<1tnurnrbitt ml1tnlngirttl mnut41y Continuing Lehre und Wehre (Vol. LXXVI) Magazin fuer Ev.-Luth. Homiletik (Vol. LlV) Theol. Quarterly (1897-1920)-Theol. Monthly (Vol. X) Vol. II July, 1931 No.7 CONTENTS DALLMANN, WM.: How Peter Became Pope .... Page 481 KRETZMANN, P. E.: Die Familie Davids................ 495 MUELLER, J. T.: Introduction to Sacred Theology...... 500 FUERBRINGER, L.: List of Articles Written by Dr.F.Bente 510 KRETZMANN, P. E.: Aramaismen im Neuen Testament 513 KRUEGER, 0.: Predigtstudie ueber 1 Tim. 6, 6-12. . . . . .. 520 Dispositionen ueber die von der Synodalkonferenz ange- nommene Serie alttestamentlicher Texte ............... 526 Theological Observer. - Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches. . . . .. 534 Book Revie\v. - Literatur .. _ ... __ , .. , ..................... . 553 Em Predlger muse nicht allein wBid"" also dass er die Sehafe unterweise, wie aie rechte Ohrleten Bollen eern, Bontiem aueh daneben den Woelfen wehr"" dass Bie die Schafe nicht angreiien und mit faleeher Lehre verfuehren und Irrtum ein· fuehren. - Luther. Es ist kein Ding, das die Leute mehr bei der Kircha behaelt den.n die gtJtt Predigt. - ApologiB, Art. 8~. If the trumpet give an uncertain BOund, who shall prepare himself to the battle f 1 Cor. ~,8. Published for the Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE, St. Louis, Mo. I II AhCI1IVr '534 Theological Observer. - .IHrctjfid)~3eitgefctjictjmctjeil. bet 2t6tedjnung witb burdj basbreimcdige ,,~dj wm: an fie" angefiinbigt. ~ie f djtecfIidj luitb bet 2fugen6Iicf fein, wenn f ein 80rn ent6rennen wirb I ~f. 2, 5. 12. wean benIt ~iet unwirrIiirlidj an bie ~rofJungen, bie Gr~riftus gegen bie ~~arifaer unb ~meften ausgefto13en ~at, il)(att~. 23. lEgt audj ~eJ:. 27, 10. 15; .l)cfef. 20, 39; gent. 18, 20. c. q3rebigen wir bas msort ®ottes nidjt Ianger Iauter Hnb rein, warnen unb ileugen wit nidjt me~r gegen faIfdje q3roj.1~eten, bann gdten uns biefe msorte unfers :itc6tes. ~abor 6e~iite uns ®ott I msit worren feft~arten an bem 8eugnis unferet ~i6er unb ber )8ater unb 6e~et3igen, was ~jjm. 16, 17 unb 1 ~o~. 4, 1 gefdjtie6en fte~t. mso ®ottes msort redjt gej.1rebigt witb, ba finbet man ben, bon bem )8.5.6 getebet witb: ben ,l'JlI:rrn, ber unfete Cl:\eredjtigfeit ift. ~qn worren wir j.1tebigen. (2ieb 253. 1.) [), ~. Theological Obs,erver. - ~irdjndj~geitgefdjidjmdje~. 1. ,1(mrrikll. llie SfirdJeu ~merifni) im ~nijre 1930. SDas monagbIa±± CMistian Herald, bas fett ~aqren bie meridj±e Dr. (,farroUs tiber bie Sl'irdjenf±atifhl unfers 2anbe5 beriiffen±ridj± ~at, ~at nadj bem 2!6Ieben bes ebengenann±en .Sl'irdjenftatiftifers D. ®. 2. ,~ieffer aUi) ber )8ereinigten 2ut~erifdjen Sl'irdje fUr biefe 2!rbeit berufen, unb beffen meridjt tiber bai) ~a~r 1930 ift in ber mainummer biefe5 mIattes erfdjienen. SDer fummarifdje meridj± Iautet . .roie foIgt: S'i!in:ijengemeinfcl)aften. ~ut~omen (meftnd)c), 3 ~itd)enf5r.).1et ....... . ){\a.).1tiftcn, 15 ~irctjenfiir.).1er ................ . lJJletf;obiften, 16 ~irctjentiir.).1er ............. . 53utf;eraner, 17 ~irctjentiir.).1er .............. . !l.\reilb~terianer, 9 ~irctjenfiir.).1er ............ . ~ilnger ~f;rifti, 2 ~irctjentiir.).1er ............ . ~.).1iffO.).1amrctje .......................... . ~ongrcgationah~f;riftianer ................ . ~atf;omen (iiftlictje), 10 ~irctjentiir.).1er ....... . lJJlormonen, 2 ~ird)enfiir.).1er ............... . lReformierte, 3 ~irctjenfiir.).1er .............. . mereinigte ){\rilber in ~f;tifto, 2 ~irctjentiir.).1er ~ilbifctje @emeinben ..................... . ~bangeHfctje !Sl)nobe bon ~orbamerita ...... . ~bangeHfctje ~itctje, 2 ~itctjentiirlJer ......... . ){\rilber (Dunkards), 4 ~irctjentiirlJer ........ . 'abbentiften, 5 ~itctjentiirlJer ........ " ..... . Assemblies of God ...................... . \}'reunbe, 4 ~irctjentiirlJer ................. . lJJlennoniten, 17 ~irctjenfiirper ............. . !D1itgfieber. 17,316,673 9,187,498 9,119,069 2,806,797 2,677,369 1,988,392 1,254,227 1,048,281 711,925 689,363 563,148 417,594 357,135 257,724 237,270 166.851 162,391 107,641 107,201 100,924 !Summa ....................... 49,277,473 -Stirctjengemeinfctjaftcn, bie weniger a(S 100,000 lJJlitgHeber f;aben, 3lif;(en 3ufammen.. . . . 730,708 @efamt3af;(. ................... 50,008,181 * A = \l(linaljme. Sunaljme. 17526 45;642 *A43,211 56,180 A 22,763 A 18,567 16',532 753 A 37,200 2,268 A4,512 2,149 6,022 2,504 A16 2,604 15,660 971 419 16,325 59,286 Theological Observer. - mrd)lid)<3eitgeic!)\c!)tlic!)es. 535 flber biefen Q3eric9t fteut ber ,,~riebeneoote" bie folgenbe Q3etrac9~ tung an: "i8ieraig ~:afjre lang fjat ber bemiifjrte iSia±iftifer Dr. ~. St G£:arroll bon ~afjr au ~afjr bie 2afjlen aue ben Q3eric9ten ber S£irc9en :tfmerifae aufammengeftent unb bie Urfac9en fef±auftellen gefuc9t, bie fib: ben jemeiIigen ~or±fc9ritt ober miicl'fc9rit± beran±mortric9 maren. 05r burfte mafjrnefjmen, baf3 bie @efamtaafjl ber S£ircgenmitg!ieber in biefer 2eit bon iSafjr au ~afjr aunafjm. lillenn auc9 bie 2unafjme in mancgen ~afjren ber~ fjiirtniemiif3ig gering mar, fo mar fie in anbern um 10 grof3er. ~ie fIeinfte 2unafjme murbe fUr bae ~afjr 1919 beraeic9net, niim!ic9 51,000, bie groj3±e fUr bae ~afjr 1928, niimHc9 1,111,984. 3umeilen finb bie iSc9man~ fungen freiIic9 nur eine lilliberfpiegelung mangeIfjafter Q3eric9±erf±attnng. iSm ~inbHcl' anf bae ~afjr 1929 mefbe±e er eine 2nnafjme bon 300,419, unb er fpraclj bie flberaeugung aue, baj3 barin ber Q3emeie bafUr Hege, baB bie S£irclje in :tfmerifa bae i8edrauen bee i80Ifee nicljt eingebiij3t fjabe, mie bon ben @egnern erHiir± morben fei, fonbern lebenefriiftig fei unb fjoffnungefreubig in bie 2ufunft bHcl'en burfe. WCit bief em lillod bee i8er~ hauene in bie 2ebenefriifte bee 05bangeHume fcljloj3 er feine ~ii±igfeit ale 6±atiftifer abo 05r fja± amar noclj bie iSammlung ber 2afjlen fur bae ~afjr 1930 angefangen, aber mitten in ber :tfrbei± ereme ifjn ber ~ob. ,,~ae bergangene ~afjr ftanb im 2eicljen ber @efcljiifteflaufjei± unb :tfrbeitelofigfeit; doer bae @5pricljmort fag±: ,9Cot lefjd beten', unb 9Cot~ aeiten finb geluofjn!ic9 '05rn±eaeiten fur bie S£irclje. ~aau fam, baj3 Die SHrcljen aue :tfnlaf3 bee ij3fingf±jubiliiume befonbere :tfnftrengungen maclj~ ten, bue ~eil in (ffjrifto in einbrucl'eboller lilleife au berfunbigen. [?] 05.6 ift barum e±mae en±tiiufcljenb, baf3 bie 2unafjme an WCitgIiebern berfjiil±nie~ miif3ig gering mar. iSie betrug nur 59,286. ,,:tfuffalIenb ift, baf3 mefjrere ber groj3±en mrcljengemeinfcljaften in biefem ~afjr eine :tfbnafjme an WCitg!ieberaafjl bucljen muj3ten, miifjrenb fie noclj bor hienigen ~a~ren berfjiirtni0miij3ig bie grot±en 2unafjmen auf~ aumeifen fjaiten. ~ie 2utfjeraner fjaben um 56,567 aUgenommen unb bie Q3aptiften um 45,642, aber Die WCetfjobiften fjaben eine 05inouj3e bon 43,211 erlit±en, bie ij3reebt)terianer finb um 22,763 aurucl'gegangen unb bie ~unger (ffjrifti um 18,567." lillicljiig finb bie Q3emerfungen, bie D. meffer felbft au ben gegebenen 3afjlen fjinaufUgt. 05r fcljreto±: ,,9Ceunaig ij3roaent ber @efam±mitg!ieb~ fcljaft ber @emeinben gefjoren amanaig S£ircljengemeinfcljaften ober gleiclj~ namigen S£ircljengrup.pen an. lillenn bie S£ircljen, mie bie 3afjlen anau~ beu±en fcgeinen, aurucl'gefjen, fo ift ber @runb bafUr ilum ~eil in ber Q3o±f c1jaft au finben, bie fie ber lillert berfiinbigen. 05in 2eitarter bee 2mei~ feIne unb ~ragene, bee gefcljiiftricljen 9Ciebergange unb ber @efetlofigfeit forbert bon ber .\'\'anael einen beftimm±en unb beutricljen ~on ber ij3ofaune: ,lillir follen @ott furclj±en unb !ieben' - ,i8eraclj±et niclj± bie mrclje @o±±ee' - ,60 fpricljt ber ~05rr' - ,00e f±efjt gefcljrieben' (im lillorl @o±±ee). ,,~ie reIigiofe Un±ermeifung ber ~ugenb :tfmerifae ift ein fcljreienbee Q3eburfnie. lillenn aUf ben Uniberfitii±en unb fjiifjeren 2efjranf±arten, mie aumeHen befjauptet mirb, ein ,WCangel an meIigion' ficlj bemerfbar macljt unb are ~olge babon :tfftermiffenfcljaft, @o±±eeIeugnung nnb iifjn!icljee, fo tut ee not, bat bie S£ircljen bie iSacljlage unterfucljen nnb ein burcljgreifen~ bee ~eilmitteI finben. 05e mUffen Uniberfitii±evaftoren angeftent merben, unb ee ift fefjr au emvfefjlen, nnb amar mit befonberem 9Cacljbrucl', baj3 Die 536 Theological Observer. - ~hdjficf),~eitgefcf)icf)tncf)es. berfdjiebenen Si:irdjengemeinfdjaj'ten unb 0:raieljung~lieljorben unter ben @ltubenten arlieiten." ~nterefiant ift ber )8ergIeidj, ben ber ,,{Yrieben~liote" illier bie :Bu~ lleljorigfeit aur Si:irdje bor ljunbed ~aljren unb jett anftelIt. 0:r fdjreilit: )13eadjten~med ift, bat ber ~roaentf at an 2unaljme bon Si:irdjenmitgrie~ bern in ben Ietten ljunbert ;;saljren liebeutenb groter mar ag ber ber me~ borferung~aunaljme. )8or ljunbed ~aljren gali e~ unter je 75 memoljnern be~ 2anbe~ aeljn Si:irdjenmitgrieber, ljeute finb e~ aeljn au~ ie 25." nlier bie0:rfoIge ber )8ereinigung~lieftreliungen fdjreilit ba~ mlatt: "WI~ {Yrudjt ber 0:inigung~liemegung finb amei neue Si!irdjenliUbungen im 0:ntfteljen. stJie 1929 in Wu~fidjt genommene )8erfdjmeIilung ber Si:on~ gregationaHften mit ben @:ljriftianern foIT aUf einer gemeinfamen Si:on~ ferenil, bie 0:nbe niidjften lInonag in @leattre, ~aflj., tagen mirb, burdj Wnnaljme ciner )8erfaffung aum Wbfdjlut geliradjt merben. 2etten WugUft '!jalien fidj bie WITgemeine @It)nobe bon nljio unb anbern @ltaaten, bie @It)nobe bon ~oma unb anbern @ltaaten unb bie muffaloft)nobe aUf einer gemein~ famen Si:onferena in ~oIebo, n., unter bem ~amen Wmerifanifdje 2utlje~ rifdje Si:irdje bercinigt. 0:ine fiteilje Iutljerifdjer @Jt)noben ift einanber niiljer getreten, inbem fie aur meratung ber gemeinfamen Wufgalien eine {Yoberation geliUbet ljat. bie ben ~amen Wmerifanifdje 2utljerifdje Si:on~ ferena trag±. @lie fett fidj au~ ber WITgemeinen @It)nobe bon nljio, ber ~omaft)nobe, ber muffalofL)nobe, ber ~ormegifdj ~2utljerifdjen Si:irdje in ~merifa, ber ·0:b.~2utlj. Wuguftanaft)nobe bon ~orbamerifa unb ber nor~ megifdjen freien Si:irdje ilufammen." lInan mag ja tilier Si:irdjenftatiftH urteifen, mie man tviII. 0:in~ alier liringt fie un~ immer mieber aum memuttfein, namridj bie ljolje Wufgalie, bie bie liefenntni~treue futljerifdje Si:irdje ljieraufanbe ljat. Unfer liebeu~ tenbfte~ lIniffion~fefb liIeilit nodj immer unfer eigene~ 2anb. ~.~. lIn. The "Christian Cynosure" on Freemasonry and Education.- In the News Se1"vioe of the Board of Christian Education of our Synod .some remarks of the Gh1"ist'ian GynoSU1"e on the influence Freemasonry is exerting, or endeavoring to exert, on our country's system of education are reprinted. The views expressed show such clear discernment that we cannot refrain from submitting one of the paragraphs in question to our readers. "The general tendency of Masonry in this respect [that is, with refer- ence to education] is well known. It is Masonry that has fought for the exclusion of all private elementary schools in many States of the Union. Why? Because of the Catholic parochial school, it is said. But in reality the measure is directed against all private schools, whether of Rome, dom- inated by a foreign potentate, or whether of some Protestant denomination with no foreign influence. If a department of our Government is organized to take over all educational matters, a Department of Education, with a secretary sitting in the President's Cabinet, it will be largely because of Masonic influence. If that comes to pass, what will happen to private schools? What will happen to the rights of parents? We certainly agree that the state has the right to demand education in secular matters for the sake of national welfare. But when this is made a means of denying to children the God-given right of being taught religion; when it is made the means of denying to parents their rights as parents in the control of 537 their children and their education; when it is made the means of instilling teachings that, while not religious, are at least irreligious and anti-Biblical, then it is time for those who have the welfare of the nation at heart to call a halt; for this is just as dangerous as the opposite extreme - control of education by Rome." A. Materialism in Ugly Nakedness. - The following paragraph from the Oommonweal of April 29 will interest our readers: - "A scientist fed some female rats a manganese-free diet and observed that they thereupon 'showed no maternal solicitude for their young.' In summing up these facts before a meeting of his colleagues in Baltimore, he was unable to resist adding: 'For the present it gives a bare clew that some of our most highly valued social instincts may depend on such trifles as the presence of infinitesimal amotmts of certain substances in our food.' Whereat head-line writers regaled the nation with large·type variations of the proposition that 'manganese causes mother love.' Whether this is actually going beyond what is implied by the word 'depend' in the above quotation, we leave our readers to judge. ·What we wish (with all possible mildness) to do is to utter a few reminders, just to keep the record straight. Weare certainly not equipped to compete with any scientist in his own field; in the case in question we know nothing of manganese and precious little of rats. But we do know as much as normal beings generally about human personality; and when (somewhat surprisingly) the discussion leaps from the behavior of rats under highly specialized conditions to 'our social instincts' and thence to 'mother love,' it has entered the field of human personality." A. New Law Concerning the Sacredness of Private Confession En- acted. - The Lutheran Oompanion of May 9 reports as follows: "It is gratifying to learn that the bill giving all Christian clergymen alike the same privilege in regaTd to confldpntial eommunieations revealed to them in private confession has been passed by both houses of the State Legis- lature of Minnesota and has been signed by Governor Olsen. Whatever may have been the defects of the present law, after this the Christian minister, whether he be a Protestant or a Roman Catholic, may receive confidential confessions in the State of Minnesota without fear of being asked to reveal them before the courts." At this writing we have no information on the outcome of the appeal taken by Rev. Swenson, who had been adjudged guilty of contempt of court for his refusal to divulge what had been communicated to him by way of private confession. A. The Protestant Clergy and the Question of War. - In the Ohris- tian Oent1;,1'Y an editorial is given to a report of Mr. Kirby Page, who sent a questionnaire to 53,000 ministers, which number is said to represent one half of the Protestant clergy of the country, and inquired how many of them would never support or sanction another war. Mr. Page "an- nounces that there are 10,427 ministers who absolutely reject war and would refuse personally to take part in any future war as combatants .... The entire clergy of eleven denominations received the questionnaire. Out of a total of 19,372 ministers who replied, 10,427 answered 'Yes' to the question, 'Are you personally prepared to state that it is your present purpose not to sanction any future war or participate in it as an armed combatant 7' and 12,076 declared their conviction that 'the Church should 538 Theological Observer. - mrcf)licf)~3eitgefcf)icf)mcf)es. now go ('11 record as refusing' to sanction or support any future war.' Of the total number of ministers replying, 17,700, or 91 per cent., expressed a willingness to have their names and replies made public." It is in this way that Reformed ministers think they can usher in the kingdom of God. That the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, that it does not come with observation, that it consists not in meat and drink, but in righteous- ness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, are matters which these propa- gandists either have never become thoroughly acquainted with OT which they ignore. A. Proposals Looking to Church Unity. - The Episcopalians hope to unite the churches by means of the episcopate. Article IV of the Lambeth Articles, which were formulated for the unity of Christendom, is being stressed particularly to-day. It reads: "The historic episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church." They insisted on it in their negotiations with the churches that are to form the South India Union. "It is proposed that the Indian Church of the future shall accept the episcopate without expressing or implying any theory concerning episcopacy." And the Lambeth Conference of 1930 endorsed this insistence on the episcopate. "The conference has heard with the deepest interest of the proposals for church union in South India now under consideration between the Church of India, Burma, and Ceylon, the South India United Church, and the Wesleyan Church of South India and ex- presses its high appreciation of the spirit in which the representatives of these churches have pursued the long and careful negotiations." They refuse to yield on the point of the episcopally ordained ministry. N eces- sarily so. For, as the Lambeth Conference again put it, this "ministry is the gift of God through Christ and is essential to the being and well- being of His Church." And Prof. \iV. H. Dunphy has lately explained the matter thus: "The doctrine of Apostolic Succession, i. e., the principle that none might validly ordain to the priesthood except an apostle or one who has received by ordination from the apostles the plenitude of apostolic power (including the power to ordain) and that only those ordained by them can celebrate a valid Eucharist, absolve, etc., is certainly the doctrine of the Anglican Church no less than of the Roman and Eastern churches." Now, the Episcopalian proposals will never bring about the union. The Methodists, for whom Rev. W. G. McFarland speaks, will not accept them. They consider their episcopate as good as that of the Episcopalians. In a letter published in the Living Church of February 14 Rev. McFarland, referring to Professor Dunphy's article, says: "We Americans, not being longer subject to the London bishop's legal jurisdiction, would not be dis- senters. So, having long since renounced faith in the myth of Apostolic Succession, he [Mr. Wesley] being himself at the climax of an apostolic ministry of divine mission like unto St. Paul's (see Gal. 1, I ff.), the Most Reverend Father in God of Methodism laid his venerable and apostolic hands upon the first Methodist bishop. The children of this episcopacy have received floods of what we believe is not uncovenanted grace." Nor will the Presbyterians and Baptists agree. "My Presbyterian kinsmen and Ba ptist neighbors would most certainly insist upon laying reciprocal hands upon Bishop Cheshire, his colleagues, and coadjutor." And the Baptists Theological Observer. - .ffitd)1id)~3citgeid)id)md)es. 53\} would offer an additional counter-proposal: "Would you Anglo-Catholics' for the unity of Christ's Church let the great Baptist Church immerse you?" As for the Lutherans, they reject at once the doctrine of the neceJl- sity of episcopal ordination and of Apostolic Succession as a man-made article. The Baptists make their counter-proposal in all seriousness. They insist upon the necessity of immersion as strenuously as the Episcopalians insist upon Apostolic Succession. They do not bother much about creeds. "There is nothing binding in them," they say. Yet they stand out for this one article - immersion. They do not make much of Baptism. "It has been said that Baptists make too much of Baptism; but in fact no religious body, except the Quakers, makes so little of it as they. They have very low ideas as to the necessity of Baptism." (Dr. R. S. MacArthur, in Why I Am, etc., p. 7.) But they insist on immersion as the condition of any church union. "The baptism of a believer, in the manner appointed by the Lord of the Church is at once a confession of fealty to Christ, an act of obedience to Him, and a symbolical proclamation of the central, essential, fundamental truths of Christianity, the death, burial, and resur- rection of the Savior of the world. Is it too much for Baptists to claim and require, as a condition precedent to membership, that all believers be immersed on confession of their faith?" (W(Ltchm.-Ew., Sept. 4, 1930.) - The Disciples of Christ make nothing at all of creeds, but they will insist on immersion as the conditio sine qua non of church union. "Under the limitations of the times they were not able to make an adjustment between their longings for unity and their conception of the literal authority of the Bible, which seemed to make certain features of church organization and especially a certain mode of baptism mandatory." (The Ohristian Century, Jan. 28, 1931.) Lutherans will not entertain the proposal. The doctrine of the necessity of immersion is a man-made article. Dr. Fred B. Smith, moderator of the National Council of the Congre- gational Churches, proposed this platform in 1929: "I am among those who believe the world is on its way to a common prayer, a common altar, a common fellowship. . .. What is the acid test of true, genuine religion? Certainly it is not some cold, metallic formula of salvation which may have been developed by some priest, rabbi, or minister. The acid test of religion is what is accomplished in the realm of morals." The Lutherans, on their part, offer to unite with all churches chiefly on the basis of the article that the sinner is justified by faith alone, by faith in the forgiveness of sins gained by the vicarious work of the God-man Jesus Christ and offered freely in the means of grace. That has been our ultimatum for four hundred years. "Of this article nothing can be yielded or surrendered, even though heaven and earth, and whatever will not abide, should sink to ruin. F'm' there is none other name unde1' heaven given among men whereby we must be saved, says Peter, Acts 4, 12." (Trigl., 463.) That proposal ought to appeal to all churches. There is nothing man-made about this article. It did not originate by any man's whim. It is God's truth. "Lutheranism was a revival of Paulinism," Lyman Abbot assures you. And best of all, through the acceptance of this article unity is brought about, assured, and preserved. "This article concerning justification by faith (as the Apology says) is the chief article 540 Theological Observer. - Stitdjfidj,,seitgefdjidjtlidjes. in the entire Christian doctrine, without which no poor conscience can have any firm consolation or can truly know the riches of the grace of God, as Dr. Luther also has written: 'If this only article remains pure on the battle-field, the Christian Church also remains pure and in godly harmony and without any sects; but if it does not remain pure, it is not possible that any error or fanatical spirit can be resisted.''' (Trigl., 917.) We hear voices seconding the proposal to make this article the basis of further discussion. Gieseler, the Reformed church historian, says: "If it be a question which of the Protestant creeds is best adapted to become a basis of union for all evangelical churches, I would pronounce unhesitatingly for the Oonfessio Augustana." And Professor Rockwell of Union Seminary says: "vVhy cannot Protestantism agree on its oldest creed, the Augsburg Confession? . .. Here [in Article VII] is a great and, in the best sense of the word, 'nxdiaal statement: Church unity may be had without any so-called apostolic succession of bishops and without any historic episcopate." E. Magic on the Ivory Coast. - Witchcraft, as we know from the Bible, deals with supernatural forces, with the powers of darkness, and its investigation therefore lies beyond the scope of science. For science deals only with the results of natural forces. We do not look to science to give us the right view of witchcraft. The Bible does that. But we do look to science to confess that it meets with phenomena which it is unable to explain. William B. Seabrook, a sober investigator, makes this confession, and for that reason we here submit the extracts from his article in the Ladies' Home Journal which appeared in the Reader's Digest of March, 1931. The results of Mr. Seabrook's investigation of the Vooeloo religion in Haiti were given in the THEOL. MONTHLY, IX, 371. The incidents here related took place on the Ivory Coast, West Africa, at the village of Doa, where the writer was the guest of the chief. This is Mr. Seabrook's story: "The most difficult and unsatisfactory experience of my whole African adventure - I dislike even to approach it - involved the strange business of the children who were pierced by swords. Two baby girls and the jugglers had been summoned and had been shut up all day secretly in the witch-doctor's inclosure. Night came, and we gathered in the torch-lighted public compound. The big village crowd - the natives themselves - was nervous, quiet, and almost as if terrorized. The two children, impassive as if drugged, but. able to stand and move about, open-eyed like somnambulists, were brought out by the jug'glers. And then whatever it was that hap- pened, happened. All the bad fiction-traditional stage props were there- night, torchlight, superstition, crowds hysterical, and mumbo-jumbo raised to its nth power. Anything like laboratory control was nonsense. Yet the ordinary hypotheses of trickery - yes, I know them all: group hypno- tism, substitution of simulacra, puppets introduced by sleight of hand, and so on - were simply no good in the face of the close visual and tactile evidence. For there were the two living children, close to me. I touched them with my hands. And there, equally close, were the t.wo men with their swords. The swords were iron, three-dimensional, metal, cold and hard. And this is what I now su,w with my eyes, but you will understand why I am reluctant to tell of it and that I do not know what seeing means: "Each man, holding his sword stiflly upward with his left hand, tossed Theological Observer. - ~ircl)(icl)~Seit\1efcl)icl)tlicl)es. 541 a child high in the air with his right, then caught it full upon the point, impaling it like a butterfly on a pin. No blood flowed, but the two children were there, held aloft, pierced through and through, impaled upon the swords. The crowd screamed now, falling to its knees. Many veiled their eyes with their hands, and others fell prostrate. Through the crowd the jugglers marched, each bearing a child aloft, impaled upon his sword, and disappeared into the witch-doctor's inclosure. "My first mental reaction, purely automatic, was that I had seen jugglery turn suddenly to ritual murder. But whatever had happened, it was not that. I was assured that in an hour or more, 'if things didn't go wrong,' we would see and touch the children, alive and well. "I had no doubt that the children would reappear alive, but my mind had reached its old balking-point. I would reject the evidence of my senses rather than accept literally a physical miracle, and I believe I shall do so until 1 die. And thus it was - please understand I mean no silly blas- phemy, but am trying to make clear something very difficult-that, when these two children were brought out presently and I touched them and they were still warm flesh, it convinced me of nothing Whatsoever, except that there may pm'haps be elements in this unholy jungle sorcery, just as there were unknown elements perhaps in the recorded holier miracles of other days, whioh transoend what soienoe knows of natural law, but not our possibility of ultimate knowledge." The italics in the last sentence are ours. This statement of the noted explorer deserves to be emphasized. He "perhaps," though. .And the hope expressed t.o disappointment. might have eliminated the in the last clause is doomed E. Our Kind of Fundamentalism. - Under this heading the Watohman- Examiner (January 22) defends its unionistic stand in the present con- troversy between Modernists and Fundamentalists. It writes: "Since the beginning of the movement in our denomination to recall to the faith the ministers, churches, missionary societies, and educational institutions that have gone astray, those standing for the faith have been divided into two groups. Some have felt that they should separate themselves from denom- inational activities and thus fight for the faith from the outside. Others have felt that they should remain with the organized work and, while loyally supporting it, raise their voices in protest against the evils that have crept in. The Watchman-Examine1', without hesitation, took the position of the second group. We may be pardoned for saying that through the years we have influenced many to follow our example. Instead of standing off from our organized work, we have asserted the right to criticize it because we have loyally supported it. The criticisms of non- supporters are neither listened to nor heeded. . Dr. W. B. Riley, in a recent issue of the Ohristian Fundamentalist, declares the 'come-outers' have accomplished little by their exclusive~less and that their arguments for the 'come-out' policy are illogical. He illustrates his point by reference to .Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was opposed to slavery and declared that the country could not exist half slave and lJalf free. He stayed with his country, however, and fought the evil that was corrupting it and won the victory." Sometimes Lutherans wonder how Fundamentalists can remain with 542 Theological Observer. - .RirdJIidh3eitgefdJid)tIidJes. church·bodies which are so completely under the control of Modernists. The explanation is here given, and it shows the great cleavage between confessional Lutheranism and vacillating, half·hearted, unionistic sectarian Fundamentalism. Lutheranism takes the commands of God's Word (2 Cor. 6, 14-18; Rom. 16, 17, etc.) seriously, while Fundamentalism acts on policies of expediency and human reason. That Fundamentalism has not accomplished a great deal the writer readily admits. He says: "Some are saying that Fundamentalists have accomplished that which they started out to do. Can anyone believe that who looks into our pulpits and the chair's of our educational institutions?" On the other hand, he is not, willing to admit that Fundamentalism "is playing out." He declares: "Others say that the movement is playing out. If it is, may God have mercy on us! When Fundamentalism, or that for which it stands, play~ out, the devil will hold high carnival through the Church on earth. No, Fundamentalism is not playing out." We do not doubt the sincerity of the writer; at the same time he ought to know that in every controversial crisis there is a time when the testimony by word must be followed by the testimony by deed. J. T. M. The Attitude of the "Lutheran" on the Question of Open or Close Communion Criticized. - Our readers will probably recall that in our last issue we reported on a lengthy editorial which appeared in the Lutheran, the official organ of the U. L. C., in which the view was expressed that ceteris paribus membership in an erring Church should not bar a person from being admitted to the Lord's Table in a Lutheran congregation. In the issue of February 26 the Lutheran publishes a letter by Dr. John C. Mattes of Scranton, Pa., a member of the U. L. C., who takes issue with the editor on the latter's position indicated above. The letter of Dr. Mattes is of such importance that we feel it should be re- printed in thp-se eoluIllns. "To THE EDITOR OF THE 'LUTHERAN': - "Much as we sympathize with certain aspects of the recent editorial. on 'The Lord's Supper and Denominational Fellowship,' there are certain statements there made that we cannot allow to pass unchallenged. "While the primary purpose of the Holy Sacrament is indeed to con- vey to the individual the great pledge of forgiveness that is imparted there to him by the true body and blood or Jesus Christ, it is also an act of confession on the part of the communicant and has always been so recognized. The person who communes with any body of believers de facto' approves the doctrine of those administering the Sacrament by his act of participation. It shows his agreement with what is professedly done; and if it does not, it shows either his ignorance or his insincerity. .A Lu- theran who communes with those who deny the Real Presence is denying his own faith before men. The one who is permitted to commune at a Lutheran altar, while actually denying the Real Presence as far as his- own convictions go, is put into a dishonest and false position before men. This is the real objection to such 'interdenominational communions' as far as Lutherans are concerned. The Communion cannot indeed produce a unity, but it can give an untruthful appearance of unity where such unity of faith does not exist. 543 "What is more serious is the assertion that an ecclesiastical body has no right to make rules governing the practise of its congregations in matters involving articles of faith. It certainly has a perfect right to indicate the logical and inescapable consequences of what it confesses, just as much right as it has to have a confession of faith in the first place. A congregationalism that exalts the congregation over the entire Church, that places the fraction above the unit, is neither Scriptural nor derived from the Lutheran Confessions. In the very first place, the stewards who are responsible for the right administration of the Sacra- ment are not the congregations, but the ministers of Word and Sacra- ment. It was of them, and not of the congregations over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers, that St. Paul said: 'Let a man so ac- count of us as of the ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.' Was it actually the intention of this editorial to state that the Church as a whole, in her organized capacity, has no right to make rules for the defense of the truth in matters of practise? Does she not regularly pass regulations even in very non-essential matters? Shall she, then, be denied the right to protect the truth? If that right is not granted to the Church as a whole, but is the sole prerogative of an atom- istic congregationalism, then the apostles erred grievously in the first Council of Jerusalem when they laid down certain rules for the guidance of the Gentile congregations and even prefaced them with the statement: 'It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.' "When a general body lays down certain principles that are derived as consequences from the truth it confesses, it not only does not violate 'a major Lutheran principle,' but it does exactly what is demanded by the major principles of our faith. "It was because of its principles and not for the sake of 'ecclesiastical .seizure of power' that the General Council stated the so-called Galesburg Rule, which is only an expression of what has always been the practise ·of an overwhelming majority of Lutherans of all lands for four centuries. To call this statement 'an illustration of ecclesiastical seizure of power' is as unwarranted and unfair as it is untrue to the facts. To justify that assertion, we would submit the rule itself and a portion of Dr. Krauth's explanation. "The Galesburg Rule made the following statements: 'I. The rule, which accords with the Word of God and with the Confessions of our ·Church, is: Lutheran pulpits are for Lutheran ministers only. Lutheran altars are for Lutheran communicants only. II. The emceptions to the rule belong to the sphere of privilege, not of right. III. The determina- tion of the emceptions is to be made in consonance with these principles, by the conscientious judgment of pastors, as the cases arise.' "At the request of the General Council Dr. Krauth prepared 105 theses, in which there was a fundamental discussion of the principles involved. Two brief quotations from these theses should be sufficient for the present: 'In saying that the rule "accords with the Word of God and with the Con- fessions of the Church" ... the Council meant that the rule is derived from the Word and the Confessions. It is an affirmation which is the result of their teachings and is necessitated by them and reaches the accord of 544 Theological Observer .. _- mtd)1id)~8eitgefd)id)md)es. a common testimony. The Word of God determines this rule, and the Con- fessions accept it and set it forth. It is a valid inference from the spirit and letter of both.' (Thesis 2.) "'It is a principle of the New Testament universally recognized in the Church that the reception of the Lord's Supper in a particular con- gregation or particular communion has as one of its objects the confes- sion of the pure faith as against the false or mingled, the complete as against the imperfect, the sound doctrine as against the corrupt or dubious, the true Church as against the spurious or doubtful. It is the most solemn mode of marking church conjunction and of witnessing for a par- ticular communion as over against all communions in any way arrayed against it or officially separate from its fellowship. It is "that we may testify that we approve the doctrine which sounds forth in that Church in which, together with others, we eat the same Eucharistic bread and drink from one cup." "The Lord's Supper not only separates believers, or the Christian people, from unbelievers, but also distinguishes between Ohristians themselves who have wandered from the purity of the faith and those of a purer Church sincerely professing and defending the sound faith." (Melanchthon, Repetitio August. Conf., Loci j Gerhard, Looi, X, 371; Carpzov, Isagoge in Libr. Symb., p. 405.)' (Thesis 58.) "JOHN C. MATTES." We are glad that this rejoinder appeared, showing that the U. L. C. has not, bag and baggage, gone over into the camp of those who advocate "open Communion." Let us hope that this testimony will bear good fruits. In what Dr. Mattes says about ecclesiastical authority there are several statements which ought to be modified. His remarks create the impression that larger church-bodies are of divine institution and can pass legislation which must be obeyed by all the pastors, teachers, and congregations of the respective body, We hold that the only unit which we can trace back to divine institution is the congregation. With re- spect to the responsibility for the right administration of the Sacrament we are convinced that the local congregation, which has called the pastor and which possesses the keys of the kingdom of heaven, has as large a share in it as the ministers. Again, when synods pass regulations, these must not be looked upon as being binding per 8e. Such a position would not have any sanction in the Scriptures. Whatsoever authority attaches to them comes from the consent of the congregations when they approve of what their representatives have resolved on. But with the position which Dr. Mattes chiefly has in mind, namely, that a church-body has the authority to state the principles which it holds to be implied in the truth which it confesses, we are in full agreement. The Luthe1'an, in the same issue, has a few words to say on the re- joinder of Dr. Mattes. We regret that it does not withdraw from the position which is under attack, but declares concerning the Galesburg Rule: "While we have great respect for the views set forth in the letter of Dr. Mattes and realize the dangers resulting from overvaluing the con- gregational prerogatives, we cannot escape observing the baneful effects on Lutheranism for which the legislation in question gave occasion. A fal- lacy in a rule has become evident in its effects despite high regard for Theological Observer. - .!l:itd)lid.h8eitgefd)id)t1id)e~. 545· its purpose and for the ability of its drafters." These are obscure state- ments. What does the Lutheran mean? What are the effects which it complains of? The questions involved are too important and far-reaching to be dismissed in such a manner. .A . .An Extension of the Doctrine of Intention. - The doctrine of intention, as held by the Catholics, Roman- and Anglo-Catholics, is bad enough in its simple form. "It is a dogma at once abhorrent in the de- pendence in which it places souls upon human caprice and perilous to the Romish fabric, inasmuch as it puts in question the validity of holy orders. Some of the fathers at Trent were not wholly blind to the former phase. One of the bishops argued against the necessity of inward intention and pointed his argument by supposing a case where a priest, who, being an infidel and a formal hypocrite, might despoil a whole congregation of the Sacraments and cause the perdition of children from lack of valid baptism. 'The divines,' says Sarpi, 'did not approve this doctrine, yet were troubled and knew not how to resolve the reason. But they still maintained that the true intention of the minister was necessary, either actual or virtual, and that without it the Sacrament was not of force, notwithstanding any external demonstration.''' (History of Ohr. Doct., H. C. Sheldon, II, 193.) If the lack of the internal intention on the part of the ordaining bishop renders the ordination invalid (and if the bishop is not a true priest because his ordination was invalid for the same reason), the priest can never know for certain whether he is a true priest. But the matter becomes still more involved and the doubts of the poor priest grow apace when the doctrine of intention is applied to books and rules and rubrics. Some will doubt that they are priests, and others will find it necessary, in the interest of their priesthood, to contend for the presence of the intention in the ordinal in question. As witness the following. In his- book Why RO'ine? Dr. Delaney gave his reasons for going over to Rome, and Rev. Harrison Rockwell answers in the Living Ohurch (Oct. 18, 1930) as follows: "His chief contention is that the Anglican Church lost the apos- tolic succession in the first century after the break with the See of Rome because of lack of intention in the new ordinal. This charge is based on the wording of the consecration of a bishop, where it was not explicitly stated at that precise place in the service that one was being set apart 'for the office and work of a bishop,' as the ordinal of 1661 and all later ones have it. Dr. Delaney has written that he believes the first Edwardine ordinal lost us the apostolic ministry and that therefore he has never been a priest." The possibility of the lack of intention on the part of the ordinal weighs so heavily upon Rev. Rockwell that he is at pains to establish the presence of the intention. He quotes Dr. Francis J. Hall: "In the Edwardine ordinal, which continued in use for a century, the intended grade of order was not explicity designated in this formula; but, it was sufficiently indicated in the rite at large, and such an omission was- in accord with ancient Catholic precedent. . .. Moreover, the preservation of an unbroken succession in the Anglican episcopate from the apostles, through recognized Catholic channels was provided for with painstaking rare by the provision carried out in the consecration of Archbishop Parker; and this line of succession has been reenforced by subsequent events." 35 E. 546 Theological Observer. - SfitdjftdH3eitgefcf)icf)Hicf)es. "The State Must Yield." - The Sunday-school Times (Jan. 17) writes: "The' well-known Roman Catholic publicist Hilaire Belloc bluntly told us in the AtlM&tic Monthly some months ago that the Roman Church ,and the modern state are fundamentany antagonisti(J and that., when the conflict comes, the state must yie-ld. There are implications of all sorts .of t.rouble in this assertion, and it is breaking out. In Venezuela the Archbishop of Valencia published a. pastoral against. civil ma.rriage. The president of the country ordered his expulsion. The archbishop asked for a suspension of the decree. It. was answered that he must first. declare tha.t. he 'would respect, and a.bide by, the- suprema.cy and integrity of our la.we.' Other bishops associated themselves with their archbishop in a published statement. The Minister of Public Instruction in reply stated that the bishops had taken an attitude to which the government. could not. submit without. surrendering the independence and sovereignty of the nation. So oncEl' more Church and State locked horns in South America. In Malta. a world-power, the Papacy, has challenged anotlier world-power, the British Empire. Maltese voters have been ordered not to vote for a candidate- unsatisfa.ctory to the Roman Church, although he is actually a. Roman Ca.tholic. The British government has answered by suspending elect.ions and the constitut.ion of Malta. It is a reaffirmation of the proud words of the- Thirty-seventh Article: 'The Bishop of Rome ha.th no juris- diction in this realm of England.' The· Rev. J. A. Kaye of Tollington Park, London, was for nineteen months a war-time chaplain in Malta.. He de- scribes the- people of Malta as thEl' most poverty-stricken he has ever seen. Yet there is a priest on the island for every eight inhabitants, and the churches are- stored with wealth." All this is worth noting by the citizens of our country, where Roman- ism is at. present dangerously aggressive. Writers like Hilaire BeHoc and Gilbert Chesterton a.re no oily diplomat.ist.s as are the wily clergy of the Catholic Church; they may ten us blunt.Iy what Rome purposes to do, but they ten us trut.hfully; and the act.ions of the Papacy back up their words. J. T.lYL The United Lutheran Church and the Suomi Synod. - In the Lutheran a cont.ribut.or, M. L. Canup, writes: "Just now there is a lovely courtship going on between the United Lutheran Church in America and the Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (the Suomi Synod), with the possibility of an early marriage. The United Lutheran Church in Michigan is greatly interested in this announced engagement and pro- posed wedding. The map of the United Lutheran Church in Michigan will be greatly changed with the consummation of this merger. The head- quarters of the Suomi Synod is at Hancock, Mich. Here are also located Suomi College and the theological seminary. This young synod has 184 congregations, scattered over eighteen States and the two provinces of Canada, a membership of 35,000, shepherded by more than sixty pastors. The Finns are a thrifty people. They know the history and doctrine of their Church. The United Lutheran Church would be benefited by such a merger, and we trust the Suomi Synod would also. Detroiters and Michiganders are especially interested in the courtship of these two bodies." J.T.M. Theological Observer. - 5tirc(JHc(J~3eitgefc(Jic(Jmc(Jes. 547 Mormonism Still Very Strong. -The News Bulletin of the National Lutheran Council contains an article on the Mormons (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) in Utah in which much interesting information concerning this dangerous sect is presented. We are told that the Mormons, who in 1830 started out with six members, now number 600,000 adherents. The sect is represented in all the States of the Union, in Canada, in South America, in the majority of the European countries, and on islands of the sea. "Mormon accessions average now about 21,000 per annum, of which 14,000 represent an indigenous growth through the reception in baptism of children from Mormon families. About 450,000 of their members live in the 'intermountain' country, especially in Utah and Southern Idaho." In this same territory Protestant churches report 185 congregations and mission-stations (a very limited number self-sup- porting), with a total membership of 25,000, or, in other words, a ratio of 20 to 1. "In Salt Lake City, with a population of 135,000, the Mormons claim a membership of 45,000, which is distributed in about 55 ecclesiastical wards, each provided with a chapel and corps of officers. On the other hand, though much is said about the fact that the Gentiles outnumber the Saints, the combined strength of Catholics and Protestants is less than 10,000. Lutheranism is represented on the field by three synods, who carry on operations i.n three congTegations in Utah, about seven congregations in Southern Idaho, and a few scattered preaching-stations. In all, the membership totals about 1,500 souls. Handicapped by limited resources and man-power, the results have certainly justified the efforts expended. On the question whether the Mormons believe in the atonement of Jesus, the article says that they make this claim; but "the viewpoint is not evangelical. Hopes for salvation are not based on Christ's mediatorial sacrifice, but rather on the ordinance of Baptism, and the laying on of hands by the pricsthood rather than redemption through the grace of God." In practise, polygamy is a thing of the past, but in theory it is still cherished. The life in heaven is dreamt of by some of this sect as polyg- amous. "Vicarious work for the dead is carried on to the extent that leaders have declared that more is done in behalf of the dead than for the living. Living persons may be baptized by proxy for their dead ancestors and thus secure their release from prison in the spirit world." One thing remarkable about Mormonism is that it is so well organized. "There is duty for everybody. At the head is the president, who with his two counselors is the highest authority and mouthpiece of God. In a descending scale there are the officers with well-defined duties, such as the 'twelve apostles,' the 'president of the 70's,' or 'stake presidents,' down to the 'bishop' in every ward, who has under him officers and 'block teachers,' sufficient to make weekly contact with all the members. Because of its vast property holdings and accredited divine authority the Mormon Church wields a tremendous political as well as financial power. The annual tithe receipts, which total at least four and a half millions, are administered by the leaders as a church extension fund. . .. Whatever one may say about the teachings of the Mormons, there can be no question about their missionary zeal. Their method of calling young men to serve the Church at their own expense outside of the home territory for a period extending over at least two years is unparalleled. A force comprising about 1,200 548 Theological Observer. - .~itdJlicfy8eitgeidJid)tlid)es. in the States and about 900 outside the States is continually spending its efforts in the interest of the Mormon cause. These missions are said to represent an annual cost of two million dollars, and the property is also valued at two million dollars." The writer of the article has this important practical suggestion: "A ootter understanding of the Mormon question is essential. It has been proved that persecution and ridicule will promote the cause which is attacked. Evangelical truth must be disseminated by means of every avenue of publicity in Mormon territory, but always in a friendly relationship. The public everywhere should be posted on the Mormon teachings, but, of greater importance still, be grounded in Ohristian fundamentals." It is well known that our Ohurch is represented in the territory of the Mormons by a congregation located in Salt Lake Oity, Utah, of which the Rev. F. E. Schumann is pastor, and by missions at Provo and Spanish Forks, which are in charge of Missionary Skov. A. Repeal of Tennessee Evolution Law Sought. - The Memphis cor- respondent of the Ohristian Oentury reports: "There is now a bill pending before the Legislature of Tennessee to repeal the notorious 'monkey law,' which forbids the teaching of evolution in State-supported schools in Ten- nessee. The matter was brought up for discussion at the April meeting of the Protestant Pastors' Association of Memphis. A paper on evolution was read by Rev. R. G. Lee, leader of the Baptist Fundamentalists in Memphis. Dr. Lee's essay described all evolutionists as atheists and stated that one had to choose between heathen evolution and God's Word, the Bible. Rev. O. A. Marrs of the Methodist church and Dean Noe of the Episcopal cathedral scored Dr. Lee's paper as a caricature of scientific teachings and denied that atheism and evolution are identical. The asso- ciation, when called on to vote its protest against the repeal of the 'monkey law,' failed to go on record. Although the matter has been carried over till next meeting, it is the consensus of opinion that no concerted opposition will 00 organized against the repeal." We cannot vouch for the correctness of any of the statements made. Rev. R. G. Lee is known to us as a very eloquent defender of the cardinal doctrines of the Bible pertaining to the atonement of our Savior and the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Ohristian parents, it seems to us, are certainly within their rights when they refuse to permit the instructors in schools supported by their taxes to teach their children a false religious philosophy. A. II. Au~iltlnb. D. $ij. l8arl)mllnn ljcimgegangen. ~ie ±ljeologifcfje g;afurtii± in @:r" Iaugen 'befIag± ben ~ob dne£! vrominen±en @!iebe£!, niimIicfj D. ~lj. )Bacfj" maun£!, ber fiiraIicfj in feinem fieoenunbfecfjaigften Eeoen£!jaljr aogerufen tourbe. ~er merftoroene toar oebeu±enb aI£i @:!;eget unb @l~f±ematifer. ~n ,Baljn£! Sl!ommen±ar oearoeite±e er me Sl!orin±ljeroriefe. 0:!£J ~eofog ging er in ben )Baljnen S)ofmann£! unb g;rauf£! einljer unb toar aHo nicfjt )Befennini£!" tljeofog im borren @linne be£! lffiori£!. 0:. :!lit£! :!latum bet S'h:eutjigung unfet~ Sjei!anbe~. ~m "g;rieben£!ooien" finbet ficfj folgenbe bem ,,0:vofoge±en" en±nommene mona: ,,~rof. Dr. n£!" Walb @erljarbt in )BerHn tom, toie er in ber ,Bdtfcfjrift ,g;orfcfjungen unb Theological Observer. - Sl:itd)Hd)~8eitgefd)td)md)es. 549 iSorlfdjti±te' mi±teirt, genau ljetausgefunben ljalien, an wddjem matum bie Sl'teuaigung ;s@ifu @:ljtifti nadj unfetm ~arenbet gefdjeljen ift. @it etfIiirl, me ~etedjnung fei in iljtem ~etn eine tein afttonomifdje ~ufgalie unb fpitle fidj au bet iStage au: )!Bddjem matum unfets ~arenbets entfPtidjt bet iStei" tag, bet 15. :nifan, mei! ;s'@ifus am iSteitag im \jSaffalj ftatli? ~uf &tunb bet bibIifdjen ~rngaben geiangte er au bet ftlietaeugung, bat nut eins bet flinf ;saljte 29 liis 33 in ~ettadjt fommen fonne. @it gilit nadj fotg" fiiHigen Untetfudjungen an, filt: iljn ftelje es unwibetIegIidj feft, baB bie Sl'teuaigung iSteitag, ben 7. ~jJrir, im ;saljte 30, ftattgefunben ljat." ~. Regarding the "Miracles" at Lourdes. - The Oommonweal feels it necessary to defend the authenticity of the so-called cures at Lourdes. The occasion of its remarks on this subject is furnished by an editorial in the April number of Hygeia, a journal published by the American Medical Association, in which the writer, Dr. Fishbein, places the "cures" at Lourdes in the same class with those of "charlatans who use the power of sugges- tion." The Oommonweal says: "Dr. Fishbein in this instance proves him- self to be anything but scientific; for he ignores the testimony given by scores of physicians of the highest repute to the effect that many of the cures at Lourdes cannot possibly be explained by suggestion. Dr. Alexis Carrel of the Rockefeller Institute, winner of the Nordhoff-Jung cancer prize for 1930, for example, is such a wi.tness to the inexplicable character of some of the Lourdes cures. In a letter to Dom Francis Izard, recently quoted by the latter in the London Tablet, Dr. Carrel says: 'Certain facts observed at Lourdes cannot be accounted for by any of the known laws of wound-healing and tissue regeneration. In the course of a miraculous cure the rate of tissue regeneration greatly exceeds that which has ever been observed in the healing of a wound under optimum conditions.' Such a case, the insta,ntaneous cure of tuberculosis disease of both kidneys, was observed at Lourdes in September, 1929, the person cured being Mlle. Mar- guerite Adam, a Belgian. After waiting a year, this case was declared inexplicable by the medical bureau at Lourdes. Dr. Carrel was present during the discussion and signed the dossier. "There are literally scores of such cases. Dr. Fishbein, as editor of a journal published by the American Medical Association, should be better acquainted with the facts concerning Lourdes before committing himself and, by inference, the American Medical Association to such an ill-informed statement as that contained in the editorial in Hygeia. Scientists, as the London Tablet remarks, are entitled to say that they expect somebody, some day, to explain the Lourdes cures somehow, without going outside of what we call the natural course of things. But they are not entitled to say that the Catholic explanation is untenable. Still less are they entitled to class them with the hocus-pocus of such 'suggestionists' as Alexander Dowie and Coue, as Dr. Fishbein does. Scientists should make a virtue of prudence, as religion does, especially those who write for the press." The remarks of the Oommonweal create the impression that the cures must be either natural or divine and that tertium non datur. A reference to 2 Thess. 2, 9 will show that there is a third possibility. A. 550 Theological Observer. - mtd)lidh'3eitgefd)id)t1id)es. fiber .l:.\anDe{lfirdjen lmD 6eften. l801I3ieqt fidj in ::Deutfdjlanb gegen~ toartig ein lffiedjfel in ber ~nfdjauung be±reffi3 bei3 l8erqaltniffei3 3toifdjen 2anbei3firdje unb ~reifirdje? :;5n biefen Sl!teifen ift biei3 oqne 3toeifeI ber ~alI. ::Dabei toerben :;5rrium unb lffiaqrqeit getoaftig ineinanbergemeng±. :;5m ,,~qriftridjen ~pologeten" beridjtet lBif djof Wmf en, einer ber ftiqrenben IDCetqobiften in (furopa, tiber l8orirage, bie ber Sl!irdjenqif±orifer ~tof. Dr. Sfiiqler bon ber Uniberfitat in ~eibelberg geqarten qat unb toorin biefer lidj gerabe tiber ben angebeuteten @egenftanb aU.i3fpridjt. ~tof. Sfiiqler fieqt in ben ®eften ein ®tiicf djriftridjen 2eben.i3, "bai3 nun cinmal ba ift, eine ungeqeure ~niliequng.i3haft befitt unb nidjt nUt: edlart, fonbem bor allen ::Ding en berftanben fein toill. ::Der ®ianbpunft ber ,alIeinfefigmadjenben 2anbei3firdje' - man mag iqn ableqnen, fobiel man toill, borqanben ift er bodj - mut berfdjtoinben; e.i3 mut aufl)iiren, bat man ben ®eftierer ober ®emeinfdjaft.i3djriften mit einem getoiffen Clbium berfoIgt unh bon iqm ab~ deft, fefbft bann, toenn man iqm innerfidj gan3 naqe fteqt, nur toeil man ,firdjIidj' if±. ::Die ~ron±en laufen qeu±e nidj± meqr: 2anbe.i3firdje - ®efte, fonbem: ~qrif±en±um - lffiiberdjriftentum. . .. Unb ba.i3 UrieH? :;5dj feqe e.i3 miim. 14, 5, unb nur ba. ®olange bie ®eften, unb feien fie fUr unfereinen nodj fo abftru.i3, bie refigiiifen lBebtirfniffe toeiter Sl!reife befrie~ bigen, folange fie [iqre 3uqiirer] 3U fittridj emf ten IDCenfdjen erilieqen; fo~ range bie ~eif5armee ober bie (fmften lBibelforfdjer ober toer e.i3 fei, einen l8erelenbeten au retten bermiigen, ben bie 2anbei3firdje 3U retten nidjt fiiqig ift; fofange bon .9JCennoniten, lBaptiften, Ouiifem ober toer ei3 fei, .... refi~ giiife Sl!rafte aU.i3f±riimen: fo lange barf ba.i3 UrteH nur auf ben perfiinfidjen @etoiffen.i3entfdjeib abgefteUt toerDen. ::Die ®eften qaben iqr medjt aUf (f6i~ ften3 qinfiingIidj betoief en". (fi3 ift ja einerfeiti3 erfreufidj, bat ~rof. Sfiiqler einfieqt, bie lanb~ Iaufige ~nfdjauung tiber bie 2anbe.i3firdje laffe fidj nidjt qarten. ~nberer~ feit.i3 aber ift e.i3 ±raurig, bat er bei feiner lBeurteifung bon ~irdjengemein~ fdjaften nidjt ben Wcatftab be.i3 etoigen lffiorte.i3 @otte.i3 anlegt, fonbem bie ®adje mit ben lBrillen ber l8emunft anfieqt unb ciner @emeinfdjaft ~n~ erfennung angebeiqen Iaffen toill, toenn fie refigiiife lBebtirfniffe befriebigt, auf fittridjem @ebiet (frfolge auf3utoeifen qat, f03iale ~iIfe pf[egt ufto. :;5n feinem ~alI f[ief3t bie 5.t'oleruuil nidjt au.i3 gefunben @runbfaten. ~. \neue ~ereinigungi:H.1erfudje in @urol.1a. l8erireter ber firdjfidjen ~reffe lBelgium.i3, ~ranheidji3, @rotbritannieni3, ::Deutfdjlanb.i3 unb ber Wieberlanbe qaben eine Sl!onferen3 gebUbe±, bie unter anberm audj IDCittel unb lffiege fudjt, toie bie djriftfidjen 3eitfdjriften bie l8ereinigungi3berfudje ber bev fdjiebenen Sfirdjen befiirbem fiinnen. ~rof. D. ~inberer in lBerlin unter~ breitete ber ~onferen3 l8orfdjlage: IDCan fei fidj bodj barin einig, bat man miteinanber unb nidjt meqr gegeneinanber arbeiten toolle (to work with each other and not on one another), il. lB. tUrdj ~ropaganbamadjen fiir ein3eIne Sl!irdjen, @ruppen ober IDCeinungen; bie :;5ntereffen ber berfdjie~ benen 2iinber totirben immer enger ineinanber berf[odjten; geiftige unb moraIifdje lBetoegungen tiberfprangen l8oni3~ unb 2anbe.i3gren3en; baburdj jei brfrberIidje.i3 3ujammentoirfen, befonber.i3 bon feiten ber djriftIidjen ~reffe, 3ur nottoenbigen ~f[idjt getoorben, toenn fidj audj nodj getoiffe ®pannungen unb firdjIidje ®djeibetoanbe fanben, bie foldje l8ereinigung aUf bai3 uutere befdjranften. lBefonber.i3 burdj bai3 ®djaffen einer ~tmofpqare be.i3 gegen~ feitigen lffioqltoolIen.i3 unb burdj ~U.i3taufdj forgfaftig au.i3getoaqrter Wadj~ Theological Observer. - ~itd)lid)~8eit\lefd)icf)t1icf)es. 551 ritf)ien fiinne gerabe bie fircljliclje \j.5refje biei baau oeiiragen. - stier ®infIut be5 gebrucften unb gelefenen jffiorte5 aUf bie iiffen±riclje IDeeinung fann nicljt Ieiclj± uoerfcljiii,?t roerben. ®ine gute fircljUclje 2eitfcljrift, bie ficlj nicljt fcljeut, Die jffia~r~ei± au oefennen unb bie jffia~r~eit au fagen, iff bon unoerecljen< oarem )fiert fiir bie S~irclje. jffienn aber aIle5, l1Ja5 gefcljrieoen unb gebrucf± roirb, einem borgefa13±en 2roecf bienen foIl unb bemgemii13 aU5geI1Jii~r± un~ 3ugeftui,?± roirb, fo roirb bie fircljIiclje \j.5reffe niclj± nur roertr05, fonbern fcljabIiclj. 130 bage unb berfcljroommen bie ooenerroii~nte @efcljiclj±e ift, 10 fcljeint fie boclj auf ein Sfompro±± ~inau5auraufen, um bie cr~rif±en, aUf gut beutfclj, anaufii~ren. Stlie ~eifige ®cljrift nenn± forclje, bie .,3'riebe, 3'riebe!" fdjreien, 10 boclj fein 3'riebe ift. falfclje \j.5rop~e±en. )t. ~. A Union Lutheran Seminary in India. - A Union Lutheran Semi- nary for theological training will be opened in July at Gurukul, Madras, South India. Synods and societies joining in the movement are the United Lutheran Church in America, the American Lutheran Church, the Danish Missionary Society, the Ev. Luth. Leipzig Mission, the Swedish Mission, and the Tamil Ev. Luth. Church in India. The last-named is an offshoot of the Leipzig Mission. It is planned to offer a course of three years. "Each cooperating body will furnish one professor, whether Indian or for- eign, and will be responsible for his salary and housing and will also send students for the graduate classes and, maybe, other classes." - I'Ve sincerely regret that our Missouri Synod, which is also doing mission-work in India, cannot join in the new venture; for the constituent groups tol- erate much doctrinal error in their ranks. Our Concordia Theological Seminary in India is located at N agercoil, Travancore. FREDERICK BRAND. 6d)u!UctfliHtniffc iu 6o\ujettuflfuIt1l. stier .,cr~riftr. Wporoge±e" fcljreiot: "IDeit bem oefanntcn Stlefre± bom 12. Wuguft 1930 ift auclj in ®oroje±< rujjlanb ber aIlgemeine ®clju1aillang eingerii~rt roorven. iEereit5 mit lbe< ginn be5 ®cljulia~re5 1930-31 fome mit bem \j.5fIiclj±oefuclj ber ~5orf5fcljure oIler Sfinber im gmer bon aclj±, neun unb ae~n ~a~ren oegonnen roerben. @Ieidjaeitig fomen auclj Sfinber atuifcljen erf unb fiinfae~n ~a~ren, bie bie moIf5fcljufe niclj± oefllclji ~aoen, in oefonberen - noclj au fcljaffenben - Wnf±aIten im .l3aufe bon ein oi5 atuei ~a~ren Unterriclj± er~ar±en. ~m mergleiclj mit bem \j.5rogramm, mit roercljem bie Sfommuniften in mU13fanb oet i~rer IDeaclj±ergreifling aUf bem @eOie± ber @5cljufoifbung auftraten, ift bie5 Stlefre± aiemIiclj befcljeiben. WU13erbem fte~t bie neue merfiigung nur auf bem \j.5apier. ®cIoft ber ®otujeipreffe erfcljein± bie mertuirfficljung biefer IDea13na~me fe~r atueifer~aft. llCaclj ber ,~5tueftja' mU13ten 58,900 Si'fafjen eriiffnet, 50,300 neue .l3e~rer aU5geoHbet unb ernannt unb ca. 750' IDeiIlionen muocI a1l5gegeoen tuerben. stier offiaieIle @)cljuratuang fann aoer a15 gefii~rUclje )fiaffe borl angetuanbt l1Jerben, roo man S'finber, bie bon ben ®r±ern oi5~cr forgfam bem en±fittricljenben ®infIu13 ber @)otujetfcljufe fernge~arten tuurben, unter biefen ®infIu13 oringen tuiIl. '®ine ganae mei~e bon \j.5re13nacljriclj±en tueift barauf ~in, ba13 im ganaen @)cljllftuefen eine fUr tuefteuropiiifclje mer~iir±niffe oeifpierrofe Stle50rganifation eingeriffen ift. itoer~aupt ~at ba5 ®raie~ungi3fWem in ber @)otuje±union fcljon jei,?± au einem @)infen bC5 geiftigen llCitJeau5 in alien ®cljufen mU13fanb5, bon ber )80[f5fcljulc angefangen, Oi5 aur Uniberfitiit gefu~r±' u ~. )t. IDe. 552 Theological Observer. - mtcf)licf)~3eitgefcf)icf)tficf)es. \neue trltnbc im ~llf. 9Iadj dner me[~ung im ,,(:l:IjriftL Upofogeten" fin~ bei ben neueften ®rabungen ber ()6for~" un~ iYier~"mufeen an ber IStatte bes aHen ~ifdj im ~raf loftbare ~utuefen unb tuun~erboile ®of~" fdjmucfgegenftanbe gefunben tuorben, bie einft am ,SJofe 9Ieoufabneilars ge" trag en tuurben. 9Iadj bem fBeridjt bes .2eiters ber ®rabungen, ~rofeffor .2angbons, tuirb biefer ®djatfunb aus ber oao~Ionifdjen @!podje oefonbere~ Uuffe~en erregen, ba baburdj audj auf bie bioHfdje ®efdjidjte neues .2idjt falli. 5tief unter bem 5tempef bes ~onigs 9Iebufabneaar tuurbe eine neue ffiei~e fumerifdjer ~onigsgraoer aufgebetfi, bie man als 5,500 ~a~re aU fdjatl±. ~aoei tuurben 5tafefdjen mit SfeHinfdjriften gefun~en, ~ie neue l2ruffdjIiiffe iioer bie ®efdjidjte biefer ,BeU oringen. man ~at oeredjnet, baB biefe ISdjriften iiHer finb aIi3 bie ®intffut. ~ie ®rabungen ergaben ,audj iYunbe bon boriliigIidjen ISfufpturen aus ~er lSaffanibenaeit um 250 nadj ~~rifto. - ISo tudt ber fBeridjt. ~er illiert biefer iYunbe oefte~t bor .ailem barin, baB fie bie ,,®efdjidjte ber erften .weenfdj~eit", tuie fie bon ben ungfiiuoigen fBibeffritifern fonftruiert tuor~en ift, in IStiicfe reiBen unb 'bie illia~r~eit bes aItteftamentridjen SEeridjti3 bireft tuie inbireft beftiitigen. ~ie oibeIfetnbHdjen ®bofutionst~eorien erfeoen an biefen ardjiiofogifdjen zyunben i~r iZBaierIoo. ~. 5t . .we. jffiiebetllltfltll~me ber llnglifllnifdHreifird)Hd)cn ~efl1red)ltngen. iZBie 'bas ,,®b. ~eutfdjlanb" mitteUt, ~at bie angfifanifdje fBifdjofsfonferena, bie im lSommer borigen ~a~res in .2onbon ftattfanb, in tuetten freifirdjIidjen fueif en ftarf enttiiuf djt, ba fie nidjti3 bailU beigeiragen ~at, bie ®inigungs" .6eftrebungen iltuifdjen ber engfifdjen IStaati3firdje unb ben engfifdjen iYrei" firdjen au forb ern. 9Iadj ber .weitteHung bes Methodist Recorder ~at nun 'ber ®riloifdjof bon ~anterbur~ bem fBunbesrat ber el1angeIifdjen iYreifirdjen !@5ngfanbi3 feinen illiunfdj ba~in geiiuBert, baB bie fBefpredjungen atuifdjen l.l5ertre±ern ber anglHanifdjen ~irdje llnn ber B'remrdjen mieber aufgenom~ men tuiirben. ®ine ffiei~e fofdjer fBefpredjungen fanb bereits im ~a~re 1920 nadj ber . 2am'6ei~fonferena ftatt; bodj tuurben fie .weitte bes borigen ~a~rilefjnti3 tuieber eingeftelli. fBii3fjer f djeiterten bie ®inigungsbeftre" bungen ilumeift an ben fjofjen Unforberungen ber engfifdjen IStaati3firdje, namentridj an ber iYorberung, bie continua successio anedennen au miiffen, bie befonbers bie fjodjfirdjIidje ~artd aufredjterfjiirt, tuiifjrenb bie nieber" lirdjIidje ~artei tuie audj bie breitfirdjIidje ben @!inigungsbefirebungen ilU" geneigt if±. ~. 5t . .we. ~in lUid)tiger trunb. illiie,,~. ®. ~." mitteiIt, ift fUrilIidj ein tuidjtiger U'unb gemadjt tuorben. ~er fBeridjt fautet: ,,~er ~rofeffor ber femitifdjen ISpradjen unb ber ~g~ptorogie an ber llniberfitiit 5toronto in ~anaba, Dr . .weercer, melbet als ®rgebnis dner iYorfdjungsreife nadj Uoeffinien bie @!ntbecfung cines aIten fBibefmanujfripti3, bai3 dnen um iltuei~unbert ~a~re iiIteren 5te!;t oieie als aile bii3~er befannten itlierfetlungen ber ,SJeiIigen ISdjrift. ~ie bis~erige ~riifung be~ 5te!;tes fjabe ergeben, baB aUf ®runb biefer ,SJanbfdjrift an tuidjtigen ISteilen ber urfpriingfidje 5te!;t be~ mten 5teftamenti3 tuieberfjergeftelli unb bon ~rrtiimern bet lPiiteren l2rusgaben gereinigt tuerben fonne. ~er ®elefjrte fUnbigt iluniidjft bie ~eroffenmdjung bes 5te!;tes Des ~ebiger lSalomo an." ~. 5t. m.