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