'Q!nurnr~tu (lJqrnlngiral :!Inut41y Continuing LEHRE UND WEHRE MAGAZIN FUER Ev.-LuTH. HOMILETIK THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY-THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY Vol. III January, ,1.932 No.1 CONTENTS ARNDT, W.: Foreword Page 1 LAETSCH, TH.: Die Schriftlehre von del' Verstockung. . . . 'I MUELLER, J. T.: Introduction to Sacred Theology....... 12 KRETZ MANN, P. E.: _I\..postelamt, Predigtamt, Pfarramt, Synodalamt ................... '" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 LAETSCH, TH.: Studies in Hosea 1-3................... 33 Dispositionen ueber die zweite von der Synodalkonferenz angenommene Evangelienreihe ........................ 45 Miscellanea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Theological Observer. - Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches. . . . . . 57 Book Review. - Literatur ................. , .... '" ...... .. 72 Ein Prediger muss nicht aHein weiden, also dass er die Schafe unterweise, wie sle reehte Christen Bollen sein, sonde'll aueh daneben den Woelfen wehren, daBS sie die Sehafe nieht angreifen nnd mit falseher Lehre verfnebren und Irrtum ein· fnehren. - Luther. Es ist kein Ding, das die Lente mehr bei der Kirche behaelt denn die gute Predigt. - Ap%gie, Art. 24. If the trumpet give an uncertain Bound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 1 Oor.14, 8. Published for the Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other 'States CONCORDIA. PUBLISHING HOUSE, St. Louis, Mo. Theological Observer. - .Ritd)!id),.seitgefd)id)tIid)e~. 57 91adj ber ~ermeneutifdjen megef Lectio difficilior praeferenda fomen roir un~ roenigften~ mit ber Eiifung biefer 6djroierigfeit vefaffen. lifine foldje, unb aroar cine redjt anne~moare, oidet IDle~er in fcinem jSudje ",iSliffu IDlutterfpradje", roorin er oefanntridj ben 91adjroci~ fil~rt, baf3 ber SjeiIanb fidj in ber megeI ber aramiiifdjen 6pradje vebient ~aoe. SElemnadj ~iitte er ~ier ben &u~brucf georaudjt: ab'daha, 5tater ber 2Bei~~eit, ober abdaha, sntedjte ber 2Bei~~eit, roorau~ leidjt in ber miinblidjen ftoerIieferung oba- daha ober abidataha roerben fonnte, 2Bede ber 2Bei~~eit. &I~ ber SjeiIige @eift bie lifbangeIien in griedjifdjer 6pradje aufaeidjnen lief3, na~m er veibe 2Benbungen in bie SjeiIige 6djrift auf, unb roir veriictfidjtigen ba~er audj beibe oei ber &~legung ber Sjarmonie be~ Eeoen~ ,iSliffu. K. Theological Observer. - ~irdjndj~geitgefdjidjtltdje~+ I. ,2{,mtrikll. ~u!.l unfenn Seminnr. ;Die burdj D.lJ. ~ieper~ mfdjeiben entftanbene Eiilfe im Ee~rerperfonal be~ 6eminar~ madjt fidj nodj in mandjer Sjinfidjt oemedoar. ~rof. D. E. lJiirvringer, ber adjtunbbreif3ig ,iSa~re lang ber ~orrege be!.l lifntfdjlafenen roar, ift aIS fein 91adjfolger erroii~It roorben unb rourbe am 18. 91obemoer b.,;s. feierIidj in fein &mt eingefii~rt. ;Daburdj, baf3 ~rof. D. lifngelber bie ;Dogmatif in ber aroeiten un b in ber ~anbibaten~ naffe iioernommen ~at, roii~renb ein 5teiI feiner Vi!.l~erigen &rveit auf anbere berteiIt rourbe, ift e~ miigIidj gemadjt roorben, filr biefe~ 6djulja~r bon ber jSefetung ber entftanbenen ~afana &oftanb au ne~men, roa!.l in &noeiradjt ber ovroaItenben iifonomifdjen ~er~iirtniffe audj anne~moar fdjien. &oer bie @riif3e ber maffen ift nodj immer ein unIieofamer Umftanb, befonber~ roenn bie einaelnen Ee~rer nadj 2Bunfdj ber 6~nobe nidjt lebigIidj biftieren ober bortragen, lanbern audj 5te;r,tbiidjer georaudjen unb fdjriftIidje &roeiten in ber 6tunbe unb auf3er~aIO ber 6tunbe anfertigen raffen. 2Benn bie maffen im regefmiif3igen Shtrfu~ vi~ au 80 6tubenten oii~Ien (trot ber ftattgeflinbenen 5teiIung) unb bie in einaeInen 2Ba~lfiidjern oi!.l au 135, bann ift e~ fe~r fdjroer, auf ben einaelnen 6tubenten au adjten unb i~n au feIOftiinbigen Eeiftungen ~eranauaie~en. - SElie mit ber grof3en 6tu~ bentenaa~l berounbenen 6djroierigfeiten, audj ro~ bie jSefiiftigung ber jungen IDliinner anlangt, finb aum 5teiI ge~oven burdj intenfibere &roei± foroie burdj ba!.l 2ufammenbriingen be~ 6djulja~re~, jebodj unter jSei~ ve~artung ber bon ber 6~nobe angeorbneten &naa~I bon 6djurtagen. SElie frii~eren 6djeuertage finb im neuen 6eminar ~ingefarren, unb bie lifin~ tag!.lfonferena finbet, foroeit bie~ tunlidj ift, an lJerientagen ftatt. &udj bie :Ofterferien finb in ben letten ,;sa~ren benninbert roorben aUf @riinbonner~~ tag, ~arfreitag unb :Oftermontag. SElie burdj berartige jSeftimmungen ge~ roonnenen ca. aroei 6djulroodjen fommen ber 6tubentenfdjaft unb ber 6~nobe augute: erfterer, roeiI burdj intenfibere &roeit me~r geleiftet roirb; letterer, roeil, tJJa!.l jSefiiftigung ber 6tubenten unb i~r 2Bo~nen im 6eminar an~ oetrifft, aUf fo bief tJJeniger 5tage oU redjnen ift. ;Die mebaftion!.laroeit ber ~rofefforen an ben bon ber 6~nobe ~erau~gegeoenen 2eitfdjriften ge~t natiirlidj im 2Binter un b i m 60 m mer roeiter, unb e~ erfdjeinen feine SElovvelnummern me~r roie frii~er. - ;Der auf jSefdjluf3 ber (1)nobe ein~ geridjtete ~orrefponbenafurfu~ be!.l 6eminar~ ift, roie e~ fdjeint, nodj nidj! 58 Theological Observer. - .rehd)lidj'8eitllefdjidjtlidjes. iUieralI befannt.®inige ~unbeti ~aftoren ~aben fief) einfef)reiben raffen, bon benen bide Die i~nen gebotene @degen~eit in au~giebigem .mate unb mit au~geaeief)netem ®rfolge bertvetien. ~ie eine ~atfaef)e fef)on, bat man geniitigt ift, in fWematifef)er lmeife au arbeiten unb feine 3eit recf)t au~~ aufaufen, ift filr bide ein &nf\Jorn. &ber auef) ein anberer j8otieil, ber fief) barau§ ergibt, ift nief)t au beraef)ten, bat namHef) Die ~i1iIio±~ef biefe~ ~e\Jartemeng ben eingefef)riebenen ~aftoren unter iiberau~ giinftigen ~e~ bingungen aur j8erfilgung fte~t. .man laffe fief) ba~ ~nformation~biief)lein fommen. K. "The Weakness of Theological Education." - Speaking before the Third Conference on Preaching of the Boston University School of Theology, Carl Wallace Petty, minister of the First Baptist Church of Pittsburgh, offered the following criticism of modern theological education: - "Our seminaries have come in for some criticism in late years con- cerning the kind of preparation offered students for the ministry. The result of the criticism has been generally a revision of the curricula. To some of us that has seemed peculiar. It has not been the content of theological training that has caused the bother. It hurts no preacher to be able to distinguish between a piel and a hitpael or to make the verbs in the third chapter of the Epistle to Romans. Knowledge concerning the early heresies of the Church is useful. . .. It is rather the fact that so many students leave their schools with a vast lot of preparation that they do not know what to do with. The diet appears to be all right, but the metabolic process seems to have broken down. They are in the position in which a young medical man would find himself who, though well instructed in diagnosis, anatomy, and pathology and owning a fine kit of surgical instruments, should be thrust into surgery with no technique for exploring an abdomen or operating on a mastoid. What a technique is to a surgeon a synthesis is to the preacher. All preparation for the ministry has just one objective - it is to keep God contemporary and discover ways of mak- ing Him available for the needs of men and society. The weakness of theological education, if weakness it has, is not so much in the content of its curriculum as in its failure to create in the mind of the young preacher that synthetizing process by which what a man knows can be put to work at the task of bringing a world of striving, seeking, selfish people in touch with the spiritual resources of the universe." (Oontem- porary Preaohing, p. 21 f.) Weare here confronted with a perennial problem - how to convert theoretical knowledge into practical ability. While it is self-evident that all theological instruction should be given with due regard for its future practical use by the students, the fact remains that practical ability must be acquired in the school of experience. In view of this fact our theo- logical students are being encouraged to serve as supplies before finishing their course at the seminary. E. J. F. Professor Price's "Apologia pro fide mea." - In the Bibliotheoa Saora of October, 1931, appears a remarkable article, in which Prof. George McCready Price of Emmanuel Missionary College, Berrien Springs, Mich., using the title indicated in our heading, discusses his attitude toward the conclusions of evolutionary scientists. He is an ardent and well-informed student of geology and has become famous as a defender of the inerrancy 59 of the Bible. His article, to quote the chief statements, sets forth these views. The problem of origins remains still unsolved so far as natural science and philosophy are concerned. The differences between the views of the various advocates of evolution show that permanent truth has not yet been found by them. Since the Bible always speaks of creation as a finished work and not as something now going on, we cannot expect to find in the present order of nature any information as to how the world came into existence. We have God's revelation in the Bible, telling of the beginning of things. Nature is another book God has given us, a book second only to the Bible. All naturalistic schemes of accounting for the first appearance of the primary forms of life have failed. Pasteur's patient work has branded as unscientific all speculation regarding the spontaneous origin of life. A definite creation of the first forms of all the distinct kinds of plants and animals is imperatively demanded by clear thinking on the facts of biology. - As far as the time consumed by Creation is concerned, natural science as such can tell us nothing of permanent value. The serial arrangement of the fossils as submitted by biologists is a purely artificial affair, which can be arrived at only by an elaborate process of circular reasoning. It is clear there was one geological age, a previous age of our world, with a very different climate and many other conditi,ons quite opposite to those now prevailing. But the supposed ability of biologists to discriminate among the works of that age, assigning some to one pe,riod and some to another, is without any real scientific value. All the true fossils may have been living contemporaneously in the same world. When trilobites and graptolites are found occurring underneath dinosaurs and mammals in some localities and above them in others, with no physical evidences of any subsequent disturbance in either cases, it is self-evident that all these forms of life must have been living contem- poraneously in that ancient world. This of course does not prove their simultaneous origin or creation. Belief that there was such a simultaneous origin rests not on science, but on revelation. The Bible, with its affirma- tion of a fiat creation, gives us the only method which will stand a philosophic or scientific analysis. God's wish or God's thought must be the ultimate cause of both the origin and the continued existence of things. Modern physics, with its apparent proof of the equivalence of matter and energy, would seem to be getting very near to this idea. -.And with respect to conditions before the Flood the geological proof of a mild, equable climat.e over the entire earth, even within the polar regions, is unequivocal. The complete earth-ruin wrought by the Flood is attested not only by the Bible, but by the rocky record of all the lands of the globe, the strata of which testify to wholly abnormal conditions in their deposition. A fur- ther proof of the universality of the Flood is furnished by the ease and the completeness with which this idea unlocks those perplexities and problems which have so long been used as an excuse for the theory of organic evolution. Science indeed does not demonstrate that the Flood was the cause of the geological changes recorded in the strata, but the scientific evidence compels us to believe in a great world-catastrophe of some sort and of quite indefinable dimensions. It is important to note that in the Flood we have a sufficient solution for all those geological and biological puzzles which have been relied upon as the chief proof of 60 Theological Observer. - .Ritd}IidJ=8eitgefdJidJtltdJd. organic evolution. The crucial test of any scientific or philosophical theory must always, for the Christian, be its agreement or disagreement with the Bible. Any theory of man's animal origin must deny man's primal inno- cence and hence the doctrine of the fall of man, and if the Fall is denied, the entire doctrine of the atonement and the sacrificial death of Christ. While we regret very much that Professor Price, as a Seventh-day Adventist, rejects clear teachings of the Holy Scriptures, we are grateful to him for his valiant defense of the inerrancy of the first chapters of our Bible, showing that the attacks of hostile critics, which are largely based on geological data, are unjustified. A. The Itch for Public Attention.-In the Forum, Robert G. M. Neville has published an article giving a very drastic commentary on the publicity itch with which many preachers in our day are troubled. He writes: - "The time can be recalled by living men when the virus of publicity had not bitten the average priest, rector, or divine; when there were no sermon pages on which his Sabbatical conclusions could be recorded for posterity; when no church committees on press relations pleaded with exasperated city editors for space; and when no handsomely paid publicity agents threatened withdrawal of advertising if the paper refused to exhibit curiosity in their clerical clients. "But alas! that day has vanished. That was a time when churches, like physicians, disdained to spend huge sums of money to advertise their services in the mundane press. It was a time when the press, yet to be won over to the ways of God, refused to recognize that religion was as important as the theater, sports, and finance and to give it equal space. It was a time before modern high-pressure methods had been invented and before pUblicity, which started with the somewhat shady dealings of the circus, had found an unimpeachable and lucrative client in the repre- sentatives of God on earth. "While the coverage of religious news is now a fever with almost every paper in every part of the country, the regard of the nation's press for religion - and of the pastors for the press - is epitomized by the situation in New York. The Mecca of missionaries from all ends of the eart.h, the parish of apostles of new religions by the score, and the head- quarters of dozens of ecclesiastical organizations, this modern Gomorrah maintains a daily press obsessed with religious zeal. "The New Y01'k Times, for example, finds it profitable to pay twenty- five reporters - many of them from the Columbia School of Journalism- $3.25 apiece for worshiping on Sunday, besides maintaining a religious editor to ferret out religious happenings throughout the week. The Herald Tribune, which outprints the Times on sermons, sends out a group of men to invade the churches for news every Sunday and dispatches its staff of copy boys to fill in. "This sudden bursting into hallelujahs by the Fourth Estate has been welcomed fervently by the ministers. Often they are ready with extracts of their moral dissertations to hand to the reporters, and more often they apprise the press in advance of any unusual happenings in their con- gregations. "Ever vigilant, scanning religious columns with the eye of a hawk, Theological Observer. - RitdJlidJ:8eitllefdJidJtUdJe!!. 61 the publicity agents, secretaries, and press committees intervene in person in the name of the Church and God when their releases repeatedly fail to appear in print. "Suspicious newspaper men have begun to believe that sermons are not preached for the salvation of a sinful humanity so much as for exploitation by a wayward press and that some parish activities originate not so much out of a love of God as a penchant for publicity. "There are some ministers, God bless them, who still ignore the press and stick to the Gospel. There are others who profess to despise publicity, but nevertheless contend that they must stoop to conquer, that the church must publicize itself to the fullest extent in order to compete with amuse- ments. The skeptics at the press bench cannot help feeling, however, that the personal ambition of the men of God is the most potent factor in religious news. A divine who prefers to remain in his parish and minister solely to his flock, never venturing into the wider world of the press, may conceivably enter the kingdoin of God with full honors, but he will never become a Park Avenue rector with a salary of $20,000 a year, nor will he be elected a moderator or bishop." W. G. P. The Episcopalians at Denver. - Whatever the Episcopalians may have accomplished when they met in their triennial convention at Denver last year, they cannot complain that the newspapers did not take sufficient cognizance of their gathering ana report with comparative fulness the convention news to the general public. To judge by the many times the assembly was mentioned on the first page of the daily papers, great things must have been achieved. Alas! the convention debated rather at length the question of marriage and divorce; hence the wide-spread interest in its proceedings. The points at issue had to do chiefly with the view the Church should take of the remarriage of divorced persons and their ad- mission to the Sacrament. After much discussion a new marriage canon was adopted, which in the Ohristian Oentury is summarized thus: "Courts may be established in dioceses to hear appeals for nullity on nine grounds; if nullification is granted, appellants may remarry; also to review cases of divorce obtained on the ground of adultery, which, if heard favorably, will permit remarriage; to hear pleas for reinstatement as communicants in good standing of persons who have remarried after having been di- vorced." The innovation is the provision looking to the establishment of ecclasiastical courts to determine whether certain marriages should be declared null and void and whether in ot.her cases a divorce may be granted. It will be noted that these courts, according to the new canon, may be established; in other words, the establishment is optional, resting with the decision of each diocese. If these courts were to function as advisory bodies, assisting pastors and congregations in arriving at Scrip- tural, God·pleasing conclusions in difficult cases, nobody could object to them; but since they, wherever established, are to deoide questions which really belong to the jurisdiction of congregations, the provision is an unwarranted intrusion into the sphere of the rights and privileges belong- ing to the local congregations. The much·discussed issue which was raised by the preparation of a new missal, the so·called American missal, which is quite Roman in its complexion, was sidestepped in a manner satisfactory to both the Roman 62 and the Evangelical party. The book was not condemned, as the former party feared might be done, nor was its use authorized, the convention decreeing that the certificate of the custodian of the Book of Common Prayer must not appear in the new missal. The certificate referred to is found in every authorized copy of the Book of Common Prayer and briefly declares that the particular copy has been compared with "a certified copy of the standard book and conforms thereto." Those who are in love with Romanism will simply use the book, justifying their course by reminding themselves and others that the convention did not forbid the introduction of the new missal, though it had an opportunity to do so, and the enemies of Romanism will assert that they have saved their Church from Popery by withholding recognition of the new book. It is a farce. Num risum tenetis, amioi? It seems not unimportant that our clergy should be in possession of the ipsissima verba of the marriage canon adopted by the Episcopalian convention, and therefore we append it here, taking it over from the Lutheran: - "Of the Solemnization of Holy Matrimony:- "Section I. Ministers of this Church shall, within their cures, give instruction, both publicly and privately, on the nature of holy matrimony, its responsibilities, and the mutual love and forbearance which it requires. "Section II. Ministers of this Church shall conform to the laws of the State, governing the civil contract of marriage, and also to the laws of this Church, governing the solemnization of holy matrimony. "Section III. (I). No minister of this Church shall solemnize any marriage before the following conditions have been carefully complied with: "(A). He shall ascertain by due inquiry the right of the parties, according to the laws of this Church, to contract a marriage. " (B). He shall instruct the contracting parties as to the nature of holy matrimony, its responsibilities, and the means of grace which God has provided through His Church. " (2) . There shall be at least two witnesses present at the solemnization of the marriage. . " (3) . Every minister shall without delay formally record in the proper register the name, age, and residence of each party. Such record shall be signed by the minister who solemnizes the marriage, by the married parties, and by at least two witnesses of the marriage. " (4). No marriage shall be solemnized by a minister of this Church unless the intention of the contracting parties shall have been signified to the minister at least three days before the service of solemnization. "Section IV. If one party to a, marriage so grievously offend the other that the security of permanence of the home is imperiled, it shall be the duty of the offended party to lay the matter before a minister of the Church; and it shall be the duty of such minister to labor that the parties may be reconciled. "Section V. No minister knowingly, after due inquiry, shall solemnize the marriage of any person who has been or is the husband or the wife of any other person then living from whom he or she has been divorced fcir any cause arising after marriage. "Nor shall it be lawful for any member of this Church to enter upon Theological Observer. - Ritd)1id).3eitgefd)id)md)e~. 63 a marriage when either of the contracting parties is the husbana or the wife of any other person then living from whom he or she has been divorced for any cause arising after marriage. "But this canon shall not be held to apply to the innocent party in a divorce for adultery, provided that before the application for such re- marriage a period of not less than one year shall have elapsed after the granting of such divorce and that satisfactory evidence touching the facts in the case, including a copy of the court's decree and record, if practicahle, with proof that· the defendant was personally served or appeared in the action, be laid before the ecclesiastical authority and such ecclesiastical authority, having taken legal advice thereon, shall have declared in writing that in his judgment the case of the applicant conforms to the requirements of this canon; and provided, further, that it shall be within the discretion of any minister to decline to solemnize any marriage. "Section VI. (l). Any person whose former marriage has been an- nulled or dissolved by a civil court may apply to the bishop or to the ecclesiastical court, constituted by canon, of the diocese or missionary district of the said person's domicile, to have the said marriage declared null and void by reason of any of the following impediments to marriage: "I. Consanguinity (whether of the whole or of the half blood) within the following degrees: - "(A). One may not marry one's ascendant or descendant. " (B). One may not marry one's sister. " (C). One may not marry the sister or brother of one's ascendant or the descendant of one's brother or sister. "II. Lack of free consent of their party. "III. Mistake as to the identity of either party. "IV. Mental deficiency of either party sufficient to prevent the exercise of intelligent choice. "v. Insanity of either party. "VI. Failure of either party to have reached the age of puberty. "VII. Impotence of either party undisclosed to the other. "VIII. The existence of venereal disease in either party. "rx. Facts which would make the proposed marriage bigamous. " ( 2 ). The hishop in each case, after taking legal advice thereon of the ecclesiastical court proceeding in accordance with the canons and acting through the hishop, shall render judgment in writing to the peti- tioner. All judgments rendered under this canon by the bishop or the ecclesiastical court shall be made matters of permanent record in the archives of the diocese or missionary district. "No such judgment shall be construed as referring in any way to the legitima.cy of children or the civil validity of the former relationship. " (3). Any person whose former marriage has been annulled or dis- solved by a civil court and pronounced null by the bishop may be married by a minister of this Church as if he had never previously been married. "Section VII. (l). If any minister of this Church shall have cause to think that a person desirous of holy Baptism or of confirmation or of receiving the holy Communion has been married otherwise than as the Word of God and discipline of this Church allows, such minister, before receiving such person to these ordinances, shaH refer the case' to the hishop for his godly judgment thereupon. 64 "The bishop, after due inquiry into the circumstances and taking into consideration of the godly discipline both of justice and of mercy, shall give his judgment thereon in writing. "Provided, however, that no minister shall in any case refuse these ordinances to a penitent person in imminent danger of death. " (2). Any persons who have been married by civil authority or other- wise than as this Church provides may apply to the bishop or to the ecclesiastical court of their domicile for the recognition of communicant status or for the right to apply for holy Baptism or confirmation. "After due inquiry into all the facts relevant thereto judgment shall be given in writing to the petitioners by the bishop or by the ecclesiastical court acting through the bishop. "In case of a favorable decision a minister of this Church may, at his discretion, bless the parties to the union." A. The Kurtzian Formula for Church Union. - The Lutheran of August 13, 1931, says editorially: "In the second volume of our file of the Lutheran Observer and soon after Dr. Benjamin Kurtz became its editor in 1833, Dr. Kurtz replied to a letter from a layman who inquired as to the possibility of uniting the Lutheran and German Reformed churches. The correspondent stated that several Lutheran and Reformed persons (laymen, we suspect) had met to consider a combination of the two com- munions and had not suffered as a result. The editor was asked his opinion and replied that he favored union 'provided it can be accomplished in accordance with the wishes of the great body of the respective churches.''' Dr. B. Kurtz, it is well known, was a radical unionist. He felt no qualms of conscience for attending the German Reformed General Synod as a del- egate from the Lutheran General Synod. "Foremost and boldest among the Reformed theologians within the General Synod were S. S. Schmucker and B. Kurtz, who nevertheless insisted on sailing under the Lutheran flag. Brazenly claiming to be the true representatives of Lutheranism, they at the same time assailed the Lutheran and defended the Reformed doctrines with ultra-Calvinistic zeal and bigotry." (American Lutheranism, II, p.69.) Dr. Spaeth said: "For years and years he [Dr. Kurtz] was indefatigable in his coarse and irreverential, yea, blasphemous attacks upon what was set forth as most sacred in the Confessions of the Lutheran Church." (L. c., p. 71.) There can thus be no doubt as to the meaning of his formula for bringing about the union of the two churches. All that is needed is the will of the people. The Lutheran is not adverse to the Kurtzian formula. The editorial states: "We admire the editorial craftsmanship of our brilliant predecessor Dr. Kurtz when he stated that he would advocate a combination 'provided it can be accomplished in accordance with the wishes of the great body of the respective churches.' A union of these German-speaking people in the period prior to the great trek of Germans to the United States and Canada from 1840 to 1895 would have been most. expedient. On the surface it would have been the sensible thing to do, and the average layman would probably have accepted the advice of his pastor had the latter urged an organic union between the Reformed and Lutheran groups. But there are fundamental differences of doctrinal conviction between the confessions of the Lutheran and Reformed churches that are keenly discerned by those Theological Observer. - .Ritd)1id)~.8eitgefd)id)tIid)e~ .. 65 on both sides, not only by the ministers, but also by the laity who are above the average. . .. Any layman of reasonably keen intelligence can analyze the catechisms of Luther and Heidelberg to a point where he will choose between the two. Any proposal to unite the Reformed and Lutheran synods would bring on such an analysis, and no compromise by a composite formula would satisfy either .. ,. Is a union a present possibility? We do not know the views of our contemporary, the Reformed Ohuroh Messenger, and its editor, Dr. Paul Leinbach. We ourselves would not be adverse to the Kurtzian formula. If the majorities of the two communions could cornel to a sincere agreement on points of difference, the combination would be of great value. But it would be a negotiation requiring great frankness and sincerity, first among the leaders and later among the constituents. At present the relationships of the Reformed Ohurch are closer to the Presbyterian than to the Lutheran communion." We do not know what to make of this. The editor of the Lutheran "would not be adverse to the Kurtzian formula." And in the next sentence he states that "if t.he majorit.ies of t.he two communions could come to a sincere agreement on points of difference, the combinat.ion would be of great value." But that and the repudiation of a "compromise by a com- posite formula" is not the Kurtzian formula. That is, if we strike out the reference to "the majorities," the Pauline formula. A church union of the right sort is brought about when a Scriptural agreement on the points of difference is arrived at. Dr. Kurtz does not mention Scripture. Accord- ing to his formula the "wishes of the great body of the respective churches" decide the matter. We do not see how the platform "No compromise by a composite formula" and the Kurtzian formula can be harmonized. In negotiating a church union on the basis of the elimination of all error, on the no-compromise basis, any favorable mention of the Kurtzian formula is ou·t of place. It can only serve to revive the spirit of 1833. The Kurtzian formula should not be revived. It should be left in the limbus of evil spirits. What does Dr. Paul Leinbach of the Reformed Ohurch Messenger make of the Kurtzian formula? He responded to the Lutheran's remarks in an editorial headed "Our Friends, the Lutherans," which the Lutheran of September 17 reprints. His rejoinder contains the following: "The Mes- senger believes that our fellow-editor is perfectly safe in adopting what he calls the 'Kurtzian formula.' We can accept it also without any mental reservation whatsoevOj·." (Italics in the MessOj~ger.) "Indeed, we suspect it would not be so difficult for us to go half-way in the prooess of gBtting together as it would be for our friends, the Lutherans." (Italics our own.) That looks like a "compromise by a composite formula." Particularly as he adds: "The things that divide us, which still loom large in the minds of some theologians and editors, are of comparatively little moment to the great mass of the people." There speaks the indifferentist, the unionist. And he accepts the Kurtzian formula in that sense. In what sense does the Lutheran acce'pt it.? E. Why the Southern Presbyterians will Not Unite with the Northern Presbyterians. -It has long been known that the Presby- terians of the South are much more conservative than those of the North. Wherein their conservatism consists and why they will not unite with the 5 66 Theological Observer. - mtd)Iid)~3ettgefd)id)tlid)eg. Northern Presbyterians is told in an article by Dr. Wm. Crowe in the Pres- byte1'ian of September 3, 1931, as it has been reprinted in the Ki1'chliche Zeitschri,ft. Dr. Crowe says: - "In the North, emphasis is laid upon church administration; in the South it is laid upon doctrine. Therefore, when Southern Presbyterians speak of organic union, they are talking about a unity in belief; whereas in the North, in discussing the same subject, the thought in mind is com- munity in government. The development of this differing emphasis may be discovered in a brief review of the history of Presbyterianism reaching back through a century and a quarter. "By the close of the eighteenth century the Presbyterian Church found that it was facing what seemed to be an impossible task as it surveyed the growing cities and communities of the Middle West. It saw that churches would have to be built as the population advanced its frontier beyond the Alleghany Mountains. Therefore the calls for missionaries and for money were pressing. The Presbyterian Church also discovered that it was not alone in this consciousness of inadequate means for the discharge of its multiplying duties. The Congregational Church, its near neighbor, was also laboring under a like burden. Out of this mutual need a partner- ship was formed, known in history as 'The Plan of Union.' "It was in 1801 that 'The Plan of Union' was effected, and for more than thirty years these sister churches were united in their endeavor to overtake the growing West with the message of the Gospel. It was dis- covered, however, that in the main Congregational and Presbyterian home missionaries were not emphasizing the same principle in preaching the Gospel. The Congregational ministers were from New England and were followers of what is known as the New Haven Theology. The Presbyterian ministers were largely from Pennsylvania and New Jersey and were ex- ponents of what is known as the Princeton Theology. The theology of Princeton found its center in certain principles that were considered essen- tial to the conversion of the individual and to the spiritual building of the Church. The New England theologians, the trainers of Congregational mis- sionaries, were not inclined to consider seriously the principles that were dear to the Presbyterian Church. Friction grew between the two schools of thought, which culminated in the severing of the relationship in the year 1837. Out of that disturbance grew two parties in the Presbyterian Church, known as the 'New School' and the 'Old School.' The 'New School' section adhered to the New England system, the 'Old School' stoutly de- fending the more strictly Calvinistic position. Within a few months the two sections within the Presbyterian Church divided, forming two distinct Presbyterian bodies, with names as above. "The Civil War came on, with the result that in its opening year the synods of the South were forced to withdraw from the 'Old School' body. This excision was caused by the Southern constituency insisting that the bond of fellowship should be belief rather than the dictates of an ad- ministrative body either within or without the Church. From that year to the present the Southern Presbyterian Church has remained an auton- omous body. "Immediately upon the close of the war the Presbyterian Church, U. S. A., facing increased responsibilities and with a depleted membership, Theological Observer. - ~itd)Hd)'8eitgefd)id)tlid)e~. 67 owing to the loss of the Southern synods, united within two years with the 'New School' Presbyterian Ohurch. This union was upon the basis of a common administration, the question of doctrine being entirely in eclipse. It is therefore seen that within ten years the great Presbyterian Ohurch had indicated its willingness to surrender the greater principle (that of doctrine) for the less ( that of government). To it the system of govern· ment had become of more importance than the system of belief. The effect has been that to·day the major idea in the mind of the Ohurch is union on the ground of polity rather than of the principles of the interpretation of the Word of God. "That which was feared by Dr. Hodge and other conservative leaders in the Presbyterian Ohurch happened as a result of the union between the 'New School' and the 'Old School' churches. From the day of the union until the present 'New School' Theology has been a disturbing factor in the ranks of that Ohurch. For instance, Union Theological Seminary, New York, was a 'New School' seminary. This institution was taken into the Presbyterian Ohurch without any requirement being made that it change its position in theology. This accounts for the historic lack of harmony in the Presbyterian Ohurch in the East. More than that, every 'New School' seminary became a center of theological ferment. Out of these hotbeds influences inimical to the traditions of Presbyterianism have reached the remotest bounds of the Ohurch. . .. The point that we are undertaking to make here is that the Presbyterian Ohurch gives no em- phasis to any form of belief when the hour for merging other denominations arrives. It is no wonder, then, that it proclaims its readiness to unite with any Protestant body upon a merely governmental basis .... "For a worthy type of union the Southern Presbyterian Ohurch has always stood. . .. Throughout all the succeeding years the Southern Ohurch has held itself entirely ready to enter into a union that would be born of mutual trust, that would be upon a basis of common faith and of interpretation of the historic symbols of the Ohurch, and that would give major place to the proclamation of the Gospel of Ohrist. This is all that it has asked. Mere administrative arrangements will never produce the form of union that is pleasing to the Master; and the Southern As- sembly knows it." J. H. O. F. The End of the Macintosh Case. - The editor of the Ohristian Oentu.ry, Oharles Clayton Morrison, in a signed editorial appearing in the Ohristian Oentury of October 21, 1931, utters this protest: "The end of the Macintosh case is the beginning of the case of every American citizen who cherishes his liberty of conscience under the Oonstitution. The Supreme Oourt last week denied the petition for a rehearing. Every native- born citizen is now not only under obligation to bear arms in any war which Congress may declare, whether that war is held to be just or unjust, in accordance with, or contrary to, the will of God, but has impliedly accepted the obligation in virtue of his acceptance of the status and benefits and prerogatives of citizenship. It was under this interpretation of the Constitution that the court refused citizenship to Professor Macintosh, the decisive argument being that, unless he expressly promised to subordinate his conscience to Congress and accepted the will of Oongress as the final interpretation of the will of God, his citizenship would be of a privileged 68 Theological Observer. - .!tird)lid)'3eitgefd)id)tlid)e~. character in comparison with all native-born citizens. Chief justice Hughes and three other members of the court denied this interpretation, and con- tended that no such implied promise or obligation is imposed by the con- stitution upon citizens, whether native-born or naturalized. Dr. Macintosh will not be admitted to citizenship. . .. How many Presbyterian citizens will agree that they no longer hold with their two-century-old confession of faith that 'God alone is Lord of conscience and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to His Word, or beside it, in matters of faith and worship,' so that to believe such doctrines or to obey such commandments out of conscience is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith and an ab- solute and blind obedience 'is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also'? How many Baptist citizens, remembering the suffering and per- secution of their fathers in order that conscience might be freed from control by thc State, will now supinely admit that their citizenship under our Constitution places upon them the obligation to accept an enactment of Congress as the definitive revelation of the will of God, from which conscience has no appeal? How many Jewish citizens, whose religion rests upon the divine command, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before Me,' will consent that their citizenship in the United States is conditioned upon their having given the pledge that they will put the will of the State before the will of the living God? . .. How many readers of the Ohristian Oentury will consent that the Supreme Court shall tear out of their Bible the foun- dation text of all ethical and spiritual religion, 'We ought to obey God rather than men'?" The Lutherans have this to say in the Sixteenth Article of the Augs- burg Confession: "Of civil affairs they teach that lawful civil ordinances are good works of God and that it is right for Christians to bear civil office, to sit as judges, to judge matters by the imperial and other existing laws, to award just punishments, to engage in just wars, to serve as soldiers. . .. Christians are necessarily bound to obey their own magis- trates and laws, save only when commanded to sin; for then they ought to obey God rather than men, Acts 5, 29." And, in the Formula of Concord, Art. III, Epitome, § 11: "One is not to imagine a faith of such a kind as can exist and abide with, and alongside of, a wicked intention to sin and to act against the conscience." The editorial closes thus: "For one, I, a native-born citizen of the United States, will not give my assent to this new doctrine. I will give everything I have for the well-being of the State, including my life, but I cannot give my conscience. That belongs to God. I repudiate the obliga- tion which the Supreme Court would impose upon me and declare that the imposition of such an obligation is the essence of tyranny. I refuse to be bound by it. Charles Clayton Morrison." E. Build Your Sermon Like a Cathedral. - This is the advice given by Fred Winslow Adams, professor in the Boston University School of Theology. He says: "If the preacher can build his sermon like a cathedral, with its fluted columns and groined arches arising more like the growth of a living thing than piled masonry, bringing a pervasive sense of wonder, mystery, and the manifold grace of God; if the preacher can project his theme like the Gothic arches over doors and windows, as hands lifted in Theological Observer. - Stitd)lid)=8eitgefd)id)md)e~. 69 prayer; if he can make his illustrations like the celestial fire of cathedral glass, responding to the sunshine and reflecting the glory of God; if he can develop his sermons like a cathedral's open doors, veritable pathways of erring man to the altar of redeeming love; if, I say, the preacher can build his sermon like a cathedral, the symbol of the kingdom of God on earth, he shall know what it is to preach as an ambassador of Christ." (Oontemporary Preaohing, The Abingdon Press, p. 146.) E. J. F. Reducing the Synodical Overhead by Merging and Closing Schools. - According to the Kirohenblatt, the budget committee of the American Lutheran Church has resolved to recommend to the general convention in 1932 that the synodical overhead be reduced by closing the schools at Petersburg, W. Va., and Eureka, S. Dak., by merging the in- stitutions at St. Paul, Minn., Clinton and Waverly, Iowa, and Hebron, Nebr., and by merging the theological seminaries now maintained at St. Paul, Columbus, and Dubuque, at the last-named place. E. J. F. II. .2lu5hmil. ,,@h:Dte*fe 2Dgif" ber WHffDurier. ~a~ iYoIgenbe entne~men tlJir bem ,,~Ifi:i:Hifdjen 2ut~eraner", ber unter biefer ftberfdjrifi: fdjreiOt: @rote~fe .l2ogif ift eine "fonberbare, fomifdje, berbre~±e" .l2ogif. ~n dner Wus~ einanberfetung i\tlJifdjen bem ,organ bes Q3ibeIbunbes "madj bem @efeJ;! unb ,'8eugni6" unb bem ",oIbenburger @5onntagsOIatt" tlJirb eine foldje .l2ogif ben bieIgefdjmi:i:~ten WIiffouriern i\ugefdjrieben. ~a uns Die Wuseinanber~ feJ;!ung audj um i~res eigentIidjen @egenf±anbes tlJilIen intereHier±, fV fei fie ~ier rnri\ mitgeieiIt. ;;:5n ber Wuguftnummer 1931 bon "madj bem @efeJ;! unb ,'8eugnis" Iefen tlJir unter ber ftberfdjrifi: ,,@5o ge~t man mit unferer Q3ibeI um" un±er anberm folgenbes: ,,~a fdjicf± uns ein aItes, treue~ WIitgHeb unfers Q3ibeIbunbes bas bom @e~. ,olJedirdjenrat ~ben ~erausgegebene ,,orbenburger !Sonntags~ bratt' bom 3. WIai 1931 ilu. .x?ier linben tlJir aUf !Seite 142 einen Wrtifel ,~as WIarfusebangeIium'. ~arin Iefen tlJir: ,~ie @efdjidj±e bon bem (bon .x?erobes bem @rof3en befo~Ienen) S'finbermorb ift iebenfail6 n i dj t ~ i ft v ~ r i f dj; fie tlJill ileigen, tlJie ber irbifdje S'fiinig troJ;! alIer @raufamfeit bem ~immIifdjen S'fiinig nidj±6 an~aben fann.' @5o ift alfo ber biOIifdje !Beridjt unroa~r unb bie Q3ibeI ein .l2iigenbudj? - j80n ber biOIifdjen @efdjidj±e iiber bie .x?inridj±ung bes :iti:i:ufers ~o~annes (WIad. 6, 14-29) ~eif3t es in biefem Wrtife! roeiter: ,~iefe ~r3i:i:~Iung fIingt ilJie eine graufige j8oIfserili:i:~Iung. ~n ber iYorm, tlJie fie ba fte~±, ift fie nidjt ~iftorifdj.' WIfo Iiig± bie Q3ibeI nadj bem j8erfaffer De~ WrtifeIs!" ~er @e~eime Dberfirdjenrat fdjreibt nun eine maf3bolIe ~n±gegnung an bie !SdjriftIeitung bes Q3ibelliunbes. ~arin ~eif3t es Dann aber Bum @5djIuf3: ,,~m iibrigen bebaure idj es, baf3 @5ie ... mit ber grotesfen .l2JJgif, Die mir befonbers in ben Q3Ii:i:ttern ber WIiffourifl)nobe vfi: aufgefalIen ift, bem j8erfaffer Uenes WrtifeIs] unb tlJeiter~in mir our .l2aft Iegen, tlJir madjten bie !Bibel [tlJilI fagen: bie gefam±e Q3ibe!; b. meb.] ilU einem .l2iigenbudj." ~er @5djriftIeiter be~ Q3ibeIbunDes ~at fidj nun gIiicfIidjerroeife burdj jenen fpiittifdjen .x?inroeis aUf Die berbre!jten WIiffourier nidjt einfdjiidjtern Iaffen, fonbern !ja± fidj rin .x?ers gefaf3t unb unter anberm geanitlJoriet: ,,!Sie oei!jen midj dner grotesfen .l2ogif ala WIiffouri. @Iauben !Sie 70 Theological Observer. - .reircf)Hcf)~2eitgefcf)icf)tlicf)es. e±llla, baf3 ber merfaff er be£l ~rtifel£l lllitfficI) in ber ganaen fBibeI nur an ben oeiben aUfgefUljrien fBeiflJie!en ShiHf au uoen ficI) oerecI)tigt fUljIH l5ie fcI)einen Me O:orm ber ~arftellung fUr unlllefentricI) au ljaIten; lllenn aoer ber merfaffer erfIiirt, bie ®efcI)icI)te ber &;;>inricI)tung be£l ~oljanne£l in ber O:orm, ba£l ljeif3t bocI) in ber ~arftellung, lllie bie fBioel fie bringt, fei nicI)t ljiftorifcI), 10 macI)t er meine£l @5racI)ten£l ber fBioeI ben morlllurf ber falfcI)en :Barftellung, alfo ber UnlllaljrljaftigfeU, bci£l ift, ber Euge." 1mir banfen bem &;;>errn l5cI)riftleUer bafur, baf3 er un£l lllenigften£l ber l5acI)e nacI) in 15cI)4 nimmt, unb miicI)ten nocI) oemerfen, baf3 lllit lmiffourier feine getaberte Eogif gern fur un£l in ~nflJrucI) neljmen. ~enn fie ift Me Eogif bei3 gefunben WcenfcI)enberftanbe£l, bie Eogif be£l moIfe£l, ba£l au£l folcI)er ~ritif ber fBibel allerbing£l ben I5cI)Iuf3 aieljt: :Bie fBibeI ift ein EugenbucI). 1menn aoer bem ®eljeimen DoerfircI)enrat folcI) eine Eogif grote£lf ober fomifcI) bodommt, bann miicI)ten lllir auniicI)ft gerne einma! llliffen, lllo er benn Eogif gelernt ljat, unb aum anbern, llla£l er bann a. fB. au ber lllaljrljaft abenteuerHcI)en Eogif ber ,,~lIg. @5b.~Eutlj. ~ircI)enaeitung" fagt, bie un£l oft genug ben lmunb bor I5taunen offenfteljen liif3t. (mgt bte ~ui3fuljtUngen im ,,'@5If. Eutljeraner" bom l5elJtemoer 1931, 15. 70 ff.) ~lIerbingi3 ben lmiffouriern gegenuoer barf ficI) ia ieber :Bummbari bergleicI)en UrieiIe er~ Iauben, llliebiel meljr ein ®eljeimer DbedircI)enratI 1m. fB . .8weiijuubett ~'nijre &jcrruijuter miffillU. ~n biefem ~aljre finb alllei ~aljrljunberie berfIoffen, feU 2inaenborf bie erften lmiffionare nacI) ben 1mef±inbifcI)en ~nfe!n aUi3fcI)icfte. l5cI)on 1728 macI)te er jjSliine, eine &;;>eiben~ miffion ini3 Eeoen au tUfen, unb alllar unter ben lmoljammebanern; ~unb~ fcI)after lllurben in bie ~utfei unb nacI) ~ftifa gefanb±. ~ber in ~OlJen~ ljagen ±taf 2inaenborf mit einem llleftinbifcI)en 9Ceger aUfammen unb lllurbe baburcI) angereg±, feine erf±en lmiffionare, Eeonljarb :Bober unb :Babib 9CitfcI)mann, nacI) 1meftinbien au fenben, um auniicI)f± ben 9Cegerffiaben aUf ber ~nfeI 15t. ;njomai3 ba£l @5bangeIium au lJrebigen. :Bai3 ivar 1732. :Bann breite±e ficI) ba£l lmiffioni3llletf ber fBtiibergemeinbe rafcI) au£l: 1733 nacI) ®riinlanb, 1734 nacI) Eaj:Jj:Jlanb, bann au ben ~nbianern in 9Corb~ amerifa, ben &;;>ottentotten in ~ftifa, ben @5£lfimoi3 in Eaorabor Uflll'. 9CacI) ben ,,~lIgemeinen lmiffioMnacI)ricI)ten" finb in biefen allleiljunbert ~aljren neoen anbern &;;>iIfi3aroei±ern 1,555 lmiffionare au£lgefanbt lllorben, baau 62 lmiffion£lfaufIeu±e, 93 unberljeira±e±e lmiffioni3fcI)lllef±ern, aUfammen 1,710 @5uroj:Jiier. mon biefen lamen 36 lmiffionare, 10 I5djlllef±ern unb 4 mnber aUf gelllartfame 1meife um£l Eeoen, bie meif±en in ber ~nbianermiffion. 9CicI)± in allen l5±ucfen ift bie &;;>errnljuter lmiffion borbUbHcI). 150 ljat fie ficI) mancI)erorB fein ®ellliffen baraui3 gemacI)t, in ftembei3 ~m± au greifen unb l5cI)afe au fteljlen (in ®riinlanb a. fB. ljat fie ficI) in &;;>ani3 @5gebe£l ®emeinbe eingefcI)ItcI)en). ~ber in e i n em (S±ucf f±elj± fie unerreicI)t ba: in bem merljiiItnii3 alllifcI)en lmiffioni3arbeit unb ber 2aljI ber biefe lmiffion unterf±uJ.?enben ®emeinben unb ®emeinbegIieber. :Bie fBrubergemeinbe aiiljIt ljeute 58,932 ®!teber in cI)rif±!icI)en Eiinbern. Unb biefe berljii!tng~ miif3ig Ueine mrcI)e erljii!± 262 euroj:JiiifcI)e lmiffioni3aroeiter auf 135 l5±a~ ±ionen in l5ubaftifa, Df±afrifa, ~etUfalem, am &;;>imala~a, in ~Iai3fa, mit±eI~ amerifa, 1meftinbien, ~emarara, l5urinam unb Ecibrabor; biefe oebienen im ganaen 120,236 fBefeljrie unb un±erricI)±en in 440 l5cI)ulen 40,806 15cI)ii!er. ~. Sj. Theological Observer. - .reird)nd):8eitgefd)id)tlid)e~. 71 Wlofjammebanermifj'ion. tiber ben iYortgang biefer IDCiffion in ~erfien beriCfjtet ber angIifanifCfje mifCfjof in ben ,,&llgemeinenIDCiffiownaCfjriCfjten": ,,,mir fjatten toiifjrenb ber st:artooCfje jeben &benb in ~~fafjan .2aternen~ gotte~bienft. ~eben &benb toar hie st:irCfje immer mefjr gebriingt boll, b~ toir toeiteren ben 2utritt unterfagen mutten, unb bie &ufmerffamfeit unb @Stille unter ben 2ufjiirern tom: befonber~ bemerfen~toert. jillir fjatten ag ;itfjemen getoiifjIt: ,jillarum ~I®fu~ fam', ,jilla~ ~®fu~ lefjrte', ,jilla~ ~®fu~ tat', ,jilla~ ~®fu~ fUr un~ tun toill'. &m st:arfreitag lafen toir bie &b~ fCfjnitte bom ®eriCfjt unb ;itob. ~Cfj glaube niCfjt, bat toir jemal~ fCfjon folCfje ®otte~bienfte mit dner folCfjen mefuCfjeraafjl in ~~fafjan fjatten." ®in mefuCfj in einem ~orf aur fefben 2eit braCfjte eine 2ufjiirerfCfjaft bon fUnffjunbert bei dner ®efamtbebiilferung bon iltoeitaufenb, bie fiCfj &benb fUr &benb im S)of be~ Ort~borftefjer~ au dnem .2aternengotte~bienft ber" fammelte. &m ®nbe be~ mefuCfje~ fCfjloffen fiCfj feCfj~ ~erfonen aum regef" mii\3igen mtbelftubium aUfammen. ;itrotbem bie ~eligion~freifjeit noCfj lange niCfjt gefiCfjert ift unb bide mefefjrte bon S)au~ unb s)of ber±rieben toerben, beriCfjtet boCfj jebe~ ber S)auptaentren miffionm:ifCfjer &rbdt bon ;itaufbetoerbern. ~ie ganae religiiife ;itenbena fCfjeint fiCfj in ~erfien au iinbern. ®in befonber~ fjeiliger megriibni~plat in IDCeffjeb, fjinter bem @SCfjrein ~mam ~eaa~, toirb gegentoiirtig bon ber ~egierung riicffiCfjglo~ bon ®riibern gereinigt; bie au~gegrabenen ®ebeine toerben einfaCfj in .2iiCfjer getoorfen; @SCfjiibef toerben uraten auf merlangen au toiffenfCfjaft~ liCfjen 2toecfen geliefert; unb e~ regt fiCfj Iaum dn leife~ IDCurren gegen bie ®nttodfjung be~ ~late~. &uCfj aUf ber ~nfel ~aba toirb dfrig unter ben IDCofjammebanern miffioniert. ~aba fjat eine mebiilferung bon nafjeau 42,000,000, 314 auf einen Duabratmomder (~eutfCfjlanb fjat dne mebiilferung~biCfjte bon 130 aUf ben DuabratfHomder), aum gro\3en ;itei! mofjammebanifCfj. ®~ arbeiten bort 58 europiiifCfje IDCiffionare, barunter 8 urate; ifjnen aur @Seite ftefjen 59 ®bangeHften unb .2efjrer unb 154 eingeborne st:ranfenpf[eger. ~ie 2afjl ber @,'fjriften bdriigt 3,949. ;it. S). The Latest Statistics from India. -In September, so we are in- formed in an exchange, the government of India published the results of its census taken last February. According to this census the total popula- tion of India has now reached the high figure of 352,986,876. We are told that this means the population has increased 10.6 per cent. since 1921. What we are chiefly interested in are the figures for the field of religion, and they read as follows: Hindus, 238,330,912; Mohammedans, 77,743,928; Sikhs, 4,366,442; Christians, 5,961,794. The Sikhs (representing a sort of reformed Hinduism) showed the largest gain during the last ten years, more than 33 per cent. The gain for the Christians was 32.6 per cent. The Mohammedans grew 13.1 per cent. and the Hindus 10 per cent. Of the total Christian population almost two-thirds (3,968,623) are in South India, which includes the native states of Travancore and Cochin, Mysore, and Hyderabad. The report says that in the Hyderabad State, which is ruled by a Moslem prince, there has been the largest increase for the Christians; from 62,656 in 1921 they have grown to number 151,946. Here, so we are informed, a mass movement toward Christianity among the Hindu outcastes has been in progress. The strength of the various Chris- tian denominations has not yet been made known. It is heartening to see 72 Book Review. - £itetatut. that Christianity has gained considerably. But only six million Christians over against a population of three hundred fifty million - what a dis- parity, what a cry for help in those figures! A. :.i)et SioniBmuB relit nod! immet. S£)er "Q:~riftIiclje Wpologete" oe~ ricljtet: ,,~n ber )!Bert<8ioniftenfonferena, Die in mafel, @5cljl1Jeia, tagte, l1Jurbe lette )!Boclje mit £Ironer @5timmenme~r~eit Na~um @5ofolol1J, ber feU ~a~ren aUl bie recljte &Janb Dr. ~aim )!Beiamann£l gart, an @5telle biefe£l &Jerrn aum lJSriifibenten ber mel1Jegung erl1Jii~rt. ~n ber offenen @5il,?ung ber s£)eIegaten l1Jurbe ein Q}oranfcljlag ber Wu£lgaoen fur ba£l niicljfte ~a~r im metrage bon $1,800,000 bel1JilIigt." ~. ~. ~. uliettritte ijUt lut~etifd!en ~itd!e in oftmeid!. ~n einem mericlj± au£l "S£). ®. S£)." ±eHt bet ,,2ut~erifclje &Jerolb" mit: ,,~m ~a~re 1927 l1Jurben in ber ebangeIifcljen Sfirclje in S£)eu±fclj~,ofterreiclj 3,980 ®inhitte unb 2,565 Wu£lhitte geilii~rt. S£)ie meiften i'toerlritte aum ~roteftanti£lmu£l lam en ben lut~erifcljen @emeinben, eine Ueine 2a~l ben reformierlen augute." ~.~.~. Book Review. - £itemtuf. Psalms. By W. G. Scroggie. Harper and Brothers. 144 pages, 4X6. Price, $1.25. This is a brief commentary on the first 41 psalms, prefaced by an in- troduction treating of Hebrew poetry and the divisions, the authorship, the titles, the character of the Psalter and including a reading scheme according to which the entire Psalter may be read every month. We were delighted to read the following exposition of the Twenty-second Psalm, which may serve as a sample of the style of the author: - "This amazing psalm is in two distinct parts. The first part is a sob (1-21), and the second is a song (22-31). The key to Part One is, 'Thou answerest not, and to Part Two, 'Thou hast answered. The first part tells of sufferings, and the second part, of the glory that follows (1 Pet. 1, 11 ) . "Not a few answers have been given to the question, Who is the suf- ferer? But there is only one answer that fits the facts: ... the sufferer is Jesus. It has truly been said that 'the psalmist gives a more vivid de- scription of the sufferings of Christ on the cross than the authors of the gospels.' Mark carefully the parallels. Christ's dying cry (1); the mockers gathered round the cross and their taunts (7. S. 12. 13); torture by crucifixion (16); the distorted body (14. 17); the parched tongue and lips (15); the divided garments and unrent vesture (1S); and at last the sudden silence in death. Why is there no mention of the spear thrust? Because Christ was already dead when that was done, and the Sufferer could not be represented as telling what happened after He had died. "The most poignant utterance of Jesus discloses the most tragic factor in His sufferings, namely, His being forsaken of God (1); note, He does not say, 'My Father-why?' Now, of no one but Jesus could these words (1-21) have been written, for we know of no one in history but Himself who had such an experience. This, therefore, is pure prophecy, genuine prediction, and whoever was the writer of the psalm, he was writing by