Full Text for CTM Book Review 7-8 (Text)

Q!uutur~ta: m4ruingtral :!InutIJly Continuing LEHRE UND VVEHRE MAGAZIN FUER Ev.-LuTH. HOMILETIK THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY-THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY Vol. VII August, 1936 No.8 CONTENTS Page Die Bedeutung der Predigt bei Luther. P. E. Kretzmann ••• , 561 King Henry VIII Courts Luther. w. Dallmann .••••••••••• 568 The Greatness of Luther's Commentary on Galatians. R. T. Du Brau. • • • . •• 577 Ueber Buecherbesprechungen. L. Fuerbringer •••••••••.••.• 581 Der Schriftgrund fuer die Lehre von der satisfactio vicaria. P. E. Kretzmann • • • •• 584 Dispositionen ueber die erste von der Synodalkonferenz angenommene Evangelienreihe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 587 Miscellanea ........................................ 599 Theological Observer. - Kirchlich·Zeitgeschichtliches. . . .. 606 Book Review. - Literatur ........................... 629 Ein Prediger muss nicht allein weid .... also dasa er die Schafe unterweise. wie ale recbte Christen sollen seln, sondem auch daneben den Woelfen wehr.... dass 81e die Schafe nicht angreUen und mit falaeher Lehre verluehren und Irrtum ein· fuehren. - Luther. E. ist kein Ding, daB die Leute mehr bei der Kirche behaelt denn die gute Predigt. - Ap%gie. Art. 8 •. If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 1 Oor. ~. 8. Published for the Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE, St. Louis, Mo. I ARCHIV Book Review. - mteratur. 629 Book Review. - £iteflltllf. Personality and the Trinity. By John B. Champion, Professor of Chris- tian Doctrine, Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Fleming H. Revell Company, New York. 268 pages, 5Y2 X 8. Price, ~2.25. This book deals with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as it has been assailed by Unitarianism in its various forms, by Arianism, and by the related heresies. It is particularly aimed at Modalism (Sabellianism), "as Modalism is in flower to-day" (p. 160), "is one of the great theological menaces to-day" (p. 228) -- the difference between Sabellianism and modern YIodalism being "t.hat in the fonner the Trinity of Modes is regarded as successive, while in the latter it is thought of as eternal and, so, as contemporary in manifestation," the essence of both forms of the heresy being that they "give us a mode in place of the God-man, three phases of the activity of one Person in place of three Persons" (p. 244 f). It enunciates the correct principle that the human intellect cannot com- prehend the mystery of the Trinity and that human reason cannot serve as a guide in the study of it. Here are some fine statements: "Human reason is never a finality, for it must depend on the range of facts upon which its conclusions are based, and with it the facts Me never aU in. Only in the mind of God are all the facts present. Hence what the mind of God reveals on any doctrine or subject is final. God Himself is naturally the best Authority on the Trinity" (p. 226). "When we discuss the divine unity, we have a subject as boundless as the whole scope of the divine existence. vVe may see it in part, but we can never behold all of this infinite triunity. In any case 'we know in part.''' "No true analogy or perfect simile to the Trinity has ever been found or can be found, for the good reason that the Holy Trinity is absolutely unique. All illustra- tions (the sun as an orb, its rays of light, and its heat; the human memory, understanding, and will) unavoidably darken the subject far more than they illumine it" (p. 80). Unfortunately the author does not adhere to this principle. He at· tempts to vindicate the doctrine of the Trinity with philosophical con- siderations. One chapter of the book deals with "The Trinity in the Scriptures" (chap. II), most of the rest appeals to psychology to make the mystery somewhat intelligible and, in a way, to p1"OVe the doctrine. The book attempts to show that con"ect psychological thinking demands three persons and one divine essence. "Especially in formulating the doctrine of the Trinity a faulty psychology may do great injury. . . . But we have learned a little more of the psychology of personality ... " The present treatment seeks to combine psychology with theology in the treatment of personality and the Trinity" (pp. 117. 97. 92). vVhat does psychology teach concerning personality? "Concretely, personality is the highest conceivable form or type of lite in correspondence or reciprocitY' with its counterpart or kindred environment, whioh thus enables it to complete itself; for no living thing is complete in itself" (p. 51). "The true definition of personality may perhaps be its capacity for love, not for self-consciousness, but for self-sacrifice and life in others. . .. Pedlaps the 630 Book Review. - ~itttCltur. root of personality is capacity of affection" (p. 128). The characteristic of personality, then, is not self·consciousness, but other-consciousness (p. 61). Now apply this to God; for "personality in God must mean as mud more than personality in man as God is more than man." Therefore, "the existence of a sole eternal Person is inconceivable" (p_ 70). So we get the doctrine of the Trinity. "Love demands fellowship, and perfect fellowship subsists only between persons who are essentially on thc same plane. . .. If the divine life were without this social reciprocity, it would be so contrary to the nature of all known personal life, we could not any more consider it the pattern of the human" (p. 104). "Genuine love has no use for self-consciousness. The Father is Son-conscious rather than self-conscious, and the Son is Father-conscious rather than conscious of Himself" (p. 126). "Since God is love. He cannot be characteristically self-conscious" (p. 128) . Some psychologizing theologians seek to demon- strate the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity by defining personality as self-consciousness. "\iVe became self-conscious by distinguishing our- selves from what is not ourselves, and especially from other persons of like nature with ourselves. If, therefore, there were no person objective to God, to whom He could say Thou, He could not say 1." (Tlms Martensen; see Hodge, 8yste'lnatio Theology, T, 480.) But other psycholo- gizing theologians say that is faulty psychology. What we know of love is the key to this mystery of the Trinity. (Thus Sartorius, see Pieper, Ohristliche Dogmatik, T, 482.) Operating with this psychology of love, Dr. Champion would vindicate the doctrine of the Trinity by means of the doctrine that other-consciousness constitutes personality. This argumentation is most faulty. In the first place, it operates with a definition of personality which will not be at once accepted. It will require a lot of investigation and demonstration to prove its cOl'l'ectness. Discussing the coneept of personality in its bearing Oll the doctrine of God, Dr. H. L. vVillett declares: "Personality is as yet a rather vague term in our psychology. vVe are finding that we are acquainted with only a limited area of our own personalities" (The Ohristian Oentury, June 12, 1935). We cannot wait till our psychologists have established an ahsolutely correct definition of personality. In the second place, this concept of personality (assuming its correctness) does not demand a trin- it'll of persons in the Godhead. It is a mere assumption to say that since personality is other-consciousness, "there could not be less; tIl ere could not be more" (p. 67), And in the third place, the entire discussion is out of place here. Let personality be what it will, onr conception of it must not shape the doctrine of the Trinity. The statements of Scrip- ture mnst establish and shape the doctrine. Christian theology indeed employs the terms person, personality, in this doctrine, but only as ex- pressing a truth clearly stated in Scripture. "The term peJ'son they use as the Fathers have used it, to signify, not a part or quality in another, but that whioh subsists of itself" (Augsburg Confession, Art. T). When Christian theology teaches "that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are distinct persons, a person being an intelligent subject who can say T, who can be addressed as thou, and who can act and be the object of action," it simply reproduces the statements of Scriptnre that "the Father says I, the Son says I, the Spirit says I" (Hodge, SY'8t. TheoL, p.444; cpo Book Review. - \literatut. 631 Pieper, OM. Dog.; p. 495 f.). A theology which reverses the procedure, first establishing the meaning of person and personality and then super- imposing whatever is found on Scripture, is not Christian, Scriptural theology. A doctrine obtained by this method, says Quenstedt, destit'llitm' auto-ritate Saorae Soripturae. The following quotations illustrate the theological method of Dr. Champion in general. "It has been noted that our Lord often speaks of His love for the Father, but never for the Holy Spirit. Nor is this accidental. The reason is, the Holy Spirit is Love in person. And to love Love is sheer redundancy" (p. 215). That is rather hazy and the reasoning precarious. The doctrine of the Virgin Birth and of the anhypostasia ("The Son of God did not take on human personality" [po 170]) is vindicated with these considerations: "The human life-cell from Mary was not personality in embryo, for never by itself could it develop into embryo or person. Only when the complementary male and female chromosomes unite in conception does personality originate. This is infallibly the generic law of the reproduction of human life." That, in effect, limits the "YVith God nothing sllall be impossible," Luke 1,37. TH. ENGELDER. The Origin of l\'[anldnd. By Ambrose Plem/ing. 160 pages, 514 X 8 . .Marshall Morgan & Scott, Ltd., London and Edinburgh. Price, $1.40. Mr. Fleming is president of tlle Philosophical Society of Great Britain. His scientific standing is secure through his work for television and in electrical engineering. He is a believer in the Holy Scriptures and accepts as the essential basis of Christianity the deity of .Jesus Christ and His office as Redeemer of the "\Yo rId, who by His atonement reconciled God and man. To this faith he bears witness in the present volume as in former products of his pen. However, we canllot subscribe to the funda- mental thesis of the present volume. Mr. Fleming believes that there were human beings before Adam and that a reference to a race of non- Adamic beings is alluded to in Gen. 4, 14-17. These races of the human stock were "ethically inferior"; yet they were human, "human in the sense of not being a product of the animal races or generated from them by merely some automatic process" (p. 132) . He distinguishes these race8. specifically from Adam and his descendants by assuming that this creature "had moral and spiritual faculties not sufficiently given so as to permit it to be described as made in the 'image of God'" (p. 132). Since creation throughout the plant and animal world has proceeded along certain stages, "it is consistent with all we know of divine creative operations that this initial step should be followed up by the creation of a being more ade- quately endowed with the necessary higher nature. Accordingly, we meet in the first chapter of Genesis with the divine resolution expressed in the words 'Let us make man in our image after our likeness,' Gen. 1, 26" (p. 133). Accordingly, we are to recognize "that the account of the Adamic creation given us in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis is the account of the creation of a special race of men and not that of mankind as a whole" (p.134). Looking about in the world of humanity to-day, Mr. Fleming assumes that "the unquestionably superior Caucasian branch is alone the derivative by normal generation from the Adamic man" 632 Book Review. - S3iteratut. (p.137). On the other hand, the Mongolian, Negro, and other human species are a survival of the pre-Adamic man. We must declare our dis- sent from this view, in the first place, because of the consistent teaching of Scripture that mankind is one. The entire argument of the fifth chapter of Romans rests on this fact, and we have the specific declaration of Acts 17, 2G - a statement which cannot have been made with a mental reservation regarding the blaek, yellow, and brown races, which were known to the Greeks. Mr.1<'lemlng·s reiterated statement declaring that a dif- ference in species exists between the Caucasian race and the rest as well as his claim that in the case of intermarriage between Caucasians and Negroes "the progeny are usually feeble, not long-lived, and of poor psychioal quality" (p. 116) are simply not in accord with facts. On the contrary, llybrid races such as the Mulatto and certain mixtures of Semitic and African stock, are very vigorous both mentally and physically. An im- pOl·tant difference is found also, according to 1<'leming, between the Cau- casian and other languages. He declares that "the Negro languages are RIso simple and not adapted for conveying any but the simplest ideas and thoughts" (p.117), whereas a simple reference to any handbook of com- parative philology would have convinced the author of the astounding wealth of grammatical structure and vocabulary, for instance, of the Bantu group of African dialects. Both from the standpoint of Biblical exegesis and anthropology vce consider the case made out by Mr. Fleming for the existence of Ilon-Aclamic races a very poor one. It should be said that he seizes upon this device because of the existence of certain fossil forms, as the K eanderthal race and similar specimens, which he prefers to view as remains of the pre-Adamic race. The fundamental error of his reason- ing is to be found in the concession that the age of these finds takes us back to a period some 50,000 years earlier than the Old Testament era. \lVhile we cannot accept the theory here proposed in order to account for the origin of mankind, we should say that the book contains very meritorious chapters, describing the fundamental differences between man and animal and outlining the fundamental propositions of modern physics and chemistry. There is a good refutation of the nebular hypothesis (p. 57 f.) and also an interesting argument for creation, based upon the discovery that matter is essentially composed not of corpuscles, but of waves or radiation. Arguing from the laws of thermodynamics, he con- cludes that the energy which is active in the universe came into it from outside and that the universe therefore had a starting-point, or beginning, at some time past not infinitely remote (p. 27 ff). THEODORE GRAEBNER. lIDir Iefett ilutf) cr. @egentDattilf)Hfe 3um merftiinlmts bes reformatotifd)CTI mlottes. ~erausgegeven bon Lic. theo!. D t t 0 ~ u ft. ~eft 1. lJJ1attin Eut~er: "mon bet iYreif)eit cines ~f)riftenmenfcl)en./1 90 i5eiten 6X8%. SjjreiS, fattoniett: RM. 1.80. mlit sitieren aus bem\{lortDort bes ~anbes: "SDa Sjjfan au bicfet ~tvcit ift aus bem SDienft an bet @emeinbe f)ettJotgegangen. . .. SDas I5d)tiftel)en miicl)te SJuft 3um tDidfid)en Rennenlernen S3utf)ers in ID.eite Rteifc tragen, bieffeic!)t auel) in foIcl)e, hie aIDar ben innedhcl)Hcl)en ~useinanbetfetungen unfetet :tage ferner ftef)en, ·aver irgenbIDie aUf bas SjjroDfem ,ffieformation unb beutfd)e @egenIDart' Book Review. - Xlitetatut. 633 \lejto\3en jinD unb bon ben :Ilingen me~t miiien wollen aLS lifo\3e 6djfagwotte ...• ".!)ie 6 V r a dl e l3 u t ~ e t s iit fowo~{ im !mottidjat wie in bet 6atliifimng mBg" lidjft ge±reu et~alten. ".!)agegen linD ffiedjtf,cf)teiliun(J unb ~eugungsformen bem ~eutigen @ebtouc~e ongegIid)en. :Ilie ffeingeDtudten S!lnmetfungen bienen bet (,lOt" {fatllng bet bem ~cutigen 6jJtad)gelitaud) entfrembeten !mBttet fowie bem 5Bet~ ftanbniS fultur~ unb oeitg.efd)ic~mdj oemertenswertet S!lusbtiidc unb S!lnfjJie!ungen./i :Ilie S!lnlage bes ~iicf)feins ilt Detatt, ball immet tin S!llifd)nitt in l3ut~CtS eigencn mioden gelJoten tDitD, tDotauf bonn ~luslegungen unb S!lnwcnbungen, licfonbers oUf bcutidjlCinbifd)e 5Berl)iiftnijic, \]cmadjt wetben. !menn l3ut~et aUf biefe !meife in weiteten itrciicn ~euticf)!anDs gclefen unb ftubiert witb, fo tann bkl nidjt lJ~ne teidjen 6egen ge[cf)cl)C1t. (,lO§ wate au tniinf.djen, ba\3 mon audj in ben rfreiien unfetet I.j:l aii.or en, fonberlidj in ffeineten Sl'onfcten3cn, fid) oUf bicfe !metic mit l3ut~et lieidjiiftigcn mutbc. I.j:l. G:. Sl' t c t m 0 n n. Why I Believe the Bible. By Wm. H. Richie. The Sunday-school Times Book Service, Philadelphia. 31 pages. Price, 15 cts. Order through Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, JllIo. Twenty-five years ago the writer of this pamphlet was a I"iberal, "the product of the destructive antireligious influences prevailing at one of our largest universities." He accepted the "modern point of view" as "scientific" and "logical" and cast aside his Christian faith. By God's grace he was won back to the faith of his fathers, and now he gratefully €mploys a part of his time in writing and publishing booklets defending the Bible and the CllTistian faith against infidelity. Other pamphlets of his are: 1Yhy Read or f:it'udy the Bible? Why Pray? Why Four Different Gospels? While the reviewer could not subscribe to every statement in Why I Believe the Bible, it is, on the whole, a good presentation, in popular and appealing language, of the evidence which Christian apologetics offers in defense of the divine character of God's Book. A useful pamphlet in the hand of a pastor or teacher when instructing Bible and other classes. J. T. MUELLER. Sermons 011 the Commandments. By the Rev. Wm. Masselink, Th. M., Th. D. Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Mich. 223 pages, 5% X 8. Price, $1.50. The purpose which the reading of this book will serve a Lutheran pastor is that he learns how a pastor of the Reformed Church presents to his congregation the will of God as expressed in the Decalog and especially how this is done from the specific viewpoint of that Church. I shall give a sample. Dr. Masselink says: "We are not saved because of good works. . .. Salvation by good works is a criminal doctrine .... Our salvation is complete in Jesus Christ. Jesus said on the cross, 'It is finished.' Now, what our Christ has finished we certainly don't have to do over OT supplement. Paul says that, if we are saved by the Law, then Christ died in vain. Salvation by the works of the Law is impossible, once more, for God requires a perfect obedience. The thrice- holy God must require a perfect obedience. The sinner, neither converted nor unconverted, can render this perfect obedience" (p.9. and 10). All this is said clcarly and emphatically. In view of these statements it makes strange reading when in the very next sermon, on "Has the Law Still Value for the Christian?" Dr. Masselink, among other things, says: 634 Book Review. - ~itetatur. "Real salvation is to be saved from sin itself. It is to hate sin as sin. not only because of the consequences of sin. In other words, to be restored in God's favor and to obediently do His will. Now, His will is contained in the Ten Commandments. What is the meaning of salvation? It not only means to be free from the guilt and punishment of sin. This is only half of its meaning. The other part is equally important, namely, to be saved from sin's power. It has been said that, when we are saveCI, we have nothing more to do with the Law. That this is not so can be seen. 'When we are saved, we are saved from what? You answer, From sin, becanse it is written; 'He shall save His people from their sins.' vVe are therefore saved from sin. But what are we saved to? You answer, \Ye are saved unto holiness. Very well; but what is holiness? Holiness is conformity to the Law of God. Try as you will, you will never get the Law out of the concept of salvation. It is an important part of it. 'If ye love Me, keep My commandments,' says .Jesus. The Law is fulfilled in us personally. How can that be? you ask. We reply with the words of the apostle: '\Yhat the I~aw could not do, in that it was weak throng!l the flesh,' Christ has done and is still doing through the Spirit, 'that the righteousness of the Law may be fulfilled in us who walk not aftcl' the flesh, but after the spirit.' Through regeneration the Law is fulfilled, for when man is reborn, he becomes the recipient of a new nature which loves the Law of Gael. This new nature, which God has implanted in evel'y bp]ievel', is inr,apable of sin and cannot sin because it is born of God. 'Vhen the Apostle Paul describes this inward conflict, he shows that he himself, his real and best self, did keep the Law; for he says: 'So, then, with the mind I myself serve the Law of God.' He also tells us that he 'delights in the Law of God after the inward man'" (pp. 20. 21). At one time Dr. Masselink says, because God requires a perfect obediellce, it is impossible for the sinner to be saved by the works of the Law, for neither the converted nor the unconverted man can render a perfect obedience. At another time he says that obedience to the Law belongs to the very essence of our salvation. Evidently he means to say with the second statement that the converted man must bring forth the frnits of faith, good works. That is very true. But why not 8a~' that? Why use words which must confuse the hearer? IVhy say what is actually contrary to the Scriptures? When Paul says: "If by grace, then is it no longer of works," Rom. 11, 6, then we have no right to say that obedience to the Law "belongs to the very essence of our salva- tion" (p. 19). IVe must remember that the Christian still has the Old Adam and therefore daily sins and does not render a perfect obedience; again, we must bear in mind that the Christian does good works after he has been converted, atic')' he has accepted Christ and is in t1)'1l possession of his salvation; good works therefore are the result of his conversion and. not a determining factor. Dr. Masselillk does not properly distinguish between justification and sanctification in their relation to each other. The man who still believes that obedience to the Law belongs to the very essence of his salvation can never have a good conscience. Nor will it help him that Dr. Masselink says that the new nature which God has implanted in the believer is incapable of sin, for, after all, the Christian, still having the Old Adam, does sin; Paul says: "I know that in me, Book Review. - ~itetatur. 635 that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing." Rom. 7, 18. Unless a man knows that· his salvation is altogether by grace, he cannot be sure of his salvation. Dr. Masselink says that the Sabbath has been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week (p. 107). There is no Scriptural proof for this; the Sabbath, also the weekly Sabbath, being part of the Old Testament Ceremonial Law, was abrogated by the very coming of Christ. Dr. Masselink says that a Christian should abstain from liquor (p. 146). In answering objections to this statement, he says: "0, says another, but did not Jesus make wine at Cana of Galilee? Yes, He did. Nor am I interested in the question whether it was fermented or not. I do want to say that, if the world had never known anything more intoxicating and harmful than what Jesus made at Cana of Galilee, no one would have even thought of passing liquor laws" (p. 147). What a strange interpretation of Scriptures! An unbiased reader of John 2 will understand the record to say that at the wedding in Cana real wine was used and that Jesus not only changed the water into some real wine, but even into wine that was better than was first served. So the record expressly says: "When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine and knew not whence it was, (but the servants which drew the water knew,) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom and saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now," vv. 9, 10. Four times the word orvo~ is used. It is exactly the same word which Paul uses when he says: "Be not drunk with wine," Eph.5, 18. No one can get drunk on grape-juice. Of the Sacraments Dr. Masselink says: "Time forbids us here to say much about our worship through the Sacraments. Let it be remembered that what God hath joined together man may not separate. God has granted us two means of grace as channels whereby He bestows His divine gifts upon us: the Word and the Sacraments. It is our duty as Christians to make use of both means of grace with deep gratitude of heart and humble obedience of spirit. The means of grace do not save us. They have no inherent power in themselves to save. Apart hom the Spirit of God they are insufficient. Nevertheless, it remains true that through the means of grace God has been pleased to bestow the salvation wrought in Jesus Christ. Through the right use of the Word and Sacraments we are conformed to the image of God through mutual fellowship" (pp. 63. 64) . Again he says: "In the second place, the Sabbath ideal of fellowship with God is realized by the Church through use of the Sacraments. This is true of both Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Baptism came in the place of circumcision. When was circum- cision instituted? Just before the covenant was established with Abraham. 'What was the significance of this covenant? Fellowship between God and Abraham. Why must circumcision precede the establishment of this covenant, this fellowship between God and Abraham? Because this original fellowship was broken by sin. The impurity, or sin, must first be removed before the fellowship can be established. This is the mean- ing of circumcision. Now Baptism has come in the place of circumcision. 636 Book Review. - ~itetlltut. The impurity, or sin, is removed bBfore the covenant fellowship is restored. ThiR is done by the water which signifies the washing away of our sins. So through the Sacrament of Baptism the idea of fellowship is realized. "This same truth is evidenced in the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper has come in the place of the Old Testament Passover. In the Passover Feast there were two significant acts: a) The blood was first applied. b. The communion with God was again established through the eating of the paschal lamb. Sin broke the fellowship between God and Israel. Therefore the blood was first applied to relllove sin, and after that the true purpose of the Passover was realized, namely, communion with God. In the Lord's Supper the essential thought is communion with God. Therefore Christ speaks of His blood in the institution of the Lord's Supper as the blood of the covenant. So we see that through the Sacraments the Sabbath ideal of communion with God is realized. Therefore it is a matter of deep importance for us how we observe the Sacraments" (p. 112). Although Dr. Masselink speaks of the Sacraments as "means of grace," he does not do so in the Scriptural sense and as is taught by our Lutheran Church, the Sacraments actually being means of God's grace and not merely signifying the putting away of our sins. It is strange that theologians of the Reformed Church whom we credit both with erudition and sincerity should so tenaciously hold to doctrines which are contrary to the express words of Scripture. The Calvinists, to refer to another instance which comes to our mind, deny unive1'sal grace; they teach that Christ did not die for all sinners, but only for the elect. As a proof they cite Matt. 20, 28: "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many," emphasizing that it says "for many" and thereby trying to prove that Christ did not die for all. But they entirely over- look the fact that the same Scriptures expressly say: "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time," 1 Tim. 2, 5. 6, and also the fact that the Scriptures in many places cleaJ"ly teach universal grace. But pointing out their inconsistencies to tbem and their wrong presentation of Scripture, contrary to the plain words of Scripture, does not seem to move them at all. They tenaciously hold to their false teachings, and thereby they bring about that division in the Church of which Christ speaks Luke 12,51. Over against such division Christ bids us to hold fast to the truth, both for our own sakes and also for the sakes of others, that through His truth His name may be glorified. J. H. C. FRITZ. Ouelfen sur ®efdjidjte be!.l firdjHd)en Untemdjt!.l in ber el1llngeHfdjen ~tdje 'l)clttfd)fnnb!.l &lUifdjcn 1530 uub 1600. Irxftex :teiL OueUen 3ur @e< fcf)icf)te Des Ratecf)iSmusuntmicf)ts. III. Dft~, ~OXDo, unb !li.eftbeutfd)e ~atecf)iSmen. 1. IllOteHung. 2 . .ldciffte, 3. meferun\J. ~ 0 ~ ann IJJHdj Ilt { ffi e u. VI unb 297 i5eiten 6% X 9%. [. ~exte{smann, ®titetSlo~. !j3tets, tattoniext: M. 15. I)JHt biefer mefexun\J tummt laut Illnfiinbigung bes mexfaffexs fein monu~ mentales !lied 3um Illbfcf)lufl. iruer bxeiunbbreiflig ~af)xe ~at D. !lieu fid) mit bex .ldexllusgabe biefes ®.ds bejdj1ifti\Jt, bem ~Il~te emfigex i)'oxfdjun\J unb i5idjtun\J Book Review. - 13iteratur. 637 bell 9J(QtcrialS borangingen. ~s ift oeaeiel)nenb fUr ben eifcrnen ~fcit unb bie uncnnUbfiel)e Sllullbauet bes l!letfajjeriJ, bat et tro~ bct ~inbctnijfc, Die iijm in Meren :;5afjten entgegentraten - Me lueitcn ~ntfetnungen, bet illieHfrieg, fettte fonftigen oetufHdJen unb fd)riftfteUcrifd)cn Sllroeiten, um nut bie ijauptfCiel)fid)ften aU nennen -, fid) nid)t ljat rntmutigen fafien, bies geMegene, grUttb!iel)e illicrf ott boUenben. :Dief c 53iefcrung entljCilt ncb en etric!)en 'Braunf el)bJeig<~annDberf d)en ~atedjiSmen (~0IJa<:Dicpf)o13, Csnabriicr, I5djaumburg