183; 199; Dr. Jacobs' article on Cons. Reformation, ii. 306; review of Dr. Hodge, ii. 315. Metaphor defined, ii. 108. Michigan Synod ; Reading Con- vention, ii. 174; Galesburg Rule, ii. 221. Miller ; Reuben, ii. 399. William, of Winchester, i. 275. Milton ; Hesiod, Homer and Virgil in one, i. 40. Ministerial sessions denounced; sustained by East Penna. Synod, ii. 26, 27. Ministerium of Pennsylvania; see Penna. Synod. Ministry of the Gospel ; Thetical statement of Doctrine, L. & M., ii. 194. Minnesota ; Synod of, Reading Convention, ii. 174; what are Fundamental errorists? ii. 202; withdraws from G. C, ii. 203 ; see General Council. Missionary ; the, union with Standard talked of, i. 177; articles by C. P. K., 1856-1860, i. 300; 301; ii. 115; notice of transl. Tholuck, quoted, i. 305 ; to be the church paper, i. 312; " antidote to Observer," i. ;i72 ; united with Lutheran, ii. 34- Missouri ; Synod of, not in Gen. Synod, i. 350; principles of church government, ii. 172; Reading convention, ii. 174; relations to G. C, ii. 219; 236. " Monkey in the palm tree," ii. 72. Monroe ; James, of St. Mark's, i. 292 ; letter to, i. 293. Montgomery; poetic license cor- rected, i. 224. " Moral obligation not annihilated by being ignored," ii. 97. Morris ; Chas. A., reminiscences of C. Ph. K. quoted, i. 6. Rev. J. G., reminiscences of C. Ph. K., i. 6; sends C. P. K. to Canton, i. 43 ; 45 ; letters to C. Ph. K., i. 44; 54; kind- ness of, i. 50; prophecy of C. P. K., i. 55; advice to C. P. K., i. 105 ; going abroad, i. 108; ordination sermon, i. no; preaching in Washing- ton, i. 151 ; values C. P. K.'s work in Ev. Review, i. 179; admires spirit of G. C, ii. 245 ; First Free Diet, ii. 324. " Mouth a Papist, the Pen a Pro- testant," ii. Id ; i. 417. Muehlenberg; Rev. F. A., on first Board of Univ. of Penna., ii. 251- Rev. Prof. F. A., letter from Dr. Hay, i. 30; signs Pacific Overture, i. 362 ; obituary of C. P. K., ii. 395. Rev. H. A., a founder of Gen. Synod, i. 343. Rev. Henry Melchoir, friend of Christian Streit's father, i. 271 ; Patriarch of Luth. Church in America, i. 317. INDEX. 433 Muehlenberg; J. Peter G., gra- duate of College of Phila., ii. 250; Pres. German Soc, i. 2. Mullen; S. M., letter to, i. 239. Mulock; Dinah M., ii. 352. National Crisis ; the, ii. 59, ff. ; after the war, ii. 74; mercy and justice, ii. 76. Neander ; Tholuck's John dedi- cated to, i. 303. Neology; mission of, i. 126; char- acteristics of, i. 127; 129, note; contrasted with Deism, i. 127. Nevin ; Dr. J. W., reviews Con- servative Reformation, ii. 307. "New Measures," i. 67; party in Maryland Synod, i. 1 10. School party and C. Ph. K., i. 374. See also Schmucker, S. S., and Kurtz, B. New York ; C P. K. called to, i. 150; the city in 1848, i. 151. New York Synod ; early confes- sional position, i. 317; and the Episcopal Church, i. 319; influx of rationalism, i. 320; repre- sented in org. of Gen. Synod, i. 324; founds professorship in Phila. Sem., ii. 141 ; the Fraternal Address, ii. 167; its officers at Reading conven- tion, ii. 169; 174; leaves Gen. Syn. ; minority withdraws, ii. 169; it becomes almost exclu- sively German, ii. 170. Newspaper Literature ; Luth. Church and her, editorial, L. & M., ii. 42. Newspapers ; value of, ii. 294. North Carolina ; Synod of, repr. in org. Gen. Synod, i. 324. Northern Illinois ; Synod of, re- ceived into Gen. Synod, i. 352. Norton ; C. F., endows first Eng- lish professorship in Phila. Sem., ii. 141 ; del. Gen. Synod in Fort Wayne, ii. 157. Norwegian Synod ; repr. at Read- ing Convention, ii. 174. Novel reading, ii. 345. 28 Observer; Lutheran, see Luth- eran Observer. Oecolampadius, i. 134. Ohio; District Synod of. Gales- burg Rule, ii. 221. Joint Synod of, not in or- ganization of Gen. Syn., i. 324; again invited to join it, i- 350. Olive Branch; art. of S. S. S. quoted, i. 338-339) merged in L. & M., ii. 34. Olympus; Letter from, ii. 215. " Opinions a duty," ii. 66. Oriental Society; American, C. P. K. elected to, ii. 320; Prince- ton convention of, ii. 320-321 ; Our Country; editorial L. & M., ii. 61. Pacific Overture, 1856; i. 362; a compromise, i. 363. Pageants ; Two, tribute to Lin- coln, quoted, ii. jt,. " Partisanship great in a short race ; principle in the long run," ii. 212. Passavant; Rev. W. A., licensed, i. no; letter from, i. 274; his activity, i. 284; his philan- thropy, i. 302; 372: publishes Missionary, i. 376 ; ii. 52 ; " an antidote to Observer," i. 372; his motion at York, ii. 133; co-editor of L. & M., ii. 34; on editorial committee, ii. 58; protests against action of Gen. Synod at Fort Wayne, ii. 160; letter to C. P. K. on Galesb. Rule, ii. 224; last let- ter to C. P. K., ii. 396. Pastor; annual election of, i. 61. Pastoral Office; Benefits of the, farewell sermon, Baltimore, i. 78-. Patristic period ; see Fathers. Paxton; Rev. Dr., of Pittsburgh, i. 288. Paying work not the best work, i. 259. 434 INDEX. Pearson ; Mrs. Sarah Schrack, kindness of, i. 34; letters to, i- 35; 46, (Canton); 57, (an inexperienced boy) ; 60, (leaving Canton) ; 66-67, (abuses in revivals). Pennsylvania College ; chartered 1832; C. Ph. K. professor in, 1833; President of, 1834, i. 11; notice of its Catalogue, (C. P. K. in Observer) i. 35-42. Synod of, rights of minori- ties, i. 329; its earlier rela- tions to (jen. Synod, i. 325 ; 328; after York Convention, ii. 152; its "leavening influ- ence" and activity, ii. 153; Dr. Sprecher's view, ii. 155-156; condemned as schismatic by West Penna. Synod, ii. 168. Chronology: 1748. Founded by Muehlen- berg, i. 317; position unmis- takably Lutheran, i. 318. 1792. Adopts new Consti- tution, omitting reference to confessions, i. 319. 1817. Luther Jubilee; vari- ous denominations inviied to join in its celebration, i. 322. 1818. First move toward founding Gen. Synod, i. 323. 1819. C. Ph. K. licensed, Baltimore, i. 8. 1819-22. Unionism in, i. 320 ; " misunderstood " by cer- tain congregations, i. 325. 1820. With other Synods organizes Gen. bynod, i. 324. 1823. Withdraws from (jen. Synod, i. 324; 328; 354. 1829. Socinian tendencies suspected, i. 324. 1835. Urged to return to Gen. Synod, i. 349. 1842. German Liturgy pub- lished, i. 154. 1850. Symbolical Books only standard of Lutheran- ism, but subscription to them not required, i. 201 ; relations with Gettysburg, i. 190; sec- ond professorship, i. 190; 201 ; 35c. 1853. Returns to Gen. Synod, i. 349; 350; its action quoted, i. 351; ii. 132; a man- ly document ; cordial recep- tion, i. 352. 1860. Recommends use of gown, ii. 13. 1864. Its delegation pro- tests against admission of Franckean Synod to Gen. Synod, ii. 131 ; withdraws, ii. 132; Synod placated by Gen. Synod's later action, ii. 134; 138; new Theological Sem- inary undertaken, ii. 139. 1865. C. P. K. received into Ministerium, ii. 27 ; put on Ch. B. Committee, ii. 190; Synod endows German professor- ship in Sem., ii. 141 ; its repre- sentatives rejected at Gettys- burg, ii. 153. 1866. Its delegation re- jected by Gen. Synod (Fort Wayne), ii. 160; revision of its Constitution ; declaration of faith as proposed by C. P. K. adopted bv rising vote; its connection with Gen. Syn. dissolved, ii. 161 ; steps to form new general body, ii. 167; (cf. letter of C. P. K., i. 193) ; Fraternal Address, ii. 164 ; 167 ; Reading Conven- tion, ii. 173-176. 1876. Galesburg Rule; re- marks of C. P. K. ; report of delegates to G. C, ii. 220; 221. 1880. C. P. K. asked to prepare Life of Luther, ii. 362. Pepper ; Dr. Wm., Provost of University (1881), ii. 257; C. P. K.'s address at inaugura- tion, ii. 257-258. Person of Christ; transl. from Schmid's Dogmatik, i. 157. IXDEX. 435 Pflueger: Rev. A., letters to: Dr. Krotcl and L. & A/., ii. 248; Predestination controversy, ii. 327; Luther Biography, ii. 362. Philosophy; C. P. K. as teacher of, (Dr. Haas) ii. 267, flf. ; his own position (Dr. Thompson) ii. 270. Pittsburgh ; first English Luth. Church in, call declined by C. P. K., i. 271; visit to, i. 273; importance of, i. 274; second call, i. 274, 275 ; declined, i. 276-279 ; second visit to, i. 282 ; cf. Lane, Thomas H. ; third call accepted, i. 286; co- temporary pastors ; C. P. K. at his best, i. 288 ; congrega- tion described, i. 289; call from St. John's, i. 290; from St. Mark's, i. 291 ; resolutions of Council, i. 295; farewell sermon, i. 298. Synod; organization (1845) and activity, i. 274; received into Gen. Synod (1853), i. 352 ; action on Definite Plat- form, i. 2)T] ; adopted in part by Gen. Synod, ii. 133; "an adroit piece of thimble-rig," ii. 138; the Fraternal Address, ii. 167 ; condemns action of Gen. Synod at Fort Wayne, ii. 169; Reading Convention, ii. 169; 174; minority with- draws, ii. 169; litigation over church property ; first Eng- lish Ch. Pittsb. divided, ii. 176; Galesb. Rule, ii. 221; re- quests C. P. K. to prepare Life of Luther, ii. 361. Plagiarism ; requires genius, ii. 339; digesting a book is not stealing, ii. 343 ; i. 423. Plitt; Rev. John K., pastor of St. Stephen's; funeral service of C. P. K. in house, ii. 398. Plummer; Rev. Dr., of Pitts- burgh, i. 288. Poems; juvenile, i. 32; A Tribute, i. 262 ; Cosmos, ii. 385 ; Micro- cosmos, ii. 392. Politics and Religion; (Caesar and God), edit. L. & A/., ii. 66. Poor Sermons ; how to commit, i. 63. Popular Amusements ; sermon, i. 144; quoted, i. 145-147; sec- ond edition, i. 145 ; J. A. S. delighted ; letter from, i. 148, 149; B. M. S., i. 191; demand for, in West Indies, i. 239. " Popularity purchased at the ex- pense of truth," ii. 55. Poverty prevalent in tropics, i. 219. Three Essays on, i. 301 ; quoted, i. 218-219. Preaching with Fulness, i. 63. Predestination Controversy in Synodical Conference ; both sides anxious for C. P. IC's opinion, ii. 326 ; letter to Rev. A. Pflueger, ii. 327; frag- ment of a review by C. P. K., of Dr. Walther's tract, ii. 328. Pretz; C, ii. 157. Prime; Rev. S. Irenaeus, Evang. Alliance, ii. 272. Princeton ; C. P. K.'s relations with ; friendship with its Pro- fessors ; invited to contribute to Revieti' : invited to preach, ii. 319; hospitality enjoyed, ii. 321 ; Dr. McCosh and the " Emotions," ii. 353. Private Communion ; article quoted, i. 76. Progress of Error; three stages in, from edit. L. & M., ii. 89; 166. Protestant denominations ; one should eventually absorb all the rest, (Dr. H. L Schmidt) ii. 242. Protracted meetings, i. 272. Provost and vice-provost, ii. 256, 257- Pulpit aids, ii. 342. 436 INDEX. Punch ; the London, " best pre- paration for visiting Eng- land," ii. 369. Purity of the Pulpit ; and Sanctity of the Altar; C. P. K.'s series of articles in L. & M. ; first art. quoted, ii. 209; " pro- found and complete defense " of confessional position, ii. 219. Quitman ; Rev. F. H., rationalism in New York Synod, i. 320. Rationalism ; influence of, on the Church, i. 320; 383. Reading Convention; ii. 173, ff. Real Presence; Doctrine of the, C. Ph. K.'s view, i. 108; Prof. Stuart's article, i. 115; re- viewed by C. P. K., i. 117, ff. ; logical statement of doctrine, i. 120; Lutheran view of, i. 121, ff. ; Luther's position, i. 134; "a real presence," (C. P. K. 1845) i. 136; view of Amer. L. Church, i. 162; Melanchthon's views, i. 164; doctrine assailed by Observer, i. 185, note ; no " satisfactory refutation " of Augsb. Con- fession concerning, (letter, C. P. K. to B. M. S.) i. 192. " Rebuke sharply," a moral duty, ii. 92. Reck ; Rev. Abram, pastor in Win- chester, i. 8; baptised C. P. K., i. 26. References ; a good habit, i. 203. Reformed Messenger; Dr. Nevin's rev. of Cons. Ref. quoted, ii. 307. Reformed Protestantism ; to swal- low up Lutheranism, (Stuart) i. 116; conservative tendency in, i. 119; "put on trial" by Cons. Ref. (Nevin) ii. 308. Reformers compared, i. 124. Reinhard ; Rev. F. V., Reforma- tion sermon transl., i. 298. Religious light literature, ii. 344. " Reproach safer than praise," ii. Si- Review ; a Lutheran, proposed by Dr. Hill, with C. P. K. editor, ii. 322; Lutheran Church Re- view est. 1882, ii. 324; publ. C. P. K.'s sketch on Pre- destination, ii. 331. Reviewers; advice to, (C. Ph. K.) i. 204. Revival Meeting; Subjects for, i. 65. Reynolds family : Harriet Kell, (wife's stepmother) i. 139. Isaac, (father-in-law) i. 77; his death, i. 154. Mary M. Hoffmann, (mother-in-law) i. yj. Susan, see Krauth, Susan R. Rev. Wm. M., establ. Ev. Revietv, i. 13; i. 175, ff. ; Principal of Gettysb. Gym- nasium, i. 28; professor in Penna. College, i. 29; 2>7\ President of Capital Univ., i. 180; to write Luther Biogra- phy, i. 332 ; desires editorship of L. &- M.. ii. 39; joins Episcopal Church, i. 332. Rice; Mr. of Canton, i. 46; 53. Richards ; Rev. J. W., proposed transl. of Halle'sche Nachr., Riddle ; Rev. Dr., of Pittsburgh, i. 288. Riehlc family ; Philadelphia, i. 220. Roanoke College ; Address quoted, ii. 60. Romanism and Protestantism, i. 68. Roth ; Rev. H. W., Hebron case, ii. 177. " Rule of Faith" defined, ii. 143. Ruperti ; Dr. J., propositions on Pulpit and Altar Fellowship; led to adoption of Galesb. Rule, ii. 205 ; letter to, ii. 218. Sabbath Question ; see Lord's Dav. Theses on, C. P. K., in Pas- toral Association, ii. 124. INDEX. A2>7 Sachs ; Hans, memorials and mon- ument, ii. 373 ; his grave, ii. 374; Wildenhahn's, translated, ii. 374, note. Sacramental Presence of Christ; View of American Luth. Church, article, i. 162, ff. Sadtler; Rev. B., read Lessons at funeral of C. P. K., ii. 398. Santa Cruz; arrival in, i. 218; letters from, i. 253-260. Sarver; Rev. J., Pastor of Hebron church, ii. 177. " Sauce piquante ;" how to enjoy being abused, from edit. L. & M., ii. 93. Sauerwein ; Peter, of Baltimore, i- 93- SchaefFer ; Rev. C. F., Henkel's Symb. Books, i. 206 ; un- flinching orthodoxy, i. 19; ii. 237; professor in Phila. Sem- inary, ii. 141 ; letter to Dr. Jacobs, quoted, ii. 124; letter to C. P. K., Conserv. Re- formation, ii. 304. Rev. C. W., installation of C. P. K., St. Mark's, ii. i; connected with L. &■ M., ii. 51 ; associate editor of L. & M., ii. 57 ; chairman Penna. delegation at York, ii. 131 ; urges need of Seminary, ii. 140; Professor extra-ordinary in Sem., ii. 141 ; del. to Gen. Synod, Fort Wayne, ii. 157; on Committee, Minnesota Question, ii. 202 ; Galesb. Rule, ii. 2S7 ; letter from, (General Council) ii. 245; Trustee of University, ii. 251 ; English address at funeral of C. P. K., ii. 398; died, 1898, ii. 251- Rev. D. turns C. Ph. K.'s mind to the ministry, i. 7; edits Ev. L. Intelligencer, i. 8; a founder of Gen. Synod, i. 343; charge to Prof. S. S. S., i- 336. Rev. Fr. Chr., Reformation Jubilee, (1817) i. 322. Rev. H., a founder of Gen. Synod, i. 343. Schaff ; Rev. Philip, Evangelical Alliance, ii. 272; 322; letters to C. P. K., ii. 281; 322; Lange's Commentary, ii. 321 ; Bible Revision, ii. 331 ; tribute to C. P. K., ii. 332. Schmauk; Rev. Th. E., C. P. K. in Seminary (Indicator) ii. 144-146; 277, note. Schmid ; Heinrich, Dogmatik re- viewed by C. Ph. K., i. 20; 199; transl. of, i. 23, note; the Person of Christ, transl. C. P. K., i. 157; 183. Schmidt ; Rev. H. I., Tribute to C. Ph. K., i. 17; letter to, (C. Ph. K.) i. 19; Prof, in Get- tysb. Sem., i. 34; affection for C. P. K. ; urges call to N. Y., i. 150; "one of our noblest men," i. 260; conservatives to keep quiet, i. 349 ; Pacific Overture ; a compromise ; " patching up a hollow peace," i. 363, 364; letter to C. P. K., the 105 Theses, ii. 242-243 ; other mention, i. 204. Schmucker ; Rev. Beale M., C. P. K. in Baltimore (Memorial), i. 61; in Winchester, (Mem.) i. 142; C. P. K.'s relation to Confessions (Mem.) i. 160; liturgical studies, i. 188; cor- respondence with C. P. K. (1848-1852) i. 172; 182-191; succeeds C. P. K. in Martins- burg, i. 182 ; charge to first Faculty, Phila. Sem., ii. 142; del. to Gen. Synod, Fort Wayne, ii. 157; liturgical posi- tion opposed to C. P. K., ii. 191 ; differs from him on the Pastorate and Diaconate, ii. 192; opposes a vote on 105 Theses, ii. 247 ; the Loci Com- munes, ii. 321 ; conducts ser- vice at grave of C. P. K., ii. 438 INDEX. Schmucker ; Rev. Beale M. ; Con- tinued: 399; prepares Memorial (quoted as above) and List of C. P. K.'s Publications for Ministerium, ii. 401. Rev. J. G., a founder of Gen. Synod, i. 343. Rev. Peter, a founder of Gen. Synod, i. 343. Rev. S. S., a founder of Gen. Synod, i. 343 ; leader of New Iheology, i. 19; 332; Prof, in Seminary, i. 34 ; pleased with "Abstract ;" more sym- bolical than Dr. Baugher, i. 114; Popular Theology, i. 116; on Lord's Supper, i. 192, 193 ; very vulnerable, i. 204 ; attacks Augsb. Conf., i. 302 ; earlier position, i. 336, ay ; doctrinal position of Gen. Synod (1855) i. 2Z7-2>Z^; Vo- cation of Amer. Luth. Church, i. 339; author of Def. Platform ; acknowledged ten years later, i. 357 ; Summary of Doctrine, i. 341 ; Historical Meditations and Notes, quot- ed, i. 342 ; support of Dr. Kurtz, i. 344; grievances against C. Ph. K., i. 374; de- fends Platform, i. 362 ; 375 ; charge of unsound teaching, i. 410; defended by C. P. K., i. 411; the Spiritual Worship of God, sermon against the gown, ii. 14 ; reviewed by C. P. K., ii. 18, 19; American Recension of Augsb. Conf., ii. 119; re- signs in Gettysb., ii. 139 ; the Coming Theological Conflict, edit, in Observer, ii. 152; on Comm. of West Penna. Synod, ii. 168. Schneeweiss; Simon, i. i6r. Schober ; Rev. Gottlieb, a Mo- ravian, Seer, of N. Car. Synod, i. 324; a founder of Gen. Synod, i. 343. Schrack ; Christian, of St. Mat- thew's, Phila., i. 34. Schweigert ; Rev. M., ii. 177. Science and Religion have one aim, ii. 278. Scissors and paste-pot, ii. 343. Seals designed by C. P. K. ; Synod of Va., i. 155; General Council, ii. 246. Seiss ; Rev. Joseph A., pastor in Shepherdstown, i. 138 ; letter from, and reply, (Popular Amusements) i. 148, 149; friendship with C. P. K., i. 149 ; correspondence with, 1850-1852, i. 153; 172; 192- »I97; "Reflections," i. 196; 258; dedicated to C. P. K., i. 197; pastor in Baltimore, i. 197; letters to: i. 258 (Santa Cruz) ; 272, (anxious bench) ; installation of C. P. K., St. Mark's, ii. i ; success in St. John's, ii. 2; co-editor Luth. and Home Journal, ii. 29; first connection with L. & M., ii. 51 ; on ed. comm. of L. & M., ii. 58 ; tour in Holy Land ; reception ; C. P. K.'s greeting, ii. 180; del. Gen. Synod, Fort Wayne, ii. 157; pastor of Holy Communion, ii. 180 ; Galesb. Rule " neither in Scripture nor Confessions," ii. 207 ; a " crude utterance," ii. 208; corr. with C. P. K., con- cerning Rule, ii. 206-209; not pleased with C. P. K.'s arti- cles; invites free discussion of Rule in L. & M.. ii. 211 ; the invitation accepted ; samples of " more thorough examination and closeness of thinking," ii. 214; the Rule "a myth, a fable," ii. 215; action of con- gregations threatened, ii. 217; his pastoral usage in conflict with the radical position, ii. 218; cf. ii. 214; defended by C. P. K. against Dr. Ruperti, ii. 218; Chairman of Comm. INDEX. 439 Sciss; Rev. Joseph A.; Continued: on Minnesota Question, ii. 202 ; explains his indifference to Cons. Reformation, ii. 313; publishes 24 Propositions on the Galesburg Declaration; claims to represent real posi- tion of G. C, as over against its official utterances, ii. 222 ; " ill at harmony with himself," ii. 227 : letter to C. P. K. deprecating their alienation, ii. 237-238; cordial response, ii. 239; leads opposition to 105 Theses, ii. 244; strained rela- tions between him and C. P. K. ; a frank letter from C. P. K., ii. 248; cf. i. 259; his ap- peal rejected, ii. 249; as Presi- dent of Sem. Board, and of Penna. Ministerium J. A. S. offers English Prayer at funeral of C. P. K., ii. 398. Selden ; Dr., instructs C. Ph. K. in medicine, i. 7. Seminary ; Theological, of Penna. Synod, desired by Muehlen- berg; work begun by Dr. Demme (1846); urged by German pastors, ii. 139; by Rev. C. W. Schaeffer in Presi- dent's report ( 1864) ; unani- mous resolution of Minis- terium, ii. 140 ; pressing need of, ii. 148 ; condemned as revolutionary (Gen. Synod) ii. 152; Dr. S. S. S.'s view of crisis, ii. 153; C. Ph. K.'s judgment, ii. 154; election of professors ; endowment and building fund, ii. 141 ; first Faculty installed ; charge by B. M. S., ii. 142; reply by C. P. K, ii. 143; growth and re- moval to Mt. Airy, ii. 141, 142; efforts of C. P. K. for its library, ii. 146; the Krauth Memorial Library, ii. 298. Sermons; making (C. Ph. K.) i. 88; trial sermons, i. 293. " Sharp letters," quoted from edit. L. & .1/., ii. 50, 51. Shields ; Professor, of Princeton, ii. 319. Shryock ; J. K., last interview with C. P. K., ii., 394; pall bearer, ii- 399- Silence on the truth, ii. 56. Smith ; Rev. D. C, agent for Penna. College, i. 80. Rev. Joseph Few, letters from, i. 81 ; 141 ; otherwise mentioned, i. 80, and note; 102; 197; 200. Dr. Wm., Provost of College of Philadelphia, ii. 250; polit- ical views ; charter of College abrogated ; reconstructed as University of Penna., ii. 251 ; charter restored (1789); col- lege merged in University (1791) ii. 251-252; see Uni- versity. " Snaky doves, dove-like ser- pents," ii. 136. Societies ; Bible, etc., not most important work of Church, i. 260. Spaeth; Rev. Adolph, (son-in- law) i. 78; debate on the Sabbath, ii. 124; consecration of St. Stephen's, ii. 181 ; Galesb. Rule, ii. 237; succeeds C. P. K. as Pres. of G. C. ; letter to, ii. 223 ; moves in Synod to request C. P. K. to write Luther Biography, ii. 362 ; . letters to, ii. 364 ; 370 ; 374; marriage, ii. 367. Charles Friedrich, (grand- son) ii. 383. Harriett R., see Krauth. Spielmann ; Rev. C, letter to, ii. 236. Sprecher ; Rev. S., in college de- bate, i. 29; Pres. Wittenberg College, i. 30; influence over S. S. S., i. 346; his views quoted, i. 346-347 ; distrust of Symbolists, i. 352-353; open- ing sermon at York ; elected 440 INDEX. Sprecher; Rev. S. ; Continued: President, ii. 128; letter to S. S. S. on the " case " of Penna. Synod, ii. 155; Fort Wayne Convention, (Gen. Synod) ii. 157, ff. ; a preconcerted pro- gramme, ii. 155; 156; how carried out, ii. 159, 160. S. S. S.— Dr. S. S. Schmucker. St. James' Church, ii. 12; 13. St. Johannis Church; C. P.. K.'s love for its services; minister- ing at its altar, ii. 382; his funeral ; the choir, ii. 398. St. John's, Philadelphia, i. 152; 290 ; ii. 2 ; endows chair in Seminary, ii. 141 ; first Faculty installed in, ii. 142; C. P. K.'s pastoral work in, ii. 180, 181 ; memorializes Synod against Galesb. Rule, ii. 217. St. Mark's congregation ; organ- ized 1850; original constitu- tion, ii. I ; mixed material in, ii. 2 ; gown controversy, ii. 3, ff. ; peculiar character of, ii. 10; secession from, ii. 12; unites with Penna. Synod, ii. 24; denounced by Observer, ii. 25 ; memorializes Synod against Galesb. Rule, ii. 217. St. Matthew's, Phila., C. Ph. K. first pastor, i. 9 ; C. P. K. in the Sunday School, i. 27, 28. St. Peter's; C. P. K. pastor of, ii. 180. St. Stephen's, West Philadelphia ; C. P. K. pastor of ; Jubilee Service used in, ii. 181 ; two Christmas hymns written for, ii. 182; lecture for benefit of, ii. 377- St. Thomas, West Indies ; C. P. K. pastor in Dutch Reformed Church, i. 216; Danish Luth. Church in, i. 224 ; 240 ; trop- ical housekeeping, i. 217; 222; 234 ; 256 ; society, i. 239 ; 250 ; education in, i. 241 ; yellow fever, i. 251; ii. 235; letters from, i. 221-252. Staake; W. H., Treasurer of G. C. ; with C. P. K. prepares seal of G. C, ii. 246; other mention, ii. 363. Staunton, Va. ; C. P. K.'s child- hood there, i. 27 ; letters from, i. 209, ff. ; Asylum for Deaf, Dumb and Blind, i. 210-212. Stille; Dr. Charles J., Provost of University of Penna., (1868) ; C. P. K.'s intimacy with, ii. 252 ; letter to, on College Dis- cipline, ii. 253 ; resigns Pro- vostship, (1880), ii. 255; C. P. K.'s tribute to, ii. 252. Stoever; Prof. M. L., biographi- cal sketch of C. Ph. K., i. 6; Pacific Overture, i. 362. Stonebreaker ; Mrs. of Baltimore, i. 77- Stork ; Rev. T., founder of St. Mark's, i. 291; 296; ii. 10; moves publ. of Dr. Mann's remarks against Def. Plat- form, i. 361 ; implores C. P. K. to review Amer. Luth. Vindicated, i. 375 ; editor of Observer, ii. 31 ; desired edi- torship of L. & M., ii. 39. Strauss ; David Friedrich, review- ed by Ulrici, ii. 271; 277; In- troduction to C. P. K.'s transl. of Ulrici, ii. 278; letters to C. . P. K., ii. 281. Streit ; Rev. Christian, first pastor in Winchester, i. 265 ; 270-271 ; his granddaughter C. P. K.'s second wife; inscription for his monument, i. 270. Stuckenberg; Rev. J. H. W., or- ganizes congr. in opposition to First Engl, church, Pittsb., ii. 176; witness for Gen. Synod in Hebron case, ii. 177. Stuart ; Prof. Moses, on Lord's Supper, quoted, i. 115; re- viewed by C. P. K., i. 117. Substantial Correctness defined, (C. P. K.) i. 395. ff. JXDEX. 441 Sunday School Songs, reviewed, ii- 355. ff- ; " nothing worse than their style, except their matter." ii. 356. Swain ; Col. T. G., letter to C. Ph. K. i. 3- Swartz ; Rev. Joel, article in Ob- scri'er, on Cons. Reformation ; letter from C. P. K., ii. 313. Swedish Augustana Synod; action on mixed communion, ii. 204- 205; 221; approved by G. C, ii. 205. Symbolical Books ; their value to the student. (C. Ph. K.) i. 21- 23; Henkel's transl. of, i. 174; 194; 206. Symbolism ; " extinguishing vital godliness " in Ev. Review, i. 208; in the Gen. Synod, (1829), i. 334-335; vs. Apos- tolic liberty, (S. S. S.) i. 342; Symbolism and Amer. Luth- eranism, i. 316, ff. Synod ; General, see General Synod. Synodical Conference ; spirit of, ii. 219; Predestination, ii. 326. Synods; see specific name. Taffy-pulling; linguistic, i. 224. Taylor : Jeremy, ii. 346. Mrs. Mary, (aunt) i. 2; 3. Oscar, (cousin) i. 3. Temperance Jewels ; " of the purest water," ii. 356. Tennessee ; Synod of, opposed to Gen. Synod, i. 324 ; 329 ; again invited to join it, i. 350. Texas ; Synod of, received into Gen. Synod, 1853, i. 352. Thanksgiving Discourses ; two, i. 299. Tholuck ; Commentary on John, i. 303; letter to C P. K., i. 304. Thompson ; Rev. Robert Ellis, Baccalaureate Sermon, 1883, quoted, i. 156; 215; ii. 397- 398; address at dedication of Krauth Memorial Library, quoted, ii. 270; review of Bayne's Luther ; " Luther still waits for his English bio- grapher," ii. 362. Thueringia, ii. 379-381. Tiedeman ; Rev., Lutheran pastor in St. Thomas, i. 224; 240. Tilton ; Mrs. i. 3. Transfiguration; the, {Ev. Re- view) i. 158; 202. Translation hardest literary labor, i. 192 ; 257. in the highest sense .... thought for thought, power for power, ii. 336. Trial sermons condemned, i. 293. Tribute; A, (poem) i. 262. and conscience, ii. 68. Trinity ; the, doctrine discussed with C. Ph. K., i. 97-99. " Trojan horses . . . hollownesses stuflfed with mischiefs," ii. 291. " Truth must proscribe or be pro- scribed," ii. 100. Two Pageants ; tribute to Lin- coln, quoted, ii. yji- Ulrici ; Dr. Herman, review of Strauss ; transl. by C. P. K., ii. 271 ; his Introduction quot- ed, ii. 278; letter to C. P. K., ii. 281. LTnion of Lutheran and Reform- ed Churches desired, i. 323 ; 325; 22,2. the, from edit. L. & M., ii. , .69. Lnity of the Church; quoted from edit. L. & M., ii. 56; unity, how brought about, ii. 80 ; agreement in fundamentals necessary to true unity, ii. 115; to be fostered by new Seminary, ii. 150-151 ; unity of the whole forwarded by unity among ourselves, i. 408; ii. 314; cf. i. 420. Unity, oneness in faith, from ad- dress before Pittsb. Synod, ii. 162-163. 442 INDEX. University of Pennsylvania ; older universities, ii. 250, note; its forerunners in Philadelphia ; Franklin's connection with, ii. 250 ; Lutheran representation required on its Board, ii. 251 ; C. P. K.'s positions in ; ad- ministration of Dr. Charles J. Stille, ii. 252; relations of Trustees and Faculty to college discipline ; letter from C. P. K., ii. 253; Dr. Stille resigns; C. P. K. acting Provost ; Trustees petitioned to elect him Provost; petition reject- ed, ii. 255 ; plan to re-organize University; many details of Provost's work given to Vice- Provost, ii. 255-256; C. P. K.'s letter to Mr. Fraley, ii. 256; the burden laid upon him as Vice- Provost, ii. 257; 383; alarm over his condition, ii. 395 ; representation of Uni- versity at his funeral, ii. 398. Valentine; Rev. Milton, supply in Winchester, i. 214; letter to, i. 225; visited by C. P. K., i. 273 ; signs Pacific Overture, i. 362. " Velvet cuticles " and critics, from edit. L. & M., ii. 91. Virginia ; people of, i. 146 ; address in Salem quoted, ii. 60. Synod of, organized 1829 ; relations to Gen. Synod, i. 153; 154; C. P. K. and B. M. S. Comm. on Liturgy, i. 154; seal designed by C. P. K., i. 155- Visible Church ; a, ii. 217. Walther; Rev. Chr. F. W., Latin letter from, i. 300; Memorial of C. P. K. quoted, ii. 114; defends Penna. Synod against misrepresentation, ii. 162 ; fears hierarchical tendencies in C. P. K., ii. 171; Teaching and Ruling Elders, ii. 193; Predestination Controversy, ii. 327. Welden; Rev. C. F., desires new Seminary, ii. 139. Wenzel ; Rev. G. A., ii. 177. West Indies; letters from, i. 220- 260; a voyage to, in 1852, i. 222, 223 ; races of men, i. 236 ; poverty in, i. 218, 219. West Pennsylvania ; Synod of, censures Observer, ii. 32; ad- dress to the churches on " the secession of the Penna. Synod;" endorsed by East Penna. Synod, ii. 168. Weyman; George, of Pittsburgh, i. 271. Miss Harriet, ii. 362. What shall we do with them? (Southern Synods) edit. L. S- M., ii. 75. Where do we stand? Edit. L. &■ M., ii. 35. " Whispering on the fingers," i. 211. White ; Bishop, i. 322. Willard; Rev. P., ordained with C. P. K., i. no. Wilson; Rev. Professor, of Pitts- burgh, i. 288. Winchester, Va. ; C. P. K. called to, i. 141 ; happiest period of his life, i. 142; 277; 287; his pastorate in, i. 144; his love for, i. 152; 229; early history of its church, i. 265 ; social conditions in, i. 143 ; 285 ; meeting of Gen. Synod in, i. 308; 352; revival in, i. 310. Winter; Rev. John, Pres. Mary- land Synod, i. no. Wisconsin ; Synod of, repr. in Reading Convention, ii. 174; withdraws from G. C, after Pittsb. declaration, ii. 202. " Wishing time " in the Church, ii. 43- INDEX. 443 Wit; ii. 346; created to keep down nonsense, ii. 91 ; i. 423. Wolf; Rev. E. J., "Lutherans in America," i. 319. Wyneken; Rev. Fr., Missouri Synod, urges C. P. K. to translate Chemnitz' Examcn Concilii Tridentini, ii. 321 ; a staunch Lutheran, i. ^a. ZiON ; the Peace of, Synodical Sermon, S. S. S., quoted, i. Zion's congregation, Philadelphia ; gift to Seminarv, ii. 141. Zwingli; and Rome, i. 124; charg- ed with Pelagianism, i. 133 ; and Oecolampadius, i. 134; and Wittenberg, ii. 95. m DATE DUE 1 r, i'^^ '• ~" ftt J/l*«P"K 34 ===~ GAYLORD PRINTED IN U.S.A.