# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_September 1855_S285
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

The Lutherophilus. 285

persuading, enticing words, that the reluctant hearts must break through to godly sorrow, repentance, and faith, and that the terrified must let themselves be comforted; with a sharp evangelical eye he surveys and tests what stirs and moves in Christendom, and knows how to warn his own against the most dazzling seduction; every sentence, finally, not only of his sermons but of all his writings alike, testifies to a steadfast heart, his whole bearing to an unconquerable, joyful certainty that his cause is God's, his word the word of the Lord: he has everything that we now stand so sorely in need of, and should we not take it from him? The form of his speech, which he himself let be shaped by the Word of God, this simple and yet so fresh and heart-alluring language, is alone already worth the study, so that we preachers may at last again speak to the heart of the whole people. Let the student of theology diligently study the individual theological disciplines, but let him make Dr. Luther the center of his labor, and the knowledge he acquires in the individual disciplines will place itself at the disposal of the pure doctrine of the Word of God in his mind, in the best order and overview, for use and practice. Let no one fear falling into shameful dependency and one-sidedness through such study. One cannot imitate Luther the way one has imitated Dräseke or Claus Harms and thereby made oneself a caricature; one can only work one's way up toward him and grow strong through him, because he is not so much possessed of this or that particular idiosyncrasy but rather, extraordinarily comprehensively gifted, is not the master of a school but the leader of a church; nor has Dr. Luther, indeed, ever been one-sided, and therefore he cannot make his disciples one-sided either.

Keyl's proposal, moreover, is only a carrying-out of the call which resounds from many sides in the Lutheran church and which was expressed by the late Catenhusen thus: we must go back up to Luther. B. Lindner, in his Church History III, 1, p. 2, says: "whatever of ecclesiastical renewal is to be perceived up to now goes back gratefully to him (Luther) as its author; would that the awakening might also, in this field, form itself upon him toward true strength and popular character!" Now Keyl has for once really made it his earnest concern to form himself upon Luther. Mere reading he did not find sufficient; he read with pen in hand, and his labor bears the noblest fruit; whoever hears his preaching must wish to be able to preach in the same way, and his book, the exposition of the catechism drawn from Luther and the Symbolical Books, is instructive through and through. Would it be foolish if other theologians, too, were once to make it their earnest concern to study Luther, now that this has been tested in earnest not only by teachers, as Lindner recommended, but also by Keyl himself? I long held it to be foolishness to study Luther the way Keyl does, but since I began doing so about 2 years ago, it has become of such benefit to me that I study more eagerly and joyfully with every passing day: my own congregation would bear witness to that. From