CONTENTS



THEST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.PUBLISHEDBY THEGERMAN EVANG. LUTHERAN SYNOD OF MISSOURI, OHIO, AND OTHER STATES.EDITED BYC. H. R. LANGE.“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh- (for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” 2 Cor. 10. 3—5.1881 & 1882.ST. LOUIS, MO.:CONCORDIA. PUBUSHING HOUSE. (M. C. Barthel, Agent.)CONTENTS1881MAYShall we retain our Confessions?LiteratureJUNE & JULYThe Cause of ElectionLord, Keep us steadfast in Thy WordElection and FaithElection in the narrow and wide sensesLiteratureAUGUSTThe Thirteen ThesesWhat is Calvinism“New Tract”LiteratureSEPTEMBERIs Election a Judicial Act?The personal Assurance and precious Consolation of our gracious Election to SalvationCalvinism and Synergism versus Lutheranism in the Doctrine concerning Conversion“New Tract”General Religious IntelligenceOCTOBERWhat does St. Paul Eph. 1, 3-14, teach of the Eternal Election of God?Election and Persevering FaithGeneral Religious IntelligenceNOVEMBERWhat does St. Paul Rom. 8. 28-30 teach concerning ElectionElection and Persevering FaithDr. Walther once and nowDuties of a BeneficiaryReasons for Suspending my Membership in the Joint Synod of Ohio and Other StatesThat OathOhio’s StandpointGeneral Religious IntelligenceDECEMBERThe New Confession of the Ohio SynodLiteratureGeneral Religious Intelligence1882JANUARYA Few Prefatory Remarks“Full Assurance of Hope”In Defense of a Brother in the FaithReview of Comments on our Reasons for suspending Membership in the Ohio SynodGeneral Religious IntelligenceFEBRUARYSermon preached at the meeting of the Protest Conference at Logan, Ohio, and given to the public by request of the Conference, by F. KuegeleThe Distinction between Foreknowledge (Praescientia) and Predestination in the Formula of ConcordReview of Comments on our Reasons for suspending Membership, &c.General Religious IntelligenceMARCHNew Doctrine“To the Law and to the Testimony”Review of Comments on our Reasons for suspending Membership, &c.The Dates of Dr. Martin Luther’s Birth and DeathGeneral Religious IntelligenceAPRILSin and GraceGod without His promises of Grace and God the Promiser of SalvationReview of Comments on our Reasons for suspending Membership, &c.General Religious IntelligenceMAY“Perfection”Those InnovationsDr. M. Luther on the Christian’s Certainty of Predestination and SalvationGeneral Religious IntelligenceJUNEQuenstedt on SynergismDr. M. Luther on the Christian’s Certainty of Predestination and SalvationThe Book of Concord; or, the Symbolical Books of the Ev. Luth. ChurchLiterature – General Religious IntelligenceJULYInvestigation of the Causes producing the Decline of Orthodoxy General Religious IntelligenceAUGUSTInvestigation of the Causes producing the Decline of OrthodoxyGeneral Religious IntelligenceSEPTEMBERA Brief RecapitulationAn Answer to the Question whether we teach what Calvinists term “Irresistible Grace”General Religious IntelligenceOCTOBER & NOVEMBERAn Answer to the Question whether we teach what Calvinists term “Irresistible Grace”A “Cheap” TractGeneral Religious IntelligenceDECEMBERWilful ResistanceOriginal SinNotice[[@VolumePage:1,1]]THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.Vol. 1. May 1881. No. 1.Shall we retain our Confessions?Up to this time the Missouri Synod maintained the character of an infant in the use of the English language. It contented itself with having its cause supported by friends. Sudden and violent changes, however, occurring in the American Lutheran Church have destroyed former relations, and necessitate the Missouri Synod to accustom itself to the use of its own power of speech in its behalf. The writer, a member of that body, in defending it, will take the liberty to use the pronoun we for the sake of convenience.It seems demanded to state at once the occasion of this writing. The editor of “The Lutheran Standard”, in whose care we had left the interests of our common faith within the bounds of the English Lutheran Church, has suddenly turned our adversary. In a manner unlooked-for he found himself bound in conscience to start a new periodical announcing that he must lift up his voice, to protect the Church against the Missouri Synod. In this periodical, the “Columbus Theological Magazine”, he makes the serious charges that we had troubled Israel, marred the visions of peace and prosperity in the Church, propagated an error that revolutionized the whole system of Christian doctrine, and provoked conscientious indignation. He represents the animus, said to be revealing itself in our teaching, to be of so wicked and blasphemous a sort, as was never found among men professing religion, either Christians, or Jews, or Mohammedans, or Pagans. He makes the accusation against us that we were inculcating a doctrine the first effect of which is to render a pious man speechless from sorrow; [[@VolumePage:1,2]]that we denied the attribute of goodness in the Divine Being, and made God really so treat His miserable creatures, that when in their anguish they look up to Him for some crumb of comfort, He closes the door upon them with the cold rebuff that He owes them nothing. In making these charges he piously trusts in the grace of God that his words will not wound but convince.We do not undertake a defence of our persons beyond what may appear to be subservient to the cause the support of which is the object of our lives' work. We do not assume a claim upon the attention of our readers to a specification of the reasons from which our adversary and his adherents draw their atrocious charges, and to the evidence we are able to present, to show these charges to be mere imputations. We may rely on the consideration that any innocent person may be accused, but no one can be proved guilty unless he is so. Those charges will stand unaltered whether on a careful examination we be found to have made mistakes, or not, in promulgating a doctrine forming part of our Confessions. Those charges would not be affected in substance, even if it were clearly demonstrated that we had done nothing else than insisted on believing, and not merely professing, what Dr. Luther in his Small Catechism has set forth to be Christian doctrine. Those charges together with all the misstatements, reckless deductions, and delusive declamations, with which our opponents make head against us, are but a vast nebula surrounding a nucleus which though as yet but indistinctly presented, consists in the rejecting the authority of our Confessions as the standard of Lutheran doctrine.What treatment our persons are put to, we do not care. We are accustomed to misrepresentations of both our character and labors. We deem it an honor to be counted among those whom the Apostle Paul describes as being made as the filth of the world, and the offscouring of all things. Let our souls be hunted down with calumnies and imprecations. Let our hearts be tortured by tearing from us a brotherly love we hold in esteem. Only let the Church be lighted and led by the Word of God proclaimed in her Confessions. Then, indeed, our dearest aspirations have obtained their object. As long, however, [[@VolumePage:1,3]]as the cause we are devoted to, is so mixed with our persons that the defamation of the latter imports the suppression of the former, we demand proofs to show that in upholding our Confessions we were walking in craftiness, or handling the Word of God deceitfully.The doctrine we are accused of having promulgated is set forth in our Confessions as revealed in the Word of God. Having through God’s grace become members of the Church of the Reformation, and convinced of her having professed no other than the apostolic doctrine and divine truths, we strive to be in union with her in all we teach, and to have all dissensions decided by her Confessions. The blessing with which God’s mercy has crowned the faithfulness to these Confessions, strongly admonishes all her members to have a regard to what is entrusted to them to keep and defend. The troubles raised now are but a new phase of the temptation, our American Church was exposed to repeatedly, which is, to disregard and finally abandon the Confessions of the Church of the Reformation which she has made her own.Half a century ago, those in our country who were called Lutherans, formed a sort of Lazzaroni among the Christian denominations. Having forsaken the majestic structure of doctrines owned by that Church whose name they bore, they preferred living without a shelter against the errors pouring upon them. Having nothing of their own to defend or preserve, they satisfied their little wants by feeding on the crumbs of doctrine falling from the tables of their neighbors. Though thousands were lying around in distress, they had nothing to divide with them, no occasion for being disturbed in their sweet idleness. Delighted at the honor of being graciously admitted to assist, whenever some pageant was instituted to enhance the glory of their superiors, they strove to imitate all their old or new “measures”. The more to ingratiate themselves with their benefactors, they abused their own glorious inheritance, the Lutheran Confessions, with approbrious epithets, exclaiming against them of being a hiding-place of popish superstitions, stupid nonsense, and remnants of antichristian idolatry. Behaving good-naturedly toward all, they showed pluck only against those who ventured to remind them of their degradation. [[@VolumePage:1,4]]The Lutheran Church who, rising from the bondage and pollution of AntiChrist’s kingdom, had been decked out like a queen by her heavenly King, and endowed with treasures of divine knowledge and love to enrich the minds and hearts of the inhabitants of the earth, appeared to have left all her queenly possessions, to have shamed all the honors of her high descent, and to have become a beggar in mind and condition.But those very Confessions, through which the Church of the Reformation had sent forth the everlasting gospel to be preached unto them that dwell on the earth: “Fear God and give glory to Him”; and had testified of her new and heavenly birth; those very Confessions God’s gracious love caused to anew assume life and vigor. Their voice was heard in our dear country, and was gladly, and earnestly, responded to. Within a short period, thousands succeeded in the honor of proclaiming the truths, once proclaimed by those who had, long since, gone to their triumphant rest. A new life of faith, and hope, and brotherly kindness, and charity, began. Men immigrating to improve their earthly prospects, found “the hidden treasure”. Matth. 13.44. Poor as they were, and, mostly, still are, they willingly set to erecting churches, parochial schools, colleges, seminaries, homes for the forsaken and distressed; sending and sustaining without cessation hundreds of young men to aid in spreading the pure gospel truths at home and abroad; studying, and nourishing their minds with the best literature of our Church when in her prime; and mindful of the benefits they had received through those Confessions, cause them to be introduced in constitutions and deeds, to prevent their being neglected by those who were to succeed them.This young American daughter of the Church of the Reformation was brought up, like her mother, in perpetual warfare. The men of “the good old times” never failed in finding occasion to deride, and decry, the “foreigner”. This enmity, though annoying, was not dangerous. At her very birth, however, she was at the point of being infected with the poison of hierarchical principles, which, if not resisted in time, would have jeoparded her health, and growth, and honor. Strong arguments were brought to bear upon the young Church, to [[@VolumePage:1,5]]make her surrender the rights she held in virtue of the standard of faith she had adopted, in order that they might be settled upon her clergy: avowals of sincere attachment; the unanimity of the Lutheran Church as to the clergy being the rightful owners of all ecclesiastical power; assertions, that the Lutheran Church never had any other doctrine; the duty of understanding the Confessions in accordance with the interpretation given by her great teachers. Even declamations, such as are at present put forward, were resorted to. All in vain. The struggle was hard. Through God’s grace the young American Church faithfully adhered to her Standard.—Our present opponents seem to have quietly slept in their cradles during the contest with the Buffalo Synod; else they could not, with a hope of success, venture to again set up an authority, which it was necessary to overcome, and force to resign its claims for ever, before the Church could enjoy in peace the privileges granted by her Lord to every believer.Soon a new trouble arose. The attempt was made to crush out a large portion of the Confessions at once. The directing principle was the same, as before, but differently unfolded. It was this. The doctrine of the Church depends on her agreement as exhibited by her teachers. Those doctrines in her Confessions as to which her teachers are unanimous, must retain their binding force. Those, however, in regard to which there is no unanimous consent of her teachers, are “open questions.”—The men who, in this way, undertook to tempt the young Church to become faithless to her rule of faith, and around whom the Iowa Synod collected, were, and still are, almost entirely dependent on Germany as to men, and means, and doctrine. Ordered, at first, to exert themselves in holding the American Church, in all her institutions and government, in dependency on Germany, they were soon thrown upon [[@VolumePage:1,6]]another track, by the collapse of the hierarchical projects. Their patrons in Germany considering it a piece of arrogance in the young American Church to rest satisfied with the doctrines as they are laid down in her Standard, the men of the Iowa Synod strenuously labor to introduce the improvements on the divine truths made by the learned theologians of Germany, and to defame an honest, and faithful, adherence to the Confessions. The Church, however, in spite of these disturbances, has continued to be nourished, and strengthened, by the old, and pure, doctrines, she had learned to prize in their true worth, and to grow, and prosper, far beyond the limits of the Missouri Synod.And now, the quiet of the young American Church has again been suddenly disturbed by a movement that warns her, again to take care of her rule of faith. The directing principle of this movement, as far as unfolded up to the present time, is this. The doctrine of the Church is exhibited in the teaching of her great teachers. The Confessions must be interpreted in the sense agreed on' by her teachers subsequent to their establishment as rules of faith.—This principle, alike preposterous and dangerous, the Church, if not minded to abandon her standard, is now called forth to combat. It is preposterous. For that which is to rule, and that which is to be subject to it, are made to interchange their functions while retaining their offices; the judge is arraigned before the bar of those on whose conduct he is still to decide; the government is subjected to those who swore loyalty to it, and bound themselves to uphold its decisions as those of their own government, in order to have these decisions supplanted by their own decisions in the capacity of being that government’s subjects. It revolutionizes the state and constitution of the rights of the Church, and makes away with the Confessions as Standards of faith. If they need interpretation as to their true sense, those whose faith was originally set forth in them, must be consulted; not those who were entirely foreign to, and ignorant of, that faith at the time when its statement was framed. If the latter are to be judges of the sense of our rule of faith, the whole matter depends on our belief, that not we, but only they, were able to correctly understand it. The loyalty of the Church to her [[@VolumePage:1,7]]Confessions, in that case, is based, principally, on the opinion we have formed of the state and condition of the mind and heart of some eminent teachers; it ceases to be founded on the truths as exhibited in them. But our Confessions need no interpretation; as it ought to be the case with statements of the faith of a Church for times present and subsequent. The need of an interpretation is felt only by those who, having conceived a notion of the matter beforehand, have an interest in reading them with the determination of having the same notion presented in them.—The principle is dangerous, too. For, if agreed on to be correct, it will apply to other doctrines as well, as to the one now in controversy. To mention but one instance; eminent teachers, subsequent to the publication of our Confessions, all agreed on explaining our standard of faith in respect to ecclesiastical power in a way, that their agreement resulted in permanently settling the rights of the Church on king and consistory.The origin of the present trouble is peculiar. One man, nurtured and honored by the Missouri Synod, thinking he owed that body a grudge, as he himself explained, found an object suiting him. The Western District of the Missouri Synod had for a number of years, at its regular sessions, been occupied in discussing the chief articles of the Christian religion, for the purpose of proving that, in each of them, the Lutheran Church gave all the honor to God alone; that, consequently, this Church must be the true visible Church; since the chief end of all religion consists in giving honor to God. In the years 1877 and 1879 the article of Predestination was discussed to the same end. That doctrine had experienced a change in its presentation, soon after its promulgation in the collection of our Confessions. Hard pressed by the Calvinists, the Lutheran theologians began to present it in a form, in which its substance was, as it were, spirited, and stowed out of sight. Satisfied with not having lost its component parts, but having preserved them separately, scattered in other doctrines, they presented the doctrine of Predestination reduced to a syllogism framed in God’s mind, which on account of its apparent correctness as to both, the premises and conclusion, was incapable of being abused. It was held forth so as to make Predestination appear [[@VolumePage:1,8]]to be an act of God’s justice, the so-called consequent will of God. This form was totally unfit to show that the Lutheran Church in this article, as in all others, gave all the honor to God alone; since justice, when applied, not to condemnation only, but to salvation likewise, implies desert in man, as well when he is saved, as when he is condemned. Justice is not mercy. To mercy solely, as given us in Christ, the Lutheran Church in her Confessions refers salvation as to its cause. That form of the doctrine of Predestination, as represented by those theologians, in which mercy was shown hiding rather than appearing, hovering around Predestination, not entering into it, was let alone; in its stead the presentation given in our Confessions, in which Predestination appears clad with all the majesty of the gospel, humbling both the thoughts and works of men, but raising the humbled to imperishable joy and honor, was held forth, and meditated on, by our Synod.—This was the occasion seized upon, to publicly accuse the Missouri Synod of being engaged in secretly poisoning the Church with Calvinistic heresy. The effect was, as could be expected. Derision, invectives, and imprecations, were poured upon us from all sides. A term was found, to briefly denote those alleged wicked practices of ours. They are called “the new departure of the Missouri Synod”. Our adversaries, of every kind and color, instantly showed that they were still alive; and set to laying on blows lustily.That we are sincere in our adherence to the Standard of faith, that in teaching the doctrine of Predestination, too, we desire nothing, but to walk in the old paths of the Church of the Reformation, and to be judged by her Confessions, knowing that they exhibit the divine truth: facts must prove. During months, while the storm that has broken upon us, was brewing, in the still nights succeeding the long, and fatiguing, labor of the day, a few men—not of the party of the accusers, but the accused, among them an aged man of almost threescore [[@VolumePage:1,9]]and ten years, the one most active, and most accused, on whose account alone the fact is mentioned—were consulting and collating the oldest and best editions of an authoritative work, in order to have it reprinted in a form that might win for it a ready entrance into every house, in which it was still a stranger heard of, yet unknown. It was to be sent forth to be read, and studied, and obtain a power in the reader’s mind, so as to put to shame every “new departure”, “new theory”, “new doctrine”, that dared to assume the Lutheran name. This book was the Book of Concord, our Confessions, printed last year in St. Louis. The weary labor was amply repaid by the joy we felt, on hearing that, within a few months, the whole edition had been exhausted, and a second one was in print.Our new adversaries declare that they are defending against us the doctrine of Predestination as it is set forth in our Confessions. The Columbus Theological Magazine states that “its aim will be the exposition and defense of the doctrines of the Church as confessed in the Book of Concord.” At the same time they are defending the doctrine of Predestination as it is presented in the works of the later Lutheran theologians; asserting the identity of the two, and ridiculing our denial of their identity. They have selected a slippery foot-hold for their assault on us. The little trouble of attending to the statements made by their own authorities as to the identity, or non-identity, of the two doctrines, will suffice to perceive the pitiable situation, their rashness was so unfortunate as to push them to. Nor is the consulting those authorities needed to be convinced of their plight. The simple reference to our Confession will evince the emptiness of their assertions. The omission of an express statement of “foreseen persevering faith” is equal to the annihilation of the whole structure which presents Predestination as it is taught by those theologians. This omission the authors of our Confession stand convicted of. In composing a full and complete exposition of Predestination they never were occasioned to speak of “foreseen persevering faith”. Our opponents, in sustaining their assertions, cite Quenstedt as one of their chief authorities. This great theologian, immediately on his first mentioning our Confession in his treatise [[@VolumePage:1,10]]on Predestination, adds that the sense in which he took the term predestination, was better, preferable, more useful (potior), than that, in which it was taken by the authors of our Confession. Our opponents will please allow us in our “new departure”, still to cling to the old notion, that the comparative degree of an adjective implies the result of having noticed some difference. In separately expounding those parts of the doctrine of Predestination that had been contested, Quenstedt regularly cites those theologians that were oil his side, and defending his position. In maintaining that election and predestination are synonymous terms, referring only to the elect, he cites our Confession as being on his side so far. The same he does in maintaining against Huber, that few only are elected. So he does in maintaining that the elect cannot finally fall from faith. But whenever he maintains, and defends, “the foreseen persevering faith” in explaining Predestination, he invariably does not cite our Confession as being on his side. He neither rejected our Confession as Calvinistic, because he, too, maintained that the cause, that some believe, was not in men, but in God who bestows faith on them according to His good pleasure; nor did he represent our Confession as affirming with him that “foreseen persevering faith” preceded predestination. The high character of our theologians seems to us to be rather tarnished, than set off, when their powers of discriminating and representing things are lauded for the purpose of sustaining assertions that make them inconsistent in their statements; that represent them as expounding one doctrine, while they were expounding another which they must have thought to have sufficiently explained as being one they preferred to the other. Should our opponents but once prove that they are able to set forth their whole doctrine of Predestination, without ever mentioning “foreseen persevering faith”, [[@VolumePage:1,11]]as our Confession did, then, and only then, we should have some reason for believing that their doctrine was the doctrine of the Church as confessed in the Book of Concord.We do not dishonor those great theologians, nor do we think ourselves wiser than they, as our opponents tauntingly suggest, in not accepting their presentation of Predestination. If there were any justice in that charge, it would recoil with greater force on those that make it. In following the teaching of some, we are compelled to reject the teaching of others. The theologians of the first and second ranks made a presentation of Predestination which the theologians of the third rank, and downward, considered to be inferior to their own. Our opponents cannot boast of finding themselves “in better company”, when embracing the tenets of the theologians of inferior rank, without insulting the theologians in rank their superiors. Though we sincerely believe that this insult only proceeds from their not knowing the real state of things, we could not imitate their example shielded by the same excuse. The Missouri Synod can never be shown to have disrespected those later theologians, or their work. History has proved again and again, that the cry “The Fathers, the Fathers must be heard! Their consent is the voice of the Church!” was raised by such as had less studied the Fathers, than those against whom the appeal was pointed. We need not hesitate to ask, Who did most to introduce into our American Church those theologians to be known, and honored, as they deserve; and the rich harvest of their labors to be assimilated by her as nourishing food? Was it our opponents? Or was it he whose fair reputation his adversaries exert themselves to spoil, and murder? But why did he trouble them in their walking old paths, as they say? It is easily explained. He knew that the Church was not her teachers only, but all the believers, men and women, even the baptized babes in the cradles. He knew of God’s great love to her. He knew that all the treasures of divine knowledge and love, revealed in the gospel, were her property. He knew that there was a jewel belonging to her, whose brilliancy had been somewhat impaired in the course of time. Is he to be blamed for having endeavored to show it forth to her in its original luster? Must the Church upbraid him for being [[@VolumePage:1,12]]attached to her, as Luther was, who sung, “Her do I love, the worthy Maid, I never can forget her.”?The Church of the Reformation is founded neither on the Fathers prior, nor on those subsequent to her establishment. She is founded on the Scriptures. The establishing on her foundation is fixed and embodied in her Confessions, which were brought about by special providential acts of God. So far as a person joins in these Confessions, he is to be recognized as a member of the Church. The consent of her teachers is not the voice of the Church, unless it be a consent in her Confessions. They cannot be corrected by the teachers, the teachers must be corrected by them. By them we earnestly desire to be tried for our part. If it be proved, that we taught anything not authorized by our Confessions, or contrary to any sentence of theirs, we are ready to renounce it. But it is our own teaching that must be adjudicated upon, not the forgeries put in its stead by our adversaries. We recognize the right, sustained by the Scriptures, of drawing inferences from our assertions, if they are presented as such, and not as assertions of our own. We recognize the command, given by our Lord, to know false prophets by their fruits. But our Lord means their own fruits, not the products of the ingenuity of others, which may be presented even as the outcome of the teaching of true disciples. Nor can we be exempt from the consequences of misrepresentations that are clearly referable to the point of view, from which they proceed without denying their origin. But when worthless fabrics are labeled with the name of another firm, to break it down; when assertions we abhor, when inferences which we consider to be the result of bungling, both in theology and logic, are stated as our own teaching, we must protest against such liberties, for the sake of the divine truths we preach and defend. May our opponents become sensible of their wrong by remembering that, if we did not fear God, we could easily dishonor them in the same way. Suppose, e.g., we should tell the Church, our opponents were teaching this sort of doctrine. God’s mercy, offered to all men, reveals in them a difference of conduct toward it, resulting in either salvation, or damnation. Since in the latter case damnation does not exceed desert, or God were unjust, the difference in favor [[@VolumePage:1,13]]of the former must exceed the desert of damnation, or God were biased. This difference, therefore, renders their damnation impossible; it is the only and sufficient cause of their salvation. God, foreknowing all things, knew that He could never condemn them. No respect to Christ was necessary for them to be safe from damnation from eternity. Christ’s work, therefore, is only a secondary cause, having no other purport than leading those whom God’s justice was obliged to elect, to glory, etc. Suppose we should continue imitating our opponents by devoting pages to an enlargement of this outgrowth of their philosophical speculation, affirming under their persons what they deny, denying what they affirm, quoting passages from the Scriptures and the Confessions against it, insisting upon the Bible having lost none of its importance since Luther’s day, etc. etc. They should then, perhaps, reach some perception of such procedure not being just or pious, as they suppose it to be when carried on against us, the most hateful features of which in their handling it we even, for disgust, omitted to allude to.We are solemnly accused of having troubled Israel. On what grounds is the rebuke rendered? We have endeavored, as we did before, to lead wanderers in paths not shown them by the Lord, back to the original covenant made with the Church when He rid her out of the bondage of false doctrines. The rebuke bids us meditate on the Scripture passage from which it is taken, to learn God’s holy will from the sacred history it holds forth. This history implies a gracious exhortation, not to be afraid, nor dismayed, in our nothingness. “And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel? And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord.” 1 Kings 18. 17-18. The Church of the Old Testament had the commandments given on Mount Sinai as an assurance of the election of grace, Exod. 19. 5-6. The Church of the New Testament has the glorious gospel as an assurance of the election of grace. So the gospel was understood by the Apostles, who addressed those that received it as the elect of God. They did so, not because they had been admitted to the secret [[@VolumePage:1,14]]counsels of God. On the contrary, they declared them to be unsearchable. They did not present the assurance of the election of grace as depending on one’s faith having been foreseen as persevering; else they had virtually withheld it from all. They held forth the divine decree which in, and through, the gospel brings eternal salvation to every one that believeth. Those who received the gospel, received the privilege of being the sons, and heirs, of God. In it they were to recognize the sublime truth, that they had not elected Him, but that He had elected them; and that, in the continual danger of their falling off, they should be more than conquerors through Him that loved them. So the Church of the Reformation understood the gospel. She represented the election of grace not as depending on anything foreseen in man, be it faith or works; not as depending on a condition not yet rendered. She represented it as having for its cause the mercy of God alone, and the most holy merit of Christ; as “affording the eminent and precious consolation, that God took so deep an interest in the conversion, righteousness, and salvation of each Christian, and so faithfully provided for these, that before the foundation of the world, in His counsel and purpose, He ordained the manner in which He would bring me to salvation, and preserve me there; again, that He wished to secure my salvation so truly and firmly, that in His eternal purpose, which cannot fail or be overthrown, He decreed it; and to secure it, placed it in the omnipotent hands of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, out of which none shall pluck us, John 10. 28.” ([[Form. Conc. Declar. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:46]]) That we exhorted the believers to acknowledge, and praise this grace, was the occasion of the rebuke, and charge of our having troubled Israel.We trust in the mercy of God that He will leave Him men to guard the apostolic doctrine proclaimed in this, as in other articles, by our Confessions. To all such within or without the Missouri Synod, we humbly offer our Monthly to give and take encouragement; this periodical being no official organ. We, for our part, are steadfastly minded to walk according to the rule, that nothing availeth in Christ Jesus, but a NEW CREATURE, the work of His grace solely who knows of no helpmates in creating. The troubles of this walk we shall continue to deem sweet, since the Holy Spirit has deigned to say: “As many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” Gal. 6.15-16. The God of all grace strengthen His servants in casting down imaginations, and in bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.Literature.Anti-calvinism. By Dr. A. Pfeiffer. Translated from the German by Edw. Pfeiffer. With an Introduction by Prof. M. Loy, A. M. Columbus, O. Printing House of the Joint Synod of Ohio. 1881. Sent post paid on receipt of $1.50. E. Pfeiffer, 444 East Rich Street. Columbus, O.St. Paul writes, that once there were some who preached Christ, supposing to add affliction to his bonds; but he adds, “Notwithstanding, everyway, Whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.” (Phil. 1. 15—19.) Of these words of the holy Apostle we were reminded, immediately on seeing brave A. Pfeiffer’s Anti-Calvinism in a new garb, we mean, in an English translation. Under present circumstances we at once surmised that this book owed its re-appearance principally to the wish, it might serve as a weapon against us in the controversy on Predestination, which has lately arisen. We were not, indeed, deceived. The new introduction confirms, distinctly enough, what we conjectured. Nevertheless, we gladly welcome the book. We are confident, that many of those who will peruse it for the very reason of its being intended to add affliction to us, will in this way get a relish for the old Lutheran theology. Dr. Pfeiffer in this book has thoroughly and victoriously refuted the errors which are characteristically Calvinistic. In his presentation of the Lutheran doctrine of Predestination he follows, indeed, the form of doctrine introduced into our Church by Aegidius Hunnius, and which represents God’s eternal election as having been made intuitu fidei. But in this work of his he himself offers sufficient aid for the attentive reader who holds fast to our Confession, to easily correct him in this point by his own words. We, therefore, embrace this opportunity of recommending the book to the English reading public.W.The Controversy Concerning Predestination, that is, A plain, trustworthy advice for pious Christians that would like to know whose doctrine in the present controversy concerning Predestination is Lutheran, and whose is not. Published by Rev. Prof. C. F. W. Walther, D. D. Translated by Aug. Crull. St. Louis, Mo. Concordia Publishing House (M. C. Barthel, Agent). 1881. Price 10 cts.This little treatise is intended to assist those who desire to get an insight into the present controversy, so as to know what it is which either party strives to uphold, and defend, against the other. The movement that has [[@VolumePage:1,16]]been forming recently, and which is supplanting the doctrine of predestination laid down in our Confessions, has by its peculiar mode of procedure caused perplexity in many minds. There are persons, sincerely attached to our Church, who have become so doubtful of the import of that doctrine, that they are at a loss, what to think of the Confession, which they were accustomed to regard as a plain declaration of the faith of the Lutheran Church. Others, though earnestly minded not to dissent from the Confession, have been pushed into a position virtually against it. This state of things was brought about by the following maneuver, whether intentional, or how far intentional, we cannot tell. The party united in that movement positively deny any intention on their part to make away with the old doctrine of the Formula of Concord. But having embraced another view of predestination, they attempt to force it upon our Formula, so as to make this Formula present a doctrine contrary to its own. The Formula, however, not showing even a trace of what constitutes the new view, the “intuitu fidei”, they break the resistance it offers to the attempt, by destroying the unity, and harmony, in the structure of its doctrine, and dissolving the connection of its parts. Adding to the disconnected parts, by way of giving explanations, whatever may be requisite to bring forth the new view, they open the way for its being acknowledged as the doctrine of the Formula. The latter, accordingly, is represented as exhibiting two predestinations at the same time, a predestination of all men, which they call predestination in a wider sense, and a predestination of those only whose persevering faith God has foreseen, which they call predestination in the strict sense. These two ideas are said to be found mixed in the Formula. By applying the process of separating these two incongruous ideas, the materials appear ready to act upon. There cannot be any doubt, that the effect of this maneuver is destructive of the esteem, in which our Confessions are held. The intelligent reader of the Formula finds that it never mentions two predestinations; that, on the contrary, it declares to speak of one only, the exposition of which apparently needs neither naming foreseen persevering faith, nor any mention made of a predestination in a wider sense, in order to have it fully and clearly stated. When prevailed upon to believe that it really was the intention of the authors, to present two predestinations, and that they executed their intention in that article, he must feel indignant at their incapacity or dishonesty, which could select such a method of saying what it was the intention to say. He must feel inclined to pity the intellectual or moral condition of a Church that had this document, before it was sanctioned, examined by her best intellects, and, after its sanction, regarded as a standard of her faith. And as to the members of the Lutheran Church, if they yield to the delusion that by applying some little ingenuity, one article of her faith is shown to be presented in her Confessions in so pitiful a condition as to require a process of unmingling, and additional ideas, before that article is capable of being correctly understood; what will hinder them in suspecting other articles to be in a similar condition? It is, therefore, of vital importance to the Church, to have the true sense of the Formula preserved by resisting the attempt, to insert that figment of what they call predestination in a wider sense, into our Symbol. Our tract gives a sound advice to those desirous of framing a judgment of their own concerning this matter, without being influenced by the misguiding interpretations of others. We earnestly recommend it to a thoughtful perusal. [[@VolumePage:1,17]]THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.Vol. 1. June & July 1881. Nos. 2 & 3.The Cause of Election.We are confident that this Monthly, now issued by order of the Missouri Synod, will find men among its readers, who are willing to examine our testimony as defendants against the reports spread abroad concerning our doctrine of predestination. We, therefore, consider it our duty to make a plain and full statement of those positions of ours which are now so vehemently opposed by our former friends. In honestly performing this duty we shall, besides, endeavor to show why we can not, in conscience, yield and retract.One circumstance requires a preliminary remark. In addition to the charge of false doctrine we are accused of conceding the worst parts of our doctrines. To those of our readers who suspect our statements to proceed from so reproachful a condition of our mind and heart as is implied in the latter charge, we will here simply say that they wrong us. The examination of our testimony will, we hope, leave them in no doubt as to the real source of that accusation.To obviate misconceptions that occurred in consequence of positive declarations we made of the faith, doctrine and confession, to which through the grace of God we firmly adhere, we shall begin with making statements in a negative form. In accordance with the Formula of Concord ([[Epitome, XI. Art p, 586. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:16-21]]) “we reject the following errors:1. When it is taught, that God is not willing that all persons should come to repentance, and believe the Gospel. [[@VolumePage:1,18]]2. Again, that when God calls us, it is not his earnest desire that all men should come to him.3. Again, that God is not willing that all men should be saved, but without regard to their sins, solely through the bare counsel, purpose, and will of God, some are destined to damnation, so that they cannot be saved.4. Again, that the mercy of God, and the most holy merit of Christ, are not the only cause of the election of God, but that in us also there is a cause, on account of which God has elected us to eternal life.All these doctrines are false, odious, and blasphemous, by which all the consolation, which Christians have in the holy Gospel and in the use of the holy sacraments, is taken away from them.; and for this reason these doctrines should not be tolerated in the church of God.”These words of the Confession of our Church exhibit our positions concerning election or predestination. All the terms in the above quotation we use according to their usual acceptation. In this respect we differ from our opponents, and a notice of this difference is indispensable to him who desires to obtain a clear insight into the present controversy. It is this circumstance which demands an explicit statement of the sense in which we take those terms to which our opponents apply an unusual interpretation which will be examined after the presentation of our own positions. 1. Cause we understand to be “that without which another thing called the effect can not be; that which is the occasion of an action; that by reason of, or on account of, which anything is done.” (Webster’s Dictionary.)—2. Election we understand to be “Divine choice; predetermination of individuals as objects of mercy and salvation.” (Webst. Dict.) Accordingly, when we speak of the cause of election, we speak of that on account of which God chose, or predetermined, individuals as objects of mercy and salvation.—3. In our Confession, quoted above, we understand the terms “all persons, all men” occurring in the first, second, and third sentences, to be of greater extension, than the pronouns in the first person plural occurring in the phrases “We reject, when God calls us, that in us also, God has elected us.” This pronoun we understand to apply to the Christians only, named in the last sentence, [[@VolumePage:1,19]]to Christians who have consolation in the holy Gospel and in the use of the holy sacraments, which consolation is taken away from them by the doctrines we reject as errors. For the doctrine of election also “affords the eminent and precious consolation, that God took so deep an interest in the conversion, righteousness, and salvation of each Christian, and so faithfully provided for these, that before the foundation of the world, in his counsel and purpose, he ordained the manner, in which he would bring me to salvation, and preserve me there; again, that he wished to secure my salvation so truly and firmly, that in his eternal purpose, which cannot fail or be overthrown, he decreed it, and to secure it, placed it in the omnipotent hands of our Savior, Jesus Christ, out of which none shall pluck us, John 10. 28. For, if our salvation were committed unto us, it might easily be lost through the weakness and wickedness of our flesh, or be taken and plucked out of our hands, by the fraud and power of the devil and of the world. Hence Paul, Rom. 8. 28, 35, 39. says: Since we are called according to the purpose of God, who shall separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord.” According to the explanations given, we believe and teach “that the eternal election or predestination of God, that is, the ordaining of God unto salvation, doeth not pertain both to the good and to the bad, but only to the children of God, who were elected and ordained to eternal life, before the foundation of the world, as Paul, Eph. 1. 4-5. declares: ‘He hath chosen us in Christ Jesus, and predestinated us unto the adoption of children.’ . . The eternal election of God not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect, but through his gracious will and good pleasure in Christ Jesus, is also the cause which procures, works, facilitates, and promotes our salvation and whatever pertains to it; and upon this our salvation is so firmly grounded that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ Matth. 16. 18. For it is written: ‘Neither shall any pluck my sheep out of my hand,’ John 10. 28. And again, Acts 13. 48.: ‘And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.’” ([[F. C. pp. 711. 712. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:5-8]])The Christians, accordingly, ought to believe, that the sole cause of the eternal election of God is the mercy of God and [[@VolumePage:1,20]]the merit of Christ, and the sole cause of their salvation is the eternal election of God. In other words, the elect are saved because they were elected, and they were elected because of God’s mercy and Christ’s merit solely. The way in which a Christian is to learn that he is among the elect, we here pass by, it being another point in the controversy on election, not identical with the cause of election, which we are now considering.That we are not erring in the doctrine we have set forth above as our own, but that it is thus revealed in the Word of God, we can show from the Scriptures in the same way our Church did. “By this doctrine and explanation of the eternal and saving election of the elect children of God, the honor of God is wholly and fully attributed unto him, namely, that through pure mercy in Christ, without any of our merits or good works, he saves us according to the purpose of his will; as it is written: ‘Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children, by Jesus Christ, to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace wherein he hath made us accepted in the Beloved,’ Eph. 1.5-6. The following doctrine, is, therefore, false and erroneous, namely, that not the mercy of God alone, and the most holy merit of Christ are the cause, but that in us also there is a cause of the election of God, on account of which God has elected us to everlasting life. For, not only before we had done any good, but also before we were born, yea, before the foundation of the world, he elected us in Christ; ‘That the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger: As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated,’ Rom. 9. 11, 12, 13.; Gen. 25.23.; Mal. 1. 2-3.”According to the Scriptures quoted, there is evidently nothing in us a cause on account of which God has elected us to everlasting life. The sole cause is in God, it is in His pure mercy in Christ, not in His justice. We are not saved by justice, but by mercy which waives justice. What made us accepted was nothing but He alone, who Himself made us accepted in the Beloved. There is not the least occasion left for [[@VolumePage:1,21]]praising anything else than the glory of His grace. The favor which He shows to the elect is occasioned by nothing that God foreknew of their doing or being, and He foreknew all they should once be or do. To this truth which shows election to be depending solely on Him that calleth, our minds are directed by Paul’s introducing the case of the future history of the two nations that separated from Rebekah’s bowels; since that case incontestably proves that election is not a consequence of history, but that history is a consequence of election.We acknowledged our duty of making a plain and full statement of our positions in regard to the cause of election. We trust that we neglected nothing in performing this duty. Could we think of having omitted anything required or desirable, we should willingly make up the deficiency. We are fully aware, however, that the present state of the controversy demands another plain and full statement to be made by us, in addition to what is presented above as the doctrine we hold and defend. We are ready to do anything that may be of service to the cause of truth. What appears to be demanded of us is an answer to the question, how it is possible for us to honestly believe all that we present as divine truths. It appears that this question is caused by both the moral and the logical aspects of our doctrine. We do not in the least hesitate as to giving any questioner all the information he may require of us. We answer1. in regard to its moral feature. Human reason finds unrighteousness with God involved in this doctrine. This is the first objection made to it when it is presented to man. So it appears in the presentation of this doctrine made by the Apostle Paul, Rom. 9. We, teaching the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, and being led by the same Spirit with the Apostle, cannot but do what the Apostle did. We first recognize the fact that this doctrine, indeed, occasions the question, “Is there unrighteousness with God?” In the second place, we answer with the Apostle, “God forbid.” In the third place we follow the Apostle in directing the questioner to the evidently scriptural truth, that in election God showeth mercy and not justice. The opposition which necessarily appears to human reason when God’s justice and mercy are compared, disappears when either of them is viewed singly. The latter is the province allotted to man, in which he is to exert his mental powers for the purpose of learning what those divine attributes are. “Paul instructs us to consider the judgment of God to be just, in the case of those who perish. For it is the well-merited punishment of sin, when, in the case of any country or people, God so inflicts punishment on account of the contempt of his Word, that it extends also to succeeding generations, as we perceive to be the case with the Jews; thus, in the case of some countries or individuals, God exhibits his severity, or the penalties which we had deserved, and of which we were worthy, since we, too, did not walk in a manner worthy of God’s Word, but often deeply grieved the Holy Spirit; so that, being thus admonished, we might live in the fear of God, and acknowledge and praise the goodness of God, shown to us and in us, without or contrary to our merit, to whom he gives his Word, whom he allows to retain it, and whom he does not harden and reject. For, since our nature is corrupted by sin, and worthy of and exposed to divine wrath and everlasting condemnation, God is not under any obligation to bestow upon us his Word, his Spirit, or his grace. Even when he graciously grants us his gifts, we often reject them, and render ourselves unworthy of everlasting life, Acts 13. 46. He, therefore, proposes his righteous judgment, which men deserve, for our contemplation, in the case of some countries, nations, and individuals, in order that, by comparing ourselves with them, and by discovering our great similarity to them, we may see and praise with so much the greater diligence, the pure, unmerited grace of God, manifested to the vessels of mercy, Rom. 9. 23. For those who suffer punishment and receive the wages of their sins, are not dealt with unjustly. But in the case of those to whom God gives and preserves his Word, by which men are enlightened, converted, and saved, the Lord commends his boundless grace and unmerited mercy. When we proceed thus far in this article, we remain in the right path, as it is written: ‘O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself, but in me is thine help’, Hos. 13. 9.” ([[F. C. pp. 720. 721. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:57-62]]). None of the divine attributes are revealed to man for the purpose of being modified by his logical powers in determining, or limiting, the [[@VolumePage:1,23]]one by the other; for they all surpass our comprehension, and reveal themselves to man as such. God is to be worshipped, not constructed by man. Should we yield to the objection mentioned, it would lead us directly to the rejection of the whole gospel. For we could not then withstand the arguments of the infidels who e. g. point to the fact that they find unrighteousness with God in the preaching of the redemption through Christ, and that they find this doctrine to be contrary to the Scriptures, saying, Prov. 17.15.: “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.” We keep our logic down to correcting human thoughts only, we shrink in the fear of the Lord from carrying the corrective powers of human reason into the glory of the gospel.—We hope that these remarks will be found sufficient in rendering our position, in respect to the moral feature of our doctrine, intelligible. We proceed to explain our position2. in regard to the logical inconsistencies in our doctrine. In the present controversy two cases are distinguishable; the one may be briefly stated as Reason versus Faith, the other as Freewill versus Mercy. Since in this article our purpose is merely to give such information as may be necessary to a clear and full understanding of our positions, we will confine ourselves to presenting a few remarks in connection with the first case. In opposition to our doctrine it has been asserted, that the mercy of God and the merit of Christ can lead to no election of individuals, for as a cause considered independently of any circumstances in the objects it would lead to the acceptance of all, not the selection of a few. Hence election as an effect can not be, unless some circumstance in the objects is added to the cause named. The cause of the particularity of the election lies not in God, but in man. Election, therefore, as presented in our doctrine, is an impossibility, an absurdity. The idea of election must be brought into harmony with reason, before it can be accepted as a divine truth, or a revelation of God. This is done by rendering the term election ambiguous, and attributing to it two meanings. There is an election, in which the term must be taken in a wide sense, and in this election all men are had in view; and there is an [[@VolumePage:1,24]]election, in which the term must be taken in a strict sense, and this election embraces only the few that are saved.—We, for our part, must reject both the endeavor to conform articles of faith to reason, and the ambiguity of the term election. We must reject the two meanings attributed to it as they are explained by our opponents. We must reject election in two senses, whether the two be regarded as one election in two different states or stages, so that the same election which at first was universal, including all men, was subsequently by man’s conduct rendered particular, embracing only a few; or whether they be regarded as two, the one made before the foreseen faith of man, the other afterwards.In opposition to our doctrine it has been asserted, that by reason of election being presented as the cause of the actual salvation of the elect, our doctrine establishes the absolute decree of the Calvinists, according to which God predestinated those that are lost to eternal death; which absolute decree, as Quenstedt says (de Vocat. II, Observ. 1.), puts an end to four classes of arguments, 1. the beneficent will of God who desires the salvation of all men; 2. the creation in the image of God, of all men in Adam; 3. the redemption of the whole human race through Christ; 4. the universal call of the Holy Spirit through the gospel.—We, for our part, reject the absolute decree of the Calvinists as a false, odious, and blasphemous doctrine, which should not be tolerated in the church of God. We declare, when such inferences are made from our doctrine and set forth as contained in it, “that this doctrine is set forth, not according to the Word and will of God, but according to mere human reason and the suggestions of the devil.” ([[B. of C. p. 727. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:91]])—It is asserted, that in the nature of things glaring inconsistencies must sooner or later give way. We maintain, that excepting the fallacies which are peculiar to our opponents, there have remained, and will remain unto the last day, what human reason calls inconsistencies, glaring or not glaring according to the mental eye that is directed to the revealed doctrine of election.We regard our doctrine as a divine revelation set forth in the gospel. We learn from revelation that there is an essential difference between the gospel and the wisdom of the world. [[@VolumePage:1,25]]It consists in the gospel being foolishness to the wise. There is not one article of the Christian faith, to which the charge of absurdity had not been, or could not be, made by corrupt human reason according to its established laws. This is known both to the believers, and the unbelievers. We cannot wonder, then, if the same charge is made in regard to the revealed doctrine of election. It is no proof against its divine origin. Believers, when concerned about the truth, are instructed to say: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isa. 8. 20. Revelation tells us, that the gospel is designed by God to appear absurd to human reason. “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” 1 Cor. 1. 21. Human wisdom and understanding, in things offered to men for belief, are exerted in showing logical consistency in what must be considered truth in opposition to error. Finding logical inconsistencies and absurdities in the gospel, they reject it for this very reason. But “it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” 1 Cor. 1. 19. Our Lord says, “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matth. 18. 3. He even thanked the Father, the Lord of heaven and earth, because He hid these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes; even so, for so it seemed good in His sight. Matth. 11. 25-26. Babes are not in the habit of rejecting doctrines on account of logical inconsistencies having been found in them. The grace of God has made us such babes. This fact fully explains our position over against our opponents, and shows why the arguments, framed against us, are ineffective. We knew of those inconsistencies before they were brought to bear upon our position. Our faith is the victory that overcometh such wisdom. Our own reason is not barren of that sort of fruit, but we consider it to be fruit unto death.We must add one more remark, however, to show the full assurance of faith we have in our doctrine. The Apostle not only characterizes the gospel as being foolishness to the [[@VolumePage:1,26]]wise, he also adds, that “the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” 1 Cor. 1. 25. We were, indeed, mistaken in thinking our doctrine of election to be the revealed one, if the latter characteristic named by the Apostle should be found wanting. But we find, indeed, that in the foolish form of our doctrine God reveals a wisdom which is wiser than men. How could Christians, in truth, say what the Holy Spirit teaches them to say (Eph. 1. 4ff.), that God hath chosen them in Christ, having predestinated them unto the adoption of children, by Jesus Christ, to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the Beloved: unless they knew that the only cause of this election and predestination was God’s mercy and Christ’s merit, which must assuredly embrace them, since no one is excluded? And when they are harassed with the thought that in spite of the universality of God’s mercy in Christ, many perish: how could they hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto them at the revelation of Jesus Christ, unless they were assured that this grace had elected them to salvation? This election being both the effect of God’s mercy in Christ, and the cause of the salvation of the elect, the Christians are led to refer their salvation to nothing but this mercy, not to anything in themselves. Thus they are saved, and both the wisdom and the power of God are made manifest through this doctrine. For if our salvation was revealed as depending on us, we could not but consider ourselves lost. For we are taught by the Scriptures to say: “We are nothing but flesh and blood, which can do nothing but sin;” and we know that sin is the cause of damnation. God’s wisdom, therefore, has revealed the doctrine of election in a way best suited to poor sinners whose little faith needs strengthening, not to wise men who decline accepting a truth, unless it be free from inconsistencies, which their reason may possibly find in it. At the same time this doctrine gives no one occasion to lead a dissolute and wicked life. For “the reason that all who hear the Word of God, do not believe, and therefore meet with a deeper condemnation, is not found in God’s unwillingness to bestow salvation; but they themselves are in fault, because they so hear the Word, not to learn, but [[@VolumePage:1,27]]only to scorn, to blaspheme, and to profane it, and because they resisted the Holy Spirit, who desires to operate in them through the Word.” ([[B. of C. p. 724. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:78]])—To this simple, perspicuous, and profitable doctrine we adhere, and we shun and avoid all refined, curious, and useless speculations, questions, and difficulties started in behalf of harmonizing revelation with reason.We do not reject all logical reasoning in spiritual things. We only make the necessary distinction between revealed truths and human thoughts. We are not babes over against man to sacrifice our power of reasoning in his honor. The honor which is due to God, we give to Him alone. And in His service we have ample opportunities to make use of the precious gift of logical thinking. But we do so only as servants, not as masters. We apply reasoning, e. g., in making it appear that the assurance of our whole Christian faith is implied in the truths, that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God. But the contradictions that may be deduced from this doctrine we abhor and reject. So there is sufficient occasion for the exercise of our rational faculty to show the assurance of our salvation to be implied in that very composition of the doctrine of election which is to others only an object fit for framing contradictions, in order to undo it. Our opponents think that the contradiction they deduce from our doctrine is the unfathomable mystery we adore. They are strangely mistaken. We are no worshippers of human thoughts. What they call contradiction, is their thought only. If we are unable to reconcile revealed things in our minds, we remember that we are not commanded to do so. It is faith only which renders a man a Christian. But faith clings to the Word of God, and can not find contradictions in its statements. They are contradictory only to human reason. We find no contradiction when we do not hinder this doctrine “to direct us to the Word of God, Eph. 1. 13. 1 Cor. 1. 7-8.; to admonish us to repentance, 2 Tim. 3. 16.; to encourage us to godliness, Eph. 1. 4, 13. John 15. 3.; to strengthen our faith, and to assure us of our salvation, Eph. 1. 4, 13.; John 10. 28.; 2 Thess. 2. 13.” ([[B. of C. p. 713. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:12]]) [[@VolumePage:1,28]](For the “Theological Monthly.”)Lord, keep us steadfast in Thy Word.Our latest opponents, having once equipped themselves in their coat of mail, continue vehemently to wage war against us, although, by this time, they might have convinced themselves of the dire fact, that they are fighting against the very public formularies of the Lutheran Church, of which they claim to be faithful members. Because we adhere to the plain declaration of the XI. Art. of the Formula of Concord; because we firmly object to having a single syllable added to our Confessions, by which a different sense would be conveyed, we are decried, attacked, and assaulted as heretics and placed upon the same level with Calvin! If some of our opponents, at the commencement of the present controversy, really did not know what is the difference between Calvinism and the pure doctrine of our Church, they might, since then, have had more than sufficient time and means to instruct themselves thoroughly in this important matter; they would have, indeed, been benefited, had they availed themselves of the opportunity. For, if by means of the publications of the Missouri Synod anything has been set forth in plain, convincing terms, it is precisely the contrary to what we are falsely accused of in the present contest. And if anything is strange and incomprehensible, creating surprise in no small a degree, it is this, that our adversaries, with a tenacity worthy of a good cause only, cling to their unfounded and often refuted assertions, as though we embraced the offensive tenets of Calvinism, which are derogatory to the perfections of God, a charge which, indeed, implies something very shocking. We can not refrain from giving utterance to our conviction that a sincere regard for truth surely does not lead to such accusations. Or shall we suppose that our assailants really can not distinguish between the characteristics of sectarianism and such doctrines of the true visible Church, which necessarily contain the same words, though they do not express the same meaning maintained by false churches? Most certainly do they know that not everything taught by the sects, is in itself sectarian, and that there are some points which are rendered heterogeneal, by that special sense which [[@VolumePage:1,29]]errorists combine with their wordings, and by the expressions connected with otherwise correct sentences in the same writing. We do by no means make an apology for heterodoxy, nevertheless we shall always bear in mind, that a doctrine is not peculiar to a sect simply for the reason that a sect contends for it. Truth is not to be rejected when error resembles it. Sectarianism is specified by such phrases as stand in contradiction to the plain teaching of the Bible. Thus Calvinism is specified not by the proposition that the election of certain persons to eternal life was made from eternity, and that God in the act of election did not proceed upon the ground of their foreseen faith or qualities. For this is exactly what the Bible teaches. But those sentiments which Calvin, being led astray by complying with his own speculations, has advanced contrary to the revelation of God’s Word—absolute predestination and absolute reprobation—are the characteristics of Calvinism, and these, through God’s grace, we condemn no less than did our “Fathers.”The fact that, to a certain extent, Calvin and the Synod of Dort employed certain phrases, in themselves correct, can never serve as an argument in support of the opinion that the respective terms are characteristically Calvinistic in their import. If such a manner of argumentation is to be observed in order to convince one’s mind and to settle a controversy, the result inevitably must prove disastrous. Why, by such reasoning we at once may arrive at the conclusion that our opponents and we ourselves are reformed Jews (“Crypto-Jews!”) inasmuch as we believe that there is but One God.—That predestination is a cause, which procures, works, aids and promotes our salvation and whatever pertains to it—that God in His election did not take into consideration anything good in man, is a doctrine set forth in our glorious confessions, and the “modus loquendi” is so distinct, so precise,, so impressive, that the unbiased reader, at the first glance, is enabled to understand what he reads; the words can not so be construed as to convey discordant ideas, except terms be introduced which are impertinent. Of that eternal election, which pertains only to the children of God, the XI. Art. F. C. affirms that it is also a cause of their salvation and whatever pertains to it. If [[@VolumePage:1,30]]this be Calvinism, the Lutheran Church embodied sectarianism in her public writings! Furthermore, not the slightest intimation, much less a single utterance can be found in the entire XI. Art., from which it might be inferred that election took place in view, or in consequence, of faith. The pious and faithful framers of this confession well knew what they were about, when they penned down the respective paragraphs; they were well aware of the good reason, why they would neither teach themselves nor transmit to posterity the opinions so strenuously advocated by our adversaries. Had they entertained such or similar views, they would not have passed them in silence in their lengthy dissertation concerning the controverted point, but would have confessed them freely in accordance with the most important object expressly indicated by themselves, viz.: “that a public and positive testimony might be furnished, showing what the unaninious opinion and judgment of our churches were and perpetually ought to be.” They discarded all sentiments which are at variance with the gospel-truth, and by which the pure doctrine of God’s grace in Christ Jesus would be impaired, and man’s free will glorified. And hence in the article referred to, nothing is to be found in favor of an “election in view of faith.” If God’s chosen people are predestinated in consequence of their foreseen faith, they are elected because they believed; if they are elected because they believed, then election took place not by the mercy of God and on account of Christ’s most holy merits only, but a cause was also in them. If actual and final faith must precede predestination, then God’s purpose is dependent on, and conditioned by, our believing, and, in the end, man’s salvation rests on his own conduct, on his compliance with certain conditions—an opinion peculiar to Romanism and Arminianism and repugnant to the gospel. The zealous espousers of the “intuitu-fidei” doctrine, whatever they may say to the contrary, are in a dilemma, and all their rhetorical powers combined will prove futile in their effort to extricate themselves.Faith is a gift of God. In this proposition we are agreed. Faith is by the operation of the Holy Ghost through the means of grace. In this, too, we agree. Likewise in this. From amongst those who have the same means of grace, some [[@VolumePage:1,31]]believe, whilst others either never believe, or backslide, and are lost forever.. But now, why do not the latter receive faith, i.e. persevering faith and salvation?“Because they obstinately resist grace offered them by the means of grace.”True, but why do they obstinately resist? Why is resistance not taken away from their heart?“It is their own fault.”Most assuredly. They, then, are not elected because of their own fault. But now as to those that do believe and are saved? How can they, and why do they, believe?“It is God’s own gift in them.”That is true. But God desires to give all men repentance and faith unto life everlasting?“Yes, but you see, some resist and some don’t, but joyfully accept grace.”Certainly; but why and how can they accept it?“Why, it is God’s gracious dealing with them.”But does He not extend His mercy and His helping hand to all men, even to those who resist?“Indeed, but they continue willfully, whilst others permit their resistance to be taken away from them.”So, then, some are not quite so bad as the rest? Are they better disposed? Is there a difference with regard to the total corruption of human nature?“Stop! Here you are touching a mystery which, according to our Confession, we must not endeavor to solve!”Very well! If, however, the eternal election is a decree of God, founded upon the foresight of, and conditioned by, our persevering faith, then there is no longer a mystery, but all is explained, all is made palpable and splendidly lucid to human reason. You are forced to allow a difference with reference to the natural faculties of the fallen race—a difference, so great or small, that with some there is at least something of an inherent inclination or disposition, by their own will and consent to resolve upon accepting God’s grace and upon being in the number of the elect. And still you do not see that this is Arminianism, or Synergism, which never had, [[@VolumePage:1,32]]nor ever shall have room within the pale of the Church of the Reformation?“But if election did not take place in consideration of faith, if election rather is a cause of faith, repentance, conversion &c., then God is partial, unjust, cruel, inasmuch as He does not save every single soul!”Not so hasty! It is blind reason that draws this inference. Holy writ tells us that the elect are chosen according to God’s grace and purpose, for Christ’s sake; but who gives you privilege to consult your reason as to what might or possibly could be inferred from this truth? Or do the Scriptures say that God is partial, or unjust, or cruel? Point out a single passage to that effect!“There is none!”Then do not listen to your reason, do not rely on your reasoning. By way of such unwarrantable reasoning Calvin arrived at—Calvinism, and Arminius at—Arminianism. If you sincerely believe that the depraved condition of mankind is alike with one and all, you can not but renounce and abandon the “respectu-fidei” theory which—much as you may refuse to acknowledge the fact—leads to the assumption that there must be at least one reason in man, on account of which, or in consequence of which, he is, or rather finally shall be, ordained to life everlasting—in other words to the same effect, that some are better than the rest. Now there is but one alternative: either you do not believe in the general depravity, or you are without a clear understanding of your own position.—The opinions of our opponents are precisely the same with those set forth by an Arminian writer in the following illustration: “It is reported of Agilmond the second, king of the Lombards, that, riding by a fish-pond, he saw seven young children sprawling in it, whom their unnatural mothers had thrown into it not long before. Amazed whereat, he put his hunting spear among them, and stirred them gently up and down, which one among them laying hold of, was drawn to the land and was called Lamistus; he then was trained up in the king’s court and finally made successor in the kingdom. Now granting that Agilmond, being forewarned in a vision, that he should find such children sprawling for life in the midst of the [[@VolumePage:1,33]]pond, might therefore take a resolution within himself to put his hunting spear among them, and that which of them soever should lay hold upon it, should be gently drawn out of the water, adopted for his son, and made heir of all his kingdom: no human story can afford the like parallel case to God’s proceeding in the work of predestination.”The seven infants floating in the pond are to represent Adam’s fallen posterity. The king’s hunting spear is intended to represent divine grace, and whosoever may happen to lay hold of that spear, whosoever, being gently stirred, resolves upon being drawn out of the water, in which he lies sprawling, not “dead in sins,” is in consequence of such lucky conduct, predestinated and saved!The recent supporters of an election conditioned by man’s conduct will, perhaps, retort that their standpoint is quite different from the one expressed in the above simile. Their partisan efforts, however, aiming at the destruction of what the Formula of Concord sets against their ideas, serve to show the great similarity of opinion concerning the doctrine of free will, grace, and election, as represented by out and out Synergists.According to the modern “intuitu-fidei” doctrine, election is made possible to a certain extent, whilst the decision is left to rest with the lost sinner, whether he actually shall be elected or not. Thus at least a part, if not all, of the glory and praise is due to the elect themselves, because they realized the possibility, having by their willingness made it pass into act. The grand turning hinge in Synergism and Arminianism is to represent the blessings of salvation to rest at the option of man to receive the offer, by performing certain duties, whereas the Lutheran Church gives all glory to God alone, contending not only that God has made salvation possible, but that He alone “procures, works, aids and promotes our salvation and whatever pertains to it.” The sum and substance of a conditional election is this: God is willing to do so and so for us, provided that we are willing to aid Him by our consent. But this is indignity offered to God, because it makes the Creator’s will dependent on the creatures, and places man’s will foremost in the business of salvation. It is also exceedingly absurd! [[@VolumePage:1,34]]For, does true willingness to spiritual things arise from our will itself or from the grace of God? If from His grace, as it does, God’s decree regarding our salvation cannot be founded upon His foresight of our conduct. If we say from itself, we rank with Pelagians at once, and plunge into manifest absurdities, the first of which is, that there are at least two classes of sinful men, the one being naturally better disposed than others regarding spiritual things; the second, that because God foresaw faith in the hearts of some men, he purposed to give them faith; the third, that because He knew their willingness would work together with His grace, He makes them willing to accept His grace and, therefore, is willing to save them! What a vast difference between the views advanced by our modern adherents to the “intuitu-fidei,” and the pure doctrine of the Formula of Concord! God’s eternal election (or predestination, the ordaining of God unto salvation) pertains only to the children of God, who have been elected to eternal life. And this eternal election not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect, but is also a cause which procures, works, aids, and promotes our salvation, and whatever pertains to it. This is what the confession of our Church teaches, and what it teaches is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And such is the precious inheritance we have obtained from our fathers, by which we, by the grace of our God, intend to stand. Our prayer is, and shall continue to be: Lord, Keep us steadfast in thy word! G. R.(For the “Theological Monthly.”)Election and Faith.Acts 13. 48.Does, in the sight of God, faith precede the eternal election, as a cause, or prerequisite, or the like; or does, on the contrary, election go before faith, as a cause precedes its effect? This is the principal question in the present controversy concerning election. Our adversaries affirm the former and deny the latter part of this question; while we deny the former, and affirm the latter. [[@VolumePage:1,35]]It is not the purpose of the writer to discuss, at present, this question in all its relations, nor even to adduce all the arguments that prove election to be the cause of faith. May it suffice, at present, to dwell upon only one scriptural passage, which proves our affirmation. It is found Acts 13. 48.St. Luke relates, [[Acts 13th, >> Acts 13]] that St. Paul and Barnabas, on their missionary travels, came to Antioch in Pisidia. Being in a Jewish synagogue on a Sabbath day, St. Paul was permitted to speak if he had a word of exhortation for the people. Paul arose and preached the Gospel of Christ’s sufferings, death, and resurrection. Many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, when the congregation was broken up, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. Some Gentiles who had heard the sermon of Paul, besought him to preach to them on the next Sabbath. Almost the whole city, Jews and Gentiles, came together on this Sabbath to hear the Word of God. When the Jews saw the multitude, they were overcome by their ancient hatred of the Gentiles; they were filled with envy, and instead of listening attentively and joyfully receiving the Gospel of Christ, they spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. Then Paul and Barnabas said to them: “It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo we turn to the Gentiles.” These Jews are an example of all those who are not predestinated, but lost eternally. They are rejected and lost, not because God would not save them, not because Christ’s merits and Gospel were not intended for them; but because, if not outwardly, yet in their hearts, they speak against the Gospel, when it is brought to them, contradicting and blaspheming. “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself.” Paul and Barnabas turned to the Gentiles, who were glad and glorified the Word of God. How many of these Gentile hearers became believers, we do not know. Luke says: “And as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.” Luke here uses a peculiar expression. He might have said: many, or: few, or: a number of the Gentile hearers believed; but [[@VolumePage:1,36]]he does not thus express himself. He says: “As many as we're ordained to eternal life, believed.”1. What is the intent St. Luke, or rather the Holy Ghost, had, when these words were written? Even in every day language similar expressions have a peculiar meaning. If one say, for instance: As many of the pupils as had passed their examination, received a degree, we all understand that the degree was conferred upon these students, because they had passed the examination. Thus it is in Holy Writ. The same word which in the passage we are considering, is translated by “as many as”, is used repeatedly in the Scriptures to introduce clauses stating a reason, or a cause. Thus [[St. Matthew, chapt. 14, 36. >> Mt 14.36]], says: “And as many as touched” Christ’s garment, “were made perfectly whole.” Diseased persons were made perfectly whole, as is related. What was the cause of their becoming whole? This, that they touched Christ’s garment. Thus in the sentence introduced by the words “as many as” the cause of their recovery is stated.—Mark 3. 10. we read: “For He had healed many; insomuch that they pressed upon Him for to touch Him, as many as had plagues.” Why did they press upon Him for to touch Him? Because they had plagues.—Luke, Acts 5. 36-37., relates that Gamaliel, a Pharisee, said: “Before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves, who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered and brought to naught. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.” Why were certain men scattered, brought to naught, and dispersed? Because they had followed and obeyed Theudas and Judas.—Rom. 2. 12.: “For as many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law.” Why shall some perish without the law and others be judged by the law? Because the former have sinned without the law, but the latter, within the law.—Rom. 8. 14.: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” Why are some declared to be the sons of God? Because they [[@VolumePage:1,37]]are led by the Spirit of God.—Gal. 3. 10.: “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse.” Why are some people under the curse? Because they are of the works of the law; “for it is written: Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law to do them.”—Gal. 3. 27,: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.” Why may it be said that we have put on Christ? Because we have been baptized into Christ. Compare also Gal. 6. 12, 16. Phil. 3. 15. Rev. 2. 24.From all these scriptural passages (and there are, probably, none other in which the words “as many as” occur) it appears that a cause or reason is stated in clauses introduced by “as many as”. Now St. Luke in the passage we are considering, says: “As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.” We ask: Why did they believe? and the answer is: Because they were ordained to eternal life, that is: because they were elected. Their ordination to eternal life, that is, their election, was the cause of their faith.2. We are well aware that the words “ordained to eternal life” have been and still are interpreted in such manner, as to exclude the idea of election. It is said: The word “to ordain” refers to a divine order in which God has decreed to save man, and by which God has appointed certain means of salvation; hence, those are said to be “ordained to eternal life” who submit themselves to this order, who, namely, hear the Word, do not close their ears or harden their hearts against it, do not resist the Holy Ghost who purposes to work through the same. Those are said to be “ordained to eternal life” who permit themselves to be brought into the divinely appointed order of salvation.But no one reading these words without preconceived opinions, would thus interpret these words. Although the Greek word of which “ordained” in our passage is the translation, implies the conception of an “order”, just as the word “ordain” does; yet the true meaning is not rendered by the foregoing interpretation. In all the passages in which the same Greek word occurs, it denotes an order, an appointment, a decree. Thus it is rendered by “appointed” Matth. 28. 16.: [[@VolumePage:1,38]] “Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilea into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them”; Acts 28. 23.: “And when they had appointed him a day”; Acts 22. 10.: “And there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.” While in these passages the Greek word is rendered “appointed”, it is rendered by “ordained” Rom. 13.1.: “The powers that be are ordained of God”; by “set” Luke 7.8.: “I am also a man set under authority”; by “addicted” 1 Cor. 16. 15.: “They have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints”; by “determined” Acts 15. 2.: “When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them should go up to Jesusalem.” These are all the passages of the new Testament in which the Greek word is to be found which in our passage is translated by “ordained”.From these passages we learn that it denotes: to set, to ordain, to appoint, to determine, to addict oneself. Those, hence, are “ordained to eternal life”, are “appointed” to eternal life, concerning whom God has determined to bring them to eternal life, whom God has destined for life, chosen, elected, predestined.“To appoint to eternal life” is only another term for “to elect” or “to predestinate”. Each of these terms denotes the same thing, but at the same time has its peculiar meaning. They are synonymous expressions. Perhaps this interpretation may appear Calvinistic, but it is not specifically so. We might adduce testimonies of the “Fathers”, but abstain from doing so, referring the reader only to a number of sentences in our Symbolical Books, which are certainly not infected by Calvinism.The Formula of Concord uses the three terms mentioned as synonymous. Thus [[p. 711. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:5]] (New Market Ed.) it says: “But the eternal election or predestination of God, that is, the ordaining of God unto salvation, does not pertain both to the good and to the bad, but only to the children of God, who were elected and ordained to eternal life, before the foundation of the world.” [[Page 712.: >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:9]] “And yet this eternal election or ordination of God to everlasting life…” [[Page 713.: >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:13]] “If we would reflect and discourse correctly and with advantage upon the [[@VolumePage:1,39]]eternal election or predestination and ordination of the children of God, to everlasting life, we should accustom ourselves, not to speculate upon the bare, hidden, secret, inscrutable foreknowledge of God, but to meditate on it in the manner in which the counsel, the purpose, and ordination of God, in Christ Jesus, who is the right and true book of life, are revealed unto us through the Word.” [[P. 715.: >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:27]] “But this is revealed unto us thus, as Paul, Rom. 8. 29-30., declares: ‘Whom He did predestinate’ elect and ordain, ‘them He also called’.” In all these passages the terms “to predestinate”, “to elect”, “to ordain to eternal life” are used as synonyms.But not only does the Formula of Concord use the terms mentioned as synonymous, but it also, looking to the peculiar meaning of the word “to ordain”, lays stress upon this, as showing that predestination and election is not an absolute decree, but such a decree as embraces all the means also, necessary to obtain the end. Hence it says [[p. 714.: >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:23]] “In this counsel, purpose and ordination, God has not only prepared salvation in general, but has mercifully considered also all and each person of the elect, who will ultimately be saved through Christ, has elected them to salvation, and decreed, that in the manner now mentioned”, in the eight preceding points, “He will, through His grace, gifts, and operation, bring them to this salvation, assist them in it, promote it, and strengthen and preserve them. All this, according to the Scripture, is comprehended in the doctrine concerning the eternal election of God to the adoption of children, and to everlasting salvation, and should be understood in this article; it ought never to be excluded or omitted, when we discourse of the purpose, predestination, election and ordination of God to salvation.”The eternal election of God is an ordination to eternal life, is a decree to bring the elect to salvation. Because God has decreed to do this in a certain manner, hence this decree is called an ordination to life. Therefore, furthermore, the elect children of God are described as being “ordained to eternal life.”3. This election and ordination is, as we have seen from our scriptural passage, the cause of faith in the elect. Calvinistic as this may sound, yet it is pure Lutheran doctrine, if what [[@VolumePage:1,40]]is Lutheran may be learnt from our confessions. Thus says the Formula of Concord [[p. 712.: >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:8]] “The eternal election of God not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect, but through His gracious will and good pleasure in Christ Jesus, is also the cause which procures, works, facilitates, and promotes our salvation and whatever pertains to it; and upon this our salvation is so firmly grounded that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’, Matth. 16. 18. For it is written: ‘Neither shall any pluck my sheep out of my hand’, John 10. 28. And again Acts 13. 48.: ‘And as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed’.” In the foregoing section we have two allegations and two arguments. The allegation: that upon the eternal election our salvation is so firmly grounded that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, is proved by Christ’s words: “Neither shall any pluck my sheep out of my hand.” The other allegation: that the eternal election is also a cause which procures, works, facilitates, and promotes our salvation and whatever pertains to it, is proved by our scriptural passage: “And as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.” It is evident, that our confessions teach the same that we have heretofore found: Election is the cause of faith, as it is in general also the cause which works our salvation and whatever pertains to it.4. Our adversaries, unwilling to admit that they deviate from our confessions, also confess that election is a cause of the faith, the perseverance, and the salvation of the elect; but they modify this confession. They hold that our confessions use the word “election” in a twofold sense. In the strict sense, they say, it is the ordination of certain persons to eternal life. In the wider sense, they assert, election or predestination “embraces first the ordination of means for the salvation of all; secondly, the ordination of those persons to eternal life in whom these means attain their purpose.” Election in the former sense, they admit to be the cause of the salvation of the elect, that is, election is a cause, because it is an ordination of means for the salvation of all, but not as an ordination of the persons to salvation.Although this distinction is unknown to our confessions as well as to Holy Writ, we will adopt it for argument’s sake. [[@VolumePage:1,41]]We allege election or the ordination of persons to be brought to eternal life, is the cause of their salvation and of their faith.St. Luke says: “As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.” The ordination to eternal life was the cause of their faith. Now does Luke speak of an ordination of means of salvation, or does he speak of the ordination of persons? Of persons, certainly. Then the Scriptures teach that which our adversaries reject as Calvinistic in our doctrine: Election, not of means, but of persons, God’s ordination of persons to eternal life is the cause of faith in the elect children of God.And this is also the doctrine of the Formula of Concord. On [[p. 711 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:5]] it defines election as the ordaining of God unto salvation, which ordaining pertains only to the children of God; hence it defines “election” as an ordination not of the means of salvation, but of persons to salvation. And on [[p. 712 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:8]] it says of this ordaining, pertaining to the children of God, that it is the cause which procures, works, facilitates, and promotes our salvation and whatever pertains to it. Thus fully assenting to the word: “In me is thine help.” (For the “Theological Monthly.”)Election in the narrow and wide senses.A distinction fraught with more confusion has never been made. It is said that our fathers and especially the framers of the Formula of Concord taught well because they distinguished well. True; and just therefore they never were guilty of distinguishing so badly. We would be sorry to see any traces of such a blundering distinction in the keystone of our confessions. The eleventh Article of the Formula of Concord has with the rest always been acknowledged a master-piece of clearness, of which praise it would be totally unworthy if traces of such a fruitless distinction, which had to be hunted as it were by the aid of a microscope, existed therein. For the distinction would thus not only be a blundering one in itself, but very badly made.But we need not fear for the honor of our confession. This unfortunate distinction is not there to be found. It [[@VolumePage:1,42]]indeed distinguishes between how we should not contemplate the mystery of God’s gracious election [[§ 9, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:9]] and how we should [[§§ 13—24, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:13-24]] but it is always the same election and in the same sense of which it, speaks. It speaks always in the same sense of the same election, of which it says that “it pertains only to the children of God who were elected and ordained to eternal life before the foundation of the world.” Those who think they find in it a distinction of any other kind, do violence to the text and context, and bring disgrace on its authors and on the Church whose confession it is.No unprejudiced mind can find the distinction claimed to exist in the confession, and no prejudice however strong is able to prove its existence. It is not there. But the interest in which both this distinction and the effort to foist it upon our confession have been made, is as plain as daylight. Our confession says that election is a cause of our salvation and everything pertaining thereto. It is the cause of our coming to faith—our conversion—in proof of which it cites Acts 13. 48.: “And as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.” It is the cause of our perseverance in faith, in proof of which it cites Matth. 16. 18., and John 10. 28.: “Neither shall any pluck them out of my hand.” Thus our confession teaches that faith and perseverance in faith flow out of the decree of election, and founds this doctrine on clear passages of Holy Writ. This is too clearly stated in our confession to be denied, [[§§ 8. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:8]] [[23. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:23]] [[40. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:40]] [[44. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:44]] [[45. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:45]]That election is a cause of persevering faith is the thing objected to, and in the interest of this objection the unfortunate distinction of election in the wide and narrow senses has been made. They insist that faith in the elect grasping the merits of Christ must have been present in God’s foreknowledge before the election of persons to salvation could take place. Faith is the mark by which God knew the elect, and which had to be there before He could elect them, and, therefore, faith can not flow out of the decree of election. But in this our confession is clearly against them. Its opponents must, however, in some way or other dodge its force, for they would not for the world have the keystone of Lutheran confessions against them. And here is the shift and dodge they [[@VolumePage:1,43]]have invented. They, indeed, say with the confession: Election is a cause of our salvation and of everything necessary to lead us thereto, but, they add, that is election in the wide sense. They indeed say with the confession: Election pertains only to the children of God who were elected and ordained to salvation before the foundation of the world, but, they add, that is election in the narrow sense.According to this distinction, then, the Formula of Concord teaches an election in the wide sense, which stands before faith, and an election in the narrow sense, which stands after faith in the order of cause and effect. From the one of these two little towers to the other, in which the opponents of our confession seek shelter from its direct statements, they have built a bridge by means of God’s foreknowledge. When they are in the one and the confession attacks them with the direct words of Holy Writ: “As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed”, they have already retreated into the other, exclaiming: “Election in the wide sense.” When they are attacked by the unequivocal words of the confession: “The election pertains only to the children of God” etc., they have already absconded and are back in the other tower, exclaiming: “Election in the narrow sense.” Those who can afford to use such ridiculous tactics, must pay the cost.Of course they will say: You do us injustice, and for their sake and for the sake of the Church we wish it were so. But let us hear them. They say: Election in the wide sense, of which the eleventh article of the Form. Con. speaks, includes election in the narrow sense, as Austria in the wide sense includes Austria in the narrow sense; and it is only on account of election in the narrow sense that election in the wide sense is called election, as Austria in the wide sense would not be Austria but for Austria in the narrow sense. Election in the wide sense, as they call it, they must in order to agree with our confession place before persevering faith as its cause. But now comes the confusion. They take out of that election of which the confession speaks as the cause of persevering faith that on account of which it is called election and without which it is no election, and place it after faith, denying its causative relation to faith. But what has become of that election of which the [[@VolumePage:1,44]]confession speaks as the cause of persevering faith? That without which it is no election at all, is taken away, and it is no more in the place where the confession put it. The opponents have needed a tower to shield them from the confession’s direct statement of truth, and that without which the confession has no election, has gone thither to be used as materials.But besides thus setting aside the clear intent and meaning of our confession by this bungling distinction it is also made against the confession’s express warning. In order to make this distinction, things which the confession says should never be separated are separated, and a thing which the confession excludes when contemplating the mystery of God’s election, is intruded. In [[§§ 13—24 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:13-24]] the eleventh article tells us what must always be taken together when we contemplate the eternal election of God, if we would speak rightly and fruitfully concerning it. After having said that we should neither contemplate it in the bare, hidden, and secrect foreknowledge (praescientia) [[§ 9, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:9]] nor in the bare and unsearchable decree of predestination [[§§ 10.>> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:10]] [[13, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:13]] it shows in what relations and inseparably connected with what truths it should be contemplated, namely: just as “the counsel, the purpose and ordination of God in Christ Jesus, who is the right and true book of life, are revealed unto us through the word. Therefore the whole doctrine concerning the purpose, the counsel, will and ordination of God belonging to our redemption, call, justification and salvation should be comprised together”: 1. The universal redemption through Christ who by His suffering and death merited for us justification before God and everlasting life; 2. The universal call through the word and sacraments; 3. conversion to God and the gift of faith through the effectual operation of the Holy Spirit in the means; 4. justification; 5. sanctification; 6. protection against the devil, the flesh and the world: 7. preservation in faith unto the end and consolation under all tribulations; 8. beatification and eternal glorification. All this must be comprised together when we think of the counsel, purpose and ordination of God, in which God has not only prepared salvation in general, as the counsel of God declares. The counsel of God is, that the saved shall be saved by pure grace, and the lost shall be lost by their own fault. In this election is already [[@VolumePage:1,45]]contained, inasmuch as what God by His grace does in time, He resolved in the eternal election to do. And because on account of the wickedness of men not all are saved, the elect are by God’s pure grace chosen from the world. But God has also in mercy considered each and every person of the elect who shall according to His unfailing purpose be saved through Christ. If God had not taken the conversion and perseverance in faith of the elect into His own hands, and had not purposed according to His own will to regenerate them, to give them faith and preserve them therein, not a soul would have been saved. In this purpose of God election is also contained, inasmuch as the purpose of God is attained in only a few, and in these not according to their will, but according to God’s will. But that it is not attained in the rest is not according to God’s will, but according to their own will. And God has also ordained that in the order now mentioned, or in the manner above stated, namely, by calling them through the word, by converting them by His Spirit and giving them faith through the means of universal grace, by justifying them, by sanctifying them, by protecting them against spiritual danger, by preserving them in faith under all trials and tribulations, and by glorifying them, He will through His grace, gifts, and operation bring the elect to this salvation, and do every thing necessary to their obtaining it. He ordained them to eternal life, i. e., decreed that He would bring them in the order of salvation for all men, and in none other, to eternal life.It is now easily seen what the opponents of our confession tear asunder. They take election in the narrow sense without which there is no election, out of the order and means of salvation, and make it stand aloof, as it were, until in the foreknowledge of God this order has accomplished its end, then it takes place in the form of a judgment, decreeing those who in the foreknowledge of God have persevered unto the end to salvation. They separate election from its order, leaving nothing but the latter stand in a causative relation to faith, and placing the former after faith. And this separation is made against the express warning of our confession [[§ 24. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:24]]By this separation they also separate God from the means of grace, leaving them to work as it were at random. For [[@VolumePage:1,46]]they say: We can not fully explain the fact that some and not all men believe; but they fully explain the fact that some are elected. Prof. Schuette’s tract, Quest. 20. We can only say: That some believe is entirely the work of God, that not all men believe is entirely their own fault, Quest. 21. Now if we believe God to stand in the same relation to His means of grace in eternity as He does in time, we must say: that some are elected is entirely the work of God, but that not all are saved is entirely their own fault, and as God in time did not work faith in foresight of faith, so in eternity He did not elect in foresight of faith. If the purpose of the work which takes place in time through the means of grace, does not lie in the eternal election of God, then God is separated from His means, and is nothing but a looker-on to see how they work, and then judging according to the result. This mystery which in Quest. 21. of Prof. Schuette’s tract is admitted to exist in time, must also be admitted in the eternal election. The cause that some are elected is only in God’s will, but that not all are saved is only in man’s will. Furthermore, leaving this road open back into all eternity, and not trying to bridge it over by God’s foreknowledge, is the only way to avoid Calvinism on the one hand and synergism on the other.In order to make the unhappy distinction of election in the wide and narrow senses they bring something into their contemplation of the decree of election which our confession expressly excludes, namely, the bare foreknowledge of God. The confession not only says, we should not contemplate the election of God in this bare foreknowledge [[§§ 9. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:9]] [[13., >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:13]] but also, that we should not draw any inferences or conclusions from it in any way affecting our contemplation of God’s election. [[§ 55. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:55]] In direct opposition to this warning they make a very liberal use of this bare foreknowledge of God. It is indeed the main thing in their election. On it they depend to vanquish Calvinism, which they think is raising its head anew in these latter times. With it in their hands they deem themselves endowed with the weapons of heroes of other days, and to yield it, they think, would be treasonable. But our confession says we should not contemplate election in this bare foreknowledge, and they have no other way of contemplating it, for this is to [[@VolumePage:1,47]]them election in the narrow sense without which there is no election at all. With this foreknowledge of God they fully explain how it is that only some are elected. They say God in His foreknowledge saw a mark in the elect by which they were pleasing to Him, namely, faith. And this is how it came that they were elected. They insist on this difference, the elect by the possession of faith being distinguished from the non-elect, and that it was thus present in the mind of God before He elected. Prof. Stellhorn in his tract: “The rule, according to which God was guided in the selection of persons, is the merit of Christ apprehended by faith; or, more briefly, but understood in the same way, the persevering faith in Christ. But this faith is not to be regarded as a good work, or as a meritorious cause of election, but only as the absolutely necessary hand to become partaker of the merit of Christ. Him in whom He foresaw this faith He elected; and only him He did not elect in whom He did not foresee this faith.” God’s election is particular because He foresaw a mark (persevering faith) in the elect, which was not found in the rest.The intuitu fidei as it is now held in the bare foreknowledge of God must be abandoned. The eternal election of God as taught in God’s word, as contained in our confession, which is particular and pertains only to the persons who are eventually saved—particular not because God saw anything in the elect, not even persevering faith, according to which He elected them, nor because God did not want to save all—must be confessed as the cause of the salvation of the elect and of everything necessary to their obtaining it.Literature.The Doctrine Concerning Election, presented in Questions and Answers from the Eleventh Article of the Formula of Concord of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. With a Preface and Conclusion by C. F. W. Walther. Translated by J. Humberger and published by the Ev. Lutheran Augustana Conference of Stark and other Counties of Ohio. St. Louis, Mo. Concordia Publishing House. 1881. Price: 15 cents.The controversy kept up so vigorously at present has already brought forth a whole literature of its own. On the side of our opponents especially quite a number of pamphlets have been published, in which our doctrine of [[@VolumePage:1,48]]predestination is attacked and stigmatized as Calvinistic leaven. We do not, of course, give public notice of any of them in this periodical, unless it be to refute them. The divine truth requires that we recommend to our readers only such writings as commend, promote, and defend this truth. One of the latter description is the tract named above, the second of Prof. Walther’s pen. It affords us great pleasure to announce its appearance in the English language. We also give thanks to God, that the translation has been authorized by a conference consisting of members who do not belong to our, that is the Missouri, Synod. This is a proof that the truth of the Word of God is acknowledged and set on a candlestick in other parts of the Church also. May God strengthen those faithful men to fight the good fight of faith to which they are appointed.The principal contents of the tract are the Eleventh Article of the Formula of Concord, analyzed by Prof. Walther in questions and answers. In this way a great help is offered to any one who desires to attain to a knowledge of the accurate and precise sense of this article. The unprejudiced reader can not but say, this eleventh article indeed confirms the doctrine of the Missouri Synod on predestination. Let our opponents but try once to set forth this article in its consecutive order in a catechetical form. They will not succeed in doing it in a manner showing the Formula of Concord to be confirmatory of their own doctrine. Should they, e. g., at § 5 put the question: “Does the eternal election of God pertain to all men, both to the good and to the bad?” they could not but answer: “It does; in a wider sense, it pertains to all men, but in the strict sense it pertains only to the children of God.” And when at § 8 the question is put: “Is election also the cause of the salvation of the elect?” the answer of our opponents can be no other than this: “It is, if election is taken in the wider sense; in the strict or proper sense, however, it is not the cause of salvation.” Our opponents, therefore, can not prove their doctrine by what the words of our confession say: they are forced to introduce diverse distinctions, paraphrases, accessories and the like, of which the Confession itself knows nothing. We are firmly convinced, that a simple-hearted Christian reading attentively the eleventh article will find in it that doctrine only which is really presented in it: the doctrine of the holy Scriptures, that our conversion, our faith, our Christian life, our final salvation are founded upon the gracious election of God; that God before the foundation of the world through His pure mercy and on account of Christ’s merits alone, decreed the salvation in time and eternity of those who are saved. This and no other is the doctrine which the Missouri Synod maintains and defends.Prof. Walther has provided his catechetical exposition with a preface and a conclusion. In the former he states the reasons why he did not present the doctrine of election in his own words; in the latter he gives some trustworthy advice how a Christian shall read and use the eleventh article of the Formula of Concord. It is our sincere desire that it should please God to cause many of those who speak the English language, to read this precious exposition with an ardent love of the divine truth, and with fervent prayer. They will thus through the grace of God be assisted in attaining the firm conviction that we are fighting for nothing but the truth of God, and principally for the great blessed truth that the honor of our salvation from its beginning to its end is all and only due to the Triune God. God help this truth to gain the victory. E. W. K. [[@VolumePage:1,49]]THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.Vol. 1. August 1881. No. 4.(For the “Theological Monthly”.)The Thirteen Theses.Our General Synod in session at Fort Wayne, Ind., from May 11., till 21. a. c., held itself bound by circumstances to give , forth a distinct declaration, as to the doctrine of election hitherto taught in the public writings of the Missouri Synod. As is known to every one who cares for the events in the American Lutheran Church, Prof. Schmidt of Madison, Wis., since the beginning of the year 1880 publicly charged our Synod, or at least the Western District and the theological faculty at St. Louis, with Calvinism. The editor of “Altes und Neues” found some allies not only in the Synodical Conference, but also within the limits of our own Synod. The Missouri Synod was thus denounced before the whole Christian Church for having fallen away from the true Lutheran doctrine concerning the article of predestination. Our adversaries outside of the Synodical Conference united, as was to be expected, in the concert begun, it being so sweet to them, pointing with illconcealed pleasure at “Missouri” as now finding disharmony within its own boundaries. Rev. H. C. Schwan, president of General Synod, called attention to this state of affairs in his presidential report, intimating at the same time to the delegates, whether they would not deem it their duty to make a public declaration concerning the doctrine of election as set forth in our publications. Synod discussed the president’s proposal, and soon came to the conclusion that the declaration suggested by the president should be given. In order to enable our readers to get an insight into the reasons by which Synod was led we [[@VolumePage:1,50]]quote some passages from the “Bericht ueber die Verhandlungen der Allgemeinen deutschen evang. luth. Synode von Missouri,” etc.“Our General Synod, it seems, cannot avoid explaining at this present session its position as Synod in respect to the contested doctrine of election; for it has the duty, which it cannot refuse, to advise the district-synods concerning the attitude they are to assume over against those who stigmatize and decry the doctrine set forth in our publications as false and heretical, impious and Calvinistic. Besides, it is high time, indeed, to check and ward off the ruin worked in our midst by the dissemination of the contrary doctrine. Our doctrine is no other than that of the Scriptures and our dear Lutheran church at the time of the Reformation and the Formula of Concord. This doctrine of our church we have professed at all times, and do the same unreservedly at the present day… We can not, and must not, suffer that even ministers within our own synodical connexion not only secretly, but publicly point at us as being Calvinistic corrupters of souls. It is necessary for us to put an end to this condition of affairs. It has become notorious that two radically different doctrines of predestination are now taught in the midst of us. This was shown to be the case at the time of the general conference of our ministers at Chicago, and it has not changed since. It is an unwonted thing with any one to see the like among us. Hence it is the general expectation that Synod at its present session will as such declare which of the two doctrines is to have sole authority within it. It is our duty, therefore, for many reasons, to make known to the Church and to the world without hesitancy, that this doctrine, and only this, is the doctrine of Synod, that we do not suffer any other among us. He who neither can nor will profess with us the doctrine professed by us, can not desire to belong to us, nor can we desire to belong to him… We are indeed to this day, as before, willing to continue conferring with such members of our Synod as acknowledge that in some part or other of the doctrine they have not as yet reached that clearness which a consent to all we teach requires, but we are not willing quietly to suffer being upbraided for Cryptocalvinism, and to be mute spectators when our congregations [[@VolumePage:1,51]]are disturbed, ruined, and destroyed by our opponents… Besides, this sort of our opponents ought long ago to have declared that they were no longer in connexion with our Synod. We are opposed to all and every kind of unionism. As we have at all times rejected and avoided each and every kind of union, though it were only an external one, with those who bore the name, but did not teach the doctrine of the Lutheran church, we shall through the grace of God continue to do so in future. We are not minded to renounce our principle. We have not sunk so deep as to declare that we are satisfied when our Confession is professed in general, though its sense in the one or other of its articles be differently understood. We must not be expected to defer action until our Confession as such be directly rejected, to do which, caution will prevent. Instead of this we may expect them doing as once the Cryptocalvinists did, who professing the Confessions of the Lutheran church like true Lutherans, appealing to the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, Luther’s Small Catechism, and other confessional writings, yet employed them in another meaning according to their own perverse acceptation of them. But what did the faithful Lutherans at that time say to such men? They said, Ye are not Lutherans, but enemies of the Lutheran church… We, too, do not hesitate to tell any one who teaches another doctrine among us, in spite of his appeal to the Confession of the Lutheran church, We do not belong the one to the other, we must, therefore, walk separate ways. In saying so we do not mean to declare our opponents to be heretics, or to condemn them. We abstain from doing this even over against Unionists or Reformed. The import of such words is only this. ‘We cannot walk together any longer. We should be unable even to pray one with the other. For we should in that case pray for your conversion. And you would pray to God to convert us. But such a union in prayer were, indeed, an abomination. If you cannot in conscience believe as we believe, it is not in our power to change such a state of things—for the gift of faith is in no man’s power—but what we can, and will, and must do, is this, that we tell you, Henceforth our ways are divided.’ . . As to our real and declared adversaries, they themselves ought to say to us, You can not, [[@VolumePage:1,52]]and must not, suffer us among you; if you do, your zeal for pure doctrine does not amount to much. Indeed, it were a unionism worse than any found in the unionistic churches. Though the latter teach doctrines differing greatly from each other, they nevertheless, truth being no object of earnest concern with them, mutually tolerate each other. They do not reject each other’s doctrine. They recognize each other as brethren in spite of all this difference. It is not so with us. As we condemn the doctrine of our opponents as being taught against the Word of God and our Confession, so they do the same respecting the doctrine we teach. We willingly suppose that our opponents do so erring in conscience. But this does not change the matter. A man erring in conscience is without doubt in an awful condition. If he acts according to conscience, he sins; for the teacher of false doctrine commits a most grievous sin. If he acts against conscience, he sins likewise: for the very reason that he acts against his own conviction. But this can and ought not to prevent us from doing what according to God’s Word it is our duty to do… Since voting had become necessary in this matter, a possible misunderstanding was obviated, as if it was to be decided among us by vote, which was the true doctrine and which the false— since this has been established long ago by the Word of God and in harmony with it by our Confessions. The vote, it was said, was only to be an act of our professing the true and pure doctrine, and to manifest who belonged to us, and who did not. It will then, besides, be apparent, whether there is but a small number of those who reject the doctrine presented in our publications, and who in consequence thereof would leave our house, or whether we who profess the true doctrine of predestination, are in the minority, in consequence of which we should then be obliged to remove from our former synodical house. To do this we were ready at once; for the pure doctrine is dearer to us than the whole property of Synod, and our faith is more precious to us than all earthly things.”Synod appointed a committee consisting of the presidents of the districts and the members of the theological faculties to propose a summary of the doctrine of election as taught in the publications of Synod. The members of the committee, after [[@VolumePage:1,53]]a thorough deliberation of the subject, submitted to Synod the 13 theses published in the “Lutheraner”, Vol. XXXVI, Nos. 2—9, stating at the same time the reasons why they abstained from framing new theses, viz.: 1st, because, according to their opinion, the 13 theses published in the “Lutheraner” contained a brief summary of all that had been hitherto publicly taught concerning election, and 2nd, because these theses were known already to all the delegates both from the ministry and laity. No lengthy discussion, therefore, as to the meaning of the theses would be necessary. The report of the committee was accepted, and as a discussion of the theses was not demanded by the lay-delegates it was resolved that the adoption or rejection of the theses should take place after Synod should have heard them once more in a continuous reading. To the question, how those would be looked upon that might perhaps not be in the situation to give a definite vote, the following explanation was given: “Should some members think themselves in conscience bound to suppose that there was something hidden in these theses which was not in harmony with the Word of God and the confessions of our Church, we spare such conscience, hoping that by means of needful information we could give them, and by diligent and prayerful searching on their part, they will, by the grace of God, soon be led into the right way. Far be it from us to urge such pious hearts to an immediate decision as long as they are in conflict with themselves. We are not minded to hurt those who can not conscientiously give their assent to all things. What we desire is only this, that two different doctrines of predestination be no longer taught among us in the same Synod. We, therefore, bear those who do not believe and teach the contrary of what we teach, who do not declare our doctrine to be false and Calvinistic, though they should think they were as yet unable to speak as we do. We consider no one to be a false teacher, only because he believes he must retain that presentation of doctrine which we find with the later dogmaticians. Again, we well may confer with those who say: ‘We sincerely acknowledge these thirteen theses, but you did not always, in teaching the doctrine of predestination, speak so circumspectly as here. There are expressions in other writings to which we [[@VolumePage:1,54]]must except. But we do not on this account call you Calvinists and Cryptocalvinists, nor do we approve of it that others do so. For it was nothing but the true and pure doctrine of predestination you had in mind.’ We do not take it ill if a person speaks thus. For we do not deny at all that, especially when this doctrine was not as yet contested among us, now and then expressions were made use of that should not have been used. But he who “offend not in word, the same is a perfect man.” Should any one, therefore, not be able as yet to give his assent to all we teach, he ought not to fear that we shall either tyrannize him or treat him with disrespect. On the contrary, we shall bear him in all love and patience, provided, he be free from “unionism.”When Synod had declared to be ready for vote, the following question was put:“Is the doctrine of election presented in our publications, as far as it is summarily comprehended in the thirteen theses now read, recognized by Synod as the doctrine of the holy Scriptures and the Lutheran confessions?”To this question Synod almost unanimously answered with “Aye”. Five members only declared by their “No” against the doctrine set forth in the theses.These theses read as follows: THESIS I.We believe, teach, and confess, that God loved the whole world from eternity, created all men unto salvation, no one unto damnation, and wills the salvation of all men; and we, therefore, reject and condemn the contrary Calvinistic doctrine with all our heart.THESIS II.We believe, teach, and confess, that the Son of God came into the world for all men, took away and atoned for the sins of all men, and perfectly redeemed all men, no one excepted; and we, therefore, reject and condemn the contrary Calvinistic doctrine with all our heart. [[@VolumePage:1,55]]THESIS III.We believe, teach, and confess, that God calls all men through the means of grace earnestly, that is, with the intention that through them they should come to repentance and to faith, be preserved also in faith unto the end and, thus, finally be saved, to which end God offers to them, through the means of grace, the salvation purchased by Christ’s satisfaction, and the power to apprehend it in faith; and we, therefore, reject and condemn the contrary Calvinistic doctrine with all our heart.THESIS IV.We believe, teach, and confess, that no man is lost because it was not God’s will to save him, because God had passed by him with his grace, and had not also offered to him the grace of constancy, and it was not his will to give this grace to him; but that all men who are lost, are lost by their own fault, namely, on account of their unbelief and because they pertinaciously resist the word and grace unto the end, of which “contempt of the word the cause is not God’s predestination (vel praescientia vel praedestinatio), but man’s perverse will, which rejects or perverts the means and instrument of the Holy Ghost which God offers to him through the call, and resists the Holy Ghost who wants to be efficacious and work through the Word; as Christ says: How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not, Matth. 23. 37.” ([[Art. XI. of the Formula of Concord, Part II, p. 713. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:41]]) We, therefore, reject and condemn the contrary Calvinistic doctrine with all our heart.THESIS V.We believe, teach, and confess, that the subject of election of grace or of predestination are only the true believers, who truly believe unto the end of their life or, at least, at their end; we, therefore, reject and condemn the Huberian error, that election is not particular, but universal and refers to all men.THESIS VI.We believe, teach, and confess, that the divine decree of election is unchangeable and that, therefore, no elect can become a reprobate and be lost, but that every elect one is surely [[@VolumePage:1,56]]saved; and we, therefore, reject and condemn the contrary Huberian error with all our heart.THESIS VII.We believe, teach, and confess, that it is foolish and dangerous for the soul, that it leads either to carnal security or to despair, if one will become, or be, sure of his gracious election or his future eternal salvation by means of searching the eternal, divine, secret decree, and we reject and condemn the contrary doctrine as a pernicious, enthusiastic error with all our heart.THESIS VIII.We believe, teach, and confess, that a believing Christian shall seek to become certain of his election out of God’s revealed will; and we, therefore, reject and condemn with all our heart the contrary papistical, erroneous doctrine, that one can become and be certain of his election or salvation only by a new immediate revelation.THESIS IX.We believe, teach, and confess: 1st, that the election of grace does not consist in a mere divine foreknowing of which men are saved; 2nd, that election of grace is also not the mere purpose of God to redeem and save men, so as to be a universal one and to pertain to all men in common; 3d, that election of grace does not concern those believing for a time only (Luke 8. 13.); 4th, that election of grace is not a mere decree of God to save all those who would believe unto the end. We, therefore, reject and condemn the contrary erroneous doctrines of the Rationalists, Huberians and Arminians with all our heart.THESIS X.We believe, teach, and confess, that the cause which moved God to elect the elect, is only his grace and the merit of Jesus Christ, and not anything good foreseen by God in the elect, not even faith foreseen by God in them; and we, therefore, reject and condemn the contrary erroneous doctrines of the Pelagians, Semipelagians, and Synergists, as errors which are blasphemous and horrible, and which subvert the Gospel and, by consequence, the whole Christian religion. [[@VolumePage:1,57]]THESIS XI.We believe, teach, and confess, that election of grace is not the mere divine foresight or foreknowledge of the salvation of the elect, but even a cause of their salvation and of all that which pertains to it, and we, therefore, reject and condemn the contrary doctrines of the Arminians, Socinians, and all Synergists, with all our heart.THESIS XII.We believe, teach, and confess, that “God has yet kept secret, and concealed, and reserved to his wisdom and knowledge alone, much of this mystery” of election, which no man can or shall search out, and we, therefore, reject it, if any undertake to inquire curiously into what is not revealed, and to reconcile with their reason what seems contradictory to our reason, whether this is done by Calvinistic, or by Pelagian-synergistic human doctrines.THESIS XIII.We believe, teach, and confess, that it is not useless, or even dangerous, but that it is necessary and salutary, publicly to set forth to the Christian people, also, the mysterious doctrine concerning election of grace, as far as it is clearly revealed in God’s Word, and we, therefore, do not side with those, who hold that this doctrine should either be kept entirely secret, or, at most, only be discussed among the learned.The opponents, however, maintained that they could accept the theses also. But, according to their understanding of the XI. Article of the Formula of Concord, they would take some of them in a sense different from that in which they were taken by Synod. In answer to this the remark was made: “We take these 13 theses in no other sense than the words give. Whoever really accepts these theses as they read agrees with us in faith. We confess that a summary of all we believe concerning God’s eternal election is laid down in these theses. In saying so we declare at the same time that we acknowledge nothing as our doctrine which is not in harmony with these [[@VolumePage:1,58]]theses, though it should be found even in our publications.” What the opponents meant by their “different sense” in which they would take some theses, is sufficiently apparent. They would treat some theses in the same way they do our confession. The word “election” is taken by them in a narrow and wide sense ad libitum. If e. g. our confession says concerning election [[(§ 5), >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:5]] that it extends only to the children of God who were elected and ordained to life eternal, before the foundation of the world: election is taken in the “narrow sense”. But if a few clauses later [[(§8) >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:8]] eternal election is called a cause of our salvation and everything pertaining to it, the word election is, according to our opponents, used at once in a “wider sense”. We are convinced—and so are all that read our confession without being prejudiced by the misinterpretation now afloat—that our confession speaks of election always in the same sense, viz., of that election which “does not pertain both to the good and to the bad, but only to the children of God” ([[§ 5 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:5]]). If the authors of our confession in the paragraph soon following ([[§8 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:8]]) (where election is said to be a cause of our salvation) had used the word election in a wider, that is, in an other sense, they undoubtedly would have said so. But as we find not the least indications for a change in the meaning of the word, we always take it in the same sense, in our confession, and—in the 13 theses. F. P.(For the “Theological Monthly.”)What is Calvinism?This is a question at the present time of the greatest importance in our dear Lutheran Church. For out of confusion as to the spirit and essence of this heresy has arisen the imputation that the doctrine of our honored Formula of Concord is Calvinistic, and that those who defend the clear and unadulterated meaning of our confession teach doctrines which are specifically Calvinistic. Men have come to think that if election in foresight of faith is not allowed as the doctrine of our confession, or if it cannot be brought into harmony with it, then our confession inevitably teaches Calvinism. If intuitu fidei [[@VolumePage:1,59]]is not allowed as the key not to open, but to close, the XI. Art. of the Form, of Con., then Calvinism is the result, and whoever will not permit the precious truths of our confession to be thus locked up and stored away from use, is now decried as a Calvinist, for the simple reason that he will not admit this philosophical key of intuitu fidei. This infatuation is most clearly apparent in Prof. Stellhorn’s tract on Predestination. In the following passage his great trouble is easily seen to be this and nothing more, namely, that we will not admit his intuitu fidei: “But the reason that God now in reality ordained or elected just this and that one, and not others, can be Christ’s merit only then if God took into consideration whether this merit was apprehended and retained in faith or not. He who does not believe and teach this, as the St. Louis men certainly do not, cannot truthfully say that God in the selection of persons or in predestination in the narrow sense was guided by the merit of Christ. For if God would or could have been guided by the merit of Christ without taking into consideration whether this merit had been apprehended and retained in faith or not, then He could have elected all men without exception; and if He had not done so, then the cause thereof would have to be found in His will alone. For then He would have failed to elect all men only because He would not, although He could. Then, notwithstanding all His sweet promises that He would gladly save all men, He would have arranged it so through His predestination that only the smallest number could be saved. And this He would have done although He could have easily done otherwise, if He had only wished. The ultimate and real reason that the majority of men are not saved, would accordingly then after all be found in God alone, who could just as easily have saved them as the others if He had but so desired. Thus the Calvinists teach openly.” From this it is clear what the Professor is fighting for, namely, his key of intuitu fidei, and also in what infatuation he is thus fighting, namely, the fear of Calvinism. This alone, not to say anything of other signs of most fatal confusion, as e. g. to speak of the merit of Christ as the guide of predestination, is an obtuseness unworthy a professor of theology. [[@VolumePage:1,60]]What is Calvinism as to its essence and spirit? It is a cold philosophical speculation, and contains two phases: 1st, God foreknows all things; 2nd, God foreknows all things because He has foreordained or predestinated all things, the good and the bad, together with their results. Hence the double decree of election and reprobation, which Calvin himself calls decretum horrendum. Hence also the figment that Christ was sent and died only for the elect, and that the call is meant in good earnest only to the elect, and the figments of irresistible grace and of the difference between the faith of the elect and of those who believe for a time only. It is a horrible pillar of darkness erected by human speculation, which is not even rendered tolerable to look upon by the divine words of promise, which its advocates have attached to and suspended about its outer surface. These, casting their light upon it, only make it appear more horrible.What was the weapon with which our confession opposed this wicked heresy? If intuitu fidei, as it is now taught, is the only weapon wherewith it is possible to overcome Calvinism, if Calvinism, according to Prof. Stellhorn’s infatuation, is the inevitable result as soon as this intuitu fidei is not taught, then our confession is either vanquished or a coward; for it makes no use at all of this only slayer of Calvinism. Is it possible that so important a weapon cannot be plainly seen in the hands of our confession? No; if it were there it could be seen. For it is not the manner of our confession to make so cowardly a use of a weapon so important as this is now represented to be. Its weapons are all bright and glaring in the light of divine truth. They reflect the light and bear the force of divine inspiration, and for this reason the confession had no use for such an idle speculation.Prof. Stellhorn, in his tract, makes a desperate effort to foist his favorite intuitu fidei upon our confession. But how distressing it is to see our beloved confession under the abuse of his ruthless hands! Why is he not honest enough to say with Quenstedt, that he has a better way to speak of the eternal election of God? It would save him a great deal of useless trouble; for our confession is a document that will not be so abused. Because he is not so frank as the fathers who [[@VolumePage:1,61]]admitted the divergence of this doctrine from the confession, who never once quoted the confession in defense of it, and because his heroic boldness has led him into independent hardihood, he has undertaken to prove an impossibility, namely, that the doctrine of election in foresight of persevering faith is contained in the XI. Art. of our honored Form. of Con.Let us see how he endeavors to do this. He first sets up the proposition he intends to prove, and after he is through with the argument he adds his favorite intuitu fidei to his proposition by a most glaring petitio principii. At the bottom of page 19 of his tract we find the proposition he intends to prove: “Or do they (the confessions) on the contrary teach with us and our fathers, that it is the fault of men alone that all have not been elected? Hear them yourself!” Then he proceeds to prove this proposition which none of the defenders of our confession have ever denied, but which they have even positively asserted. (See Dr. Walther in Chicago, Prot. p. 61 f.) He draws his arguments from [[§§ 13—24 of Art. XI, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:13-24]] and then sums up what he thinks he has proven: first, that election must be taken in a narrow and wide sense; secondly, that the lost are lost by their own fault, which we will permit him to take in the sense of his original proposition, namely, that it is the fault of men alone that not all have been elected. On the first, to wit, the distinction of election in the narrow and wide sense, he evidently thinks, the second, which is his main proposition, must stand. And thirdly, he comes in a kind of clandestine manner with his pet to hide it under the wings of his original proposition, and says, as though this were the proposition he was all along proving: “The sense here is manifestly again (?) the following: In the selection of persons God has been guided by faith or unbelief foreseen by Him.” Here is confusion worse confounded, in which our confession is torn into shreds, and man’s work and God’s work are placed side by side. Faith and unbelief are contemplated as having the same cause. If unbelief is the result of man’s choice, then faith must also be the same; or if faith is the result of God’s election, God’s choice, then unbelief must also be the same, or else how could he dream of the conclusion that, since the lost are lost by their own fault, therefore God has elected, according [[@VolumePage:1,62]]to persevering faith foreseen in the elect?—How could he take the position that if this is not admitted, if we make election the cause of faith, then we also make God the cause of the unbelief of the lost?Of course our confession teaches that it is God’s earnest will to save all men, and that those who are lost are lost by their own fault. No person ever denied this. It is this doctrine so clearly revealed in God’s Word which our confession opposed to Calvinism, and on account of which it made the distinction between God’s foreknowledge (praescientia) and God’s eternal election, or predestination. God foreknows all men and all things, the good and the evil, but He does not cause or will the evil. With the good it is different, for that must proceed from Him. ([[§79. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:79]]) So He does not only foresee the salvation of the elect, but His election and eternal purpose “is the cause which procures, works, facilitates, and promotes our salvation and whatever pertains to it; and upon this our salvation is so firmly grounded that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. For it is written: ‘Neither shall any pluck my sheep out of my hand.’ And again: ‘As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.’” Election is represented as the eternal purpose of God to do that which, by the grace of God and ordinary means, really takes place in the case of the elect. Instead, therefore, of standing aloof until in the foreknowledge of God the means of grace have of themselves wrought out a result, and then judging according to this result, it begins before faith, being the will of God, working faith through the means. For the election is an act of God’s gracious will and not of judgment, and it is God’s gracious will and not man’s will, God’s gracious choice and not man’s choice, that works faith in those who are saved, although unbelief is a work of man’s own perverted will and choice. For God in His counsel, purpose, and ordination has, indeed, not only prepared salvation in general, including also the means, and then left men to choose for themselves. In this way not a soul would have been saved. But He has also mercifully considered each and every person of the elect who will ultimately be saved through Christ, has elected them to salvation, and has decreed that in the manner now mentioned, to wit, by calling them [[@VolumePage:1,63]]through the Word (point 2), by converting them by His spirit and giving them faith through the means of universal grace (point 3), by justifying them through faith (point 4), by sanctifying them (point 5), by protecting them against spiritual danger (point 6), by preserving them in the faith under all trials and tribulations (point 7), and by glorifying them (point 8), He will through His grace, gifts and operation bring them to this salvation, assist them in it, promote it, and strengthen and preserve them. This is the doctrine of election which our confession opposed to Calvinism, and it is a doctrine with which intuitu fidei cannot stand in harmony. Say that election took place in foresight of faith, and thus deny its causative relation to faith, and you must immediately strike from our confession [[§§ 8, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:8]] [[23, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:23]] [[45, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:45]] [[48, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:48]] [[75, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:75]] [[76, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:76]] [[87, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:87]] [[88, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:88]] in short, the whole doctrine of our confession. It is a key whereby the doctrine of our confession would be locked up and stored away from use. This desire and persistent effort to shove into the back ground the doctrine of our confession concerning the eternal election of God—is it not a sign that the real meaning of our confession is considered Calvinistic? This sentence, that the eternal election of God is the cause of persevering faith, which is so often repeated and always implied in our confession, without which our confession is as meaningless, we might almost say, as the Bible would be without Christ, is the Calvinism feared by the opponents of the confession, and simply because it will not take their newly invented Calvinism slayer into its hand.It, indeed, belongs to Calvinism to teach that God does not earnestly desire to save all men, that it is His fault that not all are saved. But how did the Calvinists arrive at this doctrine, from the decree of election or that of reprobation? Undoubtedly from the latter. Because God had created and predestinated the greater number of men to damnation, therefore He could not desire to save them. How do the opponents of our confession arrive at the Calvinism which they impute to us? Alone from the decree of election, for we, or our confession, never even so much as intimated a decree of reprobation any more than that all wickedness of men lies under the just judgment of God. It is a rationalistic conclusion drawn [[@VolumePage:1,64]]from our doctrine, that men are brought to and preserved in faith according to God’s will and election alone, and not in any degree whatever according to their own will or choice. From this they conclude: Then the cause lies in God if not all are saved. The same way they might rationalize against the doctrine of the Trinity. We teach that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Our reason says, then there are three Gods. No, but you answer, the Word of God teaches us that God is one. And so do we answer to the conclusion drawn from the scriptural and confessional doctrine of election, the Word of God teaches us that the lost are lost by their own fault, and not because God does not earnestly desire to save them. Thus we take captive our reason to the obedience of faith.And what is gained by the human speculation of intuitu fideif Is it really such an effectual Calvinism slayer as it is now represented to be? Let us see what it does in avoiding the result which the opponents of our confession fear so much. They insist in all their writings and persistent efforts to defend their theory, that God foresaw a mark of distinction (persevering faith) in the elect, and this is how it came that only they and not all were elected. They also teach, must teach, in order to avoid synergism, that God’s grace alone is the cause of persevering faith (this mark of distinction); from this it follows God’s grace is the cause that only a few and not all are elected. But this is the Calvinism so much dreaded by them. If any one thinks that this result is avoided by the fact that God’s grace does not work irresistibly in producing faith, he simply reveals his synergism by expressing it. For he must then think that the resistibility of grace in producing faith means that faith is dependent on man’s choice. No other meaning of the word will help him. Thus this Calvinism slayer falls shattered and dangling to the ground, and, what is worse, they are on the ground of the enemy and must retreat unto the ground of the Word of God and our confession. They have advanced, thinking they had something better, as Quenstedt said, but now, when the effort is made to put that better way into the place of our confession, they must learn that it was a mere delusion. They have advanced with human speculation against human [[@VolumePage:1,65]]speculation unto the ground of human speculation, from which they must retreat into the impregnable fort of our confession and the Word of God, and lay aside their intuitu fidei for the sword of the Spirit:[[“O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself, >> Hos 13.9]]But in me is thy help.” C. J. O.(For the “Theological Monthly.”)“New Tract.”Under this heading the “Lutheran Standard” of June 18th announced to its readers the issue of a small pamphlet in German and English on predestination by Prof. Schuette, of Columbus, O. The body of the tract which is prefaced and followed by an epilogue, consists of forty two questions and answers. “Scriptural passages are added to nearly all the answers.”The announcement signed by Dr. Schodde, stated that “the work is not polemical, but simply an objective statement of the two positions.” We have no doubt, however, that all who have read the little tract, will agree with us when we say, that both the preface and the epilogue contained in the tract, breathe a warlike spirit against us Missourians, that, in fact, all three, the preface, the body of the tract, and the epilogue, work together with all their might to wage war against us. The Lutheran “doctrine of predestination” which “has been promulgated within the Synod of Missouri,” is called a “new doctrine,” and we, “its advocates,” are said to “have made diligent use of every means at our disposal to secure for it a permanent place, if possible, throughout the Lutheran church.” We are accused of having “assured” the writer of the pamphlet that “the great Dogmaticians of our Church” “and the people of the Church have taught a false and very dangerous doctrine,” and of being of the opinion that the fathers’ doctrine stands in need of correction. When we see what Prof. Schuette is not able to see, it is termed a “new gift of special sight.” It is maintained that “at the Joint Synod of Missouri, convening in May last, at Fort Wayne, Ind.,” “the doctrine of [[@VolumePage:1,66]]the fathers and of the Church” was “assigned to the lowest abyss in hell.” God’s mercy is even invoked upon us in this manner: “But may God have mercy upon people who deem themselves no longer in need of the apostolic admonition: Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall! 1 Cor. 10. 12.” The Lutheran doctrine, hitherto held by us and all faithful Lutherans, “that a Christian can and shall become infallibly certain that he belongs to” the number of the elect, is rejected “as contrary to all Scripture and as godless.” We must declare that these facts force us to stop thinking.The announcement also stated that in the pamphlet “especial attention is drawn to the difference between the doctrine as taught by our church to this day and the theory that is now seeking to supplant it.” By the help of God we shall now endeavor to show that a good deal of what is designated by Dr. Schodde as the doctrine taught by our church to this day, is, in reality, not the doctrine of our church, but a theory without any foundation in the Scriptures or the confessions of our church, and what is stigmatized by him as a “theory,” is nothing else but the pure doctrine of God’s 'Word and the confessions of our dear Ev. Lutheran church.1. Prof. Schuette accuses us, in the epilogue, of rejecting the truth that faith is “of no particular grace, but of grace universal the work and gift of God;” of “maintaining,” “in opposition” to this doctrine, that “faith flows from election;” of having the “notion” that “the reason why the elect come to faith is not because God will have all men to be saved and to that end has given the means of grace, but because God is to have especially ordained them unto faith so that they shall and must believe as sure as God is God.” We challenge Prof. Schuette to produce the words (not his ratiocinations) in which we have ever said or written in our publications that faith is “of particular grace,” or not “of universal grace, the work and gift of God,” or in which we have ever maintained that faith flows from election “in opposition” to the doctrine that faith is of universal grace, not of particular grace the work and gift of God, or in which we have ever said that “the reason why the elect come to faith is not because God will have all men to be saved and to that end has given the means [[@VolumePage:1,67]]of grace.” Those words will be looked for by Prof. Schuette in vain, because they are nowhere to be found.At the meeting of the Missouri Western District Synod, in the year 1877, predestination was the main subject for discussion; but in the report of that meeting we read the following: “The doctrine of our church concerning the universality of God’s grace is founded on bright and clear passages of the Holy Scriptures, which shine in them like suns. These passages every Christian ought to know by heart and know where they stand, in order that he may be enabled forthwith to hold them up to himself in the hours of affliction, and also to oppose them to those who deny the universality of God’s grace and still maintain that they in so doing follow the Bible.” Then eleven passages of Scripture follow with their orthodox explanations. Among these passages we find 1 Tim. 2. 4—6.: “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” [This verse is quoted against us by Prof. Schuette under answer to question No. 10, to prove that faith is of universal grace the work and gift of God, and, according to the epilogue, that God gives the means of grace to save all men.] “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.” Synod’s explanation attached to this, is as follows: “Hence God will not only have all men to be saved, but He will also have them all to come unto the knowledge of the truth. He, accordingly, wills not only the object (in view), but also the means. There are Reformed who concede that God in eternity had, so to say, nothing against all men being saved and so far accept this passage, but assert that He has not given the means of salvation to all men. But here it expressly stands: ‘and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.’… Then the words also follow: ‘to be testified in due time.’ Hence, God will also call all through the Gospel. This passage alone overthrows at once the doctrine of the Calvinists, that the grace of God does not extend to all men, but only to the elect.” (Pp. 87. 88.)Among those Scripture passages, on the universality of God’s grace, which the synodical report says “every Christian ought to know by heart and know where they stand,” we also [[@VolumePage:1,68]]find Rom. 11. 32.: “For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all.” Synod’s explanation runs thus: “This is also a passage which, as Luther says, is a real cardial for all poor sinners. When God looked down upon humanity after the fall, He, according to this passage, found all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all. O unspeakable comfort! For thus it is said: As certain as thou art that thou hast heretofore been unbelieving, so certain thou canst now also be that God will have mercy upon thee; for as far as the number of unbelievers extends according to our passage, so far also the number of those extends upon whom He will have mercy. Thus no man needs to despair of his salvation; for a man cannot get any further than to say: I do not believe. Well, saith God to such a one, if thou acknowledgest with terror that thou art yet unbelieving, thou art just the right person for me; for then thou knowest that I will save thee. Therefore believe and thou art helped.” (Pp. 88. 89.)Prof. Schuette says, we maintain that faith flows from election, in opposition to the doctrine that faith is of grace universal the work and gift of God. As far as we are able to see, the only meaning these words can convey, is that because the Missourians say faith flows from election they must necessarily maintain that it flows from particular grace.—But we ask: Is election, according to the Scriptures, as much as particular grace? Would Prof. Schuette who says he believes in election, according to question No. 1, ever admit that he therefore believes in particular grace? We dare say No. Then, he himself teaches that “God has elected to faith” “upon a certain supposition” and “upon a certain condition.” From this we might conclude, although we ourselves do not admit the premises, that the professor himself believes faith to flow from election and therefore to be of particular grace the work and gift of God upon a certain supposition and upon a certain condition. Thus he has badly confounded the ideas of “election” and “particular grace.”We Missourians do, however, teach that the faith of the elect flows from election. We do this in accordance with the Formula of Concord, which says: “God’s eternal election is [[@VolumePage:1,69]]a cause which procures, works, facilitates, and promotes our salvation and whatever pertains to it.” It will be admitted that faith pertains to our salvation. Hence we conclude that election is a cause of our faith also. And this we, again, do in accordance with the Formula of Concord which, as a direct proof of this conclusion, quotes the divine Word: “Acts 13. 48.: ‘And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.’” Faith, then, being the effect of election, it flows from it as from its cause, as it also flows from universal grace and God’s Word.Lassenius writes: “It is not contrary to the analogy of faith to say that it flows from election to salvation that the elect believe.” (82 Trostreden, p. 158. 159,)We firmly believe and solemnly declare that the only reasons and causes of the whole decree of election are the mercy of God which extends to all men, and the most holy merit of Christ which was acquired for all men, as the Formula of Concord says, thas God’s election of grace is a cause of our salvation and what pertains thereto, “through God’s gracious will and good pleasure in Christ.” When Prof. Schuette says that “according to our notion the reason why the elect come to faith is because God is to have especially ordained them unto faith, so that they shall and must believe as sure as God is God,” we say, this ought not to be called a notion of ours. It is the Holy Spirit’s most consolatory doctrine which our fathers have laid down in the Lutheran confession. The elect are really brought to faith by God, in consequence of His especial eternal decree. What God has decreed will surely take place, as sure as God is God. Or, where did the professor get his notion from that God is ordaining something and then not carrying it into effect? What God does in time He in eternity decreed to do in time. This is an axiom. He brings the elect to faith in time, hence, He in eternity decreed to bring them to faith in time. We, therefore, read in the Formula of Concord: “Before the world began, God decreed and ordained in His counsel, that He Himself by the power of His Holy Spirit through the Word would effect and work in us (the elect) all that belongs to our conversion. Thus this doctrine also affords the eminent and [[@VolumePage:1,70]]precious consolation, that God took so deep an interest in the conversion, righteousness, and salvation of each Christian, and so faithfully provided for these, that before the foundation of the world, in His counsel and purpose, He ordained the manner in which He would bring me to salvation and preserve me therein.” ([[11th Article, Declaration. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:44-45]])How glaring, therefore, the contradiction when Professor Schuette declares in the pamphlet: “Surely a doctrine without scriptural foundation and void of all comfort.” Poor man, he does not know the Scriptures nor the Lutheran confession on this point. Though a Christian be ever so comfortless, though he be ever so highly afflicted as to feel himself in the pit of hell, just show him how wonderfully God has dealt with him all his life time, how God has powerfully called him, enlightened him, justified and sanctified him, and thus far preserved him from all evil under the cross; show him that he is therefore a child of God, his heavenly Father, and an heir of eternal life; show him that he consequently belongs to the number of the elect whom God will surely save eternally, and he will be highly comforted. As soon as a person becomes certain of his election, no cross is too great for him; for he knows from God’s Word by faith that God will once glorify him, according to Rom. 8. 28—39.Thus, on these points, we Missourians possess the pure doctrine of God’s Word and the Lutheran confession, and Prof. Schuette’s charge is without foundation.2. Prof. Schuette accuses us, in the epilogue, of rejecting the doctrine that “faith in Christ Jesus directed God in His selection of the persons to be ordained unto salvation.” This accusation is, thanks be to God, not without foundation. We do reject that abominable doctrine. We teach instead that the “rule”, according to which God elected, is nothing else but “the mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ,” in accordance with the Formula of Concord, which says: “The following doctrine is, therefore, false and erroneous” (the [[Epitome >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:20-21]] says: “blasphemous and horrible”), “namely, that not only the mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ are the cause, but that in us also” (the Latin copy has: “something in us”) “there is a cause of God’s election, on [[@VolumePage:1,71]]account of which God elected us to eternal life.” ([[11th Article, Declaration. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:88]]) At the Chicago Conference Dr. Walther said to Prof. Stellhorn: “You declare: ‘It was said to us that what we call an election is no election at all,’ and then you want to prove that it is an election nevertheless, by saying: ‘It belongs to election that God was directed by a rule.’ To this I make this remark: No one can deny that God acted according to a rule. God does not act arbitrarily. But in His word He has revealed nothing to us but that He was directed by His mercy and the most holy merit of Christ. Whoever, therefore, foists in another rule besides, him we show from us. For then it is a rule which a creature would prescribe for Him, and that no creature shall venture to do. Hence, what you say does not hit the mark at all; it is no decision; nor is it a proof against the arguments which have been set against you.” (Verhandlungen &c., p. 66.)Prof. Schuette says: “They (the Missourians) say instead that the rule according to which God is to have selected a few sinners from among others to ordain them to faith and salvation is ‘a godly and blessed mystery’! Though there is nothing said of such a mystery in the divine word yet are we asked to receive and adore it. This we cannot do.” Where the words referred to by the tract are to be found in the Missouri publications the writer of this article does not know. As the literature on the predestination question is at present greatly increasing, we think it but fair for our opponents to cite book and page for what they accuse us of, as we are in the habit of doing over against them. If they cannot or will not tell us in future where our words can be found, they need not wonder if we take no notice of their accusations. Perhaps the professor means something like the following. Dr. Walther said at the Chicago Conference: “The mystery of election is moreover this, as the theologians named (namely Chemnitz, Andreae, Kirchner, the authors of the Apology of the Formula of Concord) always say: When the question is why God does not work equally in all men, why God gave repentance and faith to Peter, but not to Judas, why so few come to faith, and millions not, whilst God is able to give faith to all: there it must be said: ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom [[@VolumePage:1,72]]and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out’! But our dear Brethren will not admit that; for Prof. Stellhorn says expressly: Faith is the explanatory ground.” (Verhandlungen &c., p. 93.) Of course, all this is no mystery to Prof. Schuette; for in his opinion God gives faith to all those who are so far better than others as to be able to suffer themselves to be brought to faith, as will be seen in No. 3. This, indeed, solves the mystery, but in a manner detrimental and pernicious to the salvation of the soul. Cf. [[Form, of Conc., § 57—60. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:57-60]]Prof. Schuette adds: “We simply hold fast to the Word written: He that believeth, shall be saved; he that believeth not, shall be damned.” By so saying he sufficiently proves that he has no election at all, as the idea of an election is lacking altogether in that Word. God has indeed decreed and promised to save those who believe, but is that an election? “He that believeth, shall be saved,” this divine Word Professor Schuette simply changes into his own assertion: He that believeth, shall be elected. Whence did he obtain the right to put “shall be elected” in the place of “shall be saved”? If he is allowed to exchange one word for any other he chooses, we are allowed to do the same thing. We may, then, instead of “shall be saved” put in, e. g., “shall be called,” or “shall be converted.” We thus obtain the doctrine, that in all cases the call and conversion of men are depending on the foresight of persevering faith; that he that believeth not, shall neither be called, nor converted; or that those who do not persevere in faith had never obtained true faith. From whence it would follow, either that God does not will at all to call and convert any one of those whom He foresaw that they would not permit Him to bring them to faith, or that all those who believe for a time only do not truly believe. Thus we should in both cases have reached Calvinism directly on the very way pointed out to us by the theory of our opponents. Indeed, such must be the results of forsaking the old hermeneutical rule, that the articles of faith must be taken from, and judged by, those passages in which they are presented as revealed truths. He also says: “We maintain” (without proof) “that as God is in time so He was already governed by this His own Word in [[@VolumePage:1,73]]eternity.” But we can only infer from this, since God in time saves by faith only, He decreed from eternity that the elect should be saved by faith only.Thus Prof. Schuette with his “theory” is outside of the word and outside of the Lutheran confession, and we who believe that God was moved to election solely by His mercy and the merit of Christ, stand on the word and on the Lutheran confession. That cannot be gainsaid.3. Prof. Schuette accuses us of rejecting the words: “whom He has foreseen” and “of whom he foreknows,” when it is said that God “has ordained to sonship and salvation all those persons of whom He has foreseen that they will finally believe in Christ Jesus,” or, that God “has resolved to give faith and, by faith, salvation to all those sinners of whom He foreknows that they will not maliciously and persistently oppose His gracious will.” We reply: The phrases “whom He has foreseen” and “of whom He foreknows,” in the above sentences, are in themselves orthodox, and we let them pass as such. We hope, Prof. Schuette does not believe that we think God elected men without foreknowing; and foreseeing them. Yet, when those phrases are used in a synergistic sense, we reject them. And in that sense they are here used in the tract. Therefore we reject them here.But what is synergism? Synergism is when it is taught that man is able, negatively or positively, to co-operate with God in being converted or brought to faith, for instance, when it is taught that man can allow, permit, or suffer himself to be brought to faith. This power is ascribed to man before his conversion in question No. 20 of the “work” before us. It is there asked: “How, then, do you explain the fact that some, and not all men, believe? Ans.: I cannot fully explain this. I can only say that while the few suffer themselves to be brought to faith, the most of men wickedly refuse to accept the gift of faith.” The passages added are Acts 13. 46. and [[@VolumePage:1,74]][[48.: >> Acts 13.48]] “Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles… And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” The first part of the answer is by no means proved by the Scripture passages; but the second passage proves that the elect, as we maintain, are brought to faith by God, in consequence of their being ordained thereto from eternity. The Holy Ghost here ascribes the fault of the Jews’ not believing to themselves, but the Gentiles believe because they were ordained or elected. Not a word is said in those passages about the Gentiles suffering themselves to be brought to faith.It is very important what the Formula of Concord says on this matter. “The one party held and taught … that he (man) still retains so much natural power, prior to regeneration, that he can in some measure prepare himself for grace and give his consent (das Jawort), though weakly… In opposition to both these parties” (the “Synergists” and “Enthusiasts”), “the pure teachers of the Augsburg Confession have taught and contended, that… he (man) does not approach God of himself, but remains an enemy to Him until he is converted, is made a believer, is regenerated, and renewed by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the preaching and hearing [[@VolumePage:1,75]]of the word, out of pure grace, without any co-operation on his part… If then in holy Paul and other regenerated persons the natural or carnal free will, even after regeneration, resists the law of God, much more will it, previous to regeneration, be rebellious and inimical to the law and will of God. From this it is manifest (as we have more fully shown in the article concerning original sin, to which for the sake of brevity we refer) that free will by its own natural powers not only cannot effect or co-operate in effecting anything in respect to its own conversion, righteousness, and salvation, or obey the Holy Spirit who offers to it the grace of God and salvation through the Gospel, believe or give assent (das Jawort dazu geben, that is, say Yes); but in consequence of its connate, evil, contumacious nature, it also, in a hostile manner, resists God and His will, unless it is enlightened and governed by God’s Spirit. Wherefore the Holy Scriptures compare the heart of unregenerate man to a hard stone which yields not to him who touches it, but resists, and to a rude block, and to a wild, untamed animal, not in the sense that man after the fall is no longer a rational creature, or is converted to God without hearing and meditating upon the divine word, or is unable to understand or voluntarily to do or omit good or evil in external, civil matters. For, as Dr. Luther says in the 91st Psalm, in civil and external affairs which pertain to our support and physical wants, man is ingenious, rational, and very active, but in spiritual and divine matters which concern the salvation of the soul, man is like a pillar of salt” (Query: Is in one pillar of salt before others the power of suffering itself to be made alive?), “like Lot’s wife, yea, like a log of wood and like stone, like a dead statue which makes no use of eyes, mouth, senses, or heart; since man neither sees nor acknowledges the severe, fierce wrath of God against sin and death, but continually keeps on in his security knowingly and willingly, and thus comes into a thousand dangers, and, finally, into eternal death and damnation. No beseeching, no entreating, no admonishing, not even threatening or chiding, is of any avail, yea, all teaching and preaching is lost on him before he is enlightened, converted and regenerated by the Holy Spirit.” ([[Art. II., Declaration. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:20]]) Thus, man is spiritually powerless as [[@VolumePage:1,76]]well as an enemy of God before he is enlightened or brought to faith. The Holy Spirit alone enlightens him, that is, brings, him to faith, by the word of the Gospel. In opposition to the Lutheran confession, Prof. Schuette maintains that, before faith, a few suffer themselves to be brought to faith, and thus, though weakly, say: Yes, we are ready to believe. Hence, he ascribes a power to the natural, unenlightened, unconverted man which he has not. Our confession, in speaking of “mere passive se habere,” (to be in a state of mere passiveness), or “voluntas nihil confert sed patitur, ut Deus in ipsa operetur,” (will contributes nothing, but suffers God’s working in it), only denotes the absence of all powers man may exert in favor of his conversion. God’s Word expressly says, 1 Cor. 2. 14.: “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”“A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” The one synergistic error has badly infected the whole pamphlet before us. The separate questions and answers are, in fact, in such a manner modified by question No. 20 and its answer, as to leave no real election for the pamphlet to speak about. While we do not solve the mystery of election at all, because God has not solved it for us in His Word, the tract endeavors to solve it synergistically by ascribing to natural man the exertion of a small strength in view of which God elects him. The professor’s doctrine obviously is that God was directed in His selection of the few by the foreknown and foreseen fact that they would have so much freewill, before conversion is wrought in them, as not to “maliciously oppose God’s gracious will,” but to “suffer themselves to be brought to faith.” Whatever he therefore says of an election to sonship or to faith in his tract, it is all ambiguity. The Formula of Concord says: “Not only, before we had done anything good, but also before we were born, He elected us in Christ, yea, before the foundation of the world and that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth it was said unto him, The elder shall serve the younger, as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Rom 9, 11. &c. Gen. 25. Mal. 1.” ([[11th Art., Decl. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:88]]) [[@VolumePage:1,77]]Where, then, is “the theory that is now seeking to supplant the true doctrine of our Lutheran Church in this point?” It is evidently and manifestly contained in Prof. Schuette’s tract itself. And on whose side is the old loyalty to God’s Word and the Lutheran confession to be found in these latter times? It is on our side; for we know and have proved above that we are loyal to those standards of truth. We refrain here from saying to Prof. Schuette, as he did to Rev. Kaehler in the “Columbus Theological Magazine”: “O, for shame! Tell me, my poor friend,” &c. (To be concluded.)Literature.Church Liturgy for Evangelical Lutheran Congregations of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. Published by the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio and other States. Translated from the German. St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House. 1881. Price $1.25.It affords us great pleasure to inform our readers that part of our Agenda translated into English has left the press, and is now ready for distribution. The many inquiries and orders we received respecting this translation have shown the great need that is felt for such a work. It was at first intended to translate only our small pocket-agenda. But we were soon led to consider it preferable to publish our entire liturgy in English. Our ministers find the occasions for holding service in English constantly increasing. The extract contained in that small work is insufficient in such cases. Besides, it appears to be our duty to aid in spreading a knowledge of the rich treasures of our Lutheran church among those in our country who are unacquainted with the German. We ought not to hold these treasures for our own benefit only. We must make provision for those of our children who are losing the German language, no less than for those who retain it. A good liturgy, the beautiful Lutheran service form part of those treasures. Church usages, excepting the case when confession of a divine truth is required, are indeed adiaphora. But they are nevertheless not without an import of their own. Congregations that adopt the church usages of the sects that surround them, will be apt to conform to their doctrines also, more easily and quickly than those that retain their Lutheran ceremonies. We should in Lutheran services, also when held in the English language, as much as possible use the old Lutheran forms, though they be said to be antiquated and not suiting this country. We will mention here the words of a pious Lutheran duchess, Elisabeth Magdalena of Bruuswick-Luneburg. Her court-chaplain Prunner relates as follows: “Although her ladyship well knew that the ceremonies and purposes of this chapter (at which Prunner officiated) must have the appearance and repute of popery with some people, she still remembered the instructions which that dear and venerable man, Luther, had once given to her father concerning such ceremonies. I remember in particular that her ladyship several times [[@VolumePage:1,78]]told me that she did not desire at these present times to commence discontinuing any of those church usages, since she hoped that so long as such ceremonies continued, Calvinistic temerity would be held back from the public office of the church.” The book now published embraces the smaller of the two parts of which the German liturgy consists. It contains, however, all that may be regarded as least dispensable. It is published separately, because it was thought advisable not to hold those any longer in suspense who have been anxiously waiting for such a work.The contents of this part are as follows: A. Sacred Ministerial Acts: Baptism of Infants, Attestation of Baptism etc., Baptism of Adults, Confirmation, Solemnization of Marriage, The Communion of the Sick. B. Order of Divine Service: Morning Service, Afternoon and Week Day Service, Catechetical Instruction, Short Service without Preaching, Service for Confession, Early Communion, Burial, Day of Prayer and Repentance. C. Appendix. Antiphonies and Collects.The second part will contain all the Antiphonies, Collects, Prayers, and the Formula for Ordination. G.Sermons On Predestination, with a Few Remarks on the “Eight Points” appended. By F. Kuegele, Pastor of the Coiner Ev. Luth. Congregation, Virginia. Baltimore: H. Stuerken, Bookseller, No. 282 N. Gay Str. 1881. pp. 32. To be had at the “Concordia Publishing House” also.In these sermons a gift of great intrinsic value is offered to the Church. A grateful acknowledgment of the satisfaction afforded by these sermons will be the consequence of their perusal. Everything presented in them is seen to be the fruit of a thorough and earnest meditation, and is set forth in plain, clear, and concise language. To give them to the public the author says, he was influenced in the first place by the reason “that thereby a fair opportunity might be given to the author’s own congregation to try them by the Confessions of the Church”. There can be no doubt that any one still uncertain as to the correct understanding of the doctrine treated in them will derive no small benefit from his subjecting these sermons to the trial recommended. The author’s second reason was “that in this time of perplexity and uncertainty they might be a public testimony of the author’s faith. They contain the doctrine which the author was taught when a student, and which, when it came into controversy, he again thoroughly proved by the Scriptures and the Confessions”. This testimony of faith cannot but strengthen and increase in faith and knowledge all those who stand on the same foundation of the divine revelations, and induce them to give joyful thanks unto God who graciously continues to raise faithful and able witnesses to the glory of His grace in order to confute and put down those pernicious errors which are undermining the eminent and precious consolation revealed uuto us in the gospel of Christ our only Savior. The pamphlet contains four sermons. In the first the text of which is Hos. 13. 9.: “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in Me is thy help”, the Calvinistic and the Lutheran doctrine as to the cause of salvation, and the cause of damnation, are clearly and distinctly set forth and judged by the Scriptures. In the second, which is founded on Rom. 9.16.; “So then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy”, the Lutheran and the Synergist doctrine on the question [[@VolumePage:1,79]]whether the cause of salvation is in God or in man, are presented and led before the tribunal of the Scriptures. The third sermon, on Eph. 1. 3—12., presents 1, the foundation, 2, the nature, 3, the object of the eternal election and predestination of God. The fourth, founded on Rom. 8. 28—32., shows the wrong and the right application of the doctrine of election. The Remarks on the eight points stated in [[§§ 15—22 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:15-22]] of the Formula of Concord, which are appended to the sermons, show the relation those points have to the doctrine which is set forth as the Confession of the Lutheran church. We are convinced that no reader of this pamphlet who is earnestly minded to give his assent only to what is evidently true and correct, will repent of having been induced to examine this witness.General Religious Intelligence.The Roman Catholics have a church on the site of old Carthage.In Thirty-seven Years the Church of England has erected 2581 churches and expended on church buildings $200,000,000.The Commission appointed to prepare a new creed for the Congregational churches will meet at Syracuse, N. Y., September 27.The French Methodist Conference has 166 chapels, 29 ministers and 1775 members.Of The 129 Yale graduates of this year only five think of entering the ministry.The Average Salary Of Ministers laboring with home missionary churches in Massachusetts is $680, with the help of the Massachusetts Home Missionary Society; without that help it is only $412.59.Makrakis, the leader of a new sect already numbering thousands of adherents in Greece, has been condemned to a long term of imprisonment, apparently because dangerous to the State, but really because dangerous to the established church.The Friends appear to be still slowly decreasing. In 1871 the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting had 6000 members; now it has 5650. In 1871 the New England Yearly Meeting had 95 ministers, and 4403 members; there has been in ten years a gain of 17 ministers, 12 elders, and a loss of 4 members.King John of Abyssinia told Rohlfs he was anxious to have artisans come to his country to introduce the advantages of European civilization, but he wanted no missionaries of any kind. In the first place because Protestants and Catholics are opposed to each other elsewhere, and would cause division in Abyssinia. Besides, his people were Christians already. “Why should missionaries come to us? Why don’t they convert the Egyptians and the Turks before they come to us?”American Bible Society.—At the stated meeting of the board of managers of the American Bible Society, July 8th, appropriations to the amount of $6000 were made, including $3000 of the Russian Bible Society for work in Sibiria; $500 to the Valparaiso Society, and $1000 to the Waldensian church, Italy. Grants of books to the value of $13,400 were made to auxiliaries, churches and societies. These benevolent grants are made for work in 28 different states or territories. The receipts for June were $33,391; scriptures issued, 107,285 volumes. Alph. [[@VolumePage:1,80]]American Church Music.—It is universally acknowledged that as far as the composition and execution of good first class musical composition is concerned, Americans do not stand at the head of the profession. The other day, the celebrated musical director Wagner, of Bayreuth, Germany, on selling an inferior composition to an American, for a very high price, made the remark, “Well, never mind, it’s good enough for the Americans”. This remark, very little flattering the musical taste of our countrymen in general, would have been still more appropriate with reference to American church music. In this line, excepting some Lutheran churches, and such of the Episcopal churches where the “hymns of Luther”, as they are termed in Bishop McIlvayne’s Parish and Family Sermons, are still in favor, almost everything seems to be “good enough for the Americans”. Occasionally visiting such churches where specifically American church music is employed, you can not fail to notice how monotonous it is. In many instances the musical sentences repeat themselves much oftener than those of the text. If you know one of those “beautiful river”, “golden lyre”, “golden gate”, “Come to Jesus” songs, all the rest will soon be so familiar to your ear, as if they had been your lullabies. Moreover the character of that class of music we now have reference to, is by no means so dignified and sublime as to deserve to be called good church music. On the contrary, the majority of American church tunes resemble, or, to say the least, put us in mind of the musical outpourings of a merry schoolboy, they being almost wholly destitute of that dignity and sublimity, duly sought for in tunes which are to express Christian peace and joy, as wrought by God, the Holy Spirit. In a word, the greater part of American church tunes are trivial in the extreme. And then just visit a fashionable church where such music prevails. Generally the choir will first arise and not sing, but rather “perform” some difficult opera tune, with some vague dramatic-operatic would-be religious poetry for a text. Next comes a prelude, very often not selected from Bach or H?ndel, but from some operatic work, which may just then chance to be “all the go”. After that the choir, very often consisting of paid opera artists, will sing one of those aforesaid tunes, and the congregation will get up and — listen, or, to use an every-day phrase, “take in the performance”, with the same ease, indifference and non-chalance, as if they were attending a concert. The more fashionable the church, the more unfashionable it is considered to join in the singing. Perhaps some few will take their hymn-books, believing themselves to be doing some extra opus operatum by reading the hymn, while still fewer will make a faint attempt at joining in the praises of the Lord, “singing so feebly that the people at their elbows do not know they are singing”! —What a contrast to that “sonorous and resonant congregational singing” which St. John gives us an idea of when he says: “I heard a great voice, as the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Hallelujah! for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.” That this part of divine service, as generally held in our country, is not what it ought to be, is acknowledged, at least now and then, even by men of great fame and high authority. Augustus. Corrigenda:On page 47 add the initials C. J. O. at the end of th article. [[@VolumePage:1,81]]THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.Vol. 1. September 1881. No. 5.(For the “Theological Monthly.”)Is Election a Judicial Act?Those who hold to the “intuitu fidei” in the sense of the new departure as advocated by the “Columbus Theological Magazine,” which follows in the wake of “Altes und Neues,” which has the honor of bringing upon us this present controversy, filling hearts which once beat with glad hopes at the prospects of our American Lutheran Zion with sorrow and sadness, have involved themselves in the piteous predicament of casting up all kinds of wrotten wood, hay, and stubble, consisting of the refuse rejected and condemned by our Evangelical Lutheran Church in her confessions, and by her orthodox teachers during and since the glorious Reformation. In their efforts to right themselves in this dilemma, they find themselves immediately confronted at every point by the vital doctrine of Christianity, which they cannot harmonize with their false theory. Either human speculation and syllogistic reasoning, or the plain doctrine of the clear Word of God must be abandoned. Preferring the former, they can no longer hold consistently to the old Lutheran fundamental doctrine, that the cause of the eternal election of God’s children to everlasting life, is alone the mercy of God and the merits of Christ. The introduction of another cause in addition to this, overthrows this foundation of our salvation, as it does not permit the mercy of God and the merits of Christ to stand as the only cause of election.Their theory cannot, if correctly and sincerely examined, but resolve itself into a judicial act of God’s will; which some [[@VolumePage:1,82]]of them already have the boldness to proclaim, as though they were anxious for the laurels to be plucked on their new voyage of speculation. By this judicial act, it is held, God judges certain ones worthy of eternal life, and by thus judging the individual, He elects them on account of their own worthiness. To make this worthiness in man the original cause and source of election, entirely does away with the mercy of God and the merits of Christ, according to Rom. 11. 5-6.: “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more of grace.” So the mercy of God and the merits of Christ as the only original moving cause of election, is not only not required in their theory, but is directly opposed to it.Their utterances continually ring with ideas hovering around and based upon this worthiness in man, as the grand criterion which is to determine his fate under the vindictive justice of an offended God. Thus we read in the “Columbus Theol. Magazine,” p. 145: “This election was made indeed before the foundation of the world, Because God from eternity foreknew who would believe in Christ and who would not, and in this view, the decree of predestination is also executed in Christ at the proper time.” This “Col. Theol. Magazine” makes election a judicial act of God’s will, because it teaches that “faith is the cause of election,” that “the divine foreknowledge is the proximate and immediate directing principle and norm of election,” p. 7, “a man’s election depends upon his faith; faith is a normative factor in the decree of election; election takes place intuitu fidei, in consequence of, or on the [[@VolumePage:1,83]]ground of, foreseen faith, or of the foreseen conduct of man,” p. 190. The whole force of this teaching is, that after God offers to the poor sinner the faith once delivered to the saints, He does not elect them until they accept this faith and hold it fast to the end of life. This acceptance and faith they also pretend to teach, are the gifts of God. Indeed, they pretend to concede that God alone takes us out of this evil world and brings us to our everlasting rest in heaven. But they do not allow all this as constituting the gracious act of His eternal election. Yet what is election and what becomes of it, if it is not to choose men out of this ungodly world in order to clothe them with the glorious garments of the just made perfect in the church triumphant? We shall see.Election is to them a word of thunder. It rumbles with the mutterings of the mount which is wrapt with clouds of thickest darkness, pregnant with flames of lire and vomiting forth lightning. There is no grace in it, no mercy. It is the sentence of a judge who looks for the good and the worthy to reward them for their works. They teach that God elects those only who are already really the elect, namely, those who accept the faith which God offers and conduct themselves properly unto the end of this life; that God does not elect them until they have continued faithful through life. To say that these were already elected of God this side of the grave, is to them the folly of self-security and presumption. Therefore they teach that the doctrine is both erroneous and dangerous, that a man can be infallibly certain while here in the flesh that he is elected unto eternal life. To say that a person is elected before he is born from the foundation of the world, is the language of the Scriptures, and on this account must be employed, while they reject the only and simple sense these words convey. Election is to them really a judicial act, to be completed on the day of the final judgment. All this forcibly implies that the source and cause of election must be sought in unregenerate man. To deny this ever so often does not mend the matter, so long as they continue to teach and defend this very doctrine under the cover of the above declarations. And all their clang and clatter of words, their glittering rhetoric and pedantic boasting with which they have adorned [[@VolumePage:1,84]]these utterances, are but a sure sign of the most dangerous delusion.They have the very same old forms of expression made use of by the old Synergists in defending their false doctrine that man co-operated in his conversion and salvation: against which doctrine and forms of expression our orthodox theologians always protested. But as the “Columbus Theol. Magazine” has been so very boastful in flirting these old rags of Synergism and Pelagianism, and capping them with the bold and extravagant assertion, that this was the unanimous doctrine of the Lutheran Church and her greatest theologians for three hundred years, it will be well for us to see what these great theologians do say in regard to these very same expressions. In 1596, A. Hunnius, L. Hutter and the entire Theol. Faculty of Wittenberg write thus: “When in the treatment and article of election faith is considered, it is not meant that God has elected us on account of faith as on account of merit, or that we are elected by God on this account, because He foresaw from eternity that we would believe in Christ, and thus show ourselves worthy of the grace and election of God; but this is the true meaning of the sound doctrine of faith, that God from eternity ordained true faith in Christ as the only saving means and instrument, through which we should grasp and appropriate to ourselves the precious merits of Christ the Lord.” (Concil. Wit. I. f. 569.) Again the same write: “Afterwards he (Huber) accuses us as though we interpreted the words of St. Paul (2 Thess. 2.) so that when the Apostle says: ‘God hath chosen you through belief of the truth,’ that this must have this sense, that God has elected us on account of faith. This again is a manufactured, false accusation; as it is impossible for Dr. Huber to show, that we ever, in our books or otherwise, should have said, that God elected us On Account Of Faith.”—”(Our) Book of Visitation rejects the doctrine, when it is taught, that we are elected on account of faith, as of a virtue or merit, which we at the same time condemn as a Pelagian fanaticism.” 589. 609. Again the same: “Even faith itself originally proceeds from the eternal election of God, and not from us, but is wrought in us alone by the power of God.” 616. [[@VolumePage:1,85]]John Gerhard also writes: “We do not say that faith is a meritorious or effective cause of election, or that God has elected us on account of faith. (Loc. de elect. § 170.) Again: “We do not say that predestination has its origin from the foresight of faith, but that the foresight of faith belongs to the decree of election; between these propositions there is a vast difference; the first expresses the meritorious or moving cause; the latter only denotes the order.” (Loc. de elect. § 175.) Again: “We confess with loud voice, that we hold, that God found nothing good in man to elect him to eternal life, that he had regard neither to good works nor to the freedom of the will, yea, not even to faith itself, so that He was moved thereby, or on account of it elected any one.” (Loc. de elect. § 161.)Quenstedt writes: “It agrees with the Word, that the cause why some believe, is not in man but in God, who grants them faith according to His good pleasure.” (III. c. 2. q. 4. p. 40.) Again he says: “We are not elected on account of faith, but through faith and in the same.” (III. c. 2. q. 4. p. 30.)L. Hutter: “We willingly concede, that neither faith, nor the foreknowledge of faith is a cause of our election. And surely not faith, because it in itself and through itself, so far as it is a virtue, a habitus or a quality, adds nothing to our election or to our justification, and in this case it is entirely of the same nature as the works or merits of men. But we likewise concede, that also the foresight of faith, properly speaking, is no cause of our election, in as much as it has already in general been proven above in the treatment of the matter, that the foresight, as also the foreknowledge, is not the cause of any thing previously seen or previously known, but merely includes in it the knowledge of all things previously known.” (Lib. Concord, explic. Ed. 3. p. 101.)Calov: “For we are not called the elect on account of faith, but through faith in Christ.” (Sys. 1. th. Tom. 628. sqq.)Seb. Schmidt: “In the predestinated man there is just as little a cause of predestination, as in the reprobated; it comes rather from the mere divine order, which is based upon the [[@VolumePage:1,86]]general grace and merits of Christ, in as much as in accordance with its very nature it excludes every cause on the part of man.” (Aphorismi th. p. 295.) Again: “Undoubtedly this predestination of God has taken place out of pure grace; without any merit of works, it matters not whether they have been performed by natural or supernatural powers; also without any regard to these works, yea, even without any regard to faith.” (Aph. th. Disp. 34. § 14. 17. p. 294.)Gerhard, quoting Augustin approvingly, says: “That God has elected believers, but in order that they may be, not because they were already such, and that men do not believe in order to be elected, but rather were elected that they may believe,” and ch. 19: “Not because we have believed, but in order that we may believe, He elects us, so that it be not said of us, that we first elected him.” (Loc. elect. § 166.)Selneccer: “Therefore, foreseen faith can not be the cause of eternal election, faith being, as it were, the consequence and effect of election, born in us in time, and in time it shall also cease, when we die. If foreseen faith would be called the cause of election, the false delusion of our foreseen worthiness and merit not only of faith, as of our nature, but also of our other good works could captivate our minds.” (In omnes ep. D. Pauli ap. Commentarius, fol. 213.)These are certainly among the greatest theologians and dogmaticians of our Church since the Reformation, not to quote extensively from Luther, who says in his [[preface to the Epistle of Paul to the Romans: >> logosres:lw35;ref=VolumePage.V_35,_p_378;off=-447]]”In the 9th, 10th, and 11th chapters he (Paul) teaches concerning the eternal election of God, from whence it originally flows, who shall believe or who shall not believe, who can be delivered from sin or not; so that it be entirely taken out of our hands and placed in the hands of God alone, that we become pious. And this is also necessary in the highest degree. For we are so weak and uncertain, that if it would rest with us, of course not a single man would be saved, the devil would certainly overpower them all. But now as God is certain that His election shall not fail, nor be prevented by any one, we still have hope against sin;” and from Urbanus Rhegius, who remarks in his work, “Formulae caute et citra scandalum loquendi,” 1710. p. 36: [[@VolumePage:1,87]]”Hence it is certain, whoever is elected does not always what he pleases, but is converted, and afterwards also does what God desires; whoever does evil can and shall be condemned, if he perseveres in wickedness. Just as God has elected Peter, Paul, and us other Christians to salvation, so He has also before ordained and predestinated their conversion, their Christian walk, repentance, and good works, in which they must walk and prove their call and faith, Eph. 2.;” and from Chemnitz in his Enchiridion: “For the election of God does not follow our faith and justification, but precedes it as the effective cause.” In fact, find one who has clung to the intuitu fidei in the sense of its present advocates, and it can be shown that his orthodoxy has been questioned, and was never looked upon as authority in our Church.From these quotations we can easily learn what confidence the editor of the “Col. Theol. M.” deserves, when he sets up the following sweeping assertions which he has frequently been requested to prove, but has never made the attempt; and from which any one can see that his assertions are proven to be nothing else but pure fabrications. They read thus: “For three hundred years there has, by the admission of all parties, been in the Lutheran Church an established doctrine, which the Missouri Synod is now striving to displace. It is taught with one consent by all the prominent writers of the Church throughout that period. There was no other in vogue that claimed the Lutheran name. That is the doctrine which we maintain and defend.” (Col. Theol. M. No. I, p. 3.) On same page: “Before we can be expected to believe that the Lutheran Church ever had any other doctrine than that which her great teachers set forth since the time of the Formula of Concord, it must be shown from the works of her representative men in that earlier period what that doctrine was and that there was some unanimity in teaching it. Not only has this not been done, but it will hardly be claimed that it can be done.” Et caetera.If they meant by their expressions nothing more than that faith is a part pertaining to the decree of election, and consequently belongs to the carrying out of this decree, there could be no objection. But they mean vastly more than this. They [[@VolumePage:1,88]]mean just what, as we have shown in the above quotations, our greatest theologians have rejected and condemned as Synergism. They believe that God elects man “on account of, on the ground of, in consequence of, in reference to the conduct of man.” For so they interpret the phrase, “in view of faith foreseen,” and make faith the moving and original cause of election. Human language can not more plainly express it. And as a result of this doctrine we find them trailing in the footsteps of their notorious leader, the editor of “Altes und Neues,” making election a judicial act. For they follow him so implicitly and are so taken up with his leadership, as though this doctrine was already made out as an article of faith, binding the consciences of men, that they have already circulated it among our congregations in his theses as given in the “Lutheran Standard” of July the 9th, as the official organ of Joint Synod, which very plainly advocates and defends his position in its communications. We there read in the second thesis given at the late session of the Norwegian Synod at Spring Grove, Minn., that: “Election is an action of the consequent or judicial will of God, according to which He will bring to life eternal only those individual persons that remain steadfast unto death, and no others.” So we read also in the March number of “Altes und Neues,” p. 78: “The act of the last judgment is consequently no action of God’s grace, and election to eternal life on the last day is therefore no election of grace. This election to eternal life is no election of grace, but a sentence of judgment.” The theory that God elects us on account of our faith necessarily resolves itself finally into the doctrine that election is a judicial act, to be consummated not even at the end of this life, but on the last judgment. We simply ask: What has judgment to do with the elect? The Scriptures say that election is of grace, and not of justice. “Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.” 2 Tim. 1. 9. “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the beloved.” [[@VolumePage:1,89]]Eph. 1. 5-6. Where is here or anywhere else in holy Scripture a word said of election being a judicial act, or of justice being the norm of election?According to this rank Synergism, it is not the mercy of God which is the original source of election, which moved God’s will to the act of election, but it was His righteousness or justice that did this, which demands a certain worthiness in man before God can elect him. Thus the worthiness of man, his faith, conduct, and good works, moved and influenced divine righteousness, which in its turn caused the will to act judicially, in electing certain ones to eternal life. This, however, is not “damaging to the revealed doctrine of God and His attributes!” No, not in the least! That is, when a man appeals to his conscience, and then don’t care a whit what he says. Their sweet harmony of the divine attributes demands that election must be a judicial act. The mercy of God is no longer the eternal fountain out of which alone election and salvation flows. According to their theory correctly and consistently set forth, there is, in short, no mercy in God. It is a mere name. Or if there is any such a thing as mercy, it is nothing but a servant, tyrannized over by righteousness. It seems that according to their notion of righteousness it can be as inconsistent as anything can be, and the divine harmony still goes on all right. It was righteousness influenced by man’s “good works”—”we mean no sarcasm; but in the interest of truth we must state things as they are, though they look like daggers,”—which moved, dictated, tyranized and set mercy to the work she was to perform on man’s behalf! It was righteousness which dictated the means she was to employ. And all this because one man’s conduct was better than another’s. With their hay and stubble with which they beat the air, they can never extricate themselves from this dilemma. Flirting the dirty rags of Pelagianism, will not do it. Nor will the presumption be of any relief, that the omniscience or foreknowledge of God is of such a nature that a professor of mental and moral science can understand it so thoroughly (St. Paul to the contrary notwithstanding, Rom. 11. 33—36.) that he is able to measure its depth, to lay down the principles and rules for its direction, that it is a mere norm (“normative [[@VolumePage:1,90]]Factor”) or rule by which God was directed in His judicial will (not His merciful will, that was in bondage), when He elected His children to eternal life.Now this never was the doctrine of the Lutheran Church, nor of her great teachers, nor of our Synod, nor of our seminary at Columbus, at least in former years. The foreknowledge of God pertains to both the good and the evil, but is not in the least the cause of the one or of the other. It does not necessarily determine the fate of men, as they would have it; for as foreknowledge is not an act of the divine will, the future is not determined by it. For thus we read in Schmid’s Dogmatics, which formed the basis of Prof. Lehmann’s lectures in the seminary at Columbus, Part III, Ch. I, Obs. II: “The fact, whether past or future, does not depend upon knowledge, but knowledge upon the fact, and it was rightly said by Origen, yet we judge by common consent concerning foreknowledge, not that anything will happen because God knows that it will, but that, because it will happen, God already knows it.” Chemnitz, L. c. I. 162. “That same divine foreknowledge or foresight does not depend upon any divine decree (it does not consist in such decree), nor does it of itself impose any necessity upon things foreseen, nor remove their contingency, although in itself it is certain and infallible.” Quen. I, 539. Hence it is absolutely false when it is stated that this is the old doctrine of our Synod and Seminary, as at present inculcated by the above mentioned periodicals, that election is a judicial act brought about by the directing, normative factor of foreknowledge pointing to faith and good works, or the conduct of man. We never heard of any other doctrine while at Columbus, than that the foreknowledge of God determines nothing in regard to election one way or the other, and that the mercy of God and the merits of Christ were the only cause of election. True, we do not deny, but hold at all times that God foresaw the faith He would give to the elect, as well as the unbelief of the reprobate, but this foresight did not determine Him to elect any one. This new addition to foreknowledge we reject.In as much as the mercy of God cannot transgress beyond the bounds of righteousness, it satisfied the demands of [[@VolumePage:1,91]]righteousness, according to God’s eternal decree, in order to reach us; and it did reach us in Christ, who put away sin for us and offered to the whole world a valid righteousness. Hence we say that the only source or cause of eternal election is the love or mercy of God and the merits of Christ. So far forth as divine righteousness had anything to do in influencing the divine will to elect man to salvation, we find that just the opposite is the nature of this attribute. For how can righteousness be pleased with unrighteousness? And none are righteous, not one. Righteousness is like a piercing flame of light and burns like a consuming fire. It sounds dolefully inharmonious to the guilty. It demands that which is right, is just, and comes to inflict a penalty and to demand the life and blood of the rebel man. For guilt will stain the throne of glory until vengeance is taken on the traitor. At the demands of righteousness, omnipotence comes forth like a lion from the swellings of Jordan, raises his thundering arm, wields aloft his iron rod and advances toward the rebel. Righteousness cries out: “Strike! Strike the rebel dead, and remove the reproach from the throne of heaven.” And no conduct of man or any effort on his part, in or outside of the state of grace, will ever suffice to ward off the dreadful strokes of omnipotence. For by this doctrine you rob Christ of all His glory, who bore these strokes in the sinner’s stead, and said to divine omnipotence: “Strike, yet not the sinner, but the Surety!” Righteousness and holiness repel their opposite in full consent and harmony with all the other attributes of God. God cannot be against Himself. Mercy, therefore, elects men to righteousness and holiness, reaching us in the satisfaction of Christ, and now Christ is our righteousness in whom from eternity we were elected to everlasting life. Election is, therefore, nothing else but an act of God’s merciful will alone, reaching from eternity, associating with Himself that only which harmonizes with His essence; it is an act by which God lovingly draws us to Himself.The mercy of God, in which inhered the merits of Christ from eternity, was the norm, the rule, the cause that influenced His will from eternity to elect those only, whom from the very nature of things He only could elect. For mercy cannot [[@VolumePage:1,92]]choose unrighteousness; it therefore elects us unto righteousness and holiness. Nor does God withdraw His grace until it is rejected, and they consider themselves unworthy of eternal life. But because they reject, does not make grace any more special for the elect, than it was for them. For it is all the same grace which God Himself offers, directs, gives, and controls in every contingency. The resistance of grace against the part of unbelievers, does not therefore make it special or particular for the elect, as these opponents of the holy Scriptures dream. For if a king grants all his rebels the privilege of living in his kingdom, because only one or two accept the offer and remain in the kingdom, taking the oath of allegiance, while the majority of the rebels resist and reject the offer of citizenship, this their rejection does not make the privilege of citizenship any more special or peculiar to the few than it was for them. It is a figment of the devil, that final unbelief is the cause of a special or particular grace enjoyed alone by the elect, in such a sense that the same grace was not intended for every unbeliever. God is the Author of grace, and the conduct of unbelievers has no influence upon its nature whatever. These are dangerous and misleading principles, with which these blind guides would patch up a theory which has been hatched out of the wild soil of Synergism and Pelagianism. Physician, heal thyself. Ohio. (For the “Theological Monthly.”)The personal Assurance and precious Consolation of our gracious Election to Salvation.The holy Scriptures teach us that [[“many are called but few are chosen.” >> Mt 22.14]] They teach us further that the chosen shall infallibly be saved, that it is impossible for them to be lost. The XI. Art. of the Formula of Concord confesses that the gracious election of God to salvation “pertains only to the children of God, who were elected and ordained to eternal life before the foundation of the world, as Paul, Eph. 1. 4, 5., declares: ‘He hath chosen us in Christ Jesus, and predestinated us unto the adoption of children’.” It confesses further, that [[@VolumePage:1,93]]on the gracious election our salvation “is so firmly grounded that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, Matth. 16.18.; for it is written: ‘Neither shall any pluck them out of my hand,’ John 10. 28.; and again: ‘And as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed’.” It is therefore the doctrine of our confession and of God’s word, that in the eternal election God has taken into His own hands the salvation of each and every one who shall be saved, and has purposed to bring them despite the opposition of the devil, the world, and their own sinful flesh on the narrow way to eternal glory; as Paul, Rom. 8., says: “Since we are called according to the purpose of God, who shall separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord.” ([[F. C. §§ 45. 46. 47. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:45-48]]) It is also clear to every believing heart that this doctrine of election affords an “eminent and precious consolation.” It bridges over the span—long or short—between us and the end of our faith, yea, it rather draws the end of our faith so near that the intervening span disappears altogether, and we are enabled to lay hold on eternal life whereunto we are called, 1 Tim. 6. 12. But it is also clear that to enjoy this precious consolation it is necessary for the Christian to have a personal assurance or certainty that he is one of the elect. He must have the assurance of faith which excludes all doubt and in so far is the infallible certainty, that before the foundation of the world God has ordained him to eternal life, and that therefore he shall infallibly be saved. So also our confession says [[§ 25: >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:25]] “It belongs to a fuller explanation of this subject, and to the salutary use of the doctrine concerning the predestination of God to salvation, that we should know (since only the elect will be saved whose names are written in the book of life), by what means, and whence we can ascertain who the elect are who can and should embrace this doctrine to their own consolation.” For as the gracious election pertains only to the elect who by virtue of their election shall surely be saved, so the consolation of election pertains only to the elect. Hence to enjoy this consolation is, in fact, nothing more than to be sure of one’s own election. To the extent that I embrace for myself the eminent and precious consolation of election, to the same extent I hold myself to be one of the elect to whom alone [[@VolumePage:1,94]]that consolation pertains. And as the gracious election of God is revealed unto us in the Word, it was, according to the rule laid down by our confession, revealed for our consolation which God desires us to fully and freely apply to ourselves. Hence also it is the will of God that we should in no wise doubt, but fully and freely believe that we are His elect in the sense in which the Scriptures may be shown to use that word. Glorious things are spoken of the elect. They shall infallibly be saved and receive the end of their faith, 1 Pet. 1.9. All things must work together for their good, and nothing shall be able to separate them from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, the Lord, Rom. 8. They are in the hands of Christ, out of which nothing or no one shall be able to pluck them. Are these things said simply to taunt the Christian? or is he to comfort himself with them? If the latter, then he must also have the infallible assurance that he is one of the elect, for as long as he doubts this and to the extent that he doubts it just so long and to that extent all these glorious things will elude his grasp as indeed very desirable treasures but which, alas, are not for him.It is not the object of this article to show how the Christian arrives at such certainty of his election; this has been sufficiently done by other and more able writers. We need but refer to the excellent article on this subject by the Norwegian pastor, Rev. V. Koren, as we find it translated into German in Nos. 15 and 16 of the Lutheraner of this year. The object of the present article is simply to make the application of what has been said above to the doctrine of our opponents. The full assurance of our election and the consolation of election go together. Whoever denies the former robs the Christian of the latter, and teaches a doctrine of election which is without comfort and which, therefore, cannot be contained in the Scriptures. The application is easy. The opponents of our confessional doctrine of election have, indeed, themselves already made the application. They openly and persistently object to our teaching that a Christian can and should be sure of his election, that he can and should with the strongest kind of certainty, with the certainty of faith, hold himself to be one of the elect, and thus fully and freely apply [[@VolumePage:1,95]]to himself all the glorious things that are spoken of them. They object to our teaching such a certainty which is so infallible that it excludes all doubt or fear that we might yet be put to shame, that we might yet be deceiving ourselves. Our opponents have repeatedly touched this point, sometimes even with sarcasm (Prof. Loy in his Introductory), and always with the denial of such an infallible certainty of one’s election to salvation. Here is just one instance. Prof. Stellhorn, in the Chicago Prot. p. 21, declares: “There is indeed no infallible certainty of election at all. Whether I am elected in the strict sense of the word I do not know. This I should believe and hope.” Alas, what believing and hoping! It is a shame that these precious words came into the mind of a Lutheran in such a connection! “Do not know, but believe and hope.” Do not know whether it will rain soon, but I believe and hope it will. I shall only infallibly know it after it has come to pass. Is that believing and hoping in the sense of the Scriptures? What the Christian believes he also knows, infallibly knows, even more so than if he had obtained it through the medium of one of his senses. He knows it with an infallible certainty that excludes all doubt or fear of it failing him on the day when his faith shall be changed into sight. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.” Heb. 11.1. With such uncertainty, as is preached in the above declaration of Prof. Stellhorn, where is the consolation of election? It is really surprising how our opponents thus rob their own doctrine of every claim to a scriptural character by denying the certainty of election.It is, however, not probable that they would have thus deprived themselves of scriptural ground, if the very substance of their doctrine of election had not forced them to do so. By their doctrine they make election depend on the foreseen persevering faith of the elect. If we thus place election into [[@VolumePage:1,96]]God’s foreknowledge, making it an act of His judicial will passed on those in whom He foresaw their persevering faith, and thus making it dependent on the fulfillment of the conditions of salvation before decreeing to salvation, of course, we cannot know whether we are elected or not, for the simple reason that we do not know anything about God’s foreknowledge (praescientia). We cannot know whether God foreknew those conditions to be fulfilled in our own case or not, and so the certainty, and with it the consolation of election, falls to the ground. For God has not revealed unto us the secrets of His foreknowledge. ([[F. C. § 55. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:55]]) The uncertainty of election belongs therefore to the very nature of the doctrine of our opponents, which also deprives their doctrine of all consolation and at the same time of all scriptural ground. And because we cannot know whether we belong to those whose names are written in the book of life, because, according to this theory, as long as we live we must live in uncertainty as to whether we are elected or not, therefore the eminent and precious consolation of election is not only locked up and stored away from use until we shall have no more use for it, but still shines in the Scriptures as a distressingly precious jewel which no one can and should embrace and apply unto himself with the infallible certainty of its belonging unto him as unto an elect of God. C. J. O.(For the “Theological Monthly”.)Calvinism and Synergism versus Lutheranism in the Doctrine concerning Conversion.The July number of “Lehre und Wehre” contains a very important article under the following heading: “Some remarks, chiefly in regard to the fundamental difference in the present controversy.” These remarks are for the greater part directed against an anonymous writer in the “Columbus Theological Magazine,” who had endeavored to hide his personality, together with his animosity, against Missouri and its spokesmen under the fair name of “Old Lutheran.” The writer of the “remarks” in question is Prof. F. Pieper, the [[@VolumePage:1,97]]”mere stripling,” as the “Magazine” had been pleased to style him; and indeed, in these “remarks” the “mere stripling” succeeds most admirably in stripping his adversary of his vaunted theological greatness, and in showing him up to the Church in all the nakedness of his Rationalistic and Synergistic folly.But apart from the polemical value of these “remarks,” they are also of importance, inasmuch as they contain a very clear, although short, exposition of the characteristic difference in the Calvinistic, Synergistic, and Lutheran doctrines concerning Conversion. For the sake of such readers of our “Monthly,” as do not read the “Lehre und Wehre,” we reprint this passage from Prof. Pieper’s article in as accurate and literal a translation as possible.Prof. Pieper writes: “Neither Calvinism, nor Synergism know of a mystery here” (i. e. in the doctrine concerning Conversion). “For Calvinism fabricates an unequal will of God: God is not willing to convert a part of those that hear the Word. There is no longer a mystery for human reason, why not all men are converted. We, however, teach that God, in equal earnest, desires to convert all that hear the Word. Nevertheless not all are converted. This is a mystery to us. Also Synergism has no mystery in the doctrine concerning Conversion. It assumes a difference, a disparity among men. By making use of their natural powers, the ones conduct themselves better than the others. Or, to mention a particular species: the ones forbear resisting wilfully, while the others do not restrain themselves so well. For this reason the former are converted. Here also everything is clear to human reason. Both, Calvinism as well as Synergism, are based on Rationalism. The Calvinist wishes to retain the equal total depravity of all men. But in order to Explain the fact that not all men are converted, he assumes an unequal will of God, who is willing to convert the ones, but not the others. The Synergist wishes to retain the equal, earnest gracious will of God towards all men. But, in order to Explain why not all men are converted, he assumes a disparity among men as they are by nature, and as they act or ‘forbear acting’ by natural powers. The Lutheran, however, in obedience to the Holy Scriptures, retains [[@VolumePage:1,98]]not only the equal, earnest gracious will of God towards all men, but also the equal total depravity of mankind, and forbears explaining in any way to human reason the mystery which here exists for human reason. He does not go beyond the proposition: If a man is not converted, it is his own fault; if he is converted, it is the effect of divine grace only.“Here faith alone can go the right way, faith that retains without wavering a proposition clearly revealed in the Word of God, even if it seems to human reason that something erroneous is the Consequence of that proposition. We repeat it once more. If human reason endeavors to judge of this doctrine, the necessary consequence of the proposition that in the work of Conversion God does everything, that He also either prevents or takes away wilful resistance, seems to be, 1st, that with those who are not converted, God does not do everything, that He is not willing either to prevent wilful resistance, or to take it away, if it has taken place already; 2nd, that God converts by an irresistible grace those whom He converts. For human reason argues thus: If God must take away, or keep down the ‘natural’ resistance as well as the ‘wilful’ resistance, then there seems to be no room whatever for successful resistance against converting grace. The Lutheran, however, says: ‘Although these inferences of human reason seem to be correct, I nevertheless reject them as entirely false, because they disagree with the clear Word of God. Human reason is not authorized to teach in the Christian Church.’ For this reason also he does not alter a proposition, if it is clearly revealed in the Word of God, on account of the inferences which human reason seems to be obliged to make from such proposition. He does not alter the proposition that in the work of Conversion God does everything, nor does the correctness of this proposition become doubtful to him, because, according to the judgment of human reason, the particular and irresistible grace seems to result from this proposition. His faith is wholly based upon the Word of God, contrary to all judgments and inferences of human reason, that endeavors to lead him away from the Word, his only light in spiritual things. Thus he safely walks the narrow path which leads here between Calvinism on one side, and Synergism on the other. For the fact [[@VolumePage:1,99]]is this: Whosoever acknowledges besides the correct thesis also the aforesaid inferences of human reason as being correct and stating the truth, has fallen into Calvinism; but whosoever endeavors to get rid of these inferences by altering the thesis of which they seem to human reason to be the necessary consequence, for instance, by attributing to man the omission of wilful resistance, has drifted into Synergistic spheres.”A. C.(For the “Theological Monthly”.)“New Tract.”(Concluded.)4. Prof. Schuette accuses us of “emphatically affirming question No. 39.” This question reads: “Can you infallibly know and be certain that you will finally believe in Christ and that you were from eternity among the few elected to salvation? Ans.: Infallibly I can not know this; but I firmly believe and hope that I shall continue in faith to the end and thus be forever saved.” We concede that we do affirm the question. For, the Missouri synodical report referred to above, of the year 1879, pp. 64 and 84, has the following: “I can be quite, yea, infallibly, and yet not absolutely certain… Quenstedt writes: ‘Of their election to salvation the pious and believers can and shall be certain by faith, but not carnally secure. For as election is certain and immutable, the pious can and shall by all means also be certain of it. But this certainty of faith shall be combined with & filial fear and not degenerate into a carnal security. Hither belongs the comfort of the inscription in heaven, Luke 10. 20. To this certainty Paul also points Rom. 8. 38, 39., where he says that neither things present nor things to come are able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus. But on the part of man that certainty is not absolute, but ordinate, that is, it depends not on an absolute decree of God, but has respect to the order of the means ordained of God. Whoever well observes the order instituted by God, shall most firmly conclude that he is preordained to salvation. The certainty of election [[@VolumePage:1,100]]is therefore not absolute, but nevertheless immovable on account of the immovable truth of the divine promises.’ (Loc. de praed., fol. 21.) It should be well observed that Quenstedt says: The certainty is an ordinate one, that is, God has made a certain order in which He will save. Hence, only he can be certain of his election who stands in this order.”But we ask: What kind of a firm faith and hope is that of which Prof. Schuette speaks in the answer to question No. 39? Whoever really believes and hopes firmly is infallibly certain. The Christian’s certainty of future salvation is a “certainty of faith” and hope. Heb. 11. 1.: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Rom. 5. 5.: “Hope maketh not ashamed, because the love of God is shed in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” Therefore, according to the Scriptures, the answer to question No. 39 should be something like this: I not only can, but also do infallibly know this; because I firmly believe and hope that I shall continue in faith to the end and thus be forever saved. Whenever I doubt this I commit sin against the divine promises given me; for instance, in John 10. 28.: “I give unto them (my sheep) eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” The author of the tract says: “They (the Missourians) say that they do not only believe that God will preserve them in faith unto the end, but that they infallibly know and are certain that they will not finally fall from grace; that they infallibly know and are certain that they are of the few chosen of God to salvation from eternity. Such language we can not employ.” This we believe. Synergism is a dreadful foe to firm faith and hope. But then the Christians ought not to be robbed of their infallible certainty which God has given them by His word and Spirit. How shallow must be the theology and Christianity when Christians are taught to believe that “believing that God will preserve them in faith until the end” is something altogether different from “'infallibly knowing and being certain that they will not finally fall from grace” and, consequently, “infallibly knowing and being infallibly certain that they are of the few chosen of God to salvation from eternity.” The Christian’s belief, as such, admits of no doubt. [[@VolumePage:1,101]]By doubt faith is cancelled. Many Christians have, indeed, never heard anything about election or predestination, but when they truly believe that they will be saved by God’s mercy and Christ’s merit, they, consequently, believe they are among the number of the elect. And as to the expression “infallibly certain” we remark that not the Missourians did invent it but that it was in use already among those of our Lutheran theologians to whom our opponents continually appeal. Brochmand e. g. puts the question: “May the elect be rendered infallibly certain of their election and perseverance?” and gives an affirmative answer by an argument extending over nearly three columns in folio. (Vid. Syst. I, 270 sq.)It surely testifies of superficial reading when Prof. Schuette yet says: “But may God have mercy upon people who deem themselves no longer in need of the apostolic admonition: Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall! 1 Cor. 10. 12.” Let the professor once read with attention what we say in our Western Districts’ synodical report, pp. 97—110, and he will find that he has slandered us before his readers. The Formula of Concord says: “This doctrine (of election) also thus affords the precious, glorious consolation that… He (God) wanted to guard my salvation so well and establish it so firmly,—because it might easily be lost out of our hands through the weakness and wickedness of our flesh, or be plucked and taken out of them by the stratagem and power of the devil and the world—, that He ordained it in His eternal purpose [eam in aeternum suum propositum tanquam in arcem munitissimam collocaret, that is, placed it in His eternal purpose as in a very well fortified castle] which cannot fail or be overthrown, and put it for safe-keeping into the almighty hand of our Savior Jesus Christ, out of which no one will pluck it, John 10.; wherefore Paul also says Rom. 8. [v. 28. 39.]: As we are called according to God’s purpose, who shall separate us from the love of God which is in Christ?” ([[11th art. Decl. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:45-48]])Thus again the human “theory” is on Prof .Schuette’s and Dr. Schodde’s side, and the pure doctrine, on ours.Prof. Schuette would do well not to write any more tracts. Dr. Walther wrote one in which he analysed the llth [[@VolumePage:1,102]]article of the Formula of Concord in questions and answers; Prof. Schuette then wrote one, too, in questions and answers, not on the doctrine of our church, but on a human “theory,” viz., on the theory that man “suffers himself” to be converted.There are yet other things in the tract which require some ventilation, but this article has already got to be longer than had been expected, and time is precious. Perhaps other opportunities will present themselves to us to speak of them.C. S. K.General Religious Intelligence.The Lutheran General Synod has three ordained missionaries, 109 congregations, 2193 communicants and 6483 members in India, and one missionary and 62 communicants at Muehlenberg Mission in Africa. On a farm of 75 acres connected with the latter mission coffee is cultivated.Aug. 4th was the Ninth of Ab, the anniversary of the destruction of the autonomy of the Jewish nation, and was observed in the usual way by devout Hebrews throughout the world as a fast or feast of sorrow and sadness. No other people commemorates its defeat.The Pope of Rome held a secret consistory Aug. 4th, at which 22 Cardinals were present. The pope referred to recent disturbances here. The “Osservatore Romano” says: The pope declared that the disturbances proved that the Vicar of Christ enjoyed neither liberty nor safety in Rome. He was, however, prepared to confront the dangers of the future.A Number of Philadelphia Germans have bought 2000 acres of land near Ashville, N. C, on which to establish a “Teutonic Co-operative Colonization Society”. A town is to be built, with school-houses, factories, a theater and museum, but “no beer-saloons, churches, ministers or lawyers will be permitted in the settlement.”A Free Conference representing the various Norwegian Lutheran Synods, has been held in Ansgar, Iowa, with the view to bringing them together into one General Norwegian Lutheran Conference or Council. Four Synods were represented by 341 delegates. The doctrine of redemption and forgiveness of sin were discussed and the points of difference brought out. The conference adjourned until 1883, without accomplishing anything definite.Popish Gratitude. Esther Renaud has been expelled from the French convent which she had endowed with her fortune, simply because she was the victim of a disease which tortured her day and night and disabled her from all work. The Superior decided that she was a useless mouth, and expelled her. She appealed to the courts for reinstatement, but they decided that they had no power in the matter, and the lawyers tell her that she cannot recover her fortune. She is therefore an invalid, forsaken pauper.In Answer to a correspondent who is anxious to know how many Baptist adherents there are in the United States, the “Watchman” says: “It is not easy to ascertain. The church members are 2,296,327, by the latest published [[@VolumePage:1,103]]statistics. It was formerly usual to number five adherents to one communicant; but this is much too large. Dr. Dorchester, in his recent work, states the ratio as 3 ? to 1. This would give a little more than eight millions. We apprehend that if we could see all our members brought to a higher standard of Christian character and life it would be of more worth to the world than a further increase in numbers. ‘Bigness is not greatness,’ nor is it always force.” Alph. Necrological. Dr. Stanley, Dean of Westminster, England, died July 18th. He was born in Cheshire, England, Dec. 13th, 1815, and educated at Rugby School by Dr. Arnold whom he also followed in his views of the mutual relation of the church and the state. Dr. Arnold’s theory was substantially this: “that the church and the state are identical (!?), that they are the same corporate body, only having different functions, and that, therefore, the Established Church should comprehend all the forms of the Christian religion of the state.” It is evident that Dean Stanley, illustrating this theory in practice, could not but foster and act according to unionistic, latitudinarian principles. He has been the leader, or, at least, one of the leaders of the Broad-Churchmen of England ever since 1864, when he was appointed Dean of Westminster. His funeral was one of the most memorable, Westminster Abbey ever witnessed. Two princes of the Roman Church, Cardinal Manning and Newman, both of whom were former members of the Church of England and as such had preached in the Abbey, attended the funeral service. The Prince of Wales represented the Queen.—On Tuesday, August 2d, Bishop Haven, of the M. E. Church, died at Salem, Oregon. He was very prominent among the clergy of his denomination. From 1863 to 1869 he was President of the University of Michigan. After that he was appointed President of the Northwestern University at Evanston, Ill., which office he held for 3 years. In 1874 he became chancellor of Syracuse University. Finally, he was elected bishop in August 1880.Camp-meeting Season is at hand. Everywhere camp-meeting grounds are remodelled and improved, some of them even to such an extent that “those who visited the grounds last year will hardly recognize them on account of all the new improvements.” So to the camp-meeting, for “nature was the first temple of God”, is the watch-word of new-fashioned Methodism. Still we presume that, if we should go out to the camp-grounds, we would not find to remind us of “nature”. We suppose we would find ourselves in the midst of a beautiful village of elegant cottages, some of which very much resembling unique, palatial summer residences. We should find groceries, book stores, Post-office, telegraph station, news-stand—barber-shops, waterworks etc. In fact, from what we can gather from descriptions of such camp-grounds, we believe they must be very nice summer-resorts, — and, in case the grounds should be situated on the beach, very nice watering-places. Besides it is so wonderfully cheap to get there. All the young folks will agree that it is a good opportunity to enjoy themselves under the pretext of religion.— Such are modern camp-meetings. They are a great change from the simplicity of old-fashioned Methodism. Church history informs us that Mr. Wesley, the founder of Methodism, and his co-laborers in all their efforts to impart new life to the Church of England of whom they were and, for some time, remained members, never worked in such a worldly way, nor would they ever have adopted such a “summer-resort-plan”, even if the most learned and pious [[@VolumePage:1,104]]D.D. would have proposed the same. Being intimately associated with the German “Herrnhutians” who were glorying in their simplicity in dress, fashion and social life generally, they were averse to all such things as constitute the principal make-up of the camp-meeting of the present day, rigorously doing away even with a great many things properly belonging and never generally conceded to belong to the sphere of christian liberty. Whenever they held open-air services, it was because the people disgusted with the barrenness of rationalism that, having traversed the English Church, had taken almost entire possession of the pulpits of Great Britain, thronged to hear what was, to say the least, infinitely better than rationalism, so that, even if the churches had been opened to them, the seating capacity of the most of them would have been too small to accommodate the masses. But we are sure that these out-door meetings of Wesley’s time were free of that worldly hubbub and business bustle which is very near becoming an essential part of every “successful” camp-meeting.—In short, though original primitive Methodism of the times of Wesley was, by no means, without doctrinal errors and practical mistakes, just as little as the Herrnhutianism and pietism of the same time, still it greatly excells the camp-meeting Methodism of the present age. We wonder what Mr. Wesley would say in beholding a camp-meeting as they are now in vogue. He surely would’nt guess them to be what they are intended for. Perhaps he would take them to be a fair of the same kind as they were customary in the preceding century. We feel assured that he would shrink from believing that they were really a fruit of that tree grown out of that seed he had planted a century ago. —In the course of the camp-meetings there will be a great deal of nervous excitement and prostration, and, nevertheless, no physician will be called to attend upon the patients. There will be faintings, shrieks, convulsions in countless numbers, and still more countless numbers of would-be-faintings, imitation-shrieks and artificial convulsions. We have an idea that, among the number of converts, the nervous excitable temperament will greatly prevail. — After camp-meeting time has passed away and the cold is about setting in, a great many converts will be affected by it and become—backsliders, principally because their so-called conversion was due to the heat and nervous excitement.—In the same time, the “managers” of the camp-meeting will report a net profit of so and so many times 10 cents. Moreover it will take them several hours to figure up the number of converts whose names are all put down in ledgers kept with the neatness and exactness of a bank-account. No use to calling attention to the cures declaring that “the Lord knoweth the hearts” and “them that are his”—None of those converts are hypocrites. No, those bank-accounts are correct and—indisputable.—But what is all this to Lutherans? They do not attend camp-meetings, much less take active part in them.—And do they really decline to take stock in camp-meetings? All Lutherans? No, not all of them.—But are they really Lutherans, justly entitled to the Lutheran name?—They think they are. They call themselves Lutheran in the constitution of their church, and it says so on the cornerstone, and everybody calls them Lutherans, in spite of their outspoken preference for camp-meetings. Why, would you call them Methodists? No, it’s an established fact with them, “they are Lutherans and—facts are stubborn things.” Augustus. [[@VolumePage:1,105]]THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.Vol. 1. October 1881. No. 6.(For the “Theological Monthly”.)What does St. Paul Eph. 1. 3—14. teach of the Eternal Election of God?The doctrine of election, as it is presented and defended in this Monthly, is the doctrine of the Lutheran Confession. The 11th Article of the Formula of Concord, which treats of the election or predestination of the children of God to eternal life, has been repeatedly mentioned in this periodical. We Lutherans, however, derive all the doctrines solely from the Holy Scriptures. The Word of God is with us the norm and the source of doctrine. Now the doctrine of election as held by us is revealed in the holy Scriptures in words so distinct as not to be liable to be misunderstood. It is for this reason that in this article of our faith also we are certain, joyful, and confident. Any Christian who knows to handle the Scriptures and to judge spiritually, is enabled by the Scriptures to decide whether things are as we teach and confess. We shall, therefore, successively present to our readers the principal passages of the Scriptures which treat of election, and we beseech them to make the trial and allow the thoughts of the Apostle, i. e. the thoughts of the Holy Spirit, to exert their power on their own minds. For the present we direct their attention to that section of the Epistle to the Ephesians, which is repeatedly cited also in the 11th Article of the Form. of Conc. It is the following:Eph. 1. 3—14.: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as He hath chosen us in Him, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to [[@VolumePage:1,106]]Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the Beloved: In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace; wherein He hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure, which He hath purposed in Himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will: That we should be to the praise of His glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of His glory.”This introduction of the Epistle contains a praise of God. All these verses are subsumed under the first words in [[V.,3: >> Eph 1.3]] “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The Apostle Paul blesses the God and Father of Jesus Christ, and by such blessing he exhorts the readers of the Epistle to join in the blessing, and together with him praise God. He unites himself with his readers, with all Christians, for whom, indeed, the Epistle is designed, by using the expressions “We,” and “Us,” which pervade the whole section. At its close he in particular addresses those Christians who were converts from the heathen, by using the word “ye,” [[V. 13. >> Eph 1.13]] For what reason, for what benefit, ought all the Christians to bless the God and Father of Jesus Christ? For this, that God has blessed them “with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ,” [[V. 3.b. >> Eph 1.3]] These abundant and complete, spiritual and heavenly blessings earned for us and mediated by Christ, in what do they consist? This is shown by the Apostle’s setting them forth in particular throughout the whole section. The [[succeeding verses >> Eph 1:4ff]] contain the theme announced in [[V. 3. >> Eph 1.3]] The Apostle above all things praises the grace, the richness, [[@VolumePage:1,107]]the glory of the grace in Jesus Christ. In Christ we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, we have been made accepted in the beloved. This is stated in [[Verses 6.b. and 7. >> Eph 1.6-7]] In these spiritual blessings we have obtained in Christ, there are, besides, according to [[Verses 8—12., >> Eph 1.8-12]] included all wisdom and prudence, and the knowledge of the mystery of the reconciliation of the whole world through Christ. The Apostle then proceeds to remind the Christian converts from the heathen in particular of their call and conversion, of their having heard the word of truth, having believed, and having been sealed with the Holy Spirit, [[Verses 13. 14. >> Eph 1.13-14]] The call through the Word, the efficient call, and faith, its effect, are also constituent parts of that spiritual and heavenly blessing. Finally the Apostle in these last verses mentions the future perfection of the Christians, their inheritance and glory; which, indeed, is the final cause of the preaching of the gospel, called for that very reason “the gospel of your salvation”; and which is, indeed, “the end of our faith,” i. e. the obtaining of the everlasting inheritance. The Apostle, then, in this section, describes the whole salvation in Christ, all salvation in time and eternity, mentioning every essential part of this salvation. Generally speaking, it is all the blessings of Christianity for which he praises God, and for which he exhorts his readers to praise God.Now it is in this connection that the Apostle emphatically directs the Christians to mark their eternal election and predestination, [[Verses 4—6.b. >> Eph 1.4-6]] He says: “God hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world.” In Christ we are blessed in time with all those spiritual blessings which are consummated in eternal salvation, according as He hath chosen us in Him from eternity. That in time we have been made partakers of, the Apostle derives, as we see, from an eternal act of God as from its source. That we are so abundantly blessed has not happened perchance, but in accordance with, and by virtue of, an eternal decree of God, His eternal election, which in these very blessings we Christians possess in all their abundance, has been made manifest. God, the Father of Jesus Christ, has now, at this very [[@VolumePage:1,108]]time, executed what He had decreed from eternity; He has, at this time, delivered to us those good things, He had appointed for us from eternity. This is evidently the sense of the connection of the two statements concerning the present blessing, and the eternal election of God. The Apostle, in being about to describe with thanks to God the riches of the divine blessings in which his readers together with him have become partakers, meets at once with a thought that could arise in the soul of one or the other of the Christians. It is this: “What then, if these riches of the divine blessings, all this glory of Christianity, were nothing but mere appearance and deception, a nighty phantasm? Perchance all these things are transient and casual, vanishing as swiftly as they have suddenly and unexpectedly fallen into our lap?” Such thoughts and doubts the Apostle Paul obviates, assuring the Christians by setting forth to them the blessings of Christianity, that they are eternal, stable, and trustworthy things warranted to us by an eternal act of God, by His eternal election. From the eternal election of God, therefore, do come and flow, according to the teaching of the Apostle, all the single blessings, the good things of salvation enumerated in this section, forgiveness of sins, justification (we are made accepted), all wisdom and prudence, the call through the gospel, faith, eternal salvation, and glory.These truths which are incontestably resulting from the connection of the sentences and thoughts, the Apostle, besides, testifies by direct declarations. In [[Verses 4—6.b. >> Eph 1.4-6]] he states the final cause of the eternal election and predestination of God. We are chosen in Christ “that we should be holy and without blame before Him (before God) in love;” we are predestinated “unto the adoption of children to Himself,” “to the praise of the glory of His grace.” This then was the object God had in view in that eternal election and predestination; we should once through faith become His children, be holy and without blame before Him, walk in love, and praise and bless the glory of His grace here in time and finally in eternity. For this very object, consequently unto that very state we have come to now, in time, we have been elected. God has from eternity chosen and predestinated us in Christ [[@VolumePage:1,109]]unto the adoption of children, unto justification, unto sanctification, unto salvation; and in consequence thereof, and in accordance with it, we have now, in time, obtained His grace, have been made accepted, have been called through the gospel, have been made believers, have been endowed with diverse spiritual powers, and are waiting for the heavenly inheritance which is confirmed unto us through the Holy Spirit. All that God in time has done to us, and is still doing, exactly corresponds to the object of His election. Hence the eternal decree of election is carried into effect in our call, conversion, justification, &c. God now executes in us His eternal thoughts and purposes.Now the Christians are exhorted to give thanks to God, the Father of Jesus Christ, for both, that on the one hand He has bestowed on them such rich grace and blessings, and on the other hand that the blessings conferred upon them, the grace they met with, repose on a firm and immovable foundation, on the eternal election and predestination of God.This is a brief statement of the subject-matter of the Apostle’s rich and precious hymn. If we collect what results from it in reference to the doctrine of election we obtain the following sentences:1st, The election or predestination of God was made “before the foundation of the world,” consequently from eternity, it is, therefore, an eternal and unchangeable decree of God.2nd, The ground of election is solely “the good pleasure” or mercy of God, and the merit of Christ, inasmuch as we are chosen “in Christ.”3rd, We are elected and predestinated “unto the adoption of children, unto sanctification, unto love, unto the praise of the glory of the grace of God” (which is consummated in eternity), and in correspondence to this decree we are, in time, called through the gospel, made believers, are made accepted or justified, endowed with spiritual gifts, wisdom, &c., and made certain of the eternal inheritance. Hence the eternal election of God is in truth a cause of our salvation and of everything that pertains to it, of our call, our conversion, our justification, our faith, and our sanctification.4th, Christians ought to be glad and certain of their being embraced in this eternal election. The Apostle exhorts them [[@VolumePage:1,110]]to praise God for it as for some good and certain thing. Only for indubitable gifts and mercies God can be praised.Mention may be made, besides, of the fact, that the conception of choosing involves the particularity of election. An “election of all” is a contradictory notion. The Apostle in this section, however, omits taking notice of the separation which is posited with election, and of the way and manner of this separation, and addresses the believing Christians on this wise, that he presents to them all the comfort of election, and exhorts them all to give thanks for having been chosen. We Christians, therefore, according to the will and intent of the Apostle, according to the will and intent of the Holy Spirit, shall include ourselves in the number of the elect, without in any way inquiring into the mode and ground of this separation, but consider it self-evident that we, too, are chosen, since we, too, have heard and accepted the gospel of our salvation, and see the spiritual blessings in heavenly things manifested unto us. This is the right way of thinking and speaking of the election of grace, to immediately apply everything pertaining to it, to ourselves, to our own persons, and stop at the grateful consideration of the great mercy imparted to our own selves.It is evident that the doctrine and opinion of our opponents declaring that God had first foreseen the faith of some men, and then on the ground of this foreseen faith had elected unto salvation those who believed, have no hold at all in the Scriptural passage considered. They rather directly contradict the plain words of the Apostle. According to the Apostle Paul’s doctrine all the blessings of Christianity, consequently faith, too, ([[V. 13. >> Eph 1.13]]) flow from the eternal election. According to the Apostle Paul we are predestinated unto the adoption of children, hence assuredly unto faith also, by which alone we are children of God. But if faith is an object and consequence of election, it can not only not be the ground of election, it can in no way precede it. The Apostle Paul knows of no third ground of election beside the two named, God’s grace and Christ’s merit, a ground supposed to exist in man; on the contrary, he exhorts those who have obtained God’s grace to give the honor to God alone, and to sing the praise of the glory of His grace in time and eternity. G. ST. [[@VolumePage:1,111]](“For the Theological Monthly.”)Election and Persevering Faith.Matth. 24. 24.In the [[24th chapter of St. Matthew >> Mt 24]] our Lord describes the times preceding the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Universe as being full of dangers to the soul. [[“Many shall come,” He says, “in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many. >> Mt 24.5]] [[Many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.” >> Mt 24.11-12]] Hence His repeated exhortation: [[“Take heed that no man deceive you. >> Mt 24.4]] [[Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ or there; believe it not. >> Mt 24.23]] [[If they shall say unto you, Behold He is in the desert; go not forth; behold He is in the secret chambers; believe it not.>> Mt 24.26]] Behold I have told you before: [[He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. >> Mt:24.13]] [[Watch, for ye know not, what hour your Lord shall come.” >> Mt 24:42]]In order to show how great the dangers to the soul will be, in order to awaken His Christians to so much the greater vigilance, Christ in the [[24th verse >> Mt 24.24]] says: “There shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”By these words Christ teaches us, as we will now endeavor to show, that the elect cannot be deceived and led astray unto the end, but will endure unto the end; and that the reason or cause why they cannot be thus deceived, but endure unto the end, is to be sought not in God’s foreknowledge of their perseverance as depending on them and only foreseen by God, but of God’s election to perseverance decreed by God.1. Christ in speaking of the elect evidently does not speak of all men for whom He suffered and died, many of whom never walk the narrow path to heaven. Nor does Christ speak of all believers, many of whom, as He teaches in the parable, believe for a time only. Christ speaks of those men whom, before the foundation of the world, God elected in Christ, whom our confessions describe as the good and beloved children of God, and concerning whom we are taught: [[@VolumePage:1,112]] [[“Many are called, but few chosen.” >> Mt 22.14]] Adopting, for argument’s sake only, the distinction so firmly adhered to by our adversaries, we would say: Christ here speaks of the elect whom God embraced in His election, taken in the narrow or strict sense.Now Christ teaches that the signs and wonders of the false Christs and false prophets will be so great, as to deceive the very elect, if it were possible. What does Christ mean? Would he teach us that the elect cannot even for a time be deceived, seduced, and led astray into sins and errors? Indeed not; although the Calvinists make such deductions from Christ’s words. Our Lutheran Church has ever maintained the Scriptural truth, that even the elect may for a time be seduced by the devil, the world, and their own flesh into sins and errors, so as to wholly fall away and to wholly cease to be children of God. David became an adulterer and guilty of murder; Peter denied Christ; all the Apostles for a time erred concerning the doctrines of the kingdom of Christ, and of His death and resurrection. Christ would rather teach us that, though the elect may be led astray for a time, yet they cannot be seduced in such a way as to be lost forever. In this 24th chapter of Matthew “to be deceived” and “to endure unto the end” are contraries, as appears from [[Verses 11—13.: >> Mt 24:11-13]] “And many false prophets shall rise and deceive many… But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.” Hence Christ teaches in our passage, that even the elect would be deceived unto the end by false Christs and false prophets, if it were possible. But this is not possible. This is the import of the words of Christ. Although the clause “if possible” is used in the Scriptures in such connection as to indicate a possibility, yet in our passage the connection clearly shows that an impossibility is to be stated, an impossibility concerning which St. Paul triumphantly exclaims Rom. 8. 35—39.: “Who shall separate us,” that is, God’s elect ([[V. 33. >> Rom 8.33]]), “from the love of Christ? shall tribulation or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? … Nay, in all these things we are more than [[@VolumePage:1,113]]conquerors through Him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature” including false Christs and false prophets, “shall be able to separate,” or seduce “us,” or lead us astray, “from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Accordingly our Lutheran Church has ever taught, that the elect cannot fall away unto the end.We have good reason to believe that our adversaries agree with us up to this point. Indeed, if they did not, they would suddenly find themselves outside of the “good company” of which they boast so much. But will they agree with us any longer, as we now proceed?2. Christ says that it is not possible that the elect be deceived unto the end. Why is this not possible? Does Christ indicate any reason or cause? He does, in calling them that cannot be deceived unto the end, the “elect.” He might have described them as “His sheep,” as He does John 10. 28.: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand;” or—if our adversaries’ interpretation of Rom. 8. 29. were correct—He might have described them as “those whom God foresaw as persevering in faith”: but Christ deliberately chose the word “elect,” thereby intending to indicate the cause or reason why they cannot be deceived. They endure unto the end, because they are elect.It is by no means an uncommon thing to indicate a cause or reason without the use of the words “for,” “because,” and the like. A cause or reason may be stated in an independent sentence. Thus we read Numb. 23. 19.: “God is not a man that He should lie; neither the son of man that He should repent: hath He said, and shall not do it? or hath He spoken, and shall not make it good?” Answer: Indeed He will do what He hath said, and make good what He hath spoken. Why? Because “God is not a man, neither the son of man.” Here, then, a reason is stated in an independent sentence.—The same mode of stating a reason may be found Mark 2. 17., and John 21. 17. In the latter place we read: [[@VolumePage:1,114]]”He (Jesus) saith unto him (Peter) the third time: Simon, Son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because He said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto Him, Lord, Thou knowest all things; Thou knowest that I love Thee.” Evidently Peter meant to say this: Thou knowest that I love Thee; for Thou knowest all things.—In a depending clause also a cause or reason may be stated. Such is the case Ps. 94. 9.: “He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the eye, shall He not see?” Answer: Indeed, He shall hear, for He planted the ear; He shall see, for He formed the eye.—And then a cause or reason may be stated in one single word, as occurs very frequently in the Proverbs of Solomon. In the following passages the words mentioned are used emphatically, stating a cause or reason: Prov. 10. 1.: wise, foolish; [[14. 16.: >> Prov 14.16]] wise man, fool; [[14.15. >> Prov 14.15]] [[22. 3.: >> Prov 22.3]] prudent, simple; [[28. 11.: >> Prov 28.11]] rich; [[3. 32—35.: >> Prov 3.32-35]] froward, righteous, wicked, just, scorners, lowly, wise, fools; [[12. 10.: >> Prov 12.10]] righteous, wicked; Matth. 9. 13.: righteous, sinners; John 9. 31.: sinners, worshipper. St. Paul says 1 Tim. 1.17.: “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.” Why does St. Paul use so many epithets in this sentence? By each new epithet he wishes to state a new reason why honor and glory shall be to God. Honor and glory be to Him for ever and ever, because He is King, He is eternal, immortal, invisible, He is God, the only wise God.—Of the Lamb we read Rev. 5. 11, 12.: “I heard the voice of many angels… saying with a loud voice: Worthy is the Lamb that was slain” (one word in Greek), “to receive power and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing.” Why is the Lamb worthy to receive power, and riches, &c.? Because it was slain; as shortly before ([[v. 9. >> Rev 5.9]]) the four beasts and four and twenty elders sang in their new song, saying: “Thou art worthy to take the book and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by Thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.”—Isa. 49. 15. the Lord says: “Can a woman forget her suckling child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb?” Indeed not, for the very reason, that it is her suckling child, the [[@VolumePage:1,115]]son of her womb.—Finally, the word “elect” is used with particular emphasis and in such connection as to let it state or indicate a reason or cause. Luke 18. 7, 8. Christ says: “And shall not God avenge His own elect which cry day and night unto Him, though He bear long with them? I tell you that He will avenge them speedily.” And why? Because they are His own elect.And in the same manner the epithet “elect” is used in our passage with particular emphasis to state a cause. “There shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” But the elect cannot be deceived. Why not? What is there that so distinguishes the elect from all other men, believers and unbelievers, that while all others may be seduced and certainly will not be found believers at the end of their lives or of the world, these elect not only will not, but even cannot be seduced unto the end? Are they by nature better than other men? No indeed; with the Apostle St. Paul, Eph. 2. 3., they must and do confess: “We were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” Or having been converted, are they in any way in themselves better than other believers? Is their conversion, repentance, faith different and better in kind than that of other believers who are deceived and lost? Such a doctrine has its foundation neither in Scripture nor in the confessions. By nature they are like all other men; and as believers, their conversion, repentance, and faith is not more truly such than that of those who believe for a time only. And yet the elect cannot be deceived, their faith endures unto the end, while all other believers are deceived and lost? Even so. What, then, constitutes the difference between them and all others? This one fact, that they are elect. And although the fact that the others are not elected is not the reason of their fall and damnation, for of that they themselves are the cause: yet the fact that the former are elect, is the cause of their enduring unto the end, of their persevering faith. The elect cannot be deceived. Why not? Because they are elect.3. But let us now ask: In what respect is the election of the elect the cause of their persevering, rendering it impossible [[@VolumePage:1,116]]that they should be deceived? Some have answered: The elect cannot be deceived, because God, foreseeing their enduring faith, elected them; thus resting the impossibility of being deceived upon the foresight of God. But, pray, is the mere foresight of God an efficient cause of what is foreseen? God foresaw the fall of man and all sins of all men, is His foresight a cause of all these evils also? No, God’s foresight does not cause that which it foresees. Hence it has been said: Christ does not mean to teach that it is impossible that the elect should be deceived, but this only, that they certainly will not be deceived; as if Christ had said: The elect, however, will certainly not be deceived, because, concerning them, God foresaw their enduring faith, and God’s foresight cannot fail. Is it necessary to show at length how erroneous this interpretation is?Our Lord evidently points in these words to the great powers of deception that will be exerted in the times He speaks of, and against which no wisdom, strength, or holiness of man are able to prevail. Even the elect who are provided with the whole armour of God so as to be able to withstand in the evil day, should then succumb, but for the one thing that they are the elect, that they are by divine grace predestined from eternity to receive the end of their faith, the salvation of their souls. This election and predestination unto persevering faith, which, of course, includes the use of the means of grace, render their final deception impossible. God’s foreknowledge should have seen the elect finally fall away also, had He not made them His own, and decreed their eternal salvation through enduring faith. Deny this and suppose that God’s election does not import a predestination to persevering faith, that it excludes any act of God except His seeing and knowing beforehand what will happen in future; suppose that election was made in regard to persevering faith being only foreseen by God in some men who solely on this account are God’s elect: what revelation is then to be derived from those words of Christ? They then contain either the suggestion of a doctrine which is rejected by the whole Scripture, that with some men mere human power is, indeed, able to withstand even the greatest temptations; or the trifling truism that with [[@VolumePage:1,117]]some men, called the elect, final deception is impossible for the simple reason that it is a fact foreseen that they will not be deceived. But why will they not? Because perchance those great temptations will never approach them at all. In this case our Lord is made to exhort such only as will fall away and perish. Will the context allow such an explanation? Decidedly not. But suppose that in considering election in its bearing upon the persevering faith of the elect we were bidden by the divine word to abstain from thinking of any cause effecting this faith, and to be satisfied with the statement of mere futurity as far as this is revealed to us from the store of divine foreknowledge; suppose that it is against God’s will for us to know of any cause of this faith whatever, as some seem to maintain in the interest of the theory mentioned: what then must be our sacred duty to do, when we are reading passages of the Bible, like that in John 10. 28—30.? It reads: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one.” We are in that case demanded to believe that Christ, in mentioning the fact that the Father is greater than all, in connexion with His declaration that the sheep given Him by the Father shall never perish, spoke inadvertently as to God’s will to leave us in the dark concerning the cause of their never perishing, hinting so distinctly, as He does, at a power against which nothing, no thing included in His “all,” is able to prevail. He cannot, therefore, be one with the Father. Thus this theory of election “in foresight of faith only” is apt to lead us to a direct denial of the truth of the gospel. Christians, however, know from the divine word that the cause of persevering faith is God’s election and predestination unto such faith. And for this reason it is impossible for the elect to be deceived so as to be lost.Disregarding, then, such interpretation and laying proper stress upon every word spoken by our Lord, we come to this conclusion: The elect cannot be deceived, but they endure unto the end, because God elected them, predestinated them, decreed to save them. Nothing but that act of God, whereby He elected His children, predestinated them to life, ordained [[@VolumePage:1,118]]them to salvation, decreed to bring them to, and preserve them in, faith unto the end, will do full justice to the words of Christ. We persevere in faith and cannot be deceived unto the end, because God, in electing us, has decreed to preserve us in faith unto salvation. (To be concluded.)General Religious Intelligence.The Irish Presbyterians have banished organs, violins, and all Instruments of music from their sanctuaries.Pope Leo XIII. has retired from journalism, his paper, the “Aurora,” having been suspended after costing him several hundred thousand dollars. Thus, afterall, the papal “Aurora” proved to be an Aurora borealis. Rev. Dr. Kendrick, Baptist, one of the American revisers of the New 'Testament, is being severely criticised by some of his brethren for giving cooperation, indorsement, and moral support to the new translation of Revelation 19. 13., where it reads of Christ that He is arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood. In the authorized version the word used is “dipped,” and this word the Baptist would retain. —The American Board’s Training School at Kioto, Japan, opens its spring term with twenty seven in the theological class, more than half of whom pay their own expenses or are supported by native Christians. The following strange story is told of the effect of the Christian gospel among a lot of Japanese prisoners: A few months ago a fire broke out in the Japanese prison at Otsee, where 100 prisoners, instead of trying to escape, helped to put out the flames, and to a man, remained to undergo the rest of their sentence. Why was that? Mr. Neesoma, the educated Japanese preacher and teacher gave some copies of the Gospel to the keeper, and he not caring for them, gave them to a scholar convicted of manslaughter. He believed the record God had given His Son and taught the rest; and by his personal influence and their own Christian principle they were restrained.Capt. E. Morgan, President of the American and Foreign Bible Society —a Baptist organization—has engaged Dr. Thomas J. Conant, of Brooklyn, to make a complete revision of the old Testament. Dr. Conant, one of the American revisors of the new version recently completed, has four years more in which to complete the Old Testament. For this work he receives $25,000 from Capt. Morgan. Each book will contain an introduction giving its object, its divine authority and inspiration, its composition, unity of plan, division, and on the bottom of each page are explanatory notes, designed to take the place of a condensed commentary. They are not intended to be exegetical, but only to furnish such occasional hints as seem necessary to the intelligent reading of the passage. The work is not intended to be an independent translation, but only a revision of the common English version. The familiar phraseology of the King James’ version will be identical, where the true sense of the Hebrew text does not seem to make necessary a change. When completed the book, with the plates and copyright, will be presented [[@VolumePage:1,119]]to the American and Foreign Bible Society. It is needless to remark that Dr. Conant is a member of the Baptist denomination.From Rev. B. H. Badley’s paper contributed to the “Independent”, in which he shows the progress of mission work in India since 1871, we quote the facts which follow: Of foreign missionaries in that country, including professors in mission colleges (who labor among non-Christian youths and are bona fide missionaries, although not always so counted), there are now 689 (representing 32 missionary societies), an increase of 67 since 1871. Of this number England with 244, Germany with 131 and the United States with 117, have the majority. Other countries are represented as follows: Scotland, 67; Ireland, 19; Canada, 17; Wales, 15; Switzerland, 13; Sweden, 10; Denmark, 5; Norway, 4; France, 2; Russia, 1; Holland, 1; Belgium, 1; West Indies, 1; while no less than thirty are sons of missionaries, born in India,— the Scudders, Newtons and others—a very significant fact. The remaining 11 were born here of European descent. Of these 689 missionaries, one, the Rev. George Pearce of the English Baptists, has been a missionary in India upward of fifty years. He arrived in 1826, and in the fifty-five years has been absent on health furlough but ten years. Since 1705 there has been but one missionary who has put in a longer term of service. This was the Rev. J. P. Rottler of the Early Danish Society, who arrived in 1776 and died in 1836, after laboring sixty years. Sixteen have labored upward of forty but under fifty years; 33 from thirty to forty; 100 from twenty to thirty; 179 from ten to twenty; 360 under ten years. There are now 389 native missionaries, a gain of 164 since 1871. There has been a gain of 52 per cent, in the number of native Christians, the total number in 1880 being 340,623. Besides these native Christians there are thousands of adherents, people who are almost Christians, in various stages of education and of nearness to Christ. One mission alone counts upward of 3000 of these. In the South India Missions there were in 1878 no less than 127,000. At present in all India there are at least 150,000 of these unbaptized Christians. The fact that many villages are petitioning the missionaries to send them teachers and preachers shows how the leavening influence is at work. The baptisms tell only a part of the progress made. The following table shows at a glance the progress of Christian missions in India during the past thirty years:1850.1861.1871.1880.Foreign missionaries339479622689Native missionaries2197225389Native Christians91,092138,731224,253340,623Communicants14,66124,97652,816102,444The receipts of missionary, educational, and publication societies reported at the May anniversaries in London make a grand total of $8,686,195 against $8,640,625 last year. The combined receipts of the, principal foreign missionary societies were $3,388,805. For colonial, Jewish and other missions, $800,940 was received; for home missions, $1,967,715; for religious educational objects, $402,115. Alph. Does The Sun Move? The Rev. Johnson, of Canada, has lately been lecturing at New York City, his theme being: “Does the Sun Move? or, the Science of the Heavenly Bodies, and the Revolutionary Powers of the Earth and Sun.” He holds that the revolutionary powers of the earth are nothing, and that the sun is, as it appears to be, really revolving. [[@VolumePage:1,120]]A Genuine “new Departure.” A certain Mr. Ludlow, Clerk of the District Court of Seattle, W. T., is building a “Gospel ship,” to be used exclusively for gospel work along the coast of Washington Territory, British Columbia, and Alaska. She will be provided with a good library and a portable cabinet organ, and will carry a tent capable of holding 200 persons, so that services can be held at short notice, even in the midst of the remotest wilderness. She is designed to be the means of overcoming the difficulties hitherto experienced by the missionaries, on account of the isolation of the people of those North Pacific coasts.Honorary Degrees And D.D.’s. One of the subjects which came up before the American Association for the Advancement of Science, lately convened at Cincinnati, O., was a resolution to oppose the practice of the majority of the 360 colleges of our country, to confer the degree of Ph. D. honoris causa without examination. This proposal was zealously supported by Professor John Williams White, Professor of Greek, Harvard University, he being the delegate of the American Philological Society, held at Cleveland, on the 2nd of July. The speech which he made in favor of the resolution in question contains some remarkable points. It is on this account that we give our readers a brief extract from the same. Prof. White said: “It fills one with melancholy, Mr. President, to see to what a pass we are come in this country with our honorary degrees… There are, sir, in the United States, 360 institutions of a collegiate grade… It is a matter of surprise to see how large is the list which our unchecked “ingenuity” (i. e. in conferring degrees) has contrived to devise. The most of us, doubtless, have seen the catalogue of that great producer of a new light, Neophogen College, in Tennessee, … with the endless degrees, and I, myself, remember … that the President of a college, not 150 miles away from where we are now sitting, once told me with a face shining with pride, that his college gave seventeen different degrees. One of these, I remember, was M. P., which on interpretation meant, not Member of Parliament, but Master of Penmanship.” Then the Professor comes to speak about the D. D., which a great many institutions are so profusely liberal in conferring. He continues: “We all know, ladies and gentlemen, the bad odor into which the degree of D. D. has fallen among us, and that other degree, which means the same thing, S.P. D., which, if the favor into which it has recently been growing in this country could be investigated, would perhaps prove to be an attempt on the part of the clergymen to escape the odium attaching to the D. D.” Evidently Professor White, so openly acknowledging that, as matters now stand, the title of D. D. is in “bad odor,” an odium attaching to the same, is not in for conferring D. D. upon any one who shows some ability in reading a sermon, compiling a lecture, or preparing a short thesis based upon and chiefly consisting of the intellectual property of others. He deserves credit for his sound views as well as for the frankness with which he expresses them in rather unmistakeable language. There is no doubt that Prof. White’s opinion will exert a widely felt influence towards curtailing the number of honorary degrees, and especially of D.D.’s, annually conferred preeminently by such institutions which imagine this as adding to their “literary achievements,” believing their general character and scientific standing to be elevated in direct proportion to the number of LL. D.’s and D. D.’s they have bestowed on both excellence and mediocrity. Augustus. [[@VolumePage:1,121]]THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.Vol. 1. November 1881. No. 7.(For the “Theological Monthly.”)What does St. Paul Rom. 8. 28—30. teach concerning Election?Ephes. 1. 3—14. and Rom. 8. 28—30. are universally recognized as the principal sedes doctrinae concerning the article of Election. A careful consideration of the latter passage will lead us to the same result that we gained from Ephes. 1.In the second half of the 8th chapter of the epistle to the Romans the Apostle comforts the Christians concerning the sufferings of this present time, and, in particular, points to their future glory. In this connexion St. Paul says [[“We know that all things work together for good to them that love God,” >> Rom 8.28]] i. e. to the true Christians. He desires it to be understood that the sufferings, too, work to the Christians for good, for their salvation and glory. He adds “to them who are the called according to his purpose;” or “since they are the called according to his purpose.” The believing Christians are called in consequence of a firm purpose of God, and what God has determined upon as an end and object to be accomplished, must unfailingly be accomplished and realized. It is evident that we Christians are called to an everlasting glory, this is the end and object also of the purpose of God; this purpose has already begun to be realized in our calling and conversion, and will also unfailingly be carried out to the end proposed. And since this is sure and certain, nothing, cross and sufferings not excepted, can divert or restrain us from the salvation we hope for; on the contrary, all things work together for that salvation [[@VolumePage:1,122]]which God has designed for us and warranted to us in advance, and to which He has called us. These are the thoughts briefly comprehended in [[V. 28. >> Rom 8.28]]It is but natural, however, that the reader expects some distinct explanation of the pregnant expressions “purpose” and “called according to purpose.” In response to this expectation the Apostle subjoins the sentences contained in [[VV. 29. 30. >> Rom 8.29-30]] The correct understanding of both the first part of the first sentence and the structure of the whole depends on the signification of the word “foreknow.” In the disquisition of this whole passage the most direct and momentous question is this, What does the Apostle intend to say in beginning this new sentence with the words “whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son?” The verb “to know,” in the Greek, ginoskein, in the Hebrew, jadah, originally and in the first place undoubtedly signifies “to have mental cognition of,” it denotes an intellectual act. Hence this foreknowing of God may mean an act of His prescience. But again, it is an incontestable fact, a fact never contested before until some days ago, that in the Holy Scriptures the Hebrew jadah and the Greek ginoskein frequently, and especially when predicated of God, signify an effective, a loving cognizance of, a cognizance coupled with will and operation, a conscious act of the will. The expression “God knows this or that person” has in such cases no other sense than this, that God by His cognizance causes the person He takes cognizance of, i.e. to whom He directs His loving sight, to be in some certain relation to Himself, to be in communion with Himself, that He thus causes a person alien from Himself to be one who is His own, His possession. When, e. g., God said to Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee (jadati); and before thou eamest forth out of the womb I sanctified (separated) thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations,” Jerem. 1. 5., that “knowing” mentioned here is universally understood to involve the fact that God had chosen Jeremiah unto Himself even before his birth to be His prophet and preacher. When God, Amos 3. 2., says to Israel “You only have I known (jadati) of all the families of the earth,” it cannot be understood in any other [[@VolumePage:1,123]]way than that God had chosen Israel of all nations unto Himself for His peculiar possession. When in the New Testament Christ, John 10. 14. and passim, gives His disciples the assurance, that He knows those who are His, a cognition in love is meant according to the understanding of all the interpreters of the Scriptures. In Gal. 4. 9. the Apostle Paul describes the conversion of the Galatians in these words “But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God.” Through God’s knowing those who once were aliens from God, the true knowledge of God was wrought in them, they were made nigh unto God, they were made God’s own. In 2 Tim. 2. 19. the Apostle speaks of the foundation of God which standeth sure, having this seal “The Lord knoweth them that are his.” Hence because God knoweth them that are His, their salvation is sure. Only an act of God’s will, in virtue of which God has chosen us unto Himself, not the mere knowledge of God concerning any quality of ours whatever, can give us such assurance. That in these and other passages of the Holy Scriptures that “knowing” predicated of God is to be understood to denote a nosse cum affectu et effectu, i. e. a knowing joined with affection and love, with operation and effect, is a fact recognized by all the interpreters of the Scriptures at all times, the dogmaticians and exegetes of the 17th century to whom our present opponents are wont to appeal, not excepted. When they, our present opponents, now deny this usage, and thus reject the rules of language, and grammar, and lexicon, we can only say, there is no disputing with minds rambling and blinded.Since, then, the Holy Scriptures repeatedly signify an affectionate and efficient cognition by the use of the Greek word ginoskein, as well as the Hebrew word jadah, proginoskein or “to foreknow”, when predicated of God, may mean God’s causing those to whom His cognition was directed, to be in some relation to Himself, His appropriating them, His choosing them unto Himself, in advance, in eternity. An act of the will, a predestination, may be connoted by the word. In the four passages of the New Testament, Rom. 8. 29. being excluded, in which foreknowing is affirmed of God, this latter signification is, indeed, demanded by the context. In [[@VolumePage:1,124]]Acts 2. 23. the Jews are said to have crucified Christ, who was delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. It is evident that the reason which determined God to deliver His Son can be found only in a decree of God, not in a mere foreknowledge of future facts whatever. In 1 Peter 1. 20. St. Peter says of Christ, that God “foreordained” (foreknew, the word proginoskein is used) him as a lamb, as the redeemer, before the foundation of the world, and manifested him in these last times. The sense is evidently this, that in eternity God predestined Christ to be the redeemer, and in time manifested Him as such. Only predestination and manifestation, not mere mental precognition and manifestation can here reasonably be conceived as set over against each other.—In Rom. 11. 2. St. Paul writes of Israel “God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.” This conveys the sense, Whatever God foreknew, He cannot possibly cast away. Only an eternal act of God’s will, not a mere precognition renders the casting away impossible.—Finally in 1 Peter 1.2. the “fore-knowing of God” is found in close connexion with the expression “to elect.” Peter in addressing the Christians says, ye are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father;” that is, It being God the Father who foreknew you, chose you for His possession, ye have become elect. If a mere mental precognition of God the Father was meant, no one could find any distinct sense in the addition, since no syllable indicates what it was that God had mental cognition of in order to determine His election, what character or quality of the elect it was that He was aware of in particular, when this foreknowledge induced Him to elect them.There is a great probability resulting from the preceding examination, that in the passage Rom. 8. 29. the “foreknowing of God” is of the same import as in the four other passages; i. e. that it signifies an eternal purpose of God’s will. That it may be thus understood cannot be gainsaid. The context, however, renders this signification a necessary one. From this our verbal disquisition which seemed indispensable, we now again enter into the sphere of thoughts comprised in Rom. 8. 25—30. In [[V. 29. >> Rom 8.29]] we read “Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his [[@VolumePage:1,125]]Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” The first words “whom he did foreknow” convey a sense complete in itself and descriptive of the object of the assertion “he did predestinate.” The words constitute an objective sentence, which must in itself contain a complete sense. If we adopt the signification “to have mental precognition of” we obtain either a false sense, or none at all. Either all men are understood to be those whom God foreknew, for God, indeed, foreknew everything without any exception, or setting aside this trivial thought we must at once acquiesce in finding nothing at all to think of in these words. If nevertheless we endeavor to obtain from these words or give them any tolerable sense whatever it be, we are forced to add a thought which is not contained in the words of the Apostle. In this way “faith”, or even “love to God” has been added in thought as the object of precognition, and the passage has been translated thus: “whom he foreknew as believers, or as those who love God.” A perilous game, however, it is to make additions to the Bible by way of correction, and according to pleasure, in order to find in it what we like to read in it. No word in the Bible should then be clear and sure. The clause “whom he did foreknow” does, indeed, convey a logical sense, and a sense contained in the very words of which it is composed, only in case of its being understood to mean “whom he did preordain unto himself, choose beforehand unto himself for his possession.” Hence the Apostle says, Whom God did foreknow, i. e. from eternity did choose unto Himself for His possession, He also did predestinate, once to bear in glory the image of His Son. He then continues saying “And whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” All those, therefore, whom God chose unto Himself in eternity, and predestinated unto salvation, He also calls in time, He also justifies, and He finally also glorifies. The one follows and results from the other. What God from eternity purposed in Himself to do, He also accomplishes in time. That God in eternity chose us Christians, and predestinated us unto glory, and now in time called and justified us, and thereby warranted to us the future glory, both these facts united constitute the [[@VolumePage:1,126]]evidence of the truth, that all things work together for good to them that love God, to us Christians, and that sufferings also work for our salvation. In the sentences [[VV. 29. 30. >> Rom 8:29-30]] the Apostle only explains more distinctly the thought pronounced by him briefly in the words “since they are called according to his purpose.” We who now love God, were chosen by Him from eternity unto Himself, and predestinated unto glory. He has purposed in Himself to glorify us after our sufferings, and this purpose he effects through His calling and justification unto the accomplishment of His last end and object. And because God has purposed this in Himself, and effects it unfailingly, our sufferings cannot hinder it; on the contrary, our sufferings must aid in the realization of this eternally predetermined end, they must work for good to us. This is the clear and lucid connection of the thoughts set forth in the passage before us. The whole argumentation of the Apostle would fall away into nothing, if the first clause in [[V. 29. >> Rom 8.29]] were intended to convey the sense of a mere precognition of faith. In that case the whole counsel concerning our salvation together with its execution would depend on something that God foresaw in us. How could Christians then be of good comfort in their sufferings? How can they in their temptations be sure of their future glory, since they do not know whether they will abide in faith? That is known to God alone. And this dark point is the very thing on which all other things depend.To conclude, we collect as a result from the Scriptural passage examined the following brief statements concerning Election.1. God has from eternity chosen us unto Himself for His possession and predestinated us to glory. This is His firm purpose which cannot fail.2. From this eternal election flows and results necessarily our calling in time, our conversion, faith, justification, and finally our glorification.3. This eternal purpose of God and its accomplishment in time can not be shaken and hindered by anything, by any cross and sufferings, by any power of earth or hell. On the contrary, all things must work together for good to the beloved and elect children of God. [[@VolumePage:1,127]]4. For this reason we Christians can and ought to be perfectly sure of our future salvation and glory, and comfort ourselves with this truth in the sufferings of this present time.Woe to them that rob the tempted and afflicted Christians of this sure comfort! G. St. (For the “Theological Monthly.”)Election and Persevering Faith.Matth. 24. 24. (Concluded.)4. Now let no reader be frightened by the hue and cry of “Calvinism.” This is not Calvinistic heresy as long as our Lutheran confessions are in accordance with the Word of God, and not denied with Calvinism. This very doctrine we find clearly stated in the Formula of Concord. Let the reader but carefully and without prejudice read the following passages taken from our Symbol.In the [[Epitome of the Formula of Concord, p. 583, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:5]] we read: “But predestination, or the eternal election of God, pertains to the good and beloved children of God alone” (in the [[Decl. of F. of C, p. 711, >> BookOFConcord:Formula:SD:xi:5]] we read: “does not pertain both to the good and to the bad, but only to the children of God, who were elected and ordained to eternal life, before the foundation of the world”)—evidently election is here understood in the narrow or strict sense, as our adversaries term it—”and it,” this election in the “strict sense,” “is a cause of their salvation, which is His work, and for which He provides all that is appropriate to it. Upon this predestination”—that is, election in the “strict sense”; or are our adversaries about revolutionizing grammar so as to teach that the pronoun “it” does not denote that predestination which is named before?— “their salvation is so firmly founded, that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it. John. 10. 28. Matth. 16. 18.” What does the F. of C. teach in these words? This most assuredly: Because the good and beloved children of God are predestinated, therefore the gates of hell cannot prevail against their salvation; or using the words of our Lord, John 10. 28., [[@VolumePage:1,128]]which passage the F. of C. cites: Because the good and beloved children of God are predestinated, therefore no man shall pluck them out of Christ’s hands; or using the words of our Lord in our passage: Because the good and beloved children of God are predestinated, there/ore it is not possible that they should be deceived, however great may be the signs and wonders shown by the false Christs and false prophets. What Christ says concerning the dangers threatening the elect and coming from the gates of hell, Matth. 16. 18., or coming from man, John 10. 28., even the same He says concerning the dangers arising from false Christs and false prophets. And as the gates of hell and no man shall prevail against the salvation of the elect, because they are predestinated of God; so also shall false Christs and false prophets be unable to seduce the good and beloved children of God, because they are elected or predestinated of God.In the Declaration of the [[F. of C, p. 714, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:23]] we read: “And in this counsel, purpose, and ordination God has not only prepared salvation in general, but has mercifully considered all and each person of the elect, who will ultimately be saved through Christ”—election in the “narrow sense”—”has elected them, and Decreed That in the manner now mentioned, He Will through His grace, gifts, and operation bring them to this salvation, assist them in it, promote it, and Strengthen And Preserve Them.” God has elected the elect, and decreed that He will strengthen and preserve them. And this election of persons, embracing this decree to preserve them, is, as the [[F. of C. says, p. 712, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:8]] “the cause which procures, works, facilitates, and promotes our salvation and whatever pertains to it,” hence persevering faith also, “and upon this our salvation is so firmly grounded that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Neither shall the false Christs and false prophets be able to deceive the elect, these cannot be deceived, for they are elect, and God has decreed that He will strengthen and preserve them. And thus our perseverance in faith and the impossibility that the elect should be deceived, is made to rest upon the eternal election of God, [[F. of C. Decl. p. 718. sq.: >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:45]] “Thus this doctrine” of election, “also affords the eminent and [[@VolumePage:1,129]]precious consolation, that God took so deep an interest in the conversion, righteousness, and salvation of each Christian, and so faithfully provided for them, that before the foundation of the world, in His counsel and purpose (in illo arcano suo propositi, as it is given in our Latin F. of C.) He ordained the manner in which He would bring me”—election in the “narrow sense,” see [[p. 714, sect.: >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:24]] And in this counsel, &c.—”to salvation and preserve me there; again, that He wished to secure my salvation so truly and firmly, that in His eternal purpose, which cannot fail or be overthrown, He decreed it, and to secure it, placed it in the omnipotent hands of our Savior Jesus Christ, out of which none shall pluck us. John 10. 28. For if our salvation were committed unto, us, it might easily be lost through the weakness and wickedness of our flesh, or be taken and plucked out of our hands, by the fraud and power of the devil and of the world. Hence Paul, Rom. 8. 28, 35, 39., says: ‘since we are called according to the purpose of God, who shall separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.’” What are we taught by these words? This: In His counsel and purpose (in illo arcano suo proposito), or in election and predestination—for these words are constantly used as synonyms in the F. of C.— God ordained the manner in which He would bring me to salvation or faith, and Preserve me there; in His eternal counsel He, to secure the salvation of the elect, placed it into the hands of Christ. Therefore, God having in the election of His children decreed and provided for their persevering in faith, and God having also in His eternal counsel put the salvation of the elect into the omnipotent hands of Christ—therefore it is impossible that they should be deceived, led astray, and lost.And finally the F. of C. says, [[p. 727: >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:90]]”And thus this article affords to troubled and agitated minds the surest consolation,” particularly in times of great spiritual dangers, as they are described Matth. 24., “since thereby they know, that their salvation is not intrusted into their hands, else they would lose it much more easily than Adam and Eve lost it in Paradise, and that, too, every hour and moment, but that”—and this is the consolatory reason why they cannot lose it, cannot be seduced, but will endure unto the end—”it depends on the [[@VolumePage:1,130]]gracious election of God, which He has revealed unto us in Christ, out of whose hands no man shall pluck us. John 10. 28. 2 Tim. 1. 19.”Our salvation depends on the election of God; we need not be harassed by doubts on account of the weakness and wickedness of our flesh, or on account of the fraud and power of the devil and of the world. God has in His election decreed to preserve us unto the end, He has therefore put us, His elect, into the hands of Christ, whence no one shall pluck us; and hence it is impossible that the elect should be deceived even by the great signs and wonders of the false Christs and false prophets. The good and beloved children of God endure unto the end and cannot be deceived—because they are the elect.(For the “Theological Monthly”.)Dr. Walther once and now.Professor M. Guenther, of St. Louis, Mo., has testified to the following facts: 1st, that when he yet sat at Prof. Walther’s feet in the class room, he heard him teach, one should not say: I am elected because I believe, but: I believe, because I am elected, election therefore precedes faith; 2nd, that the sermon for Septuagesima Sunday which is found printed in Prof. Walther’s Postil since 1871 and which contains the so-called first tropus, was delivered by him in 1852, and 3rd, that the manuscript of a still older sermon, of 1843, contains the same doctrine of predestination which he now teaches. Lehre und Wehre, vol. 27, p. 157. Rev. J. A. Huegli, of Detroit, Mich., has testified that Prof. Walther, in his academic lectures, twenty five years ago, delivered to his students—Rev. Huegli being one of their number at that time —no other doctrine of election than he is now teaching. Ibid., p. 142. This, then, was in 1856.We had thought that, in regard to these matters, Prof. Loy had also received better information from Prof. Stellhorn, his colleague, who, too, was once one of Dr. Walther’s pupils, than to be able to write concerning Rev. F. Kuegele: “We fear his memory fails him when he asserts that he learned his doctrine when a student at St. Louis.” Luth. Standard of [[@VolumePage:1,131]]Aug. 20th. But the fact that Prof. Stellhorn, in 1858 (over 22 years ago) and in 1864 (over 17 years ago), learned the doctrine of predestination of Dr. Walther as it is taught by the Missouri Synod, has, it seems, been heretofore concealed from him. Of late, Prof. Stellhorn has, indeed, turned out to be an incomprehensible being to us. When it is asserted in the Columbus Theological Magazine that Dr. Walther once dictated the second tropus as his doctrinal position, Prof. Stellhorn has not only nothing to say against, but even indicates his agreement with, the false charge by writing, among other things, the following: “A friend of Prof. Loy’s thereupon communicated to the latter a dictation of Dr. Walther, showing that about fifteen years later” (that is, ten years ago) “Dr. Walther had not yet taught so” (as he does now). Luth. Standard of Aug. 6th. And in the Columubs Magazine he writes that “the new light has suddenly risen in St. Louis”, in “the latter decades of the nineteenth century”, p. 208.After the death of the blessed Prof. A. Biewend, which occurred April 10th 1858, Dr. Walther instructed the whole Concordia gymnasium, which was then yet at St. Louis, in the catechism. The ten commandments had been catechised on by Prof. Biewend. Dr. Walther continued where the latter had left off, and, towards the end of the year, he catechised on the doctrine of election in the third article according to Dietrich’s catechism. The writer of this article who was then in the second class (Secunda), whilst Prof. Stellhorn was in the fourth (Quarta), begs leave to produce, not from memory, but from his notes taken down at the time, the following sufficient evidence to show that Dr. Walther has not in the least changed his position relative to the doctrine of election, but that he is the same man in theology in regard to this point that he was over 22 years ago, at least. He, for instance, said that the answer to Q. No. 321 in Dietrich stated, first, that election of grace is an “act of God”, then, that it is “a voluntary act”, then, that it is “no unconditional act”; he said that “not a condition of election”, but “a description of the elect” was given in the words: “all those who shall perseveringly believe in Christ”, and that the answer finally pointed out the “ultimate end” of election, which is “the [[@VolumePage:1,132]]praise of His glorious grace”. Further notes make Prof. Walther say the following: “The Calvinists say God elected a few, but as He did not know how to get them to heaven, He decreed to send His Son.”—”Election is the cause of the faith” (of the elect). “Right! God Himself gives faith.” In the catechisation on the words: “All things work together for good to them that love God” (in Rom. 8. 28—30., under Q. No. 322), he said: “When an elect sins, that also must work for good to him. If any one is not elected, neither good nor evil will be of avail to him.” “It flows from God’s mercy (Erbarmung) alone that He elected some.. God is incomprehensible, not only in His nature and works, but also in His decrees. When the Calvinists cannot comprehend what God does, they cast a goodly portion away, and God is made to be a hideous God, and a liar and cruel tyrant. Many errors are connected with the absolute decree, viz.: that Christ did not die for all men, that grace is irresistible, &c.” Speaking of the elect who continue in faith unto their end, Prof. Walther said: “God did not elect a person (einen) on account of faith, but a person always continues in faith because God elected him.” In regard to answer to Q. No. 323, Dr. Walther said: “The two first” (“the boundless mercy of God and the infinite merit of Christ”) “are the only causes, but the third” (“persevering faith in Christ”) “and what belongs to the same, are the means.” “As this decree (2 Tim. 1. 9.) was made before the world began, there can be no word said about merit or works.” “The Calvinists say ‘world’ signifies the elect. 1 Tim. 2. 4. Here it says ‘all men’. They assail the word ‘saved’” (in the sentence: “who will have all men to be saved”), “saying it is God’s will that all men should have a good life (living) here; but that is not so. 1 Tim. 2. 5-6. The most beautiful in this passage is when it says at last: ‘to be testified in due time.’ Those who are damned are also purchased by Christ. They (the Calvinists) cannot get over this passage. Not only God’s will to save and the redemption are universal, but the call is also universal and earnest. Rom. 10.18. Col. 1. 6, 23.” (These passages which are not cited in Dietrich’s catechism, were especially added by Prof. Walther.) “The apostles did go into all the world, and we are the [[@VolumePage:1,133]]gleaning only.” He said with reference to Luke 19. 41.: “If election were absolute, He would have had to elect all in like manner as He also calls all. If the Calvinists show us a person that has been elected without faith, we will believe our doctrine is wrong. They are correlates: what God decreed in eternity, and: what He accomplished in time. The hymn in our “Large Treasure of Prayers”, which begins with: “Welch’ eine Sorg’ und Furcht soll nicht bei Christen wachen und sie behutsamlich und wohlbedaechtig machen! Mit Furcht und Zittern, heisst’s, schafft eurer Seelen Heil, wenn kaum der Fromme bleibt, wie denn der suend’ge Theil!”—was praised up to us as a “splendid hymn”. To Q. 327, he said: “The Calvinists say, if one has once been converted he will be saved; then conversion itself is trusted in.—God’s will in the decree to save us, is unchangeable.” To Rom. 8. 38-39. (under Q. No. 310): “For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life… shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord”;—Prof. Walther said: “Here perseverance is spoken of. He (the apostle) says ‘us’, and thus lays it into the mouth of the Christians to make them certain.” In the notes remaining which do not seem so important for the present, not a word is said to the contrary of what the notes here given contain, nor does any note contain anything peculiar to the so-called second tropus.In the theological seminary at St. Louis the dogmatical textbook used was Joh. Guilelmi Baieri Compendium Theologiae Positivae. In regard to the doctrine of conversion (see Baier, Part III, cap. IV, § 38) Prof. Walther said: “Musaeus” (whom Baier follows) “has a wider notion of conversion than Calov, one that easily leads to Synergism,” from which it is plain that Prof. Walther, at that time already, did not entirely approve of Baier’s mode of presenting the doctrine of conversion. In the locus on justification (see § 9.) Prof. Walther again signified his disagreement with Baier in the mode of presenting the doctrine, by saying: The dogmaticians have their systems which are for the most part built up of causes and effects. They therefore also give faith the name of a cause. But I cannot approve of this. Faith is the God-given hand with which universal justification is received by the [[@VolumePage:1,134]]believer. When we students commenced to study the doctrine of predestination, according to Baier, in the beginning of the year 1863, Prof. Walther said to us: I do not quite agree with Baier’s presentation of this doctrine. You will yet receive this doctrine of me in the Formula of Concord. But, in order that we might know the contents of Baier’s locus on this doctrine and become acquainted with his mode of presenting the same, we committed the paragraphs (without the notes attached) to memory and recited them in class. To some paragraphs Prof. Walther dictated notes of his own, which, with one exception, are citations from our Lutheran fathers. The note forming an exception reads thus (under § 2.): “Formula Concordiae non tam latius accipit has voces (sc. praedestinationis et electionis) quam monet, necessario et semper, si de electione et praedestinatione meditamur, plus quam hoc considerandum esse, Deum quosdam elegisse, ne desperemus aut securitati indulgeamus.” (That is: The Formula of Concord does not take these words [predestination and election] in the wider sense, it rather teaches that if we meditate on election and predestination, more must necessarily and always be considered than this, that God elected some persons, lest we despair or indulge in security.) Among other citations under § 15., Prof. Walther gave us one from Olearius in which reference is had to Dr. Luther’s preface to the epistle to the Romans. The writer of this has on the margin of his manuscript: “Cf. Altenb. Test, ad Rom. 9.,” which was undoubtedly read to us by Dr. Walther, as such references were generally, without hardly a single exception, read to us and further enlarged upon by Dr. Walther, as my class-mates will bear witness. The next citation, under the same §, is from Quenstedt and reads, as far as we need it here, as follows: “Antithesis: I. Calvinianorum . . Dordraceni: ‘Electio facta est non ex praevisa fide’” (signum interrogations). “Molinaeus: ‘Deus non elegit nos ex fide, sed ad fidem’” (signum interrogationis). That is: Antithesis: I. of the Calvinists . . Those of Dort (say): Election was not made by reason of foreseen faith (mark of interrogation). Molinaeus (says): God has elected us not by reason of faith, but to faith (mark of interrogation). Dr. Walther dictated these marks of interrogation. Why? Because by so doing he signified to [[@VolumePage:1,135]]us students his disagreement with Quenstedt, who here, as far as the words themselves are concerned, but not as far as they are considered in connection with the Calvinistic system, rejects the biblical and Lutheran mode of presenting the doctrine of predestination. Prof. Walther undoubtedly expressed himself further on the subject, which, however, the writer of this no longer recollects.In 1863, Prof. Walther taught his students, one of whom Prof. Stellhorn was, the doctrine of predestination according to the 11th article of the Formula of Concord. According to the notes taken down at that time by the writer of this article, Prof. Walther said, among other things: “In the superscription of this article” (which reads: “Von der ewigen Vorsehung und Wahl Gottes, De aeterna praedestinatione et electione Dei.”) “Vorsehung is to be understood only of the elect. Vorsehung and Versehung is one and the same thing, which is seen from the Latin.” “By Vorsehung the decree to elect some to salvation is understood. It is secondly taken in the signification of praescientia (see the Latin in the affirmative No. 2.” “The first four Theses” (in [[the affirmative of the Epitome >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:2-5]]) “are an epitome of the whole doctrine of predestination. Here Determinism (Fatalism) as well as Pelagianism is rejected. The Calvinists make no distinction between praescientia and praedestinatio. Vorsehung (praescientia) is a wider notion than election, according to No. 3, because it extends to the good and bad. Seeing before is the knowing, on the part of God, of future objects. He predestinates with the will. Luther never identifies praescientia and praedestinatio. [[Augsb. Conf., Art. 19. >> BookOfConcord:AC:I:19]] [[Apology, Art. 19. >> BookOfConcord:AP:19]]” When it is said in No. 4, that “predestination is a cause of their salvation,” Prof. Walther taught us that “this is opposed to the Pelagians and Semipelagians and Arminians.” He added: “Since Aeg. Hunnius until Baier and Hollaz, the expression: ‘Predestination is a cause of our salvation’, was not retained. It was taught that faith is the cause.—Hence, faith is something human.”—When it is further said in No. 4, that God “ordains what pertains to the salvation” (of the children of God), Prof. Walther said: “Hither final faith belongs.” The “πρ??καιροι” (those believing for a time only) are “not included.” “[[Augsburg Confession, Art. 5.: >> BookOfConcord:AC:I:5]] [[@VolumePage:1,136]]‘In order that we may obtain this faith, God instituted the ministry, gave the gospel and the sacraments, by which, as by instruments, He gives the Holy Ghost, who works faith where and when He wills in those who hear the gospel which teaches that we have a gracious God through Christ’s merit, not through our merit, if we believe it’.” Dr. Walther dictated the following: “Calvin writes: ‘Decretum quidem horribile, fateor; infitiari tamen nemo poterit, quin praesciverit Deus, quem exitum esset habiturus homo, antequam ipsum conderet, et ideo praesciverit, quia decreto suo sic ordinarat.’ [[Instit. lib. III, c. 23, § 7. >> cicr:Institutes III, xxiii, 7]]” (That is: Calvin writes: I confess, the decree is horrible indeed; yet no one will be able to deny that God foreknew what end man would have before He created him, and that He therefore foreknew it because He had so ordained it in His decree.) Prof. Walther said: “This is Determinism, Fatalism.” He, then, dictated: “Spener writes: ‘Yet, election is not the cause that such persons remain constant in faith, but, because they will remain constant, this made it (hat es gemacht) that the Lord elected them. See Katechismuspred., p. 355.” Prof. Walther said this was “Arminian.” He here also embraced the opportunity of speaking of Pelagianism, and finally said: “Man is saved by grace alone.” “It is asked: Who knows whether I am predestinated? This God has wisely withheld from us; but we know it indirectly. Christ is the book of life, He is the way, the truth, and the life. If I want to know whether I am predestinated, I go to Christ. Every Christian should be certain of his election, but not absolutely so that he might think he may now wallow in sin, etc., and yet be saved. A Christian says: I am also in the book of life, in Christ, or else God would not have given me faith; but with trembling I must take heed lest I fall. ‘We are elected in Christ,’ is opposed to the Supralapsarians, who assert that God has, without prevision of the fall, elected some to salvation, the others to damnation.” When it is said in [[No. 7 of the affirmative, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:8]] God is in earnest that all men should come to Him, the notes of the writer of this article let Prof. Walther say: “They (the Calvinists) say God calls the ones not earnestly, the others He calls by irresistible grace.”—”Gracious election is God’s decree by which He, in Christ, by grace, [[@VolumePage:1,137]]destined some to eternal life.—The number is irrevocably fixed.” —”Causa interna impulsiva = God’s will; causa externa impulsiva = Christ’s merit.”—”Whenever we read in the Scriptures that men resist, this is always an evidence that God is not the cause of damnation. Indeed, there could be no resistance, if God did not work in the hearts of men.” The fourth antithesis in [[the Epitome >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:20]] reads: “Again, that not the mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ alone are the cause, but that there is also a cause in us, of God’s election, on account of which God elected us to eternal life.” Prof. Walther said: “We turn this antithesis entirely upside down, so that gracious election is the cause of faith and election.” We were then shown Gerhard’s position, and the following words were dictated from his locus on election: “By no merits of men, by no worthiness of the human race, no, not even by the prevision of good works or faith was He (God) moved to elect certain ones to eternal life, but this is to be ascribed entirely to His unowed and immense grace alone. Eph. 1. 6. Rom. 11. 5, 2 Tim. 1. 9.” Vid. loc. de elect, decreto.—No notes on the eight points. We students were shown that “the epistle to the Romans treats in the first three chapters of sin, in the 4th of grace, in the 5th and 6th of the fight against sin, in the 7th and 8th of the cross, in the 9th, 10th, and 11th of predestination.” The notes further say: “Before a person comes to the doctrine of predestination, he is already certain of salvation; but the doctrine of predestination then serves to render us certain that we shall overcome all hindrances.” “Here” (on [[p. 712 in Mueller’s edition >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:38]]) “it is shown that private absolution is directly opposed to the Calvinistic doctrine of absolute predestination. Therefore the sects do not want private absolution.” “Predestination is, indeed, the cause of salvation and of faith, but not of sin. A man’s sin, indeed, damns him, but his goodness is not the cause of his being saved.” “Many things which we are not to know, God has not revealed. Compare here the example of a child and (higher) mathematics, or: if a maggot found in cheese wanted to dispute with us.” To § 64. in the Declaration: “The secret decree is in accordance with the one revealed; but, of course, we do not know all as yet. By the execution of the eternal decree we may best [[@VolumePage:1,138]]know the decree, e. g., that of redemption.” To §§ 65. 66.: “The Father has predestinated us to eternal life, the Son has acquired salvation for us, the Holy Spirit brings us to the salvation acquired, He glorifies Christ.” To § 71.: “Here it is shown that by predestination the way to salvation by repentance and faith, is not annulled.” “The call is the offering of the spiritual powers to believe.” The above plainly shows, not only that Prof. Walther never taught a different doctrine of election at St. Louis from the one he now teaches, but also that it is not exactly in accordance with the truth when Prof. Loy writes in the Col. Theol. M., p. 157: “This accords too with his (Dr.Walther’s) own statement, made in the presence of many witnesses, that while he years ago held the doctrine which he now teaches and defends, he did not formerly inculcate and expound it, but only slightly touched it.” A worthy writer for the “Lehre und Wehre”, taking “inculcate” in the sense of “stark treiben”, did, indeed, concede the point in one of his articles for that monthly, but what Dr. Walther may have said “in the presence of many witnesses,” was undoubtedly of a different character from how it is represented in the “Magazine.” The translation of his German words may be faulty, also. Whoever knows how Dr. Walther works when he teaches doctrine at all, will admit that he cannot help “inculcating and expounding” the same. It is just that to a great extent in which his mode of teaching consists.But how about his dictations? Prof. Loy writes: “But it is not reasonable to suppose that what a teacher dictates is what he does not teach, and that what he merely cites or remarks without dictating is what he really teaches and expects his students to believe and to teach. The manuscript will necessarily be more authoritative than the memory.” Col. Theol. M., p. 157. By this Prof. Loy shows that he has wholly mistaken the character of Dr. Walther’s dictations. In Concordia Seminary the Latin dogmatical text-book mentioned above, was studied by us theological students paragraph by paragraph together with the notes attached. Wherever the book contained anything with which Dr. Walther did not agree, he told us, giving his reasons which, in the writer’s opinion, were always [[@VolumePage:1,139]]to the point, without rendering the book hateful to us. After we had recited a portion from memory in the class room, Prof. Walther dictated the contents of the separate paragraphs to us and gave additional notes wherever he deemed it necessary. Although a goodly number of paragraphs remained without such additional notes in our manuscript, the contents of all the paragraphs were nevertheless dictated, in order to preserve the text-book complete in our manuscript in some form or other, as far, at least, as the paragraphs went. Therefore it occurred that even the contents of some paragraphs in which Prof. Walther did not agree with Baier, were in some form or other dictated to us. Some are in the form of a single heading, as, for instance: “Subjectum Quo conversionis;” others have the form of an indirect question, for instance: “Quanam ratione lex et evangelium conveniant?”—others still are in the form of an Accusativus cum Infinitivo sentence, as, for instance: “Deum ab aeterno voluisse ut omnes homines crederent.” Therefore, although Prof. Walther did not exactly agree with Baier’s wider notion of conversion in § 38. of Part. III, cap. IV., he nevertheless gave the contents of said paragraph in the following incomplete form: “Hominem in initio conversionis mere passive, in progressu autem active se habere,” that is, that man is in a state of mere passiveness in the beginning of conversion, but is active in its progress. Although Prof. Walther did not agree with Baier in terming faith the less principal impulsive cause of justification, he nevertheless dictated the contents of Part. III, cap. V, § 9. in the incomplete form: “Causa impulsiva minus principalis.” As the contents of (not, as Prof. Loy says in the Col. Theol. M., p. 157, “instead of”) § 9 in the locus on predestination, he dictated to the writer of this article and his class-mates the following: “Quid praedestinationis aut electionis nomine speciatim appelletur?” A “friend” who received his theological education at the feet of Dr. Walther, allows it to be said by Prof. Loy that Dr. Walther dictated this paragraph in words beginning with: “Predestinationis.” (A sentence which all agree no Latin scholar is able to construe, to say nothing of the orthographical blunders contained in it.) See Col. Theol. M., p. 157 and 210. But even if Prof. Walther had once, ten years ago, given [[@VolumePage:1,140]]to a class of students the contents of said paragraph in a form similar to that in which it is quoted by Prof. Loy, this would by no means prove that Prof. Walther approved of the sense conveyed. Thus, also, Prof. Walther did not believe faith to be an impulsive cause of election, yet he dictated the contents of § 15. of said locus, for the reasons given above, in the following form: “Fidem esse causam impulsivam externam electionis minus principalem,” that is, that faith be the external less principal impulsive cause of election. These plain facts will undoubtedly convince such as will think. Prof. Loy may, indeed, be excused for having heretofore labored under a total misapprehension of the character of Dr. Walther’s dictations and of his mode of teaching, but Prof. Stellhorn who not only joins in the cry that Dr. Walther formerly taught differently on the doctrine of election from how he now teaches, but also even sides with and defends those who maintain that Prof. Walther dictated the so-called second tropus as his doctrinal opinion, has no excuse whatever for his dishonorable behavior, as he is quite well acquainted with Prof. Walther’s whole method of teaching. C. S. K. (For the “Theological Monthly”.)Duties of a Beneficiary.What the duties of a beneficiary in the Ohio Synod’s institutions are, the “Standard” of Oct. 15. tells us, when it publishes the following:“Past. Bachmann of Evansville, Ind., being dissatisfied with the position of synod, with more zeal than wisdom, induced his members to have all their Kirchenzeitungs, thirty-nine in number, discontinued. This was done by a man who was a beneficiary in our institutions for years.” Base, shocking ingratitude, indeed! Rev. B., for years a beneficiary in the Columbus institutions, is not ashamed of being dissatisfied with the position of the Ohio Synod in the predestinarian controversy, although its spokesmen have repeatedly told the Christian world, and do not tire of informing the readers of the Ohio Synod’s periodicals, that the position of the Ohio Synod is the truly Lutheran one, that the Ohio [[@VolumePage:1,141]]Synod in the question confess “a doctrine which all our great theologians since the time of the Formula of Concord taught”, while the “New-Missourians” (whom now “God has let fall”) hold a Calvinistic doctrine and “parade Calvinistic arguments”. What “business” has Rev. B. to be dissatisfied with the position of synod, he having been “a beneficiary in the Columbus institutions for years”? If there were a grain of gratitude in his heart, he would in simple, childlike credulity take for granted what the Ohio Synod has so unmistakably declared, viz.: “We again herewith confess the doctrine of election, as it is contained in the Formula of Concord, and also as it has, in accordance therewith, been always taught on the whole by the great teachers of our Church.” Does he, the “beneficiary in the Ohio Synod’s institutions”, dare to doubt the truth of this, the Ohio Synod’s solemn declaration? Does he not know, if the Ohio Synod declares that “its doctrine concerning predestination is contained in the Formula of Concord, and also that it has, in accordance therewith, been always taught on the whole by the great teachers of our church”, that this declaration cannot but be true? Does he not know that he is guilty of base ingratitude in doubting the truth of this declaration? Does he not manifest a most pitiable “lack either of acumen, or of conscientiousness” in being dissatisfied with the position of the Ohio Synod?But alas! Rev. B. is not satisfied in being “dissatisfied” with the anti-Calvinistic and anti-Missourian (and anti-confessional and anti-scriptural) position of the Ohio Synod; he even so far forgets himself and the duties he owes the Ohio Synod, a beneficiary in whose institutions he was for years, as to induce the members of his congregation to have all their “Kirchenzeitungs” discontinued! No doubt, “this matter requires looking into,” as the “Standard” would say. For is it possible that the members of the Evansville charge could have been so blinded by “New-Missourian Calvinism”, as not to be aware of the inimitable excellence and superiority of the Ohio Synod’s German organ, the columns of which are always teeming with sound theology, deep learning, Christian polemics, and aesthetic wit (not to say anything of the beautiful, almost classical German, which characterizes this periodical)? Every [[@VolumePage:1,142]]reasonable Ohioan must acknowledge that this is impossible, indeed! Rev. B. therefore, as a matter of course, has brought this sad state of affairs about, not in a fair and Christian manner, but, “as it seems,” by “fibbing” after the example of the “Lutheraner”; he certainly acted like the other apostate from the Ohio Synod in Virginia, by whom, as the President of Concordia District tells us in the “Standard” of Oct. 15., “neither the new doctrine which he holds, nor the old which the synod holds, has been fairly represented to the people.” For if they had not “become prejudiced”, they, as a matter of course, “would have spumed” any other doctrine concerning election, but the one of the Ohio Synod. This is self-evident! —And just think of Rev. B.’s base ingratitude!—”thirty-nine Kirchenzeitungs” he induced his members to have discontinued!—thirty-nine Dollars less in the treasury of the Ohio Synod, which, as the former beneficiary only too well knows, is so very frequently empty! If he were not entirely devoid of Christian gratitude, he would at least have induced those of his members that were dissatisfied with the Kirchenzeitung, to subscribe to the “Standard”, the English organ of the Ohio Synod, especially now, when so many members of the Missouri Synod have their “Standards” discontinued, because they do not “like to pay for being kicked”. This, no doubt, would have been the plain duty of Rev. B., for, having been a “beneficiary in the Ohio Synod’s institutions”, he knew, and if he did not know it before, even yet the last issue of the “Standard” might have told him, that “the ‘standard’ is at present the sole English periodical in this great land of sects and myriad showers of ‘ism’-atic papers, devotedly true to the pure and robust faith of the Church of the Reformation, representing the positive position of the Synodical Conference over against the shifting expediencies and inconsistencies of Pseudo-Lutheranism”; moreover, its zeal for the truth is even so ardent that it does not hesitate to recommend to its readers all publications directed against the Missouri Synod, even if they are written by such individuals as, on account of scandalizing conduct, had been excluded from membership! “He handles some of the Missouri leaders in a manner that is by no means gentle.” Only he that is lacking “either in acumen, or [[@VolumePage:1,143]]in conscientiousness” will fail to see that this is sufficient reason for recommending such a polyglot publication to the Christian readers of the “Standard” which bears the beautiful motto: “Speaking the truth in love!” Or does Rev. B. forget the duties of gratitude so far as to try to excuse his ungrateful conduct, so unbecoming to a “beneficiary”, by pointing to those men who, although having been beneficiaries in the Missouri Synod’s institutions for many years, have found pleasure in not only inducing their members to have their copies of the “Lutheraner” discontinued, but also in turning their back upon their mother-synod and in publicly and privately reviling their fathers and brethren as Calvinists?—or by pointing even to those men who, although having been “beneficiaries in the Missouri Synod’s institutions for years”, and although for years “eating the bread” of the Missouri Synod, still endeavored not only to break the heart of that great and good man, to whom, next to God, they owe whatever they know of Lutheran theology, but who also employed the time and strength, for which the Missouri Synod paid them, in stigmatizing as Calvinists the members of that synod whose bread they were eating at that very time? In this case Rev. B. would again “manifest a lack either of acumen, or of conscientiousness”. Having been a beneficiary in the Ohio Synod’s institutions for years, he ought to know: “Si duo dicunt (faciunt) idem, non est idem!”—”Quod decet Jovem, non decet bovem!”—Sic nos, non nobis!—It is true, these men from the Missouri Synod were also beneficiaries in that Synod’s institutions for years, but they were, of course, in conscience bound to appear ungrateful in the eyes of that synod, by “running it down” as best they could, for thus, in fact, they only proved true gratitude: but he, Rev. B., who was a beneficiary in the Ohio Synod’s institutions for years, by inducing his members to have all their Kirchenzeitungs discontinued (“thirty-nine in number!”), betrays not only “more zeal than wisdom”, but becomes also guilty of the basest kind of ingratitude.—Indeed, we pity the poor Ohio Synod!A. C. [[@VolumePage:1,144]](For the “Theological Monthly.”)Reasons for Suspending my Membership in the Joint Synod of Ohio and other States.1. At its late session in Wheeling by a resolution entitled “Our position concerning the doctrine of Election,” passed on the 10th of September, the Ohio Synod in so far changed its confessional basis, that, whilst it formerly confessed itself simply to the XI. Article of the Formula of Concord it now confesses itself to the same as the Fathers explained it, i.e. in the widest sense. From this it is evident, that the Synod does no more confess itself simply to the text of the F. of C, but rather to the explanation of the Fathers. I hold, that the Confessions shall be their own interpreter, and can not consent to interpret them according to theories set up in the private writings of the Church-Fathers, as Synod has resolved, that they must be interpreted. (See [[B. of C. 2d Ed. p. 596. Reject. 3d. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:0:19]])2. In the same resolution Synod confesses itself to the expression used by some of the Fathers, that Election took place “in view of faith.” Conceding that this expression can be used in an orthodox sense I must nevertheless reject an unqualified confession to the same, because it is neither found in the Scriptures, nor in the Confessions, and is apt to lead to errors. By the words of the same resolution: “As in the past, so also in the future,” Synod has endorsed Synergistic explanations of this expression, “In view of faith”, given publicly by officials of Synod, such as: That election took place in foresight of man’s conduct towards the Gospel; that the mystery of election is in man; that of such equally guilty the one is converted because he is disposed to hear the Gospel, and other similar ones. These expressions manifestly imply, that man can and must contribute something in the work of conversion and salvation, which is condemned by our Confessions.3. One of the reasons given for withdrawing from the Synodical Conference is, because the Synod of Missouri had, set up a doctrine of election, which the Ohio Synod could not accept. Now the doctrine of Missouri may be summed up in these sentences: 1. God desires and seeks the salvation of all men; 2. those that will be lost are lost on account of their [[@VolumePage:1,145]]unbelief; 3. those that will be saved were, before the foundation of the world from pure grace for the sake of Christ’s merits ordained unto salvation and all that is necessary to obtain it. I hold, that this is the doctrine of God’s Word and the Confessions of our Church, and can not consent to condemn the truth.4. When Synod resolved, that the doctrine confessed at its late session should alone have any right in its Churches, it made it my duty to preach a doctrine which is false, and to that I can not consent. F. Kuegele. (For the “Theological Monthly”.)That Oath.In the “Lutheran Standard” of Oct. 8th appeared an article under the heading: “The New Doctrine of Election,” signed Roland (E. L. S. Tressel). The object of that article is, to show, that the doctrine of Election as taught by the Missouri Synod is “new” in that Synod, that it is a “new bramble-bush” planted only at “quite a recent day.” If this were the only object of Roland, to repeat the assertion, that Missouri’s doctrine of Election were “historically” new in that Synod, we would have nothing to say about it, because it is a pretence which has been refuted by the periodicals of Missouri again and again. But in reality Roland’s object is something different. In his article occur the following sentences: “To many a Missourian this doctrine is as new as to us, although formal and solemn oath would be taken that Missouri has always taught it.” Again: “Yet men will swear that the doctrine is not new in Missouri!”The man, who offered to take that “formal and solemn oath” is the writer of this, and the occurrence took place at Mill Creek Church, Grant Co., W. Va., during the session of Concordia District in the beginning of Sept. last. In order that our offer to “take formal and solemn oath” may not be misunderstood or misconstrued (which latter has already been attempted), we deem it necessary to give a short statement of the occurrence. [[@VolumePage:1,146]]The place where Synod convened is situated in the mountains some 40 miles off the Rail Road. The Synod was, as it is generally the case in the secluded mountain districts of West Virginia, largely attended, the lay-members of the Church having gathered in from a wide scope of territory. We went there not expecting that the controversy on Election would be brought up at a place, where nothing could be decided concerning it and where but few of those present knew anything about it. But we were sadly mistaken. When the President (Roland) preached his opening-sermon we had a presentment of what was coming, and when he read his annual report we were perfectly undeceived. Such a master-piece of trickery and deceit we had not yet heard. The report from beginning to end was simply an abuse of the Missouri Synod, together with an arraignment of the undersigned as being a false teacher and having sought to estrange congregations from the Ohio Synod. In order that we should have no influence on others we were then and there to be put down and with us the doctrine of our Confessions.The first sentences of the article in question are a shadow of how Roland in his report at Synod misrepresented Missouri’s doctrine. To give the reader an idea of this we will quote them. He writes: “It is taught by Missouri that when we consider election simply as the decree of God whereby certain persons are chosen out of the multitude of men before others and ordained to eternal life upon the way prepared for all men, that God made such choice without taking into account the fact of their believing in Christ. Why God selected some and not others without regard to faith is the great mystery to them in election.” That Missouri teaches what we have underlined, is simply a fib of Roland’s, and that not a white, but a black one. Whether indeed he reads the publications of Missouri or not, we are not prepared to say, but that Missouri does not teach this he has been told time and again. Only Rolandic logic can make Missouri teach that. It must be daring, thus: We say, God elected without being moved by any thing in man; Roland concludes: So you say, God passed the others by. We say: Election is a cause of salvation; Roland: So you say, God does not want all men saved. If that is not honest it is at least Rolandic, brave, and then: stick to it [[@VolumePage:1,147]]anyhow. Misrepresentation of Missouri’s doctrine is the nag Roland rides; that is his sword, spear, shield, buckler, and shotgun. If he would condescend to present Missouri’s doctrine fairly he would find himself suddenly disarmed, and then, perhaps, he would see his own naked synergism. If he thinks we are doing him injustice we would call to his memory his talk about “spinning out.”But our present writing concerns only a particular point of Roland’s presidential report at Mill Creek, namely his assertion, that Missouri’s doctrine of election were a new doctrine, brought up recently since a few years in that body. We requested Synod to grant us permission and time for a defence against the President’s report and, after some hesitation on the part of Synod, obtained it. Having no material at hand to disprove the assertions of Roland, except the marginal notes in our copy of the Book of Concord, we proposed in our defense, that Synod set apart a time for an oath to be taken, we offering to swear, that Missouri’s present doctrine of election is not new in that body, but that we had been taught this same doctrine when a student at St. Louis twelve years ago, and Roland might then swear, that Missouri’s doctrine of election were a new doctrine brought up in that Synod since a few years only. The connexion, in which the offer was made, was this, that we were not school-boys, who would swagger away at each other, not caring, whether it be the truth, what they say, or a lie, but we wanted to be men and Christians; therefore as the Scriptures say Hebr. 6. 16. etc. Roland did of course not accept the offer. In a latter session the attempt was made to represent the matter as though we had offered to decide the doctrine by an oath, but the attempt was unsuccessful. We made the offer because the circumstances were as they were, and we would do the same to day under the same circumstances. If Roland is, we are ready any time to go to Mill Creek Church, and to take the proposed oath. We can do so with a good conscience.But Roland certainly has good reasons to be “horrified” at such a proposal. Would not an oath in confirmation of his assertion be a very uncertain thing? At Synod he indeed did produce a letter from a class-mate of ours. But what does the [[@VolumePage:1,148]]letter say? Why, “that Dr. Walther did already implant into us the roots of his now full-grown forest of contradictions, called doctrine of election.” That foundation would be rather a little shaky to rest an oath on. In his article in the “Standard” he quotes from theses presented to the Concordia Conference of Pittsburgh and vicinity. We have never seen nor read anything of those theses except what Roland quotes in the “Standard.” But what do those quotations show? They show, that six years ago Missourians did not altogether set aside the phraseology of the dogmaticians, but accommodated themselves to it. That the Concordia Conference in 1875 did not entertain Roland’s doctrine of election is sufficiently evident even from the short quotations he gives. When they say: “Election is the cause of faith” only Rolandic logic can infer, that those “Missouri pastors did not teach the present St. Louis doctrine of election to faith.” That also would be a sorry foundation to base the assertion on, that Missouri’s doctrine is “historically new” in that body.When Roland thinks, that the doctrine of the later dogmaticians and the doctrine of the Columbus men are one and the same, the quotations, which he gives from thesis VIII. (of the minutes of Cone. Conf.) should certainly show him his mistake. Those quotations show, that the Fathers included faith in election, whilst the Columbus men exclude it from election and make it the outside rule according to which God chose. Roland’s proof of the newness of Missouri’s doctrine is yet to be forthcoming. F. K. (For the “Theological Monthly.”)Ohio’s Standpoint.In No. 41 of the present volume of the “Lutheran Standard” a great deal of ink and paper is wasted for rather mean purposes. The “Standard” is “published under the auspices of the Ev. Luth. Joint Synod of Ohio and other States.” It is the official organ of the Ohio Synod and consequently that body is responsible for the publications, and must be judged according to the editorials and communications contained in the “Standard.” The latest articles, touching the doctrinal [[@VolumePage:1,149]]contest and its unpleasant results, corroborate the declaration that “God has let the Ohio Synod fall.” If any one doubted the truthfulness of this undisguised assertion, he may be fully convinced of Ohio’s dreadful downfall, by perusing the respective articles in the “Standard’s” edition, dated Oct. 15, 1881. Verily, that paper stoops low, very low indeed, in its efforts to “prop up” the synergistic tenets as well as the unjustifiable actions of its Synod. Time does not permit, neither is it worth while, to reply to every tirade delivered against us in the issue referred to. It is a matter of fact which never can be denied—and it ought to be kept before the reader—that the very first step our opponents in the Ohio Synod directed against us, was neither friendly nor fraternal, but inimical, and that their warfare has been carried on in a hostile manner. We, therefore, can not hope or expect that a word of explanation or refutation with reference to the “Standard’s” declamations, would cause our enemies to take a moment’s time for reconsidering their own utterances and actions. They wanted war,—wanted it very eagerly,—for reasons known best to themselves—and now they have it and carry it on to their heart’s content—although they blame others for it.—To show to the reader that the Ohio Synod has fallen away from the confession of the Lutheran church and accepted a doctrine in direct opposition to the Formula of Concord, a few quotations from the “Standard” (No. 41.) may suffice. The Editor well knows that the Formula of Concord confesses that “election is the cause of our salvation.” He also feels the force of these plain words, but submit he would not. But how does he manage to reject that doctrine and nevertheless make his readers believe, that he and his Synod did not deviate from the Lutheran truth? He says: “The expression” (viz. election is the (a) cause of our salvation) “is strictly true, when the definition of election given in the Formula of Concord is kept in view.” Well said, inasmuch as these words are intended to make the reader believe that Ohio has the true definition of election. The Editor, however, without stopping to say which is the correct definition, only proceeds to say after this statement, that the expression “is rendered false only by imputing to the Formula another conception than that which [[@VolumePage:1,150]]is there set forth, and we are made to reject it only by imputing to us the acceptance of the Missouri imputation.”—The idea! It certainly required a great quantity, and a first-rate quality of effrontery that could enable the Editor to publish such bold-faced pervarication! Those that take the words of the Formula of Concord as they read—without adding to or taking from the text, are the miscreants that dare to “impute to the Formula another conception;” those that “explain” (?) by introducing foreign opinions, are, of course, the defenders of faith and innocent martyrs, to whom “the acceptance of the Missouri imputation is imputed!”“When the definition of election given in the Formula of Concord is kept in view”—says the “Standard.” A definition is an explanation of the meaning of a word or term. Now we know from the periodicals of the Ohioans, how they explain the term election. Election, say they, must be taken in at least a twofold sense, sometimes in a narrow, sometimes in a wide sense. Election sometimes means the act of selecting, sometimes it indicates the counsel of grace. It sometimes includes certain persons only, sometimes the means of grace as intended for all men, sometimes both at the same time.Again: election means the general call extended to the sinners, whilst sometimes it is, strictly taken, the judicial application of the universal counsel of grace. Election, having at least a twofold meaning, sometimes really means election, sometimes it does not; election unto salvation, however, always means only the decree of God to save those whom in time He shall find willing to accept His grace and to persevere in faith,—the execution of such decree being dependent upon man’s conduct.—These are the different definitions of election, as they are set forth and defended by the Ohioans. Now, whereas the Editor of the “Standard” alleges, that the Ohio Synod keeps that definition in view, which is given in the Formula of Concord, we would desire that it should please him, to point out one or more of the above definitions, in the Formula of Concord. Where, in the Formula of Concord, is e. g. that explanation of election, that election must be taken in a wide and a narrow sense? Where, in the Formula of Concord, do we find a smgle sentence, that election includes [[@VolumePage:1,151]]all men, or at least all that are called by the Gospel? Which words, or expressions, or sentences, in the Formula of Concord convey the idea, that there be an election, which, in a stricter sense of the word, takes place in the hour of death, or rather as soon as death has separated the soul from the body? We want the “definition, given in the Formula;” we do not want any imputations, we do not want any interpolations, we do not want any inferences based upon fallacy, sophistry or human reason; we do not want any ifs and buts;—we want such definitions, such descriptions, as they are said to be given in the Formula of Concord. The “definition of election” and the elect, is there, but no unprejudiced mind, no unbiased reader will ever find such explanations there, as they are advanced by the Ohioans. When the definition of election, given in the Formula of Concord, is kept in view—by the Ohioans, they will teach and confess the Lutheran doctrine (as it is taught and confessed by the Missourians ), and by promulgating the pure gospel-truth, they will exterminate that synergistic and rationalistic leaven, which has been permitted secretly to do its mischievous work in the midst of them.The Editor of the “Standard” evidently was somewhat mixed up, when he wrote his opinion about a definition given in the Formula of Concord. He mistook those divines for the Formula of Concord, who indeed made the distinction between an election in the narrow and wide sense but not all of them appealed to the Formula of Concord for substantiating that distinction by the Confession of our Church. A Lutheran Editor ought to know that the “great teachers” are be to judged and corrected by the Confession of the Church, not vice versa, and that there is quite a difference whether we find an explanation in the Book of Concord or in the writings of “the great fathers.”In an editorial the “Standard” tries to refute the pure doctrine of predestination by the following questions:—”How could any one then believe or be converted if he is not elected, and what becomes of those whom God has not chosen and ordained to faith, repentance, and conversion? By what [[@VolumePage:1,152]]possibility could they be saved, when God was not pleased to elect them to faith and without faith no man can be saved?”—Is it the voice of the Ohio Synod, which resounds in these interrogations? Is there not even one member in that Synod, endowed with sufficient intelligence and courage as to raise his voice against such flippancy?—To say nothing for the present about the misrepresentations which are based on the imputation that the means of grace are made efficient only by election, and which are contained in the words quoted above, we would ask the Professor, whether he really imagines his questions to be so many arguments in his favor? Or was he in so great a hurry that he did not find time to reflect upon what he had written? Is he really not aware, that by proposing these questions, he betrayed his rationalistic notions? If such questions and their expected answers—if that mode of proposing questions for refuting a rejected doctrine—have any bearing in the present contest, then it will be an easy matter to wipe out every article of faith, and finally there will be nothing left except Rationalism or naked infidelity. Hume’s scepticism will carry the day and Th. Paine will stand vindicated!—From all the “Standard,” No. 41, has to say with regard to the controversy, it is again apparent, that the Ohio Synod finds fault with a doctrine which is taught in the Scriptures and confessed in the 11th Art. of the Formula of Concord; hence the Ohioans have no just cause to “grit their teeth” on account of the declaration that “God has let the Ohio Synod fall.”G. R.General Religious Intelligence.Spiritualism. A Pennsylvania judge has just decided that Spiritualism is a religion, and its exponents are entitled to all the privileges enjoyed by ministers. A medium who had been arrested for giving exhibitions without a license was accordingly discharged.The Salvation Army now has 245 stations against only 26 five years ago, 470 officers against 36, and an income of $250,000 a year against $20,000. The meetings are attended by 46,000 persons a week, and there are 7000 “soldiers” who are prepared to face mobs, to speak and to sing. It is proposed to build a great world-centre for the organization, to be called Salvation Temple. Its erection will cost about $500,000 and it will accommodate 10,000 people. Alph. [[@VolumePage:1,153]]THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.Vol. 1. December 1881. No. 8.The New Confession of the Ohio Synod.This singular production, lately raised as a standard of faith, claims, in the opinion of its authors, a careful consideration for two reasons. The first is its intrinsic value, its authors declaring it to be “the clarion voice which has pointed out the way to find a truly Lutheran home.” The second reason is the evidence it affords, that the Ohio synod was right in severing its connection with that body of Lutherans which is called the Synodical Conference, and of which that synod had been a constituent part. These reasons imply that Lutherans who disobey the call are not true to their duty, and that such as prefer to remain in connection with the Synodical Conference, are by this document convicted of a heterodoxy from which the Ohio synod cleared its conscience by a withdrawal from that body. We who conscientiously deny the new confession of the Ohio synod to be an exposition of the Lutheran faith, and therefore decline on its account to obey that call to desert the Synodical Conference, deem it our duty to justify our position. We shall endeavor to do so by carefully examining the new confession in connection with such other documents as may appear to be requisite, in order to attain the exact sense, the authors intended this document should convey, and which was authenticated by synod. The document reads as follows:“OUR CONFESSION CONCERNING ELECTION.“1. If by election we understand as is done by the Formula of Concord the entire ‘purpose, counsel, will, and ordination of God pertaining to our redemption, vocation, justification, and salvation,’ we believe, teach, and confess that election [[@VolumePage:1,154]]is the cause of our salvation and of everything that in any way pertains to it, therefore, also of our redemption and vocation, of our faith and perseverance in faith. Thus understood, election precedes faith as the cause precedes its effect.“2. But if by election, as the dogmaticians generally do, we understand merely this, that from eternity God elected and infallibly ordained to salvation certain individuals in preference to others, and this according to the universal way of salvation, we believe, teach, and confess that election took place in view of Christ’s merit apprehended by faith, or, more briefly stated but with the same sense, in view of faith. According to this understanding faith precedes election in the mind of God, as the rule according to which one selects precedes the selection itself, and thus election, properly speaking, is not the cause of faith.“3. The mystery in election consists not in this, that we do not with certainty know from the Word of God according to what rule God proceeded in the selection of persons, but in this: (a) That no one except God knows who belongs to the elect; (b) that we creatures are unable to fathom and comprehend the wonderful guidance and dispensations of the grace of God towards individuals as well as whole nations.“4. The certainty of the individual that he belongs to the elect is, before his hour of death, a conditional or regulated (geordnete) certainty, that is, bound to a certain condition or order; under this condition and in this order, however, it is also infallible.”After having accepted this confession, synod resolved:“We again herewith confess the doctrine of election as it is contained in the Formula of Concord and also as it has in accordance therewith been always taught on the whole by the great teachers of our church; especially do we hold the doctrine of our fathers, that the ordination of the elect to eternal life took place in view of faith, i. e., in view of the merits of Christ appropriated by faith, to be in accord with the Scriptures and our Confessions; Therefore,“Resolved, That in the future as in the past the doctrine here anew confessed be alone authorized in our institutions, schools, publications, and churches.” [[@VolumePage:1,155]]This confession is confined to an article which many Christians have permitted to be obscured or perverted in their minds. Doubts have been nourished as to whether any such article is at all contained in the Scriptures. Assertions have been made to the effect that our Lutheran Confessions are mistaken in stating that “the holy Scriptures mention this article not only at one place casually, but copiously treat and inculcate it in many places.” A church when it sets forth a confession is expected to remove those uncertainties or perversions which necessitated a new public testimony. It is a just desire by perusing the confession quoted above to learn whether in the opinion of the confessors there is such a thing as election or predestination revealed in the Scriptures, and if it be revealed, in what the confessors think this scriptural election to consist and how it ought to be understood. A confessing church is fairly supposed not only to be in possession of some certain knowledge of the subject, but to have the purpose to exhibit it clearly and distinctly. In this respect the careful reader of the document under consideration is disappointed. The new confession has the appearance of the arbitrament of a person solicited to pass judgment concerning an object which is entirely unknown to him, and in regard to whose nature and qualities contrary assertions are made which occasion some dispute. The perplexed arbiter to conceal the straits he is in, proceeds to settle the difficulty in this way. He solemnly declares that if the thing be what the one party say it is, it follows that it must be understood to be such a thing as that party say. If, however, the thing be what the other party declare it to be, it must be understood to be such as this other party say it is. And so the matter ends.On consulting the explanations furnished by the publications of the Ohio synod this singular arbitrament, however, gains another aspect, which will become apparent in the examination of the statements made in the theses of the new confession.According to the first thesis the Formula of Concord understands by election the entire purpose, counsel, will, and ordination of God pertaining to our redemption, vocation, justification, and salvation. Is this assertion founded on a definition [[@VolumePage:1,156]]given by the Formula? On opening the Formula, Part 1, XI, Of God’s foreknowledge and election ([[p. 583, New Market Ed. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi]]), we read, that this article is consolatory when rightly handled, and that, in order that no offensive disputation may arise in the progress of time, it is also explained in this writing. We proceed and read: Affirmative. The pure and true doctrine concerning this article. We are then informed, that the difference between praescientia and praedestinatio ought to be accurately observed. Then an explanation is given of praescientia, and immediately after it the explanation of predestination or election. The words are these: “But predestination, or the eternal election of God, pertains to the good and beloved children of God alone, and it is a cause of their salvation, which is His work, and for which He provides all that is appropriate to it. Upon this predestination their salvation is so firmly founded, that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, John 10. 28. Matth. 16. 18.”—According to this statement, then, it is wrong to say that the ordination of means for all men is election, or a part of election, for election is said to pertain only to the children of God.—According to this statement it is wrong to say that the election or predestination of the children of God is not a cause of their salvation, or that they could obtain salvation without election. For as a cause election is said to be that without which their salvation can not be. And since the elect are saved only by true and persevering faith, this faith cannot be without election. For if it were, the elect would be saved without election, election in that case being no cause of their salvation, which is denied by the statement above. Hence it is wrong to say, that election is not a cause of the faith of the elect.—According to this statement it is wrong to say that anything the elect do will save them, for all that is appropriate to their salvation is provided by God, the salvation of the elect being His work.—According to this statement it is wrong to say that election is inoperative, does not produce effects until the death of the elect, for according to the statement above, election renders vain all the attempts at prevailing against the salvation of the elect in the time of grace.—In this simple statement the Formula of Concord plainly declares what it understands by election. It [[@VolumePage:1,157]]is the predestination of those persons whose salvation God in the time of grace works out by providing everything appropriate to it, so operating in and for them that they are finally saved.We now direct our attention to the words of the second part of the Formula of Concord. This part is distinctly asserted to be “a solid, plain and perspicuous repetition and declaration” of what is more briefly stated in the first part. With these words it removes all suspicions of correcting, modifying, complicating, or making intricate the plain statements of the first part. It only repeats them with such additions as may serve to more fully understand them. And so we find it also in the article of election. To state more fully what is meant by the words of the first part: the eternal election or predestination of God, it adds: “that is, the ordaining of God unto salvation.” To state more fully what is meant by the words of the first part: the good and beloved children of God, it says that election “does not pertain both to the good and to the bad, but only to the children of God who were elected and ordained to eternal life before the foundation of the world, as Paul, Eph. 1. 4-5. declares: ‘He has chosen us in Christ Jesus, and predestinated us unto the adoption of children.’” To state more fully what is meant by the words in the first part: and it is a cause of their salvation etc. it says: “the eternal election of God not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect, but through His gracious will and good pleasure in Christ Jesus, is also the cause which procures, works, facilitates, and promotes our salvation and whatever pertains to it; and upon this our salvation is so firmly grounded that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ Matth. 16. 18. For it is written: ‘Neither shall any pluck my sheep out of my hand,’ John 10. 28. And again, Act. 13. 48.: ‘And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.’” There is no need of showing in particular that all these additions confirm what we said above, that election as understood by the Formula is a predestination of persons, a cause of their salvation and faith, faith being here specially mentioned, and that it effects its purposes also in the time of grace until death.But one more of these additions must be mentioned, the [[@VolumePage:1,158]]one which has been used to represent the Formula as understanding by election something entirely different from, and in contradictory opposition to, what it plainly presents. It is a passage subsequent to the explanation given of election, that passage in which the Formula directs attention to the fact that that in no way is the sound sense, or the legitimate use of the doctrine concerning the eternal predestination of God, by which either impenitence or despair is excited or confirmed; that the Scriptures do not set forth this doctrine in any other manner than to direct us to the Word of God, admonish us to repentance, encourage us to godliness, to strengthen our faith, and to assure us of our salvation. Wherefore, if we would reflect and discourse correctly and with advantage upon this election, we should accustom ourselves, not to speculate upon the bare, hidden, secret, inscrutable foreknowledge of God, but to meditate on it in the manner in which the counsel, the purpose, and ordination of God, in Christ Jesus, who is the right and true book of life, are revealed unto us through the Word. “Therefore, the whole doctrine concerning the purpose, the counsel, will and ordination of God, belonging to our redemption, call, justification, and salvation, should be comprised together.” In this whole doctrine, the Formula shows, we do not only learn what election is, but also its cause, and the manner in which God brings the elect, not to election but to the salvation to which they are elected, predestinated or ordained. As the cause of election the doctrine names the merits of Christ, the redemption of the human race. The manner of God’s bringing the elect to salvation is not only fully stated in the so called eight points, the Formula also expressly declares, that God has decreed, that in this manner He will through His grace, gifts, and operation, bring them to this salvation. “All this,” the Formula says, including election by stating that He has elected to salvation all and each person of the elect, “according to the Scripture, is comprehended in the doctrine concerning the eternal election of God to the adoption of children, and to everlasting salvation, and should be understood in this article; it ought never to be excluded or omitted, when we discourse of the purpose, predestination, election, and ordination of God to salvation.”—These words plainly show that we [[@VolumePage:1,159]]neither understand nor use this article correctly, if we speculate upon the bare, hidden, secret, inscrutable foreknowledge of God. We must not neglect keeping in mind that the elect are elected also to faith in time, to the adoption of children, for only believers are children of God, and only children of God are heirs to eternal life. Consequently, if we do not embrace Christ in true repentance and genuine faith, we have no hope for salvation; but if we do, the gospel assures us of our eternal salvation and election. So neither impenitence nor despair is excited or confirmed. This order in which God brings the elect to salvation and which is stated and described in the eight points, we must not exclude or omit if we would reflect and discourse correctly and with advantage upon the eternal election or predestination and ordination of the children of God. The description added in the second part, of the cause and of the manner in which God brings His elect to salvation also confirms the explanation of election given in the first part of the Formula. It is not a correction or modification, but an enlargement of what is said in the words, “salvation is His work for which He provides all that is appropriate to it.”We now turn to the first thesis of the new confession. We there meet with the bold assumption that the Formula understands by election the cause of our redemption. This strange discovery is made, as we learn from the thesis itself, by a singular stroke of reasoning. The Formula declares election to be the cause of our salvation and of everything that pertains to it; therefore, the thesis says, also of our redemption. For does not redemption pertain to salvation? Indeed it does. For redemption is the property of him who is saved, and God also is forever the portion of him who is saved, Ps. 73. 26. Hence election according to this reasoning is the cause of God Himself, too, if election produces all the good things that pertain to salvation, or are enjoyed by them who are saved. This assertion of the thesis needs no refutation, election being nowhere presented in the Formula as a cause of the existence of every good thing the elect enjoy, but as the cause of their enjoying all these things. And as to redemption the Formula clearly denies redemption to be an effect of election. It states: “the eternal election of God … through His gracious will and [[@VolumePage:1,160]]good pleasure in Christ Jesus is the cause which procures… our salvation.” It is evident that in these words redemption is presented as a cause and foundation of election, the latter being founded on God’s good pleasure in Christ Jesus. It is therefore in direct opposition to the Formula when the new confession states that the Formula presents election as a cause of redemption. This is still more apparent from the direct declarations of the Formula that the merits of Christ, hence His redemption, are a “cause of the election of God.” According to the thesis the “entire purpose, counsel, will and ordination of God belonging to our redemption, vocation, justification and salvation” is understood by the Formula of Concord to be election. When we examine the Formula we find the facts as following. Election is declared by the Formula to be a cause which works our salvation, and whatever pertains to it. Hence our salvation as well as our vocation and justification, which cannot be denied by any Christian to pertain to our salvation, are considered by the Formula to be effects of election, not election itself. This is one undeniable fact. A second fact which cannot be denied is this, that the Formula considers redemption, that is, Christ’s merits, to be a cause of election. From these two facts it appears that the Formula by mentioning “the entire purpose etc. belonging to our redemption, vocation, justification and salvation” mentions “the entire purpose etc.” belonging to the cause and effects of election. But we must note another fact. The Formula expressly declares that “this predestination of God is not to be sought out in God’s secret counsel, but in the Word of God, in which it is revealed.” And more definitely it declares that “a Christian should embrace this article concerning the eternal election of God, so far only as it is revealed in the Word of God.” How far is election, according to the Formula revealed to us? In the first place the foundation is revealed unto us, on which election reposes, the source from which it springs, and from which all its operations proceed. This is Christ and His redemption of the human race, which reveal the will of God that all men should be saved, but no man without faith in Christ, since salvation is to be a salvation of pure grace. In the second place there is revealed unto us [[@VolumePage:1,161]]the way and manner in which election operates to effect the salvation of the elect. This mode of operation is this: God executes His purpose concerning the way to salvation which He established for the human race, He reveals His gracious and earnest will in Christ, to save all men, He therefore through the promise of the gospel and it seals, the Sacraments, calls to Christ all sinners in order that they believe in Him, be justified through His merits, and eternally saved. This execution of His purpose concerning the salvation of the human race is accompanied by the promise of the aid, power, and operation of the Holy Spirit, and of divine aid that we may abide in faith, and obtain eternal salvation. If men are lost, only their wickedness and not election is the cause. Those in whom the execution of His purpose concerning the salvation of the human race takes effect, when they regard the revealed will of God and pursue the order which St. Paul observes, i.e. repentance, knowledge of sin, faith in Christ, obedience to God’s commands, are assured by the Word of God that they are elected to eternal life in Christ, through pure grace, and that no one is able to pluck them out of His hands. Hence, the Formula says, in order that we might form our views in reference to this article agreeably to the Scriptures, and reflect and discourse correctly and with advantage upon the eternal election or predestination and ordination of the children of God to everlasting life, we should… “meditate on it in the manner in which the counsel, the purpose, and ordination in Christ Jesus, who is the right and true book of life, are revealed unto us through the Word.” And how are they revealed? In “the whole doctrine concerning the purpose, the counsel, will, and ordination of God, belonging to our redemption, call, justification, and salvation.” In short, if we meditate on election, we ought to meditate on what is revealed of its cause and foundation as well as on the mode of its operation, and “not pry into the abyss of the secret predestination of God.” The knowledge of the cause, the mode of operation, and the effects, if we comprise together the whole doctrine concerning them, reveals to us so much of election as to correctly and with advantage reflect and discourse upon it, though we be still unable to penetrate it. An accurate knowledge of the limits of what we [[@VolumePage:1,162]]know of election and its precise distinction from what is not known will also enable us to avoid and reject all false conceptions of election. The Formula, therefore, wisely advises us not to exclude or omit anything from what it mentions as comprehended in the doctrine concerning election. For if we do, it is impossible for us to have a correct understanding of this article. Nor is the mere telling a person that God elected or predestinated persons to salvation a correct or salutary teaching this article. All that is named by the Formula proceeds from divine decrees, the revelation of which shows us not only that He elected His children, but on what foundation this election reposes, viz.: Christ’s merits and benefits, for He elected us in Christ. If we do not note this point when we consider election, we could chance to think the foundation of election to be God’s foreknowledge of man’s conduct, and so an imaginary election would delude us, while we thought we meditated on the election of God.—By the revelation of these decrees the manner is made known to us, in which God brings the elect to salvation, that is, by faith in Christ. If we omit to observe this point in considering election, we could perchance think that election does not become operative until after faith or after death, and should contrary to God’s will render His election an idle and worthless fancy.—And when the Formula declares that nothing of what it mentions ought ever to be excluded or omitted when we discourse of election, it cautions us against the error of losing sight of the fact that God elected all and each person of the elect who will ultimately be saved through Christ. For in that case we could happen to understand the decrees concerning the means of salvation to mean election. It therefore distinctly and expressly mentions this fact also.-—The simple statement of the thesis, then, that “the entire purpose etc.” is election according to the Formula, is evidently unsatisfactory.There is still one point left in the thesis to be examined, which however it is preferable to consider in connection with the second thesis. It is the word cause, which in its application to faith and perseverance of faith is understood in another sense than in its application to redemption and vocation. In its application to faith the word cause is taken in the sense [[@VolumePage:1,163]]of occasion when used to denote that which brings to pass an event without being its efficient cause or sufficient reason.We learn from the second thesis that in election Christ’s merit is no cause of faith. To bring out this doctrine more fully we refer to the explanations given in the publications of the Ohio synod. We select the statement of the position of that synod, in which the leader of that body set forth the reasons which caused him to oppose the Missouri synod. In the Columbus “Magazine” p. 5. he writes: “To make the points of controversy plain it will be necessary to state, as clearly as possible, the two forms of doctrine that are now placed in opposition to each other.” Then follows on p. 7. the chief point which he maintains in opposition to the Missouri synod. It is given in these, words: “Faith is merely the divine requisite without which, in the purpose of God, the causes of election could not be operative in the individual.” The causes of election are in the sentence preceding this stated to be the grace of God and the merits of Christ. Neither the grace of God, the internal moving cause, nor the merits of Christ, the external moving cause of election could be, and consequently is, operative unless it find faith in the individual. It is evident that according to this doctrine the grace of election does not begin to operate until the time when faith exists, and that it only operates in the individual who is a believer. For it is God’s purpose, counsel, will, and ordination, that Christ’s merit should not move His grace to be operative in the individual so as to work faith in him, though without it he cannot be saved. Faith must be the work of man alone. The grace of God is merely to wait until man’s work is done, it is to abstain from all operations until it perceive that the individual has resolved to believe and has executed his resolve in actually believing. The quotation terms faith a divine requisite and speaks of the grace of election. We could infer from these expressions that it supposed another grace existing in God, which is not the grace of election, but a grace permitted to be operative in the individual when faith is not as yet existing in him, in order to produce it. But we are not allowed such a supposition. It is that grace which is operative in and through the means of grace, the Word of God and the Sacraments, [[@VolumePage:1,164]]which is the grace of election. It is this grace and no other, which in the purpose of God is not permitted to be operative before finding faith in the individual. This fact the “Magazine” endeavors to prove and sustain by means of that passage which it quotes from the Formula of Concord, in which the Formula declares that the unbelief of man which causes his damnation, is not an effect produced by God or His election, but that man’s own wickedness is the cause of this unbelief. This passage is quoted to prove that it is the grace of election which in the means of grace brings to men that salvation which is prepared and designed for all men alike. It is this grace which in the purpose of God, having set the merits of Christ in Word and Sacrament before the individual, is to remain inoperative, unless the individual believe. Faith therefore is in no case understood to be an effect of the grace of God. For should faith in those individuals that are saved be anything more than a mere requisite, should in them grace be in any way operative or co-operative in the generation of faith, God should be found to be the God of the Calvinists and subject to the just reproof that His election “favored the few;” for the idea of “the favored few” is, according to the Ohio Synod’s declarations, the abyss of Calvinism. Hence the origination of faith is elucidated and explained by the origination of unbelief. The object which is apprehended by faith, and rejected by unbelief, is the same in both cases. It is offered to both kinds of men in the same way without any favor shown to one in preference to the other. In this respect the election of grace is operative, inasmuch as it operates not in but without the individual, and its operations are equally conferred upon all. But neither the apprehending Christ, i.e. faith, nor the rejecting Christ, i.e. unbelief, is the work of grace. Both apprehension and rejection are only and solely proceeding from man’s own reason and strength. Thus it happens that .when the grace of election in Word and Sacrament offers salvation to men, at the same time abstaining from all other operations, some men believe, they apprehend Christ and His merits, and now grace begins to operate in the individual; since they received Him, He gives to them power to become the sons of God. And to them who endure to the end in faith He gives eternal life. This [[@VolumePage:1,165]]enduring in faith must again be their own work proceeding from their own reason and strength, for if it were the operation of the grace of election, they should be the few who are favored in preference to those who do not endure, and would thus be an eternal reproach to God’s justice and mercy.We cannot fail to observe that when the means of grace as well as the “entire purpose etc.” mentioned in the first thesis, are called the cause of faith, the word cause is to be taken in the sense of occasion as explained above, and as applicable also to the rejection of grace. Thus the case of those who reject Christ, or fall from faith after having believed for a time, elucidates the whole doctrine of election. For all this as it happens in time is known to God from eternity. Whatever the grace of election meets with in time, passed in God’s mind before the foundation of the world. These operations and states of being inoperative that are predicated of the grace of election in time, form what is called election. It is called eternal election because God purposed from eternity to proceed in this way in the work of salvation; “and as God knew from eternity who would be believers, He from eternity elected them in foresight of their faith.”We trust to have presented the doctrine of election which in the new confession is set forth in opposition to the Missouri synod, so plainly and clearly as to be understood by all. We have left no mystery lurking in our presentation, lest we be rebuked for fancying mysteries where there are none. A second perusal of the thesis will convince anyone that thus understood all the partial statements are in perfect agreement with each other and with the whole, as also with the three other theses. There is no surer mark than this, of a correct, sound and perfect comprehension of another person’s writing. It will at once be understood what it means by God’s electing certain individuals in preference to others, and this according to the universal way of salvation. We at once understand why this election may be stated to have taken place in view of Christ’s merit apprehended by faith, or simply to have taken place in view of faith, without altering its sense. We at once understand why this election is not the cause of faith, since God elects to sonship only believers whom He himself has not [[@VolumePage:1,166]]made such, and elects to everlasting life or salvation only those believers whose enduring faith is not His own work. We at once understand why it is said that we are speaking properly of election only when we conceive it to be no cause of faith. We at once understand the rule according to which God elects, to be His own purpose according to which His grace is always and in all cases inoperative until it find faith in the individual, when God in consequence thereof elects him to sonship; and further, that His grace is always and in all cases inoperative as to the enduring of faith in the individual, but that in finding an individual enduring in faith to the end, God elects him to eternal salvation. We thus understand why faith always precedes election in the mind and purpose of God.One thing in the thesis is not examined as yet. But it requires no more than a brief remark. It is the assertion that the thesis represents election as the dogmaticians generally understand it. It should indeed be wasting ink to show that election in the sense of the thesis never was the doctrine of any of the dogmaticians of the Lutheran church, nor at any time an article of the Christian faith in the Church of Christ.From the third thesis we learn that there is no mystery in election except so far that we are not made participants of God’s foreknowledge. The guidance and dispensations of the grace of God toward individuals as well as whole nations which the thesis mentions, are no mystery at all in election as understood by the new confession. This confession might have as appropriately mentioned the wonders of creation in this connection. For neither the one nor the other affect or modify the rule of election and consequently election itself, which is besides expressly declared to be no mystery at all. There are none “favored” in election. Howsoever God may have dealt with the individual in things which are not election itself, in election he is dealt with according to the rule which the new confession says it “knows with certainty.” No effects produced in the believers by the grace of election affect election in the least, since it is of no consequence whether an individual have experienced some such, or none; for such as enjoyed many may be lost as well as he who experienced none, and he who only believed at his hour of death by his own reason and [[@VolumePage:1,167]]strength is saved as well as he upon whom all the riches of grace are poured out, excepting beginning and enduring faith which he must furnish himself as the divine requisite without which grace will grant him nothing.—The thesis evidently is meant to present the teaching of the Formula of Concord. It requires no great acumen, however, to find that it is not so. The Formula indeed asserts that God foresaw and still knows precisely, and with the greatest certainty, who is among the number of the elect and who is not, and it warns us not to enter this mystery with our thoughts to search it out or to draw inferences in our minds in reference to it. But the mystery of election includes more than God’s foreknowledge of the conduct of each individual in regard to His electing grace. Election itself is termed a mystery by the Formula; it also says that God has not only concealed and kept secret many things concerning this mystery, but that He has also with respect to this matter revealed unto us in His Word things we are unable to reconcile in our minds. It mentions cases in particular which are embraced in the term election to salvation, in connection with which divine appointments, judgments, punishments, severity, goodness, grace, and mercy are named which imply something else than foreknowledge. It points to St. Paul who, when speaking concerning this mystery, also refers to things which are not God’s knowledge, he refers also to His wisdom, His judgments, His ways, and His mind. The fourth thesis of the new confession is set up to combat in particular the declaration of the Missouri synod, “that a believing Christian shall seek to become certain of his election out of God’s revealed will,” which certainty is identical with a firm faith in God’s gracious promises given us in Christ Jesus, our trustworthy Saviour, Redeemer, and Lord. This certainty is expressed in distinct words in [[Luther’s Small Catechism, Third Article: >> BookOfConcord:Small Cat.:II:6]]”I believe that the Holy Ghost will give unto we eternal life. This is most certainly true.” From the thesis we learn that the certainty of the individual that he belongs to the elect, that is, that the Holy Ghost will give him eternal life, is infallible only under a certain condition. We know from the second thesis what this condition is. It is not [[@VolumePage:1,168]]one which God will fulfil. It is one which the individual himself and alone must fulfil. It is faith enduring unto the end. If the believer, then, who in the time of being a believer, and before his death, desires to have an infallible certainty concerning his eternal fate, he can have it. And how, by what means? Only by trusting in his own reason and strength. If he have not this trust, his infallible certainty is a mockery. It is then its contrary. It is an infallible uncertainty, that is, so long as he is uncertain he is not deceived; as soon as he is certain, he is deluded. This is infallibly true. For the certainty is so bound up with the condition, that it is a certainty only in connection with the fulfilled condition. It turns at once into uncertainty when the individual presumes to trust in God’s promise that He will give him the grace of perseverance. For it is not this promise which God has indissolubly bound to the certainty as the condition. Since the certainty taught by the thesis is presented as the true Lutheran doctrine, it will suffice to state that this infallible uncertainty is called by Luther the work of the devil. We quote the following words from his [[commentary on the Genesis, Chapter 26.: >> logosres:lw05;ref=VolumePage.V_5,_pp_44-47;off=-386 ]] “God has proposed His will and counsel in this manner: I shall excellently make manifest unto thee foreknowledge and predestination, but not in the way of reason and carnal wisdom, as thou imaginest. From a God not revealed I shall become revealed, and yet I shall remain the same God. I shall be made flesh or rather send my Son; He will die for thy sins, and will arise from the dead. And thus I shall fill thy desire, that thou mayst know whether thou art predestinated, or not. ‘Behold, this is my Son, hear him,’ Matth. 17. 5.; look at Him lying in a manger, in His mother’s bosom, hanging on the cross. Observe what He will do, what He will say. There you will certainly apprehend Me. He that seeth Me, Christ says, John 14. 9., seeth the Father Himself. If thou hear Christ, and be baptized in His name, and love His Word, then certainly art thou predestinated, and certain of thy salvation.”… “Thou must therefore hear the Son of God, who was sent into the flesh, and appeared for that reason that He might destroy this work of the devil (i. e. uncertainty whether a believing Christian be among the elect or not), and might render thee certain of [[@VolumePage:1,169]]predestination. Therefore He says to thee: Thou art my sheep, for thou hearest my voice. No man shall pluck thee out of my hand. John 10. 28.”We have considered it our duty to conscientiously examine this doctrine of election respecting which the Ohio synod has solemnly resolved that in the future as in the past it be alone authorized in its institutions, schools, publications, and churches. As to the statement that in the past this doctrine was alone authorized in its institutions, &c., we can but say that this fact had been kept perfectly hidden until now, for none of the synods constituting the Synodical Conference we could suppose would ever have entered into church-fellowship with a synod confessing the doctrine presented in the new confession as explained by its framers. Synod further declares that its doctrine of election is that contained in the Formula of Concord, and which in accordance therewith has been always taught on the whole by the great teachers of our church. This latter statement needs no comment, it must stand there as it is, a memorial not apt to instill thoughts we like to cherish. We can but say that we are sorry, yea sad in our innermost soul that what we could not avoid exposing, must be chronicled as real facts in the history of our dear Lutheran church.Literature.Revised Odd Fellowship Illustrated. The complete revised ritual of the Lodge and Encampment and the Rebekah degree, profusely illustrated. With an historical sketch of the order, and an introduction and critical analysis of the character of each degree by Pres’t S. Blanchard of Wheaton College, and foot-note quotations from standard authorities of the order, showing its character and teachings. Chicago, Ill., Ezra A. Cook, Publisher. 1881.Secret Societies nowadays seem to have irretrievably lost the power of keeping their things secret. It is a merited punishment that in their endeavors to deceive their fellowmen as to the real purpose and practices of their secret league, they are on their part deceived by fellows of their own, who do not hesitate to divulge what is confided to them as a secret. The publisher of the work before us states in his Preface that he “had propositions to furnish the new ritual (necessitated by the divulgation of the one in use) as soon as it was issued. One of these propositions was accepted.” The new ritual which is thus again divulged at its very birth, exhibits that sort of modern paganism with its “ridiculous boys’-play ceremonies” which constitutes the glory those odd fellows aspire to successively in the degrees called Initiatory, degree of [[@VolumePage:1,170]]friendship, of brotherly love, of truth (which in the three preceding degrees is not needed), encampment, patriarchal, golden rule, and royal purple degrees. In order to “lessen and ultimately destroy the prejudice felt against the Order by many of the fairer sex in various portions of the Union, and which, undeniably, often tends to prevent accessions of members In Subordinate Lodges,” the Rebekah, or Ladies’ degree, has been established as “an honorary degree, to be conferred on such Scarlet members and their wives as may desire to receive it.” From the Critical Analyses which are added to the presentation of the ritual of each degree, we copy the following heads. Initiations are mental debauches; every lodge a gateway of perdition through false worship; sacrilegious use of Scripture narratives; the dupe of the first initiation becomes the devil-worshiper of the following; the diversity in form conceals the unity in essence of all secret orders; the ancient Mysteries, their suppressions and remodelings; orders never grow until the religious element becomes prominent; the lodge is deism and infidelity, claiming superiority to Christianity; true love and lodge love compared; “pay as you go” upward; treason to human language; the degree of Truth a hodge-podge of heathen and Jewish symbols, with a coffin for solemnity; Christ a stumbling-block, a system of salvation by ceremonies; the object of the Golden Rule degree to checkmate Christ’s plan of union in Him; a union in hatred of Christ; mimic journey to heaven; acknowledged real design of the Rebekah degree; a lodge debauch.—The book is a companion to “Freemasonry Illustrated” and “Knight Templarism Illustrated.” It contains 281 pages, is profusely Illustrated with cuts of the signs, grips and symbols, and diagrams of the lodgeroom in various degrees, and sells, in substantial cloth binding at $1, in paper at 50 cents, postpaid, by the publisher, Ezra A. Cook, 7—13 Wabash Avenue, Chicago.General Religious Intelligence.The New Version. The theological faculty of Yale College has formally adopted the revised version.A New missionary society, called the Evangelic Association on the behalf of the German Protestants in America, has been formed In Bremen, Germany.A Colored preacher in Clark County, Ky., named Marshall, announces that he will pray for any desired object on receipt of seventy-five cents.It is reported by the Religious Tract Society of London, that for the past twelve years the Spanish people have purchased a larger number of the Scriptures in proportion to their population than the French or Italian.There were but twenty-two persons attendant upon the anniversary mass said for the soul of the late M. Thiers at the church of Notre Dame de Lorette in Paris. This looks somewhat like contempt on the part of the ex-President’s surviving friends for that sacrilegious ceremonial of the Roman church.A New religious sect, called the Overcomers, has arisen near Chicago. They disown church-fellowship as contaminating to pure souls, and church organizations as hopelessly corrupt, and consider themselves entirely consecrated in soul and body to the service of the Lord.If the Roman Catholic Church had retained all its children, so says the Catholic Telegraph, there would now be In this country something like [[@VolumePage:1,171]]25,000,000 members of that church, whereas there are now less than 7,000,000. The loss is attributed to the influence of the public schools.The Virginia Episcopal Convention passed a resolution at the late session in Danville affirming “that the time had now come when the clergy should recognize the fact that negroes within their parochial bounds are an integral part of their parochial work, and that such work cannot be ignored or neglected.”Rev. W. K. Hobart of Londonderry, Ireland, is about to publish a work showing from internal evidence that the “Gospel according to Luke” and the “Acts of the Apostles” were written by one person who was a medical man. Certain words and phrases peculiar to those parts of the Bible are compared with the use of the same words and phrases in the works of the Greek medical writers, Hippocrates, Aretaeus, Discorides and Galen.According to the “Independent” the most practical and effective way to counteract the work of the Mormon Propaganda is to form an Anti-Mormon Missionary Society, which will send out missionaries and printed documents, follow the Salt Lake emissaries, and warn and enlighten ignorant people, among whom these emissaries chiefly operate, of the bad character of the system they are asked to accept. It adds that polygamy as a religious or economical theory preached and advocated, but not practiced, does not come within the scope of penal legislation, and that to make the advocacy of such theory legally a crime, as it is proposed that it shall be in Georgia, would be a violation of the very first principles of both civil and religious liberty.Alph. Necrological. Prof. Gebhardi of Northwestern University, Watertown, died recently, his burial taking place on the 31st of Oct. He was the youngest member of the faculty, having but recently entered upon his duties. His death is a severe loss to the institution. We hope that the Board will soon succeed in finding an able successor to the lamented Gebhardi.The Fourth Conference Of The Ministerium Of Pennsylvania, in a recent meeting, discussed the following question: “What attitude shall Pastors and Congregations assume over against the desire for sinful pleasures which penetrates more and more into our congregations, by which more particularly the young are drawn into worldly diversions?” In answer to this question theses were drawn up the fourth of which reads: “Secret societies into which many are brought, for the purpose of so-called mutual benefit, militate directly against the Church, and tend to alienate the young from it.” May the Synod of Pennsylvania not be found wanting in unity of spirit and zeal in executing what is involved in the judgment here given concerning secret societies.The General Council held its fourteenth Convention from Oct. 20th to Oct. (?), at Rochester, Pa. The forenoon of the first clay was occupied by the opening services, with preaching by Rev. Dr. Spaeth. In the afternoon the council organized) when it showed that the assembly was made up of 43 delegates from the ministry, and 26 from the laity. Rev. Prof. Dr. Spaeth was elected president. In the evening session Ash wednesday was fixed upon as a day of humiliation and prayer, the resolution being preceded by a debate in which reference was had to the old so-called Quatember days. Then a petition was proposed to the Northern Pacific R. R. to grant lands for missionary purposes. On Friday morning, after the reading of two letters, the order of [[@VolumePage:1,172]]the day was resumed, viz. the work of Home Missions. In the evening an interesting meeting was held in the Church of the Reformation in behalf of the Foreign Missions. On Friday morning, “the committee appointed to propose some subjects for the consideration of the Council during the mornings devoted to doctrinal discussions” proposed subjects of which the following was adopted, viz.: “The true nature and the distinguishing characteristics of the visible and the invisible church, and the relation of one to the other, as set forth in Theses 97—99.” In that very forenoon, after the appointment of a committee, the consideration of the work of Home Missions and in the afternoon of “Emigrant Mission in the port of New York” and minor missionary business was taken up. On Monday afternoon, after having passed resolutions of Garfield’s assassination, and Tuesday afternoon the unfinished business of Home Mission and minor matters, resolutions of thanks etc. filled the time. Monday and Tuesday forenoons were devoted to doctrinal discussion.The Church Of The Good Templars. Formerly, before modern heathenism attained to that predominating influence which it is now exerting throughout “Christendom,” marriages were generally solemnized in some church. At present, this is not the general rule, the majority of marriage ceremonies being performed in court-rooms and Squire-offices. Still there are some couples who would not like to be united in holy wedlock under the auspices of some church, while, on the other hand, they cherish an equal dislike to being married by a Squire, Justice of the Peace or any magistrate, all of them being known for the short, matter-of-fact manner in which they invariably perform this part of their official business. Up to this time, all such couples were in an embarassing dilemma. But this may now safely be regarded as belonging to “auld long syne,” if the future husband only be a Good Templar, for then the Church of the Good Templars will assist him in evading both to get married in the temple of God or in some dark and dreary looking Squire’s office. At least, that is the idea we derived from the following paragraph, clipped from one of the religious papers of New York: “A marriage in a Good Templar Lodge, the first ceremony of the kind, it is believed, that has taken place there since the formation of the order, was performed in the Lodge of the Templars of Freedom of New York, on July 11th. The bride, bridegroom, and officiating ministers were all Good Templars, and the Lodge also furnished the contingent of brides-maids and brides-men to complete the wedding party. After the religious ceremony, speeches were made of which a prominent topic was the duty of the wife to see that her husband maintained his connection with Good Templarism and adhered to the principles of the order.”—Thus, the Good Templars are ahead of all their sister-orders, in permitting, and, in a way even encouraging, “religious ceremonies” to be performed under its auspices, thus showing their religious, or rather idolatrous character which they, in common with the rest of secret societies, are so prone to deny.—And now when that religious (! ?) ceremony came off in the church of the Good Templars, what were the “sermons” about?—Their main topic was the duty of the wife to see that her husband faithfully adhere to the Church of the Good Templars. It is obvious that, if in the future many couples are married in that “church,” and the wives do what is inculcated on them as their duty and keep their husbands on the right track, i. e. in the Church of the Good Templars, the prospects of that Order are remarkably favorable. Augustus. [[@VolumePage:2,1]]THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.Vol. 2. January 1882. No. 1.A Few Prefatory Remarks.On entering upon the second year of the publication of the St. Louis Theological Monthly we consider a statement of the motives for its continuation necessary. The peculiar situation into which the Missouri synod had unexpectedly been thrust, and to which the Monthly owes its origin, has changed of late. It was through God’s grace that the machinations of our enemies fell short in their intended effect. The storm stirred up to break the bonds of peace which unite the members of our synod is now left only to growl powerless at a distance. At the time, however, when it was trying its force upon us, those who considered themselves out of the reach of the prospective devastation must have found themselves in a position not favorable to a correct view of the trouble. It was an easy task for its originators to preoccupy in their favor the judgment of persons not sufficiently interested in, or informed of, the real nature of the disturbance. The spiteful attacks on our orthodoxy as well as on the very animus and aims of our labor in the Church proceeded from men who stood up as professed guardians of the pure doctrine of the Lutheran Church, protesting that they were forced to these measures in vindication of divine truths that were imperiled. Their claims to an impartial hearing had the more force against us from the fact that, up to this time, they had been our acknowledged and honored brethren, associates with us in that ecclesiastical body which has ever regarded it as its sacred duty “by the help of God with the greatest vigilance to be careful that no new and ungodly doctrine insinuate itself, spread, and prevail in its churches.” One important circumstance which to every candid mind must have appeared as an evidence against them, [[@VolumePage:2,2]]their craftiness endeavored to turn to our own confusion. Their repeated and emphatic assertions that the faith they contended for was the one they had always maintained as their own, showed them to be guilty of a former wicked collusion with us for the perversion of this very faith, if the charges they made against us were true. For the very doctrine they seized upon in their attacks had, for a long course of years, been freely, distinctly, and emphatically promulgated in our publications as true Lutheran doctrine without having ever in the least disturbed the bonds of peace and the oneness of mind which, as our new enemies publicly and privately professed, had united them with us. But now our former presentations and expositions of this doctrine were looked upon as materials fit to be shaped and intertwined with error in such a way as to present to the uninstructed the appearance of a shocking heresy. Means which only a bad cause avails itself of, the extraordinary energy displayed in this warfare did not disdain to employ. Nor were these hostilities carried on only within the scope of our vernacular in which we could well defend ourselves. Our adversaries caught us at a disadvantage in employing the language of the country, by which means our cause seemed entirely left at their mercy when presented to the generality of readers. Under these circumstances it was thought to be advisable for us to publish a periodical of modest dimensions with a view of offering to those who might be willing to accept it, a plain and honest testimony concerning the doctrines we hold and teach, and the work our labors are directed to accomplish, together with some defence that might prove sufficient to discover the nature of our enemies' warfare. These were the occasions which gave existence to, and shaped the course of the St. Louis Theological Monthly. But the scene is changed now. God’s grace has not permitted the truth to be suppressed. The evil which was thought against us God meant unto good. What had been intended to divide has the more firmly united us. Brethren who had been alarmed at the accusations so wantonly raised against the doctrine we defend, are now in a position to clearly perceive that, in fact, the object of the assaults was the eradication of precious and divine truths. Sufficient evidence has, besides, been [[@VolumePage:2,3]]produced in the course of the controversy to enable any one who honestly concerns himself in the knowledge and preservation of what God has graciously revealed of the doctrine in dispute, to know where to side with. It has become manifest that the mode in which the later dogmaticians presented predestination has been taken hold on for the purpose of making Synergism and Pelagianism insinuate themselves, spread, and prevail in our Lutheran Church. Those who are honestly minded to retain in its purity the apostolic doctrine laid down in our Confession, and find themselves disturbed in the apprehension of its presentation in the Formula of Concord, need not be at a loss how to get rid of their embarrassment. A careful and attentive reading of the Eleventh Article, when kept free from forced interpretation, will produce in the heart and mind of any lover of Christ’s gospel the same effects it once produced, when the confession was first communicated to them, in the hearts and minds of more than 8000 ministers and teachers of the Word who, by subscribing their names, gladly acknowledged it as a plain and clear statement of their own faith. There was no need for them in order to correctly and fully understand what they subscribed to, of the apparatus lately invented for a pretended understanding of the Formula, by which it is purposed to enable any one to apply different senses to the word election whenever he meets with it in our Confession. This collection of different senses which our opponents represent as having been found by them scattered throughout the whole article in an improper promiscuousness and now made discernible by them and convenient to ready application: the wide sense of election, the narrow sense of election, the widest sense of election, the sense of election as the principal part of election, the sense of election as the second part of election, the sense of election in two parts of election being combined—these new-fangled and uncouth contrivances will never succeed in finding favor with any one who has some sincere respect left for the learning and ability of the framers of our Confession. No one among us, we should think, on being ordained vowed to teach as Lutheran doctrine what is left of it after manipulating in the manner now recommended by our opponents; nor will any intelligent man ever be inclined to regard a [[@VolumePage:2,4]]document which for being intelligible requires a treatment of this kind, to be a fit expression of his faith. In short, the whole controversy has come to this pass, that those who had no other grounds for mistrusting us are no longer disquieted by the accusations made, nor do they, to the best of our knowledge, think any further defence against them needful or desirable.Whether our Monthly was so blessed as to contribute ever so little to this wished-for result we do not know. Thus much, however, we do know that we claim no merit at all in this issue. We, therefore, never thought of grounding the continuation of its publication on considerations of its having proved useful. There are other reasons for having it run its course another year, and committing it to God to bless it so long as it may please Him. It was not the purpose of our synod on authorizing its publication to have it continued only for the time the controversy on Election might appear to render the issue of an English Monthly desirable. There is a considerable number of Lutherans in our country who are not indifferent to an opportunity of having the pure and distinctive doctrines of their church set forth to them in the English language. Our Lutheran Church is so abundantly provided with spiritual treasures collected and amassed during a long period of years through the labors of most eminent servants of Christ as to be, above all other churches, able to meet wants and afford increase in spiritual things. It cannot, besides, but recognize as its duty wherever a door is opened unto it to expose and refute false and seductive doctrines, to warn against them, and to restore the biblical doctrine from the corruptions it suffered at the hands of false teachers. It has the duty of removing prejudices maintained against it in other denominations, by setting forth its doctrines in their divine purity, comfort, and sanctifying power, as well as by opposing men who, usurping the name of Lutheran, spread error and unbelief in the church. There is, moreover, a goodly number of persons interested in our work, and willing to accept of our hands such service as we may be able to afford. It is, then, neither a lack of work to be done, nor of opportunity for doing it that could excuse a discontinuance of our periodical.There is but one thing which appears discouraging. It is [[@VolumePage:2,5]]the feebleness of the hand intrusted with the work. Many reasons, indeed, which however we shall not name here, could make us despair of the task undertaken. But we know of the gracious promise of Him, of whom the sacred oracle says: “He givcth power to the faint, and to them that have no might He increaseth strength.” To this truth we desire to refer also those brethren of ours who, knowing the Monthly to be a periodical sent forth by the Missouri synod, ought to regard it as intrusted also to the loving care and sustenance of all whose ability may well supply its wants and help it execute the work allotted to it. We beg their permission for offering to their consideration the words of Augustinus when, on commencing his work on the Christian doctrine and treatment of the Scriptures, he says: “It is a work great and arduous, and if to sustain it be difficult, I fear that to undertake it be inconsiderate. So it would be, indeed, if we ventured it of our own selves. But now, since our hope of performing this work rests in Him of whom we already hold much of this matter communicated to us while we were thinking on it, we ought not to be afraid that He will forbear giving the rest when we begin to lay out what is given. For a thing that does not decrease by giving, when had and not given, is not had as it ought to be had. He, however, says: ‘Whosoever hath, to him shall be given.’ He, therefore, will give to them who have, that is, to those who with beneficence use what they have received; He will make full and run over what He has given. These were the five, and these the seven loaves before they began to be given to them who were hungry. When this began to be done they filled the baskets and wallets, after having satisfied so many thousands of men. As that bread, therefore, increased while it was dealt, so the things which the Lord has already granted for the undertaking of this work, when they will begin to be distributed, will by His own furnishing be multiplied, so that in this our very administering we shall not only not suffer any want, but also rejoice at His wonderful abundance.” (De doctr. Christ. I, 1.)Trusting in this encouraging promise alone, we unpretendingly send out this Monthly again to be directed and aided by Him to whose mercy it was devoted at the first. [[@VolumePage:2,6]](For the “Theological Monthly.”)“Full Assurance of Hope.”Dr. Luther declares: “Even if there were no wickedness in the popish doctrine except this, that it has been there taught, that we must waver and fluctuate, and remain unsettled and doubting, regarding remission of sins, grace, and our salvation, we should have had just reason for separating from that unfaithful church.” These weighty words, quoted by M. Chemnitius in his Ex. Con. Trid., are the more noteworthy when men, pretending to fight for the pure gospel truth, trouble the Lutheran Church by defending a doctrine which is repugnant to the holy Scriptures and the confession of our Church. The doctrine that God’s election is dependent upon men’s conduct in accepting and keeping the grace offered them, can not but bring forth the bad fruit of uncertainty and doubt with regard to final salvation. It must then be considered an objectionable and dangerous delusion, if true believers rest assured of their eternal election. Alas! how far have these modern Romanizers strayed from the truth which is in Christ Jesus, and which our Church, in obedience to God’s own gracious will and command, has confessed and defended over against the papists and their allies! The Word of God is written for our instruction, that we, through comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope —yea, might abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost. Rom. 15. 4, 13. And even for this very purpose, too, our merciful God has revealed to us His precious truth concerning our eternal election; He has given that truth in such a manner that the believers in the Gospel may and can ascertain from His own words, that they are in the number of the elect. His good will towards us would not let our feet stand upon the quicksand of our own efforts, or of human speculations and presumptions, which necessarily must leave us in a deplorable, unsteady state of mind, but rather has He placed us upon the solid rock of His love and promises, by which we are made sure of the inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, reserved in heaven for us. His unspeakable love and His “exceeding great and precious promises” are the immovable foundation upon which the “living hope” is resting. [[@VolumePage:2,7]]And for this reason hope is “an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast,” an anchor, fixed in the future world by faith in God’s never failing promises. Of this hope the Holy Ghost testifies, “it maketh not ashamed,” it can not fail, it shall not be in vain; our expectation shall not be cut off. Prov. 24. 14. Doubt, therefore, can not be consistent with the living hope. For how may a man hope for the crown that faideth not away, if it be doubtful, whether he ever shall receive it? How may we firmly expect and wait for a valuable present, if we are not certain, that we shall have it? if we can not look upon it and for it as something that already belongs to us by virtue of the promise made by a friend in whom we may rely? Or is it the lively hope, that would cause us to complain, saying, although we now believe in the Savior, yet we can not tell, whether we shall receive the end of our faith, even the salvation of our souls, for this is a matter of which we can have no certainty before our last breath? Was such the state of” mind of St. Paul, when he suffered persecution and death on account of the hope of resurrection? Acts 23. 6, 24. 15, 26. 6. &c. Is it that tantalizing uncertainty, when the apostle declares, “We are made heirs [of the glory of God] according to the hope of eternal life”? Tit. 3.7.A clear and beautiful illustration of the Christian’s lively hope is placed before our eyes by Abraham’s example, Rom. 4. By faith this friend of God was fully persuaded,—his soul was full of confidence that, though in the ordinary course of things, he had no foundation of hope for becoming the father of many nations, yet God’s promise could not fail. Knowing by faith that the truth of God bound Him to fulfil His promise, and that He was able to perform what in His merciful kindness He had promised, trusting in the grace, power, and never failing faithfulness of God, Abraham “in hope believed against hope.” He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief—he was not floating upon an uncertain “perhaps, if I shall remain to be the friend of God”—but was strong in faith, giving glory to God, awaiting the accomplishment of the promise in which he believed. Such is the living hope, which God desires to instill in the heart of every believer, so that he may be fully persuaded and infallibly assured of his [[@VolumePage:2,8]]election unto life everlasting. “Hope awaits future blessings, faith receives present reconciliation.” ([[Apol. Art. 3. >> BookOfConcord:AP:iii:191]])It is to be lamented, then, that there are men who trouble the Lutheran Church by presenting the inspired word Hope as having no other meaning and value than is usually indicated in common conversation, when mere human things are under consideration! The grand, joyful, and firm Lutheran confession (in Martin Luther’s Questions and Answers) I Hope—is, by these new teachers, reduced to a timid expression of a weak and wavering expectation. They teach us to answer the question: “And dost thou hope to be saved?” by saying: I may be saved, but I do not know!—May God bring to naught the attempts at substituting in the hearts of Christians pernicious popish leaven for the heavenly manna of the “full assurance of hope.”Luther, in his [[Commentary to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, ch. 5, 5., >> logosres:lw27;ref=VolumePage.V_27,_p_20;off=217]]writes, as follows: “The word hope, after the manner of the Scriptures, is taken in two ways. In the first place it expresses that valiant confidence (affection), that remains steadfast amidst all afflictions and trials, waiting for the victory and final salvation. In the second place it denotes that very victory and salvation towards which the soul, by hope and confidence, is looking, and which it shall obtain. In the first signification St. Paul applies this word in Rom. 8.24., saying: ‘For what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?’ In the other sense it is made use of in Col. 1.5.: ‘For the hope’s sake, which is laid up for you in heaven,’ that is to say, for the sake of eternal salvation which you are firmly and confidently waiting for. So in this place also, the word hope may be taken in two ways, first, as denoting the salvation, which we do not see or feel, but await, as he says, Rom. 8. 24.: ‘We are saved by hope.’ Secondly, as indicating that confidence of the heart, which patiently and longingly is waiting for such salvation,” &c.Thus Luther taught the Christians not to doubt, nor to despair, but to take a good heart through hope—not only to rest assured that they have forgiveness of all sins for Christ’s sake, but also to wait for the full consummation of perfect righteousness in heaven. Truly “this is an eminent, sweet [[@VolumePage:2,9]]consolation, whereby poor, troubled consciences that feel their sins and are terrified, are mightily comforted over against every fiery dart of the devil.” ([[Luther, ib. >> logosres:lw27;ref=VolumePage.V_27,_p_22]]) But on the other hand the afflicted may be driven to despair by that comfortless doctrine, which aims to convert the Scripture-language relating to the Christian’s hope, into a term denoting doubt and uncertainty.The F. C, amongst other purposes for which the doctrine of predestination is set forth, expressly points out this important end, “to strengthen our faith, and to assure us of our salvation;” and it adds, “Where this comfort and hope are impaired or taken away from us, it is certain that the Scriptures are understood and explained contrary to the will and meaning of the Holy Ghost.” And in the Apology ([[Art. 3. >> BookOfConcord:AP:iii]]) the Lutheran Church confesses that “The doubting soul flees from God, falls into despair and can not hope. Now the hope of eternal life must be certain, and in order that it may not waver, but be sure, we must believe, that we receive eternal life, not through our works or merits, but by grace alone through faith in Christ.”The Lutheran Church, indeed, does not maintain, that every Christian is in possession of the full assurance of hope, nor that, if once obtained, it will at all times and under all circumstances be experienced in the same degree. For since in this life we receive only the first-fruits of the Spirit, “every Christian discovers in himself, that he is at one time joyful in Spirit, and at another timid and fearful, at one time ardent in love, strong in faith and hope, and at another cold and weak.” ([[F. C. III. Decl. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:68]]) But our Church contends against that popish fiction, in consequence of which Christians are caused to be uncertain regarding their election, and misled, so as to trust in their own efforts and to make final salvation dependent upon their conduct, contrary to the Word of God, which teaches us to confide solely in the Savior’s abundant grace and mighty power. The Lutheran Church has fought, and, God helping, shall continue to fight, for that pure doctrine concerning predestination which, filling our hearts with confidence and gladness, opens our lips to join in the praise of divine mercy with St. Paul: [[Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? >> Rom 8:35]] [[@VolumePage:2,10]][[I am persuaded that neither death nor life, &c., >> Rom 8:38]]&c., shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord. And why should we not sing this triumphant song? “Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace.” 2 Thess. 2. 16. G. R.(For the “Theological Monthly”.)In Defense of a Brother in the Faith.Controversies on the doctrine will very aptly result in acts of injustice. This has been abundantly exemplified by the present controversy on Election. If men once become so imbued with their own notions, or the opinions advanced by others, that they are deaf to the testimony of the truth, they are easily carried away by their zeal to acts which otherwise they themselves condemn. And why should not a man who, to uphold his opinion, will pass by a plain word of the Gospel, also set aside a plain word of the Law? What is in the word: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” which would make it more sacred than the word: “I have chosen you out of the world”? Both are equally God’s Word, and he who, turning a deaf ear to all testimony, can pass by the one may be expected to set aside the other also, when occasion offers. That the Columbus men and their adherents set aside the word: “I have chosen you out of the world,” is a public fact, inasmuch as they teach that God chose not “out of the world,” but only those whom He saw as having already persevered in the faith until the end, hence as having already come out of the world. Standing in direct opposition to this word, why should they not, in regard to those who oppose their false doctrine, also set aside that other word: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”? Their misrepresentation of the doctrine of those who hold the true Scriptural and Confessional position is evidence enough. But the most recent and, we believe, the most flagrant violation of the ten commandments, done in order to prop up the cause of Columbus, it is the object of our present writing to show. We would, indeed, have said not a word about it publicly, if it were not necessary in defence of the reputation of a beloved brother in the faith.Those readers of the Monthly who read the Lutheran Standard will have found a notice of suspension in the issue of November 12th. It reads thus:“It becomes our painful duty to suspend Rev. J. E. [[@VolumePage:2,11]]Senecker from membership in Concordia English District of the Joint Synod of Ohio until the next session of this body. First, for his wilful telling of falsehoods. Secondly, for his dishonest undermining and disorderly efforts in estranging his congregations from and trying to lead them out of Synod. Thirdly, for his blindly following Missouri in her new doctrine, inasmuch as he has no intelligent conception of the controversy. His course for the last few months would astonish and shock the upright and honest Christian. Good Lord, give him repentance before it is too late, and deliver Thy Church from such pastors. E. L. S. Tressel.” Before this notice was printed Past. Senecker had already withdrawn from the Ohio synod and also resigned his charge.Are those charges against Past. Senecker true? and why did he resign? In answer to these questions we can state the following:At the meeting of Concordia District E. L. S. T. managed to get the delegates from Past. Senecker’s charge on his side and armed them with certain papers. What the contents of those papers were Past. Senecker did not find out, but it soon became evident, that they were to be used against him. Some time after the meeting of Synod at Wheeling E. L. S. T. appointed visitation at Cabin Hill for the 9th of November. Thereafter he changed his appointment to the 2nd. Invited by Past. Senecker we went to Cabin Hill on the 1st of November, expecting to be an auditor at the visitation. Arriving there, we found that E. L. S. T. had suspended Past. S. from membership in the Synod under pretence of the reasons given in his notice, in reality, however, because three congregations of that charge had passed resolutions forbidding him to hold visitation, and the fourth had suspended membership in the Synod.Notwithstanding the action of the congregations E. L. S. T, put in an appearance at Cabin Hill on the evening of November 2nd. Shortly after his (T.’s) arrival Past. Senecker sent him notice of his withdrawal from Synod and, as T. had declared himself ready to prove his charges anywhere, Past. Senecker invited him to his residence for that purpose. But as he declined coming to the parsonage, Past. S. proposed to come to the house where T. was staying, provided, the writer of this be admitted as a silent witness. But again T. refused, urging Past. Senecker to come alone. Why this strange conduct on the part of T.? A bad conscience will cause strange conduct. He knows very well that his charges against Past. Senecker are false.Possibly he might plead that he refused our company [[@VolumePage:2,12]]because we had refused to shake hands with him. Why did we do this? Simply on account of the same thing, which finally induced Past. Senecker to resign his charge. When T. saw that he could not gain his object of ousting Past. Senecker and retaining the congregations in the Synod by any fair means, he not only resorted to the slanders published in the Standard, but he also brought up and clandestinely spread abroad in the congregations things which had occurred and had been adjusted inn Christian manner and to the satisfaction of all parties concerned years ago. Before Past. Senecker had heard anything of these scandalous actions, Tr. had already succeeded in so prejudicing the minds of the people, that Past. Senecker thought it best to resign. To add any thing further is needless.“By their fruits ye shall know them,” Matth. 7. 20.F. K.(For the “Theological Monthly.”)Review of Comments on our Reasons for suspending Membership in the Ohio Synod.In the “Standard” of Nov. 12th and 19th our reasons for suspending membership in the Ohio Synod were published with a commentary attached to them by E. L. S. T., Pres. of Concordia District. He entitles the whole: “Rev. Kuegele Suspends Himself—His Reasons for It.” From the standpoint of the author of those comments the title is not ill-chosen. It indemnifies us for some sour expressions occurring in the comments. We are, however, glad to be able to state that the poor fellow who suspended himself is now no more suspended, but withdrawn to terra firma.Whilst we are not minded to give any answer to the invectives against us, which E. L. S. T. has been and, it seems, still is venting through the so-called Luth. Standard, it might nevertheless be well to show that his comments on our reasons have failed to disestablish them. They thus far stand unrefuted. E. L. S. T. does indeed introduce his comments in a high tone. He says: “They (our reasons) really are undeserving of notice, for all who have read up the history and discussions of this controversy will see the groundlessness of his charges and the deceptiveness of his statements.” He forgets that not every one is looking through his spectacles.Before entering on E. L. S. T.’s comments in particular a few general remarks are necessary. He appears to think that, when he says a thing, that must be sufficient. He simply [[@VolumePage:2,13]]makes assertions, evidence he does not furnish. And he has a good reason for not doing so. He can furnish no evidence, because the facts are against him. Our object in the following therefore is not to disprove E. L. S. T.’s assertions, but simply to show, that our reasons are founded on facts. So also E. L. S. T. has taken liberty to change some words in our reasons. That, indeed, would be of little moment, because by those alterations the sense is not materially changed, but with our first reason he did not publish the quotations which we had given from the Book of Concord. That we consider a dishonesty on his part. Why did he leave that out? Simply because that one quotation upsets his whole theory, inasmuch as it shows that the Confessions are not to be explained according to the private writings of the Fathers, but that the writings of the Fathers are to be proved by the Confessions.As regards our reasons in general we are not aware that we could have given them in any milder language. We could have put them in stronger language and we could have added more, but we were not minded to hurt the feelings of anyone without urgent necessity. Whether that be a fault we, of course, leave to the judgment of others. But since publishing our reasons for suspension, we have, when sending in the notice of our final withdrawal from the Ohio Synod, added a fifth reason, couched in somewhat different language, which however we consider fully justified by recent occurrences. We did, indeed, not reserve a copy of it, but the import is this: “The tyrannical and Jesuitical practice of the President of Concordia Engl. Distr., who, to gain his ends, will stoop to the vilest means.”We are ready to furnish the evidence that the person named has been carrying on things with a high hand whilst stooping very low.We also readily concede that there are not a few in the Ohio Synod, who were always opposed to its connexion with the Synodical Conference, and that before the meeting of Concordia District at Mill Creek and of Joint Synod at Wheeling every thing was predetermined. We concede that Synod only met to carry out what a clique had determined on beforehand. Perhaps a cry may be raised about this, but we are not afraid of a further ventilation thereof. But all this could not be decisive in this matter. The reasons, why the men at Columbus did obeisance to the voice of “command” resounding from Madison, Wis., and the manner in which the orders going forth from Columbus were carried out, may indeed serve to cast much light on the actions of Synod, but ultimately those actions themselves must decide. The question is: Do the [[@VolumePage:2,14]]actions of the Ohio Synod justify our action, or in other words: Are our reasons for suspension and withdrawal well founded?Our first reason reads thus:At its late session in Wheeling by a resolution entitled: “Our position concerning the doctrine of election”, passed on the 10th of September, the Ohio Synod in so far changed its confessional basis that, whilst it formerly confessed itself simply to the XI. Art. of the Formula of Concord, it now confesses itself to the same as the Fathers explained it, i. e., in the widest sense. From this it is evident that the Synod does no more confess itself simply to the text of the Formula of Concord, but rather to the explanation of the Fathers. I hold that the Confessions shall be their own interpreters, and can not consent to interpret them according to the theories set up in the private writings of the Church-Fathers, as Synod has resolved that they must be interpreted. Quotation left out by E. L. S. T. (See [[B. of C. 2d Ed. p. 596 Reject 3. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:0:4]])We underline certain words to show, what our ideas were at that time. Now, since the Minutes of Concordia District have appeared in print, we would rather have had the wording a little different. We at that time restricted the change of the “confessional basis” to the XI. Art. of the Formula of Concord. We did so, in order that no one might think, we were accusing the Ohio Synod of more than it was guilty of, inasmuch as the actions at Wheeling directly and immediately concerned only the XI. Art. of the Formula of Concord. But we were well aware that the principle: The Confessions must be explained according to the Fathers, if applied in one article, would equally apply in all others. In reality E. L. S. T., as a perhaps somewhat over-zealous disciple of the men at Columbus, had already made this application. We had indeed heard the Pres. report read at the meeting of Concordia District and we were under the impression that, besides its rottenness in the doctrine of conversion and election, there was also something wrong with the position taken in regard to the Confessions, but not being positive what that position was, we took no notice of it, thinking that, when the Minutes would appear, it would show. The Minutes have appeared and they prove even more than we had expected. There we read, p. 10: “In determining the import of the language or context of the Confession the same absolute rule which obtains in explaining the Scriptures can not with justice be pressed here.” Again: “The private defense and explanation of the Confessions by those who wrote both, or by those who originally subscribed the Confessions, or by those who lived nearest [[@VolumePage:2,15]]to the time of their publication, rightly have much weight in settling the exact meaning of the Confessions on points of dispute. Furthermore, when such explanations have been adopted by the orthodox teachers of the Church, and acknowledged and acquiesced in by the Church itself for centuries almost without exceptions, especially when they have been tried by the severest fires of controversy, the proof is almost overwhelming that the settled conviction of the Church regarding her Confessions is the correct one.” We do hope that E. L. S. T. is not planning to carry out his principles; for that would cause a revolution in the United States. “For centuries almost without exception” it was “the settled conviction of the Church,” that the civil government has some power in Church affairs. If E. L. S. T. in this point explains the Confessions according to that settled conviction of the Church and the writings of the later Church-Fathers, then it would be his duty to try his skill in establishing a State-Church. Sweeping assertions will sometimes involve more than is desirable.But the language in these quotations is certainly plain enough. The maxim, that a book shall explain itself “can not with justice be pressed” in regard to the Confessions. And why not? Why because the writings of the Church-Fathers must “rightly have much weight in settling the exact meaning of the Confessions on points of dispute.” We do, of course, not deny, that in studying and explaining the Confessions the private writings of the Fathers are of great value; but this is setting up the principle that the meaning of the Confessions shall be determined by the Fathers. If that were true then our actual Confession would be, not the Book of Concord, but the explanations of the Fathers. That is the position, which the Ohio Synod now occupies. It says: “The Confessions also explain themselves.” But “in settling the exact meaning of the Confessions on points of dispute” “the private defense and explanation” of the Fathers must “rightly have much weight.” So then according to the principles of the Ohio Synod a layman, who has the Book of Concord, but is not in possession of the writings of the Fathers, could never be positive, what “the exact meaning of the Confession” is, he could not know, what the Lutheran doctrine is, until some wiseacre would tell him, how the Fathers explain this and that. That is certainly setting the Fathers above the Confessions and making them judges over them; it is robbing the Church of her Confessions.We wonder how E. L. S. T. manages in regard to this point! According to his own principles he can only be positive [[@VolumePage:2,16]]about “the exact meaning of the Confessions on points of dispute” by “the private defense and explanation” of the Fathers. But in his library books of hoary age are scarce. How then can he know “the axact meaning of the Confessions?” Does he go it blindly trusting in the assertions of Others? (To be continued.) General Religious Intelligence.The Baptists in France have doubled in ten years. The Church at Montbeliard has increased from nine to a hundred members.Degeneracy Of The American Pulpit. Church Attendance—is it falling off? was one of the subjects of Dr. Talmage during the month of October. He tries to show, by the churches of New York, that it is not falling off. Then, in the bulk of his sermon, he goes on to point out the causes, if any church really be depleted, viz. that professors who can’t preach themselves are put up as professors to teach their scholars how to preach, that the meekest, softest boys, just those showing least character are selected for the ministry. Not a word about Christ as the Saviour of our fallen race. The greater part of the whole harangue would, if need be, do perhaps, for an extemporaneous address at the banket of a theological alumni association, but never for a sermon. How can such desecrations of the pulpit as Mr. Talmage is furnishing every Sunday, be harmonized with 1 Cor. 2. 2., where Paul says: “For I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” But always to preach Christ, is no maxim with Dr. T., and if it would be earnestly pressed upon him, he’d very likely say: “Hearers who are intelligent through reading newspapers and by active associations in business circles will not on the sabbath sit and listen to platitudes.”—The sermon referred to is only a specimen of T.’s general style, and it is a deplorable fact that the majority of the American clergy are trying to excel each other in aping him as closely as possible, and everybody praises such Christless preaching.Mite Societies. A mite is a small coin, donated for a good purpose, having reference to the mites of the widow in the gospel. (Mark 12. 41-42.) There is scarcely any similiarity between the mites of the widow and the mite societies. What is required to get up a mite society is to get plenty of cake and lemonade, fix upon an evening and Mrs. So and So’s parlor, or Mrs. So and So’s hall, and then advertise that all young folks in town now have a splendid opportunity of doing good, plenty of lemonade, cake, and sociality being on hand for all of them at very moderate prices, the whole transaction of their buying lemonade, cake, and sociality being sanctified by the view with the profits to convert the Zulus, or fix up the church. Then everybody comes, and everybody is acceptable. Ps. 1. 1. is suspended. No references are required except the mite in the form of a modern quarter. Since these Christians cannot get what they need by free contributions, they think God must be satisfied with some “crooked money.” And how lavishingly all those good and amiable young people pay their quarters for their fun and lemonade to assist in the conversion of the Zulus, or the fitting up of the church. Could the apostle call them (2 Cor. 9. 7.) “cheerful givers whom the Lord loveth”? Certainly not. Such business-like way of making money is simply an indirect taxation for church purposes, everybody who wants to attend is in a way compelled to contribute, even if it be Ingersoll himself.—We are glad to report that the practice of holding mite societies has not yet become universal. There are still some Lutherans who in this point, too, scrupulously adhere to the word of God, so as to have cheerful giving and free contributions only. And God, the giver of all good gifts, will never let them be wanting who trust in Him, follow His ways, and rely on His promises. Augustus. [[@VolumePage:2,17]]THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.Vol. 2. February 1882. No. 2.(For the “Theological Monthly.”)SERMONpreached at the meeting of the Protest Conference at Logan, Ohio, and given to the public by request of Conference,BYF. KUEGELE.TEXT: ROMANS 11. 1—6. “I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scriptures saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.”In God our Saviour beloved brethren! The history of the Church teaches us that at certain times certain articles of the Christian doctrine will become most prominent, and demand more attention than others, namely those articles which, at the time being, are assailed by errorists. So in the earlier stages of the Church the doctrine of the person of Christ was most prominent; in the time of St. Augustine, the doctrine of the natural depravity of man; in the time of the Reformation, the doctrine of justification. In such times of controversy articles may become most prominent which in the whole complex of doctrines are subordinate to others in importance. Since a few years the doctrine of predestination has been attracting universal [[@VolumePage:2,18]]attention in our Evang. Luth. Church here in America, because men who were regarded as faithful to the doctrines of the Church, began to set forth teachings which are at variance with the public confessions of our Church. It is, therefore, highly necessary at this time that we treat of this doctrine, that we study it in the Scriptures and the Confessions, and that we do this in the fear of God with the fervent and continued prayer that God would lead us in the way of truth, and preserve us from being led astray into the paths of error. More especially we, beloved brethren, have need of becoming rooted and grounded in the knowledge of the doctrine of election as taught in the Scriptures and the Confessions, inasmuch as we are accused of disturbing the peace of Israel without a cause by protesting against and opposing the actions and teachings of those who claim to be the legitimate sons of our old Church-Fathers. Because we hold, confess and defend the doctrine of election as set forth in the Confessions, therefore misrepresentations, slanders, and unjust and false accusations are heaped upon us. Surely unhappy we, if our own conscience would condemn us, if our own heart would tell us that we were not certain, whether it be God’s truth, for which we are battling and suffering. To bear the wrongs which are inflicted upon us in a spirit of truly Christian meekness and humility we must know, our heart and soul must be certain of it, that it is not a human notion, not an invention of men, but God’s own truth for which we are suffering. That alone can impart godly fortitude. We must be certain of this, that the doctrine which we defend is not of ourselves, not of Missouri, not of Dr. Walther, not of men, but that it is of God; then only can we be cheerful, though all the world stand against us and condemn us; for the world shall pass away, but God’s truth shall not pass away. To comfort our hearts, permit me briefly to speak in accordance with our text on:The Election of Grace.I will endeavor to set forth:I. THAT THE ELECTION OF GOD IS INDEED AN ELECTIONOf Grace, andII. WHY IT IS SO NECESSARY TO ABIDE IN THIS DOCTRINE. [[@VolumePage:2,19]]IThat the holy Scriptures and with them our Evang. Luth. Confessions do teach an election is barely necessary to mention. In numerous passages of the Scriptures is this article of faith treated of, so that our Confessions in the [[first paragraph of the XI. Article of the Formula of Concord >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:2]] rightly say: “The holy Scriptures mention this article not only at one place casually, but copiously treat and inculcate it in many places.” Every system of doctrine, therefore, which, be it directly or indirectly, denies the election of God is, on that very account, false, un-Scriptural and un-Lutheran. There is an election, and to deny that, or to make the election of God a mere judicial act, a separating of the worthy from the unworthy, is to deny what is plainly taught in the Scriptures.If then the Scriptures do teach an election, what kind of an election do they teach? [[“Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” >> Rom 11.5]] Here we have a short and yet a very comprehensive description of God’s election; it is an election of grace. The election taught in the Scriptures is therefore not an election of sovereignty, that God according to His sovereign power should have picked out some and passed by the others, simply to show that He has power to do with His creatures whatsoever He please. God is indeed sovereign; no one can prescribe laws to Him; no one can lay down rules which He would be obliged to go by. In the [[115. Psalm >> Ps 115.3]] it is said of Him: “Our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased,” and in the [[9th chapter of Romans >> Rom 9.21]] Paul says: “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?” God is the independent one, who can do what He please, who has power to make out of His creatures, whatsoever He be pleased. He has power to save, and He has power to destroy both body and soul in hell. If God did not possess this power He would not be the God in whom we live, move, and have our being; He would then be a powerless idol. But in His election God did not thus proceed according to His sovereignty simply to show His absolute power over His creatures; for after speaking of the potter’s power of the same lump to make vessels of [[@VolumePage:2,20]]honor and vessels of dishonor, Paul adds that [[“God endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he had afore prepared unto glory.” >> Rom 9:22]] The vessels of dishonor God does not fit to destruction, He finds them already fitted to destruction, and He so little desires their destruction that He on the contrary endures them with much longsuffering, whether they would not repent; but the vessels of mercy are vessels of mercy, because God has afore prepared them unto glory. The election of God therefore is not an election of sovereignty, that He should have made the one a vessel of wrath, the other a vessel of mercy, according to His absolute power; it is an election of grace, which makes vessels of mercy only.Again, the election of God is not an election of worthiness or merit on the part of man. If there had been such a difference among men in the sight of God, so that some had been better than others, be it in their nature or by virtue of their deeds, and election would have been made on this wise, that God chose those of whom He foresaw that they were more worthy of eternal life: that might indeed—in an improper sense of the word—be called an election, but certainly not an election of grace, it would be an election of worthiness, or an election of preferableness, and the cause of election and salvation would be in man. The election of grace precludes all merit or worthiness on the part of man; for that only is grace, which is not merited in any way, as the apostle here says: [[“If by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” >> Rom 11.6]] If it had been the works, the good conduct, the better behaviour of the elect which persuaded God to elect them, then it would be no more an election of grace, because grace and worthiness are diametrically opposed to each other. In as far as an object is worthy of a favor or blessing bestowed upon it, in so far it is no more grace, but reward.Therefore also the election of God can not be an election of foreknowledge. God indeed does foreknow all things both good and evil, but whatsoever good things transpire on earth [[@VolumePage:2,21]]since sin came into the world, came to pass because God ordains and works them. If then we hold that whatsoever pertains to everlasting salvation is God’s own work and gift in man, how then could we teach an election of foreknowledge? Shall we say: Because God foreknows that He will save certain persons, therefore He resolves that He will save them? Therefore, to teach an election of foreknowledge amounts to the same as teaching an election of worthiness, because it necessarily implies that God foreknew something good in some men which is of themselves and not of God. The apostle here indeed also uses the word foreknow: [[“God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.” >> Rom 11.2]] Is not that teaching an election of foreknowledge? Most certainly not; to explain the words in that way is to do them violence. The apostle says: “God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.” Therefore the words: “Which he foreknew” cannot signify a mere foreknowledge, because a mere foreknowledge cannot be the reason for God’s not casting them away; they comprise the reason why God does not cast away His people, because He had afore known and acknowledged them as His own, or to speak with our Confessions, because He had mercifully considered and elected them. That the Scriptures when speaking of God as knowing His people mean more than we commonly understand by the expression: to know a person, is but too evident. God knows them that are His as a shepherd knows his flock, a father his children; He knows them so, that He does not cast them away, He knows them in grace and mercy. That is the meaning which the words convey in themselves, and that this alone can be their meaning is evident from this: If in this second verse Paul meant to teach an election of foreknowledge he would contradict himself, because in the fifth verse he unquestionably teaches an election of grace.Therefore this is the election of God: When all men were equally lost in sin, as the Scriptures testify that [[“Adam begat a son in his own likeness”, >> Gen 5.3]] God, moved by His grace and the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ who alone is the reconciliation for our sins and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world, God, without foreseeing any thing good in man, but moved only by His grace and Christ’s merits, elected unto [[@VolumePage:2,22]]salvation those who will be saved, and electing unto salvation He elected unto all that which is necessary to obtain eternal life, and in and by His election He so established their salvation, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is an election of grace only and an election of grace fully.II.Having briefly shown what the election of God is, let me yet present the question: why is it so necessary to abide in this doctrine? Is it so important an article of faith? Is it worthy that we should rather suffer ourselves to be slandered as heretics, than to sacrifice one jot or tittle thereof? Yea surely shall we rather suffer persecution, than deny the election of grace. It is a precious doctrine. And why is it so precious? Why, even because it is a doctrine of the Scriptures. [[“There is a remnant according to the election of grace.” >> Rom 11.5]] He who can not see that the Scriptures do indeed teach an election of grace must surely be blinded by prejudice and preconceived opinions. Shall we then deny, or explain away by skillful arts of logic, what the Word of the Lord so plainly teaches? Nay, though we must say with David: [[“Many are my persecutors and mine enemies,” nevertheless we shall also add: “Yet do I not decline from Thy testimonies.” >> Ps 119.157]]Again, this doctrine is so precious because by it all honor of salvation is ascribed to God alone. Because God elected us for no other cause save His grace and Christ’s merits, because He elected us before the foundation of the world, before we had done either good or evil, therefore we can not deny it, but must confess that He is our Saviour, that to Him belongs the honor all. Whilst all other doctrines of election which have been devised by men, diminish the honor of God in one way or the other, this doctrine that there is an election of grace only and that it is an election of grace fully, alone gives to God the honor due Him. It indeed praises His glorious grace.Another reason why it is so essentially necessary that we abide in this doctrine, is, because so soon as we lose sight of this, that the election of God is an election of grace, so soon will our reason lead us into grave error either to the right or to the left. On the one hand reason will argue on this wise: [[@VolumePage:2,23]]If God elected some He must have passed by the others; if He predestinated some to everlasting life He must have consigned the others to everlasting death. That is the language of reason, but it is not the language of the Scriptures. Let reason say a thousand times, if God elected some He must have passed by and rejected the others, the Scriptures say: No, He did not; He did not pass by the vessels of wrath, He on the contrary endured them with much longsuffering. The election of God is an election of grace and not an election of wrath. When men say, if there were an election of grace in the full sense of the word, there must also be an election of wrath: when men argue thus, they are indeed reasoning, but they are reasoning from reason and not from the Scriptures.On the other hand reason will argue on this wise: Because the grace of God is equal over all, and because there is no respect of person with God, therefore God in His election must have seen a mark of distinction among men, by which, as by a rule, He elected some and rejected others. That, beloved brethren, is the argumentation for opposing which we are denounced. Persevering faith is called this distinctive mark. It is said, because God foresaw who would persevere in faith, He elected them as being worthy of salvation while others were not, and yet it is claimed, this is not teaching an election of worthiness, but an election of grace also, because faith is the gift of grace. Let me present it in a comparison: I buy a nursery; I go and graft some of the trees which are no better than the others. Thereafter I come and choose those grafted, because they are worthy of being transplanted and the others are not. Who should not see that there is neither sense nor meaning in such argumentation? Therefore those who think to get around the mystery of election on this wise do not stop there. Going a step farther they say that it is man that makes the difference, because some yield to the grace of God whilst others do not. If then it is man that makes the difference by his yielding to the grace of God, how then should he be “dead in sin?” That is surely making man’s yielding the one great decisive cause of his election and salvation, and if that were true, then Paul must have been mistaken, when he wrote concerning Jacob and Esau: [[“Neither having done any good or evil,” >> Rom 9.11]] [[@VolumePage:2,24]]he must have written: Jacob having yielded and Esau not. Those reasoning on this wise are indeed reasoning, but they are reasoning from reason and not from the Scriptures.If we would not be led into grave error by our reason, we must here let reasoning alone. We must not seek to smooth over what God’s Word has left open; we must not try to answer questions which God’s Word does not answer. The election of God is an article of faith and not of understanding. We shall as faithful stewards present this mystery to the people as the apostles and prophets have written of it.Finally it is so highly important to abide in this doctrine that there is an election of grace only and grace fully, because it is a doctrine so full of comfort. Permit me yet to point out three things indicated in our text. By His election God has secured His Church from ever becoming extinct on earth. The days of Elias were evil days in Israel; there was a general falling away, so that the prophet thought he alone were left. But what did God say? [[“I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.” >> Rom 11.4]] God had reserved those seven thousand to himself, or they too would have fallen away. So also the prophet Esaias cried out: [[“Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma and been made like unto Gomorrah.” >> Rom 9.29]] Long as the world may stand, wicked as it may become, God has always His remnant on earth; before the foundation of the world was laid He provided for that by His eternal election. Let the enemies of God in the latter days arise to obliterate the name of Christ from the earth, a remnant will be left to see the Lord coming in the clouds of heaven.Furthermore our text tells us: [[“If by grace, then is it no more of works.” >> Rom 11.6]] Why are we the children of God, heirs of eternal life, whilst so many others are not? Why men are not the children of God is manifest; God calls to them, but they refuse. The Gospel is preached in the world, that every one shall believe it and be saved, but men will not. But why have we become the children of God? Is it on account of something which we did, or refrained from doing, and whereby we became worthier than others? O! if that were the case, then we would be obliged to waver in uncertainty the livelong day; then the [[@VolumePage:2,25]]question would even recur to our minds: have I done, have I accomplished, what is required of me? But, thank God, the election of grace teaches us that it is not on account of something in us, but that it was God who graciously came to us through the Gospel, broke and hindered in us the will of the flesh, and worked in us both to will and to do. When we were firebrands worthy only of hell, God came to us and made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light.If then God has come to us, and according to His good pleasure has begun the good work in us, His election certifies us that He will not [[“cast away His people.” >> Rom 11.2]] He did indeed cast away the nation of Israel, but His elect in Israel He did not cast away; “For,” says St. Paul, [[“I also am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.” >> Rom 11.1]] His elect God will not cast away, He will save them. If then He has begun the good work in us, let us rejoice, not doubting that He will also finish it to the praise of the glory of His grace. Amen.(For the “Theological Monthly”.)The Distinction between Foreknowledge (Praescientia) and Predestination in the Formula of Concord.It is significant that the most learned and conscientious framers of the key-stone confession of our church, drew a clear and decided line between God’s foreknowledge (praescientia or prevision) and predestination in the 11th article in which they propound the Scriptural doctrine concerning predestination. That such a line is drawn by them no one will deny. They say in the [[Epitome >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:2]] of said article: “In the first place” [the German edition has: “Anfsenglich,” i. e., from or in the beginning, and the Latin has: “Primum omnium,” i. e., first of all] “the difference between praescientia” [“vel praevisio” in the [[Declaration, § 3 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:4]] ] “et praedestinatio, that is, between God’s foreknowledge and eternal election must [oportet] be observed with diligence.” It is significant that when the authors of the Formula of Concord treat of the difficult and mysterious doctrine of predestination, they not only set out with this important distinction between God’s foreknowledge and predestination, but also require the reader to observe the same with all diligence throughout the entire article. Their meaning is that, if the doctrine of predestination is to be [[@VolumePage:2,26]]rightly understood and retained in its purity, the two ideas: foreknowledge (praescientia) and predestination, must necessarily be kept separate. They well knew that predestination did not take place in God’s mind, so to speak, without His foreknowledge (praescientia). God, indeed, foreknew and foresaw all those whom He predestinated, as his act of foreknowing and foreseeing is co-eternal with that of predestinating. But in exactly determining what is meant by foreknowledge (praescientia or praevisio) and predestination in this 11th article, we must keep the idea of foreknowledge or praescientia distinct from that of predestination or election, and vice versa.The authors of the [[Formula of Concord >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:3-4]] then proceed by assigning to each of these terms the limits within which they do what is peculiar to them. It, therefore, says: “For God’s foreknowledge (praescientia) is nothing else but that God knows all things before they come to pass.” Dan. 2. 28. Thus God, from eternity, foreknew all the Christians, He foreknew their faith and justification, their love and good works, He foreknew their salvation in this life and in the world to come. But as far as God foreknows, He does not cause. His foreknowledge of things is not their cause. He foreknows the salvation of the elect, but this foreknowledge is not the cause of their salvation. Neither is sin, or any evil that occurs, caused by God’s foreknowing it. For the general rule is: “God’s foreknowledge (praescientia) is nothing else but that God knows all things before they come to pass.” The authors of the Formula of Concord, therefore, also say: “This foreknowledge (praescientia) pertains alike to the pious and the evil, but is no cause of evil or of the sins, that wrong is committed (which originally comes from the devil and man’s evil, perverted will), or of their perdition, of which they themselves are the fault, but it only disposes it (the evil), and assigns bounds to its progress and continuance, so that although evil in itself, it may nevertheless conduce to the salvation of God’s elect.” In this manner the authors of the Formula of Concord dispose of sin and all evil as regards their origin and cause. As little as God is the cause of anything by His foreknowledge, so little is He the cause of sin, in particular, by His foreknowing it.But it is altogether different with predestination. Our fathers say further in the [[Epitome: >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:5]] “But God’s predestination or eternal election pertains to the pious, acceptable children of God, which [predestination or election] is a cause of their salvation which is also His work, and He ordains what pertains to the same. Upon which [predestination] our salvation is so firmly [steif = stiffly] grounded, that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it.” As far, therefore, as God foreknows, He is not a cause, but as far as He predestinates, [[@VolumePage:2,27]]He is a cause. As far as God predestinates, He has nothing to do with sin and with those who are lost. God is not the cause of sin or evil by either His foreknowledge or His predestination. But by His predestination, which is one eternal act, He is the cause of the elect’s salvation and all that pertains to it. Upon God, as far as He predestinates the elect to salvation, this their salvation is firmly grounded. Their salvation is not based upon God’s foreknowledge (praescientia) any more than sin. The sole cause of the salvation of the elect is God who saves them by, 1st, predestinating them or decreeing that they shall be saved, 2ndly, by carrying into effect His eternal decree of predestination, so that the divine acts by which God saves the elect follow in the order designated by the holy apostle Paul in Rom. 8., namely, 1st, eternal election and predestination in the order of salvation, 2nd, the call, 3rd, justification, 4th, glorification (or as it is expressed in the Formula of Concord itself: “The same [secret counsel of God] is thus revealed to us, as Paul says Rom. 8.: Whom God has predestinated, elected, and foreordained, them He has also called.” [[Declaration, § 27 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:27]]). To the decree of predestination God was moved by Himself, viz.: by His mercy and Christ’s merit. Predestination is, therefore, an entirely gracious decree.Our adversaries in this doctrine assert that the act of God which is called predestination, is based upon God’s foreknowledge (praescientia). The Columbus Theological Magazine, edited by Prof. Loy, has the following on p. 309: “The apostle would tell them (the Romans) that God had foreknown them with all their surroundings; had foreknown their conversion, faith, perseverance; had foreknown them unto the end, and had in addition predestinated it—them and their call, justification, &c. And God’s foreknowledge cannot err. He had foreseen them as Christians in their whole career unto the end, and upon that had based their predestination, so that His foreknowledge and predestination guaranteed their final success and triumph.” Comparing this with what the authors of the Formula of Concord say above, we are forced to draw the following conclusion: According to the Formula, predestination is the foundation or ground upon which the salvation of the elect is based. The Magazine says, predestination is “based” upon God’s foreknowledge. Hence, according to the Magazine, the salvation of the elect which, according to the Formula, is based upon predestination, is based upon God’s foreknowledge, or foresight. First, predestination is based upon foreknowledge, and then, salvation is based upon predestination. Hence, salvation together with predestination is based upon God’s foreknowledge, or foresight. Every base or ground [[@VolumePage:2,28]]is a cause, as Baier, one of the Lutheran dogmaticians of the 17th century, says: “Fundamentum est ratio et causa, cur illud, quod fundat, nempe aedificium sit aut esse possit,” i. e., Base is the reason and cause why that which is based, namely, an edifice, is or can be. Proleg., cap. I, § 29. Therefore the Magazine teaches, in contradiction with the Lutheran confession, that God’s foreknowledge (praescientia) is a cause of the elect’s salvation. We repeat it: The confession admonishes the reader to draw a distinct line between God’s foreknowledge and predestination in the article of predestination, and teaches that God’s foreknowledge (praescientia or praevisio) is nothing else but that God knows all things before they come to pass, but that, on the other hand, God’s predestination is a cause of the elect’s salvation, and the foundation upon which the same is firmly based. Indeed, Prof. Loy and the confused writer of those words of the Magazine should no longer aver that the Formula of Concord is their symbol. The Synergists make man’s co-operation in conversion as foreseen or foreknown by God, to be the cause of predestination, and the shifting, more euphemistic way of expressing the error has got to be: God’s predestination is based upon God’s foreknowledge. Therefore, also, the order given above of the acts of God by which He works out our salvation, is just reversed by our adversaries. The Standard says that election comes after “the calling of the world through the gospel” and “the giving of faith to those who do not wilfully resist,” and this doctrine, it is said, is “contained in the Formula of Concord.” Nos. 1272, 1273. According to this theory, God foreknew or foresaw from eternity that certain persons would have faith, He foresaw their conversion, faith, perseverance, He foreknew them as Christians in their whole career unto the end, in short, He foreknew them as most blessed people, as Christians who would die in true faith and thus be eternally saved; upon this prevision and foreknowledge of God predestination is “based.” Predestination to what? According to the Formula God predestinated the elect to be saved by being called, justified, and glorified, but, according to our adversaries’ theory, there is nothing left to which the elect may be predestinated, as God has already foreseen and foreknown them as saved persons. If they were saved already in God’s foreknowledge—”and God’s foreknowledge cannot err”—what need is there of a predestination? This shows beyond contradiction that our adversaries are proclaiming a predestination to nothing. Would to God those men would see that their doctrine cannot stand before the judgment-seat of the distinction, made by our fathers on Scriptural ground between foreknowledge (praescientia) and predestination in the Lutheran confession! c.s.k. [[@VolumePage:2,29]](For the “Theological Monthly.”)Review of Comments on our Reasons for suspending Membership in the Ohio Synod.(Continued.)The objection might be raised that E. L. S. T. is not the Ohio Synod. Certainly not. But we answer: 1st, Professor Schuette was a member of the committee to examine the President’s report at Mill Creek. He, therefore, sanctioned that report, and he is one of those men whose word as far as our observation goes, is law to the great majority of the Ohio Synod. 2nd, When at Wheeling the vote was about to be taken on the resolution by which the Ohio Synod adopted its new confessional basis, a division of the question was called for. Some who voted against the resolution as a whole were willing to vote in the affirmative on the first clause, reading thus: “We anew hereby confess ourselves to the doctrine of election as it is contained in the Formula of Concord.” When this division was called for we requested information of Synod, whether it by those words meant to accept and profess the 11th Article in the wide or in the proper sense, adding that, in the first case, we could not vote in the affirmative, because we were in no way minded to profess the Fathers. The answer we received was, that Synod meant to receive and profess the 11th Article in the wide sense as the Fathers explain it. Hence, in passing that resolution Synod did not only profess the doctrine of election as it imagines the later Church-Fathers taught it, it also sanctioned the principle that the Confessions shall be explained according to the Fathers at least as far as the 11th Article is concerned. E. L. S. T. is not the Ohio Synod, but he certainly stands on the grounds of the Ohio Synod.But does this, indeed, involve a change made in its confessional basis by the Ohio Synod? At Wheeling the Professors from Columbus, chiefly Schuette, were very vociferous in declaring that they had always stood as they do now; that they had always taught of election what they now teach, and that, therefore, Synod were not adopting a new position, but were only professing its former position anew. After the same manner the Standard ever since the meeting at Wheeling has been trying to smooth over this so very unpleasant point, and whenever it was said that the Ohio Synod had adopted a new confession at Wheeling, it would call forth an outburst of indignation in that paper. But that is only warping the question, and by deceptive argumentation throwing dust into people’s [[@VolumePage:2,30]]eyes. The question is not: What was taught at Columbus, but: What was the public confession of the Ohio Synod? What was formerly taught at Columbus concerning election and the rules of interpreting the Confessions we do not presume to say. Neither could that decide the quarrel. Let the Professors at Columbus have taught in the class-room whatsoever they will, where did the Ohio Synod ever before publicly say that it adopted the 11th Article of the Formula of Concord according to the explanation of the Fathers? Where did it ever say that “in determining the import of the language or context of the Confession the same absolute rule which obtains in explaining the Scriptures” (namely, that the book shall explain itself) “can not with justice be pressed” in regard to the Confessions? Where did it say that “in settling the exact meaning of the Confessions on points of dispute” they themselves are not sufficient, no “infallible expounders of themselves,” but to expound them the Fathers must be consulted? (See for quot. Min. Conc. Dist., p. 10.) Where did the Ohio Synod ever before say: “Their (the Fathers’) writings set forth the pure Confession”? (See Standard, Nov. 12th.) If any such a confession of the Ohio Synod from former years be extant, we should be glad if our attention were called to it. We never knew nor heard that the Ohio Synod occupied such grounds. If we had, we would never have thought of joining that body.The fact is, before its meeting at Wheeling the Ohio Synod never made such a confession. It simply professed and accepted the Book of Concord without any restrictions or limitations, whence every one was obliged to conclude that it adopted the Confessions as they read and interpret themselves. If that was not the real meaning of the Ohio Synod, if it adopted the Confessions with “mental reservations,” then it should at least not grumble now, when it is said that it has changed its confessional basis, and adopted a new one. The point appears to us so plain that every unprejudiced mind can see it. Formerly the Ohio Synod acknowledged the Book of Concord without any restrictions, limitations, or additions, but at Wheeling it wheeled about, and now sets up the principle that the Confessions must be explained in agreement with the Fathers. In elucidation hereof we add: In the year 1879, the Concordia District adopted a constitution, which was ratified in 1880. In the confessional basis it is said: “The Symbols of the Evangelical Lutheran Church are received and acknowledged by all the ministers of this Synod as the true and faithful expression and declaration of the doctrines of the Word of God.” In the Standard of Nov. 12th, 1881, the President of [[@VolumePage:2,31]]Concordia District writes: “Their (the Fathers’) writings set forth the pure Confession.” If that is not a change of confessional basis, we must confess ourselves ignorant of what a change is.From these facts it is apparent that it is all empty talk when E. L. S. T. writes in his comments: “Without hesitation or equivocation the Ohio Synod now as heretofore accepts the 11th Article of the Formula before all the world in its natural grammatical construction and sense.” Why did he not go to work and prove this from the text of the 11th Article? All the world knows that the Ohio Synod adopts that article as treating of election in the wide sense. Let E. L. S. T. take e. g. the [[fourth paragraph of the Epitome >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:5]] and show, how it “in its natural grammatical construction and sense” teaches election in the wide sense. It certainly says as plainly as plain can be, that that same election which “pertains to the good and beloved children of God alone,” “is a cause of their salvation.” E. L. S. T. will say disgustedly: O, that’s Missouriism! Certainly, it is Missouriism, but it is also Confessionalism. Or will he say that the authors of the Confession were guilty of equivocation by using one and the same word in a double meaning in one and the same sentence? Or is he honest enough to say with Past. Trebel, the President of the Western District of the Ohio Synod: “I regard that (§ 4) as a thoroughly Calvinistic sentence”? Or let E. L. S. T. choose one of his favorite paragraphs, which says concerning the eight points: “All this, according to the Scripture, is comprehended in the doctrine concerning the eternal election of God.” ([[B. C. 2nd Ed., p. 714. >> BookofConcord:Formula:SD:xi:24]]) It is notorious that the Ohio Synod says that the eight points with the section following are election, and the paragraph quoted is said to prove this. But where does it say so “in its natural grammatical construction”? It says: All this is comprehended in the doctrine of election. What grammatical rule authorizes E. L. S. T. to change the comprehended in into a flat is? We will not multiply examples. We think these sufficient proof that the Ohio Synod does not “accept the 11th Article of the Formula in its natural grammatical construction and sense.”We would yet note some bombastic declamations in E. L. S. T.’s comments on our first reason. He says: “St. Louis has taken up arms against old Wittenberg on predestination. We say we will stand by old Wittenberg.” Which old Wittenberg does he mean, the Lutheran, or the Melanchtonian! They are both old. If he means the Lutheran, he can easily convince himself that he is not standing by it, by examining Luther on Free Will. But if he means the Melanchtonian, we concede that he is right. [[@VolumePage:2,32]]Again he says: “Their (the Fathers’) writings set forth the pure Confession. We say, let no tongue slander these noble witnesses for the truth, let no ruthless hand attack their and our Confession. If it is done we, as their legitimate (?) sons, will defend them and the Confessions.” The Fathers can rest themselves quietly in their graves. E. L. S. T. of Baltimore, their legitimate (?) son, will defend them.Other assertions in the comments on our first reason we pass by, as not the least attempt is made to establish them by evidence. (To be continued.) General Religious Intelligence.Moody’s sermons are being used in the Greek Church at Beirut, Syria, and crowds go to hear them read.More than four thousand five hundred services are now held every week in Great Britain by the Salvation Army.At the dedication of a Roman Catholic church in Jackson, Mich., recently, an admission fee of one dollar was charged and the building was filled. No doubt many protestants attended the show (circus).In 1875, a German Christian worker founded at his own expense a mission in the neglected Santhal country. Then Christianity was unknown there. Now the mission has a teachers’ training-school with fourteen students, eight village schools with eighty-one scholars, a dispensary, and a small hospital, at which about 1,500 cases of sickness are treated every year.The first regular service in connection with a movement to establish a Hebrew-Christian Church in New York city was held on Sunday, January 1st. The Rev. Jacob Freshman had charge of the meeting, and several other converted Israelites took part. Ministers of various denominations were also present, and spoke words of counsel and encouragement. Divine service in the English language will be held every Sunday at 3 p. m. in Cooper Union, room 24.In regard to the recent refusal of the Episcopal Church authorities in Maryland to admit a colored man to orders, the Churchman says: “The Standing Committee of Maryland has refused to recommend for Holy Orders a candidate (Mr. Bishop), who happens to be the first colored man graduated from the General Theological Seminary. The secular press has leaped to the conclusion that Mr. Bishop’s rejection was owing to his color. A recent dispute in a Southern Presbyterian synod over the ordination of a colored man, in which the ground was openly taken that no colored man can “edify” a Southern congregation, has assisted that delusion. In Mr. Bishop’s case it appears that the color-line was drawn, not at his skin, but at his theology. Of that question the ecclesiastical authorities of Maryland are the sole judges.”Alph. [[@VolumePage:2,33]]THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.Vol.2. March 1882. No. 3.(For the “Theological Monthly.”)New Doctrine.Among the many queer ideas which the predestination question has given origin to on the part of our opponents, the idea that the so-called Missouri view is of very recent date, will surely take the prize on account of its profound absurdity. More than two years ago this idea was rather timidly started far away in the Northwest, but soon its original source was almost forgotten, on account of the stentorian clamor wherewith it resounded from more central regions. That queer idea has been refuted time and again, still the war cry about the “new doctrine” of the “New”-Missourians seems to get more clamorous in indirect proportion to the number of times it has been refuted. Nevertheless, we shall once more endeavor to show that this doctrine, to say the least, is much older than the other side would have it. Just compare the “Report of the First Session of the Western District of the Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and other States,” held in St. Paul’s congregation at Chicago, Ill., from the 25th of April to the 1st of May, 1855. We take the liberty of inserting the whole item under the heading, “Doctrine of Predestination”, just as it is, without any abbreviations. It reads (page 18):“In one of the sessions of conference the wish which had been made known to the synod, came to be debated, viz., that the consolatory doctrine of election in Christ should be abundantly preached in our congregations, according to the example of the apostles who so frequently, in their epistles, call our [[@VolumePage:2,34]]attention to the eternal gracious decree of God concerning our election in Christ. Remarks were made to the effect that a distinction was to be made according to whether you were preaching to a congregation already embracing a number of such as were quite firmly founded in their faith (“ob man eine Gemeinde vor sich habe, worin sich schon viele im Glauben fester gegruendete befaenden”) who could, therefore, be glad on account of this doctrine so rich in consolation; or, whether you were preaching to a congregation still containing many unconverted persons who might easily, wrongly applying this doctrine to themselves, be confirmed in their security, this distinction having also been made by St. Paul, abundantly treating of this doctrine in his epistles to the Corinthians and Ephesians, not even mentioning it in his epistle to the Galatians. Of course, this article must be taught, and affluently and unrestrainedly, too; still we should beware of straightway applying it to individuals in such a way as can be easily misunderstood. It is the Formula of Concord which, in this respect, sets us the best example. In case of our following this example, we shall avoid two aberrations: Calvinism, the absolute decree, and pelagianizing Arminianism according to which God is said to have elected the believing because they believe. The true via media is: elected on account of the grace of God and the merit of Christ. A true Christian can find consolation in this glorious doctrine, but with fear and trembling.”Even the most superficial consideration of these old lines should suffice to convince even the most skeptical reader that in those old days the “new” ( ! ) doctrine of election was not entirely unknown among the founders and pioneers of our constantly growing Missouri synod. Time and space will not allow us to enlarge upon this point in an exegetical demonstration, with a view of proving it from that old document. And, besides, it is so plain; the unbiased reader can not fail to find it almost selfevident after merely a single hasty perusal of the ’55 Report. We shall, therefore, content ourselves with a few short remarks. Thus, to begin with the last, it is remarkable that the founders and pioneers of ’55 don’t speak about an election in a wider and a narrow sense. They don’t seem [[@VolumePage:2,35]]to know anything about election as consisting of those two (distinguendi causa!?) so exceedingly important constituent parts, viz., electio mediorum and electio personarum. They know but one simple and undivided, indivisible election to grace.—Another point. We are cautioned to avoid not only the Scylla of Calvinism, but also the Charybdis of Arminianism. And they seem to have been under the impression that that theological Charybdis were far more perilous, requiring them to be even more explicit in their cautionary signals, for they explain that “pelagianizing Arminianism,” “according to which God is said to have elected believers, because they believe.” Hence, in spite of Prof. Stellhorn’s arguing to the contrary, they considered it a grossly un-Lutheran opinion, that “in His electing individuals God had reference to foreseen faith or unbelief” (St., Tract “Worum, &c.,” p. 21), that the rule (norma), according to which the electing and rejecting took place, was the same, that election to grace having an exact counterpart in an election unto wrath the faith of the believer sustains the same relation of cause and effect to the believers’ salvation, as final unbelief, in fact, does to the damnation of the unrepentant. Prof. Loy had not yet instructed them, in order to avoid “pelagianizing Arminianism,” acutely to substitute for “man’s faith” “man’s conduct.” Even at that early period (when true Lutheranism was hardly dawning from the Western [ ! ] horizon) they did not acknowledge man’s conduct as something on account of, or with reference to, which we are elected. They favor the true via media (den Mittelweg der Wahrheit), viz., “elected on account of the grace of God and the merit of Christ.” All the say about the cause, about the of necessity existing difference in individual men, about that often ventilated, alleged partiality of God, they leave altogether unexplained, and so does also the Word of God.—Moreover, they advise their readers for the purpose of finding the true via media, to follow the example of the Formula of Concord. Now, is not this queer? Especially in those old days long gone by, when some of us were not yet born, some in the cradle, and quite a number not yet advanced to maturity in all other cases, the writings of the pioneers of the Missouri synod redound with citations from the dogmaticians [[@VolumePage:2,36]]of the 16th and 17th centuries. Doesn’t common sense almost compel you to arrive at the suggestion that this special and exclusive reference to the last of the Standards of the Lutheran Church could and would not have taken place in a public document like a Synodical Report, except for very good reasons? Why was it that those pioneers of ’55 already in those early days, with such unhidden earnestness of purpose refer their readers to the “Formula of Concord” as “setting the best example”? It was because they were, even then, fully convinced that the dogmaticians had in this doctrine, at least in phrasibus, deviated from the Lutheran Confessions.—Finally, these pioneers also give evidence that they knew that election ([[Form. Conc, § V >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:5]]) “pertains only to believers,” for they confess, that unbelievers are simply “outsiders” to the doctrine of election, or, as they put it, they are “erroneously applying this doctrine to themselves, and (to conclude with) they acknowledge that this doctrine is full of mystery, hard to understand, and hard to believe, and thus they hold that, in preaching this doctrine, a distinction was to be made as to whether or not your hearers were “quite firmly founded in their faith.” So much for the “New” Missouri doctrine. Sapienti sat! Augustus. (For the “Theological Monthly”.)“To the Law and to the Testimony.” Speaking of St. Paul’s call to the ministry of the Word, Luther, in his [[Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, >> logosres:lw26;ref=Bible.Ga1.12]] shows that the Apostle was constrained explicitly to recite in what manner the apostolic office was committed to him, because false apostles had labored to bring him into disregard with the Galatians in order to promulgate and establish their own doctrines in opposition to what St. Paul had taught. Luther also gives an explanation, based upon the context, as to how it could so happen that the impostors succeeded in doing so much mischief in the churches of Galatia, and, having the deluded Christians before the eyes of his mind, their wretched and miserable state they had been thrown in, caused [[@VolumePage:2,37]]him to lament, [[“Good God, what horrible, immeasurable mischief and what great harm one only argument readily and easily may bring, as it can so confound and alarm man’s conscience that, when God withdraws His grace, all is lost at once.” >> logosres:lw26;ref=VolumePage.V_26,_p_63;off=1758]]Enlarging more fully upon this matter, Luther goes on to point out both the great folly and the dreadful mischief resulting from that folly, when human authority is appealed to with a view of settling a doctrinal question. The [[following are his weighty words:— >> logosres:lw26;ref=VolumePage.V_26,_pp_65-67;off=2551]]This argument of the false apostles, whereby the Galatians were unsettled, had a great show indeed and seemed to be strong. In the same manner, even at this day, many are shaken when they hear our adversaries brag after this fashion: —the holy fathers and their successors have taught so and so, the Church, or all Christendom, has followed them; now it is impossible that Christ should suffer His Church and Christendom, so many centuries, to err, and certainly you, a single person, are not wiser, nor more learned, than so many holy men and the holy Church. Seeing then that the holy Church, these many hundred years, has thus taught and believed in accordance with the primitive fathers and teachers, all of whom were holy men indeed and much better learned than you are, who, then, are you, that you dare to embrace and to set forth an opinion different from theirs?Truly, such talk is apt to startle the conscience. For, who should remain indifferent when the name of the fathers and in special that of the holy Church is being mentioned? But the name alone avails naught, or else the false apostles must needs have been in the right, as they indeed were of high renown and claimed to be ministers of Christ and scholars of the Apostles of Jerusalem. But all this does not affect Paul; on the contrary, he boldly declares, because they preach a gospel different from that which we have received, they are cursed, despite their boasting of being Christ’s servants and the disciples of the apostles. And so we, too, say, let the papists vaunt and brag as long as they please, “fathers, fathers, church, church.” Because they not only do not preach the gospel, but rather persecute and slander it; [[@VolumePage:2,38]]because their only aim is to uphold their pomp, caring neither for Christ’s blessings and glory, nor for the salvation of poor sinners, their boasting will help them nothing more than the false prophets profited by their vainglory. On the other hand, I am fully persuaded, that we do not preach in order to please men, but to glorify God, that is to say, we attribute all things to God alone, and our heart’s desire is that all the world would learn to know the unspeakable grace and blessings of the merciful Father in Christ Jesus, our Lord.I well remember that, when the gospel again began to shine forth, Dr. Staupitius said to me, “This is my greatest consolation that this doctrine of the gospel, which now has come to light again, yields all honor and praise to God alone and nothing to man.”—But you will say, The Church is holy and the fathers are holy. It is true, and who denies that? Notwithstanding, albeit the church is holy, it necessarily must pray, “forgive us our tresspasses.” Even so, though the fathers be holy, they must ask the forgiveness of sins. Accordingly neither am I to be believed, nor the church, nor the fathers, nor the apostles, nor an angel from heaven, if we teach anything against the word of God, but God’s Word must stand and abide forever. If it were otherwise, the argument of those false apostles would have prevailed mightily against Paul’s doctrine. For it was a great matter, yes, a great matter indeed, to set before the Galatians the whole Church, nay, even all the apostles, against St. Paul alone who, having but lately been converted, was of but small authority. Their argument, therefore, was very strong and powerful and concluded forcibly. For nobody would have dared to return, that the Church is liable to err. Still it is necessary for us to declare that the Church does err, if it teaches aught besides or against God’s Word. Therefore I will hear neither the Church, nor the fathers, nor the apostles, nor the angels, unless they teach and proclaim the real, true and pure Word of God.—(Gal. 1. 11, 12.)The above declaration of Luther is in exact conformity with God’s will, revealed by Himself in His written Word, which is the only fountain of truth, the only infallible rule of [[@VolumePage:2,39]]faith and practice, and the only criterion whereby to decide between right and wrong. Not the writings of the fathers, but the holy Scriptures are given by inspiration of God. And this written Word of God we, like the noble Bereans, must search, in order to ascertain whether “these things be so.” Acts 17. 11. G. K.(For the “Theological Monthly.”)Review of Comments on our Reasons for suspending Membership in the Ohio Synod.(Continued.)Our second reason is this: “In the same resolution Synod confesses itself to the expression used by some of the Fathers, that election took place ‘in view of faith.’ Conceding that this expression can be used in an orthodox sense, I must nevertheless reject an unqualified confession to the same, because it is neither found in the Scriptures nor in the Confessions, and is apt to lead to errors. By the words of the same resolution: ‘As in the past so also in the future’ Synod has endorsed Synergistic explanations of this expression: ‘In view of faith,’ given publicly by officials of Synod, such as: that election took place in foresight of man’s conduct towards the Gospel, that the mystery of election is in man, that of such equally guilty the one is converted because he is disposed to hear the Gospel, and other similar ones. These expressions manifestly imply that man can and must contribute something in the work of conversion and salvation, which is condemned by our Confessions.”His comments on this our second reason E. L. S. T. commences thus: “We can safely say there is not a preacher in the Joint Synod, from the highest to the lowest, who teaches that man has the least power naturally to help himself in spiritual things. Our whole Synod confesses and teaches that man by nature is dead in trespasses and sins, and that his conversion and salvation is solely the work of God’s grace.”We are well aware that E. L. S. T. always did claim this for the Joint Synod. We very readily concede that the Joint [[@VolumePage:2,40]]Synod so strenuously disclaims Synergism, that it raises great lamentation of being not only misunderstood, but misrepresented and slandered, whenever it is said that the system of doctrine which it defends tends to Synergism, or that certain expressions used in its publications are Synergistic. We concede that at Wheeling Prof. Schuette with amusing emphasis said: “We (of Columbus) have now given assurance so often that we are not tainted with any kind of Synergism, that any one who will say so still, is a rascal.”“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing.” Where is an errorist who would publicly say that he is an errorist? where a false prophet who would confess himself such? If false prophets would present themselves as false prophets, they could certainly not count on much success. That the Joint Synod claims not to teach any Synergism amounts to nothing. And as to Prof. Schuette’s assurances, they are of the same value. The pope also gives to the world the assurance that he is not an errorist, and he does this so decidedly that he will pronounce those heretics, and will persecute them with fire and sword, who dare accuse him of error.The question here is not, What does the Joint Synod claim, but what does it teach? Do the words and phrases used really involve Synergistic ideas? Is it true, when E. L. S. T. says: “To make synergistic teaching out of our writings, their meaning must be perverted?” If it is true that Joint Synod’s writings involve no Synergistic teaching, then our second reason would fall to the ground. Let us see how our commentator proves his assertions.He says: “The reader will observe that Synod defines in what sense she means ‘in view of faith,’ namely, ‘in view of the merits of Christ apprehended by faith.’ The meaning, in other words, is this: that when God decreed in eternity that this one, that one, should enter heaven, He did so only with those whom He beheld in His Son Jesus Christ by faith.” That is language which, although it may easily be misunderstood, yet admits of an orthodox construction. God certainly did elect in Christ Jesus through faith, for without Christ there is no redemption, and without faith, no salvation. But the question here is not, whether the elect are elect in Christ [[@VolumePage:2,41]]Jesus and saved through faith, for this is a matter of course. The question is, how comes it, that God beheld the elect in Christ through faith? how do men come to faith? Is it because “God breaks and hinders in them every evil counsel and will” ([[see Lord’s Prayer, Pet. 3d >> BookOfConcord:Small Cat.:iii:11]])? or is it because they themselves refrain from that “evil counsel and will” which would hinder God from performing the good work in them? This is the question at issue, and what has our commentator to say in regard to it? He continues: “When it is said, that election took place in view of man’s conduct toward the Gospel, it is simply said that God did not elect absolutely, without any reference to man’s acceptance or rejection of the Gospel.” “Those whom He saw would reject His Gospel He did not elect; those whom He saw would believe His Gospel He elected to eternal life.” Here, we say, E. L. S. T. is hoisting the colors of the Synergists. So then to him “in view of faith” is synonymous with in view of “man’s acceptance of,” in view of this, that some “would believe” the Gospel. Because God saw that some would accept and believe His Gospel, He elected them. So then the final, ultimate cause of election, according to E. L. S. T., is man’s acceptance of the Gospel.Our doctrine is, that no man on earth would ever accept the Gospel, if God did not break and hinder his evil will, and make him willing, but E. L. S. T.’s doctrine is radically different. His doctrine is: the Gospel is preached in the world, and if God sees that a man accepts it, then God accepts him. The first stone laid is man’s acceptance. If that is not giving man a free will, some power in spiritual things, we should be glad to see E. L. S. T. show, how not. The rock of offence to him is, that God should have elected “out of the world,” out of the fallen human race lying in one common pool of corruption. That God did so, and how He could do so, is certainly a great mystery, of which we say, it shall be left unexplained, because God did not explain it in His Word. But E. L. S. T. is not willing to bridle the curiosity of his reason; he wants the thing reasonable. So he fixes it in this way: because God saw that some had come out of the pool, therefore He elected them.How do E. L. S. T. and our Confessions agree? The Confessions [[@VolumePage:2,42]]say: “Accordingly we reject the following errors: 4. Again, that the mercy of God, and the most holy merit of Christ, are not the only cause of the election of God, but that in us also there is a cause, on account of which God has elected us to eternal life. All these doctrines are false, odious and blasphemous, and should not be tolerated in the church of God.” ([[See B. C. 2d Ed. p. 586. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:20-21]]) But E. L. S. T. says: God elected only with “reference to man’s acceptance of the Gospel,” because He saw, who “would believe.”But our commentator even quotes Luther to establish his Synergistic doctrine: “Luther says in his sermon on Matth. 20. 1—16. on the words: ‘Few are chosen: that is, but few conduct themselves towards the Gospel that God can be pleased with them.’ After stating how the ‘Word is treated by different classes he says: ‘This Christ calls not being chosen, that is, not so conducting themselves that God could have pleasure in them’.” It is refreshing to find an attempt at producing evidence in the scribblings of E. L. S. T. In the mass of his unproved and unprovable assertions this indeed is the sole and solitary attempt of the kind, and certainly this one attempt brings him disgrace enough. Not enough that he misrepresents the meaning and intent of Luther, he even falsifies Luther’s words by translating them falsely. Luther says: “That God has pleasure in them,” but E. L. S. T. translates: “That God can be pleased with them.” Is it not a shame so to pervert the words of Luther? Or should E. L. S. T. not have seen, that thereby the sense is also altered? Did he make the alteration in order to get the doctrine out of Luther, that men can conduct themselves so, that God can have pleasure in them?E. L. S. T., besides, puts the quotation into such a connexion, that it makes the impression as though Luther meant to say: Because God saw the good conduct of the elect, therefore He was pleased in them. Does Luther, indeed, mean to say, as our commentator would make him say, that it is the conduct of the elect, which makes them pleasing to God? If that were the case, then we do not see why Luther should have separated from the Roman Catholics, who also teach that it is man’s conduct, his good works, which makes him pleasing to God. Who would believe that Luther really [[@VolumePage:2,43]]entertained such Pelagian opinions? E. L. S. T. only falsifies Luther’s meaning. In the passage quoted, Luther does not at all speak of what persuaded God to elect men, he only describes how the elect children of God live on earth. This is indisputably evident from the foregoing, where Luther speaks of those who say, if salvation were already determined by the foreordination of God, it would make no difference, how they would live in the world. In opposition to such thoughts Luther describes, how God’s elect children do live in the world. That Luther should have taught, the good conduct of men were the cause why God elected them, or the rule according to which God elected, as E. L. S. T. would make him teach, this every one acquainted with Luther’s writings will spurn as a slander of that man of God. In this one solitary attempt to produce evidence E. L. S. T. only succeeds in making his Synergism the more manifest. If he will read Luther’s sermon once more, he will perhaps find that Luther was no such Pelagianist as to teach, that God elected unto salvation in view of man’s conduct.When E. L. S. T. adds: “If it were necessary we could show that Missouri has used the same kind of expression (i. e. as quoted from Luther) again and again,” we only answer: Certainly, but in the same sense Luther used it.If the Joint Synod is in earnest about teaching that the natural man is dead in trespasses and sins, how then can it publicly and solemnly confess that God elected in view of man’s conduct towards the Gospel?(To be continued.)(For the “Theological Monthly”.)The Dates of Dr. Martin Luther’s Birth and Death.Martin Luther was not born on the 4th of July, as the Lutheran of March 2nd seems to be willing to believe, nor did he die on Washington’s birth-day, as the Workman holds. In regard to Luther’s birth-day, Melanchthon writes: “He (i. e. Hans Luther, Martin Luther’s father) whom I sometimes asked about the time of his son’s birth, answered me that he [[@VolumePage:2,44]]recollected the day and hour with certainty, but had doubts in regard to the year. He affirmed that he was born on the 10th of November, in the night, after 11 o'clock, and that the name Martin was given to the infant because the next day on which it was embodied in the Church of God by Baptism was dedicated to Martin. But his (Martin Luther’s) brother Jacob, an honest and upright man, said the family’s opinion of his brother’s age was that he was born in the year of Christ 1483.” (Praef. Tom. II. Opp. Lat. Witeb.) Respecting Luther’s death, Dr. Justus Jonas and Magister Michael Coelius plainly relate in their truthful “report of Luther’s death” that he died early in the morning, on Thursday, February 18th, 1546. “On the 18th of February the corpse lay in Dr. Trachstet’s house, which was an inn.” The solemn burial took place February 22nd. (Luther’s Works. Walch’s ed., XXI, 282* to 295*.) Coelius says, besides, in his “funeral sermon” for Luther: “At a quarter before three o’clock, when we lighted under his eyes, he drew a deep breath, and thus gave up his spirit with great patience, and with ease, and in all stillness. And this God knoweth” &c. (Ibid., pp. 316*. 317*.) The authorities here quoted are considered by all as invincible.C. S. K.General Religious Intelligence.Immorality Of The Stage. Excepting our own and some branches of other denominations, the question “Is the theater an immoral institution?” has always been a subject of warm discussion. As for ourselves and the truly Old-Lutheran Church of America, we do not hesitate to answer this question in the affirmative. We do so with all possible emphasis, and, in doing so, it is not the ballet, nor minstrelsy, nor opera comique which are before our eyes. It would be wasting words to speak about their immorality With a view of convincing a theater-goer of their being the very opposite of great moral agents. Why, with this class of dramatic representation, considered as a class, their very immorality or immoralities are one of their most important parts, almost an essential constituent, open and bare-faced beyond comparison. No moral, not to say Christian mind, can and will deny that, taken all in all, on account of their very nature, they cannot but produce immoral tendencies. If the immorality of the aforesaid department of the stage does not appear to your mind, at first sight, without any further proof, you will not be convinced by the longest, and, perhaps, most thorough demonstration. In short, it is not minstrelsy, ballet, or opera comique (simply clowning on a larger scale) upon which we base our conviction about the immorality of the stage, for, in that case, we would not be justified to pronounce an opinion [[@VolumePage:2,45]]about the theater in general. Disregarding all these inferior, or, perhaps, we had more appropriately said, low branches of the modern stage, let us cast a glance at the so-called first-class drama or opera. We say, so-called first-class drama, for, even if psychologists, historians, and artists fill the world with their praises, even if such dramas and operas, viewed from the artist’s stand-point, be most deservedly called first-class, still, in reality, this is not the truth, their morals being, to say the least, far below the model standard. In proof of this, we shall not take to analyzing the character of the manifest rascals and scoundrels who, in some cases, openly perpetrate the most hideous iniquities,—a class of which every modern, so-called first-class drama will furnish at least one or two specimens. Should we resort to that, such as are taken up by the idea of the theater’s being a great moral agent, would be ready to answer, These bad, low characters are necessary evils, their sole object being to set off the “noble and the good” in the hero. But how about that “noble and good” in the pretended hero? To a truly Christian, and, in some cases, I might say to a truly moral mind, it is sometimes very difficult to detect, sometimes it is badly marred, perhaps, almost covered from his view by outflows of that very hero’s innate iniquity. To begin with, let us remember that a great many of the hero’s doings, not being considered sinful, or, as others would say, morally wrong, by the author of the drama, are represented accordingly as showing no lack of virtue whatever. For example, there is quite a host of heroes with whom a leading trait of their character is an irrepressible desire to “avenge that foul murder.” Compare that with Rom. 12. 19, 20. In most first-class dramas, elopement is considered very excusable, in many cases even laudable and praiseworthy, just as public opinion in our times considers it perfectly “au fait” that persons who are of age should be free and unrestricted in going by their own will and judgment, bending all their energies towards overcoming all obstacles, even if such obstacle should present itself in the form of the parental will. Compare this with the text of the 4th commandment.—Moreover, even such actions in the hero as are generally conceded to be immoral, do by no means meet with the punishment they deserve. And even when they do, the author often uses such a style of narration, so dexterously depicting the deplorable situation of the hero, that the heart of the unsuspecting reader or spectator is moved to compassion, instead of plainly seeing that the punishment is well deserved, and, therefore, approving of it.—And, finally, how few are those cases in which the follies and vices of the hero are openly and plainly disapproved. And why? Because this is something which the very nature of the character of a hero cannot admit of. Sometimes, indeed, the hero’s vices are disapproved, but how? So slightly, so finely, so leniently that it needs more learnedness and wisdom to reveal it than is required to rival Mr. Schliemann in finding and laying bare the ancient sites of Troas. The ordinary reader or spectator will hardly ever become aware of it.—But you say, for the greater part the hero is made up of virtues. Such virtues! Upon what are his virtues grounded? In other words, why is he virtuous? Because it is in his interest; the opposite, for instance, being followed by punishment, because it “is the only source of all true happiness,” because it “will elevate him.” In short, his virtue is based on Utilitarianism, Eudemonism, Pantheism, &c, Ac, but never the “fear and love of God” which Dr. Luther, in the explanations of the ten commandments, never neglects to place at the very beginning, thus indicating the only true basis upon which [[@VolumePage:2,46]]virtue, if it be truly such, will ever and ever rest. But such basis is foreign to the heroes of even first-class dramas, and all their virtue, considered from a Christian standpoint, is naught but sham. It is, strictly, scripturally taken, immoral, as immoral as the theater in general. That the lower order of stage performances cannot lay claim to a high standard of morality is more or less freely acknowledged even by candid men outside of the pale of the church. Speaking of a certain opera comique, a secular paper does not hesitate to say (Chicago Trib., Sunday, Jan. 22nd): “The play is of a character that does not particularly commend itself to people from whose minds the teachings of early life have not been wholly eradicated. It is a very Frenchy French play —which is saying a great deal. Of late years the American appetite for dramas in which the female characters are chiefly conspicuous for a lack of chastity and the men for a strong desire to measure swords with somebody on the slightest pretext for a display of belligerency has been whetted by the importation to this country from France of the plays which on the other side of the water have been noted for indelicacy of plot and general laxity of morals on the part of the principal characters.” Such is the opinion of an exclusively secular paper, and what the above lines state about the French drama, is more or less true with reference to theater performances generally. The bulk of the Church is still plainer in its united denunciation of the stage. Even the luke-warm, semi-infidel Dr. Talmage, who very seldom stoops down to specifically Christian preaching, boldly states “that from the play house to hell is one of the shortest journeys on record.” Dr. Herrick Johnson, Pastor of the Fourth Presbyterian Church in Chicago, is more explicit in giving his opinion on these matters. After going over a number of plays, considering their plots and citing a whole series of comments of the leading dailies—comments not very flattering even to the “first-class drama”—he continues: “The actual stage of this city is a moral abomination. It is trampling on the Sabbath with defiant scoff. It is defiling our youth. It is making crowds familiar with the play of criminal passions. It is getting us used to scenes that rival the voluptuous and licentious ages of the past. Go to Naples, and look on the gathered proofs of Pompeii’s profligacy and lust, if you would see whither we are swiftly tending… Ever since Euripides play-writers have delighted in the representation of criminal and unnatural passions. It is true, villainy is commonly punished in these plays, but the villainy is often given such dash and daring and bravado, and is so set round with attractions, and is pursued with such utter abandon and intoxication of delight, that many a youth is led to prefer the way to destruction and the devil, because the journey can be made in such a blaze of glory. Take ‘Led Astray’ for example, and, though the crime is followed by the penalty, the whole tone and coloring show that ‘the treatment is that of a hater of the penalty, and not that of a hater of the crime.’ Christians of Chicago, moral men and women, lovers of clean homes and pure, sweet lives, what do you think of all this? Look at the record! Face the facts, and judge ye! I charge that the theater is often ‘a murderous assault upon all that the family circle holds most holy and sacred.’ I charge that it strips young women of their ordinary attire, and exhibits them to the public gaze so clad that to the eye of the audience they seem, and are meant to seem, almost naked! You do not need to be told why that is done. I charge that the shafts of wit flowing across the stage are often feathered from very obscene fowl. I charge that the theater is the channel through which the filth and pollution of lewd and [[@VolumePage:2,47]]lascivious play-writers is poured into the minds of young men and young women, thus poisoning the very springs of our social life.’ This is the rather outspoken opinion of Dr. Johnson. Evidently, our well-grounded opposition to theater-going is not an idiosyncrasy of ours, confined to the realm of the Lutheran Church. Would to God that the warnings against this evil which are again becoming more general, would be heeded by the multitudes, inducing them to go to church instead of immoral theaters.Beginning Decline Of Church Fairs. It seems as though the practice of holding church fairs is on the point of ceasing to be almost universal, though, with the majority of our American churches, it has hitherto been almost as regular a feature as the Sunday morning service. In saying that church fairs are on the decline, we have reference to the Methodists of Rhode Island with whom church-fairs have of late become a subject of serious discussion. We are sorry to say that they are greatly at variance in their opinions, or rather, that, we may safely state, they “agreed to disagree.” Still, at a recent meeting of the Methodist clergy in Providence there were at least some who zealously opposed church fairs, “because they involved a waste of energy, destroyed the feeling of sanctity which should pertain to the house of God, and lowered the whole conception of religious life.” These “some” are decidedly on the right track. They have most assuredly made a move in the right direction which we can not but approve of, though we are by no means sanguine as to their inducing their colleagues and the Methodist church in general, to endorse their opinion and follow their foot-steps.—But we consider it altogether out of question that, in theoretically and practically opposing church fairs, they are heeding the manifest teachings of Christ. For It is not merely imaginary, but one of the most real facts that if Christ returning to the scenes of this world, would witness a church fair of the average kind, going on for the benefit of the Church and His glory (! ?), He would most assuredly, with no respect of scribes and pharisees, worldly or ecclesiastical dignitaries, “begin to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple,” reiterating His divine teaching: “Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves.” (Mark 11. 15.) And Christ would not let himself be impeded in pursuing this course, even if the number thus cast out comprised the alleged peers of the christian laity as well as the christian clergy. May “selling and buying in the temple” and for the benefit of the temple, in short, all church business-like practices,—may they forever remain foreign to our Lutheran Zion.Ecclesiastical Liberalism. It seems as if Clerical Liberalism was about to take full sway of the American Church, as a whole. Some years ago every true Lutheran heart was startled at the recklessness of a Pseudo-Lutheran who avowed that his conscience did not forbid him to take charge of a Presbyterian church. A similar occurrence took place not so very long ago. A certain Rev. Cowl of the M. E. Church has actually accepted a call to the Unitarian Church of Chicago. And the most unexplainable fact of all is that his farewell address to his late congregation (Sharpsburg, Pa.) contains an open and unveiled declaration to the effect that “the doctrines he had preached to his Methodist congregation would still be delivered from the pulpit of the Unitarian Church in Chicago.”—Indeed, we could hardly say which of the two has the best claim to our surprise,—that hypocrite who cares so little for his Trinitarian belief and the avowedly [[@VolumePage:2,48]]Trinitarian belief of his Church, as not to shrink from becoming a Unitarian minister—or those Chicago Unitarians whose Unitarian “persuasion” was not even of such a degree of strength as to keep them back from calling a minister from among the clergy of a decidedly Trinitarian persuasion. Query: If Socinus of old should to-day rise from the grave, what would be his opinion of such Unitarians? And the founder of Methodism, how deeply would he feel ashamed of a Methodist brother minister of the above description.—Both parties seem to be unacquainted with the true explanation of 2 Cor. 6. 14. Augustus. Denominational Statistics. The following table of statistics in regard to the various religious denominations in the United States is from the New York Observer. Figures preceded by an asterisk are estimated:DenominationChurch OrganizationsMinistersCommunicantsAdventists19913414,141Baptists: Regular26,06016,5962,296,327 Disciples2,366*2,000*350,000 Free-Will1,4711,29474,851 Anti-Mission*900*400*40,000 Tunkers7101,655*90,000 Winnebrennarians*400*350*30,000 Mennonites*120*90*20,000 Seventh Day84808,548 Six Principle20122,000Congregationalists3,7453,577384,332Episcopalians:Protestant3,035 3,466349,580Reformed54765,432Friends*800*100,000Lutherans5,8653,299738,302Methodists:M. E. North17,11111,6301,700,302M. E. South3,867828,301African M. E.1,418214,808M. E. Zion, African1,500190,900Methodist Protestants1,314113,405M. Evangelical Association893 112,197Colored M. E.638112,300American Wesleyans*250*25,000Free Methodists27112,642Independent Methodists2412,550Primitive Methodists1963,210Union American M. E.1012,550United Brethren in Christ8,0792,196157,835Moravian*759,491New Jerusalem*90*4,273Presbyterians:Northern5,5985,086581,401Southern1,9571,061121,915Cumberland2,5701,386113,933United81470482,937Reformed15312810,473Associate Reformed 105896,686Reformed (Dutch)50765380,572Reformed (German)1,403762161,002Unitarians346400Universalists73973638,048The Roman Catholic Church reports 5,856 churches, 6,471 priests (bishops included), and 6,377,330 population. [[@VolumePage:2,49]]THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.Vol. 2. April 1882. No. 4.Sin and Grace.A true Christian is a new creation of God, a child of God, being born again of the Spirit of God, of incorruptible seed, by the Word of God, 2 Cor. 5.17, Gal. 6.15, 1 Pet. 1. 23. This new nature can never be supposed to give assent to alterations of the doctrines revealed in the Word of God. Such assent when consciously given would indicate a breaking loose from the guidance of the Spirit of God, and the consequent loss of the privilege of being among the number of the children of God, as St. Paul says, Rom. 8. 14.: “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God;” for the revealed Word is the word of the Spirit of truth who is above correction. The alteration, e. g. of a divine revelation in the interest of an interpretation or of a solution of difficulties arising from the apparent fact that certain revealed truths cannot otherwise be reconciled to satisfy the laws of reason, implies the denial of the truth of what the Spirit of God has taught us in the Scriptures, that the things of God are revealed to babes, and hid from the wise and prudent, Matth. 11. 25. He who changes or weakens the import of a revealed truth on the plea that minds which are logically trained require a presentation of the truth which is not contrary to the laws of reason, and that the true sense of what is revealed is the one conveyed in that form against which reason can take no exceptions, declares in fact that men are wiser than God, and places himself in direct opposition to the Word of the Holy Spirit that the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and that it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe, 1 Cor. 1. 25, 21. A Christian, therefore, accepts and believes in their [[@VolumePage:2,50]]full force plain teachings of the Scriptures, although on systematizing them there should appear contradictions between them which are irreconcilable to reason. Among such contradictions are those offered in the Scriptural doctrines of man’s sin and divine grace.In the present controversy on Election, solutions of the difficulties presented to reason in that article of the Christian faith are urged upon the Christians, although they are based upon alterations of what the Scriptures teach concerning sin and grace. When men hold forth to us that, to be sincere in our rejection of the Calvinistic absolute decree, we must believe that God converts and saves those persons only who are not corrupted to such a degree as to proceed in the desires of the flesh and of the mind to a wilful resistance to divine grace, or who at least of their own accord again withdraw such resistance if it had been offered at all: we decline to follow their teaching. It involves a denial of some revealed truths concerning sin and grace. Instructed by the Word of God we concur in the statement of the Confession of our church that, though man is much worse than a stone or a block which does not voluntarily oppose him who moves it, nor understands and perceives what is done to it, in the manner in which man strives with his will against God until he is converted: he may nevertheless be converted through divine grace ([[B. C. N. M. Edit. p. 622 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:59]]). For the Scriptures, which know of only two states of sinful man, namely the state of what man is by nature, and what he has been made by grace, plainly say of converted children of God that they were by nature the children of wrath even as others who were not converted, and that their conversion was due not to their having by their own nature and will more suitably conducted themselves toward divine grace than others, but to the purpose of God to show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward them, Eph. 2. 3—7.When men tell us that we cannot but believe grace to work irresistibly, unless we suppose that before the grace of God converts a man he must by his own natural power and will have reduced his resisting will to a condition which requires no breaking of will, no conversion of will into a contrary state to be accomplished by the power of God and his grace, because [[@VolumePage:2,51]]a conversion of wilful resistance into a state contrary to it would require compulsion, or power exerted irresistibly: we cannot accept of this teaching. It implies some alteration of the teaching of the Scriptures concerning sin and grace, and is equivalent to a definition of conversion according to which God, in creating a new will in man, only adds something to the old will of the unconverted, to the will of our flesh after it has of its own accord ceased to resist the divine will, but does not break and hinder the old will, as we are taught by our Catechism in the third petition to pray God would graciously do in us even after conversion. We reject the doctrine of irresistible grace, and likewise reject as false the disjunction that grace in producing effects is either irresistible force, or it does not overcome at all resistance in man’s will. We on the contrary retain with our Confession the distinction that “when we speak of the mode in which God operates in man, there is a modus agendi or manner in which God operates in man as in a rational creature, and another mode applicable to an irrational creature, or to a stone or a block.” ([[p. 623. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:62]])Our Confession abstained from altering the Scriptural doctrines concerning sin and grace, although it was apparent that by retaining them unaltered essential parts of its doctrine of election must exhibit features of contradiction which are irreconcilable to human reason. Thus we find that it teaches the elect children of God, on the ground of Scriptural testimonies presented Eph. 1. 5-6. Rom. 9. 11—13. Gen. 25. 23. Mal. 1. 1-2. showing election to be founded solely in the good pleasure of God’s will and without regard to the natural condition or conduct of the elect, to consider it a false and erroneous doctrine, when men teach that not the mercy of God alone, and the most holy merit of Christ are the cause, but that in the elect also there is a cause of the election of God, on account of which God has elected them to everlasting life ([[p. 726 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:87]]). The Scriptural doctrines of sin and grace made it impossible for the Confession to explain election by stating that, although the cause of the salvation of the elect was only the mercy of God and the merit of Christ, the cause why the elect only were elected was solely and entirely owing to their conduct, which obliged God’s universal grace to save them, and let the rest [[@VolumePage:2,52]]perish. It is evident that the Confession enjoins the elect to consider the cause of the preference which they enjoy over others and which is implied in the divine election, to be solely and alone in the grace of him that calleth, in the purpose of God to make an election, and an election of grace only, not one forced upon him by some difference in man’s nature or conduct causing the one individual to be preferable to the other. In opposition to this truth the theory is set up that it is in man’s choice either to close or to open his ears and heart to the word of grace so as to receive it and be saved by it, hence grace has bound itself to this opening of ears and heart on the part of man as the condition he must fulfill, if grace is to save him. But this theory, satisfying, as it seems, the reasoning powers of some minds, changes the Scriptural doctrines of sin and grace without satisfying the reasoning powers of others who take exception against' the way in which this theory treats a divine earnest desire to save all men which, as reason may well argue, being divine cannot but be as infinitely great as God’s wisdom and power, and considering that man, though he is but finite in desire and wisdom and power has, at times, succeeded by proper method to reduce even most refractory wills to tame submission, and by further influence to positive and joyful willingness, think it absurd to suppose that there ever existed a difference in man’s sinful state between two parts of mankind so infinitely great as to overmatch the infinite energy of God’s grace and wisdom and power. Our Confession in accordance with the Scriptures, and to the confusion of the pretended discoverers of the secrets of divine revelation, leaves the election [[@VolumePage:2,53]]of grace what it really is, a divine mystery, a stumbling block to some, a foolishness to others, but unto them which are called it reveals both the power of God and the wisdom of God in Christ.Our Confession teaches the elect children of God to consider that, when in the case of some countries or individuals God exhibits his severity, he exhibits the penalties which the elect had also deserved, and of which the elect were worthy, in order that they, being thus admonished, might live in the fear of God, and by comparing themselves with those who are punished as they deserve, and by discovering their own great similarity to them, the elect may see and praise with so much the greater diligence the pure, unmerited grace of God manifested to the vessels of mercy, Rom. 9. 23. ([[p. 721. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:60]]) These directions clearly import that the elect children of God must not suffer themselves to be misled into the pernicious error of thinking that, when the causes are described which prevent the conversion of those who are eternally lost, when the sins are enumerated which work their perdition, when the presumption is rebuked which lays the blame of the eternal fate of the despisers of the divine grace on God and his election: the elect may from these explanations and charges infer the cause which induced God to elect them, that the reason why they obtained grace and salvation before the rest of mankind was shown to consist in their having by their own natural powers and the condition of their will either entirely or at least temporarily kept free from those very sins which cause the damnation of the others. Disregard of the Scriptural doctrines of sin and grace has induced men to support a false theory of election by misunderstanding and misapplying passages like the followiug. “Now, the text Matt. 22. 14.: ‘Many are called, but few are chosen’ does not imply that God does not desire to save all men, but the cause (of the damnation of the wicked) is that they either do not hear the Word of God at all, but obstinately contemn it, closing their ears and hardening their hearts, and thus obstruct the ordinary means of access of the Holy Spirit, so that he cannot perform his work in them; or, if they have heard it, they again neglect and disregard it; of which neither God nor his election, but their own wickedness is the cause, [[@VolumePage:2,54]]2 Pet. 2. 1ff.; Luke 11. 49, 52.; Hebr. 12. 25ff.” ([[p. 584. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:12]]) According to that false theory the words quoted are understood to prove that it must be a false and perverse practice if the elect children of God attribute to God’s grace and election, and not to themselves as their own merit that conduct which agrees with the gracious will of God, and which distinguishes them from those who are lost, namely, that they did hear the Word of God, did not obstinately contemn it, did not close their ears and harden their hearts, did not obstruct the ordinary means of access of the Holy Spirit, so that he could perform his work in them; that when they had heard the Word of God, they did not afterward neglect and disregard it; and to deny that of this neither God nor his election, but their own natural will and conduct was the cause, must consequently be a wicked opposition to a plain truth revealed by the Holy Spirit. Now, if that theory of election is correct, the description of God’s electing grace given in Ezek. 16. must be thoroughly false and misleading. If that theory states the facts as God revealed them, it is a mistake though well-meant, indeed, but made through ignorance, a repetition of which, however, would be impossible in the life to come which precludes the idea of mistakes, when the elect children of God give all the honor of their conversion and salvation to God alone, knowing that God never assumes and accepts an honor except that which is his due; that he delights in truth and hates hypocritical and misapplied praise. There is then at least something, however little it may appear to be, though it decides an eternal fate, of which some flesh may justly glory in the presence of the Lord, against 1 Cor. 1. 29. It scarcely requires a moment’s reflection to perceive that this theory, if suffered to take root in the heart of a Christian, must be destructive of his religion.Our Confession teaches the elect children of God to restrain their tongue, and repress their thoughts, as St. Paul does, whenever they in their investigations approach the secret of the divine election of individuals unto eternal salvation, and to abstain from searching out what God has reserved unto his hidden wisdom concerning this mystery; for God’s judgments are unsearchable, and his ways are past finding out ([[p. 721 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:63-64]]). This admonition, which we follow in spite of the continual [[@VolumePage:2,55]]sneers of our opponents, warns the elect children of God against the presumption to deprive election of its mystery, without which what we may please to call election can be nothing but a delusion. A disregard of the unfathomable depths of both sin and grace, which the teaching of the Scriptures reminds us of, has dared by way of illustrating election to present a figment of human reason, according to which there is a certain peculiarity in the nature, use, and power of the human will which transcends nature with its laws, so as to be subject to no motives except will itself, and which with some men exhibits a certain aptitude for conversion and salvation found by God not to be present in all men. In consequence of this fact God saw himself bound to be satisfied with the result which that difference, he encountered when graciously viewing mankind, forced upon him, as it were. To this difference, then, the elect owe it that they were elected. The election of the children of God, therefore, does not depend on, is not determined by his grace, but necessitated by a sort of fate, i. e. by the mysterious development of man’s nature, so that, indeed, the only mystery in election is man himself. It must, therefore, be considered ridiculous to believe that there is something mysterious respecting the ways of God in election; psychology alone can solve what still appears in it dark or doubtful.— Attempts like these which treat the mystery of the election of grace as if it was a thing held sacred only by superstition, like an image enshrined in a heathen temple the doors of which only need to be daringly thrown open to make it apparent that there is nothing within, worth adoring, the Scriptures forbid us to imitate or applaud.As man’s sin and divine grace are at the basis of every religion, so the Scriptural doctrines of sin and grace are among the fundamental principles of the Christian religion. Since the Christian religion, which is as old as mankind, is a revelation from heaven, it condemns all other religions as being the offspring of man’s corruption and natural opposition to the true God, and consisting of a corruption of and opposition to divine revelation. And since divine revelations concerning sin and grace were necessary for man to understand both sin and grace, neither of them will ever be truly and correctly understood [[@VolumePage:2,56]]without the Spirit of God. To those who treat of them without the Holy Spirit they are, as Luther says, mere names, or, as it were, like dreams, some traces of which are left in the mind, while the whole thing has slipped from their mind and eyes. It cannot be otherwise, as the true knowledge of both sin and grace is not born at our own homes, in our hearts, but is given from heaven, and therefore depends not on the knowledge and wisdom of human reason. The knowledge of sin, or the fear of God, and the knowledge of grace, or the trust in God’s mercy, make up that work of the Holy Spirit which brings eternal salvation to man, and which is called repentance without which there is no Christian religion. In the use of these divine doctrines, Luther says, even the prophets themselves remained disciples with us, as all men however enlightened by the Holy Spirit remain disciples of the Word of God, never come up to it, but experience that they are scarce able to draw a drop from the unfathomable sea of the Spirit. The true knowledge of sin, as it has its origin in the Spirit of God, is no mere speculation, thought, theory, or notion, but sense, experience, and a most severe struggle of the heart, a feeling of the intolerable burden of the wrath of God, a sensation of death, and hell, and eternal damnation. Neither is the true knowledge of grace a thought and notion only, but the practical acquaintance with, and the sensation of, that mercy of God in Christ through which the revelation is made to the penitent sinners that as all their life before God, when he is met and viewed without his promises, is sin, and death, and damnation, so again all their life through the knowledge of God’s promises is posited, and inclosed, and shut up in the bosom of divine mercy.We cannot wonder, then, that there are things in those fundamental principles of our religion which are incomprehensible to reason, and apparent contradictions which man is incapable of harmonizing. Sin and grace are revealed to us by the Spirit of God as posited in the strongest possible opposition to each other, in their logical bearing contradictory beyond any hope or possibility of a solution, in their effects continually striving against and undoing each other; and God himself is presented as contradicting himself, his own nature and will, [[@VolumePage:2,57]]his own words and truth. That prayer, which the Spirit of God himself teaches the penitent sinner: “Have mercy upon me, O God,” sounds, Luther says, as if directly spoken against the decalogue with all its menaces. By such prayer the ungodly, the sinner condemned by the word of the law is led by the Spirit of God himself to set aside the divine truth that God is a consuming fire to him who has sinned, jealous and taking vengeance on his adversaries, and will not at all acquit the wicked, Nah. 1. 2-3. These contradictions and incompatibles are united not in man’s head, but in man’s heart, in true repentance, and by the Spirit of God alone. These incompatible things the Spirit of God keeps in their full and entire opposition above all the harmonizing attempts of human reason in those who are truly repentant, and only hides the unapproachable majesty of God’s wrath against the sinner, behind the gracious promises with which God has clothed himself to be seized by the penitent. He who does not experience anything of the awful struggle produced by these Scriptural doctrines, knows neither sin nor grace, and is no Christian. And he who falls to modifying these doctrines in order to satisfy reason by way of removing the contradictions inherent in them, is engaged in framing a false religion. The contradictions which appear in sin and grace are so repugnant to human reason that philosophers have discarded these ideas altogether as untenable. It is only minds satisfied with a work being half-done, minds that are neither warm nor cold in reason, that feel called to mix reason and revelation, and are, consequently, neither warm nor cold in religion, too. Every attempt to reconcile what to reason is a manifest contradiction in the Scriptural truths that the grace of God is universal and that but few men are saved, can be shown to be based upon a sophistication and perversion of the Scriptural doctrines of sin and grace, or, at least, of either the one or the other. But to falsify these fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion means to pervert true repentance and, consequently, the heart and center of the Christian religion itself. All the false religions are founded upon false thoughts concerning man’s sin and divine grace. The Scriptural doctrines of sin and grace reveal the truths that it is grace alone which both leads to conversion and converts, so that salvation [[@VolumePage:2,58]]is entirely the work of God, and that the cause why not all men are saved is in man alone, so that damnation is entirely the guilt of man. All the efforts of Calvinists, Pelagians, Semipelagians, and Synergists, to subvert either of these truths, are refuted by clear Scriptural testimonies. May God in his mercy grant that his revelations concerning his gracious election, the incomprehensible nature of which he deigned us to experience in true repentance, be always kept pure and unsophisticated by us amidst the attacks of scoffers who know not what they do.(For the “Theological Monthly.”)God without His Promises of Grace and God the Promiser of Salvation.The distinction between God without the promises of grace and God the Promiser of salvation, which our beloved father Dr. Martin Luther was accustomed to make in his writings, is a most consolatory one for us Christians. By nature we know not only that there is a great God who has made us and to whom we are responsible for all our doings, but also that we are sinners and offenders of this great God. His Law is written in our hearts and condemns us every moment of our lives. But, O unspeakable comfort, the God whom we have offended stands before us in His revealed Word as the Promiser of all salvation! We would be lost forever, and not be saved, if God had not promised to save us. Our whole salvation—its beginning and continuance in this life and its consummation in the life to come—is nothing else but that God keeps His promises. Without His promises we would have to remain in our forlorn and most unhappy state. We are redeemed by Christ, we are called out of the world by the Holy Spirit, and our sins are forgiven us or we are justified by God, which is the same thing, for Christ’s sake, in consequence of the divine promises given us. Thus also our glorification in eternal life will be a gift of God’s free and gracious promise. His promises to save us are promises and nothing more or less. They were dictated, if we may so speak, by His infinite mercy to lost mankind. As soon as we were to take away divine mercy from the idea of these divine promises, we would destroy the idea, and as soon as we were to mix a requisite on our part into the idea of these divine promises, we would destroy the idea of divine mercy. In these promises God is [[@VolumePage:2,59]]revealed to us in His mercy. He says, as it were, to the penitent sinner: Know who I am and what My mind is toward you; I have given you My promises of grace in which I am clothed. These promises are the form in which I will be seen of you. But God not only announces salvation unto us by His promises, but they are at the same time also the means by which He works faith in the hearts of men and makes them partakers of the promised salvation; so that it is a word of promise when it is said: He that believeth shall be saved. God performs the whole work of saving us Himself by fulfilling His gracious promises. None of our omittings or doings assist Him in saving us. On the other hand, some people are inclined to think, since God’s Law says: Thou shalt have no other gods before Me, you will be saved, if you fulfill this commandment by believing in Christ; if you prepare your hearts for the reception of My grace, if you cease, in your nature, to resist My Word, if you allow yourself to be converted, you will live. By this Law of God the sinner is condemned. For every sinner must confess that he cannot believe in Christ; he must confess that he cannot prepare his heart for the reception of God’s grace, that he cannot cease to resist the Word of God, that it is an impossibility for him to allow himself to be converted. These words of the Law are therefore no comfort for the sinner who is conscious of his depravity and sinfulness, but rather render him exceedingly comfortless. The great and holy God than whom none other is known to him without the promises, is standing before him as a majestic and dreadful judge who requires in His Law that the sinner be perfectly holy and return, of his own power, to the blessed state in which he was originally created, which, however, he is totally unable to do. Being thus without the divine promises, he must fall in despair and perish. Therefore, all those who say that man can cease to resist the grace of God, have taken the Law in exchange for the Gospel and God the Judge for God the Promiser of grace. It is ridiculous to hear men say that we Missourians are teaching the election of an absolute God. We are confessing an election of divine mercy and good pleasure in Christ, the Saviour of all mankind, but they place the sinner before God without His promises of grace, and say to him, as it were: Now woe unto you, because you cannot do anything to save yourself. We beg to let the poor sinners whom mercy has caused to despair of themselves by the Word of the Law, hear the glad tidings that it is divine mercy, and that simply, that puts a stop to their hearts’ resistance against grace by the divine promises, or, in other words, that it is God the Promiser of grace who changes the heart by the quickening power of His promises. [[@VolumePage:2,60]]One of the passages in which Dr. Luther closely distinguishes between God without His promises of grace and God the Promiser of salvation, is the following, on Ps. 51. 1. (“Be merciful unto me, O God”): “Here, in the beginning, because David nameth God and maketh no mention of Christ, ye must be admonished not to think that he speaketh of God like a Mohammedan or any other gentile man. For he speaketh with the God of his fathers or with God the Promiser, because the people of Israel had not God absolutely considered, so to say, as an ignorant class of monks ascend up into heaven in their speculations and think on God absolutely. This absolute God all must flee who will not perish, because human nature and the absolute God (we make use of this known appellation for the sake of teaching) are most hostile enemies of each other, and human infirmity cannot but be oppressed by so great a majesty; as the Scriptures several times admonish. Therefore, no one should understand David as speaking with the absolute God, but he speaketh with God vested and clothed with His Word and promises, so that Christ, concerning whom a promise was made by God unto Adam and the other patriarchs, is not excluded from the name of God. This God, not bare, but vested with and revealed by His Word, we must apprehend, else despair will be sure to oppress us. And this distinction between the prophets, who speak with God, and the Gentiles, must continually be made. For the Gentiles speak with God beside the Word and promises, according to the thoughts of their heart; but the prophets speak with God as clothed with and revealed by His promises and Word. This God, clothed with so mild a form and so pleasant a mask, so to say, namely with His promises, can be apprehended and beheld with joy and trust, whilst, on the contrary, the absolute God is like a brazen wall against which we cannot strike without perishing. Therefore, Satan is making endeavors day and night to put us in opposition to the bare God, so that we, forgetting the promises and the beneficence shown in Christ, may think on God and the judgment of God. When this is done, we perish at once, having fallen into despair. David doth not speak with the absolute God in this manner, but with the God of his fathers, that is, with God whose promises he knoweth and whose mercy and grace he feeleth. If, therefore, a Turk, a hypocrite, or a monk, saith: ‘Be merciful unto me, O God,’ it is the same as if he said nothing, because he apprehendeth not God, whom he nameth, as veiled in such a person or form as is attemperate to us, but apprehendeth and invadeth God in His absolute power, where despair and Lucifer’s fall out of heaven into hell necessarily follow. The reason, therefore, why the prophets thus relied upon the promises of God in [[@VolumePage:2,61]]their prayers, is because the promises include Christ and make God to be, not our judge or foe, but a benign and favoring God, who will restore to life, and save, the damned.” [[Opp. Lat. Erl. ed., vol. 19, pp. 21 to 23. >> logosres:lw12;ref=VolumePage.V_12,_pp_312-313;off=358]]Let us be satisfied with God’s merciful promises in Christ and beware of contemplating on the absolute God. C.S.K.(For the “Theological Monthly.”)Review of Comments on our Reasons for suspending Membership in the Ohio Synod.(Concluded.)In our two first reasons for withdrawing from the Joint Synod we stated the false confession and false doctrine of that body. In the third we give a brief summary of the true doctrine which is condemned by the Joint Synod. In his comments E. L. S. T. mixes this up as it is generally his custom to jump from one thing to another. We will, therefore, here give a brief sketch of his comments on our doctrine in general and then rest our pen in regard to him. Our third reason reads thus:One of the reasons given for withdrawing from the Synodical Conference is, because the Synod of Missouri had set up a doctrine of election which the Ohio Synod could not accept. Now the doctrine of Missouri may be summed up in these sentences: 1. God desires and seeks the salvation of all men;2. Those that will be lost are lost on account of their unbelief;3. Those that will be saved were, before the foundation of the world from pure grace for the sake of Christ’s merits, ordained unto salvation and all that is necessary to obtain it. I hold, that this is the doctrine of God’s Word and the Confessions of our Church, and can not consent to condemn the truth.The import is briefly this: Missouri teaches the doctrine of the Confessions; the Joint Synod of Ohio condemns that doctrine. So then to go with the Joint Synod is to condemn the doctrine of the Confessions on election and conversion.The XI. Art. of the Form. of Concord holds the middle between Calvinism on the one and Synergism on the other side. It rejects and condemns both extremes as false. ([[See B. of C. 2nd Ed., p. 586. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:17-21]]) For this reason both Calvinists and Synergists criticise our Confessions. For the Calvinists there is not enough absolutism, and for the Synergists not enough humanism in them. That both Calvinists and Synergists criticise the Lutheran doctrine is, therefore, not surprising to any [[@VolumePage:2,62]]one, who has learnt to understand the Lutheran doctrine on election. Therefore, every one criticising the doctrine of the Confessions, or in any way twisting them to a meaning, which they in their “natural, grammatical construction and sense” do not convey, makes himself suspicious of being either a Calvinist or Synergist. That the name by which such a man calls himself, whether Presbyterian, or Methodist, or Lutheran, is of very little consequence, that, certainly, even E. L. S. T. will not deny. Not the name, but only the doctrine will show, whether the man is a Calvinist, Lutheran, or Synergist. He who advocates an absolute election or an election of sovereignity and not in Christ is a Calvinist, he who advocates an election of grace only and grace fully is a Lutheran, and he who advocates such an election, in which the election of the individuals elected finally depends on something in man, is a Synergist, though he may perhaps call himself a “legitimate son” of the Lutheran Church-fathers.Now the sum and substance of E. L. S. T.’s comments is, to represent our doctrine as Calvinistic. But what does he prove? Does he prove that our doctrine is Calvinistic, or does he prove that his doctrine is Synergistic? Let us see what he has to say in regard to our doctrine.He writes: “Pastor Kuegele says, the mystery of election lies in the will of God. He says God wills to save all men, but at the same time He wills only to elect a few. The mystery then is that to our minds God contradicts himself, God has become a liar. Is that any better than Calvinism and blasphemy? Both God’s Word and our Confessions spurn such a solution of the mystery in election.” Where do we say that? It was indeed lucky for E. L. S. T. that he did not attempt to demonstrate this by quotations from our writings. The fact is, we have never and nowhere said any such a thing. Let E. L. S. T. produce the words, where we have said this, or let him, like an honest man, revoke his calumny. We have said, that God wills to save all men and that He has elected only a few, but where did We ever say, that God wills only to elect a few? Our doctrine is, that God wills to save all men, and that few are chosen.By thus falsifying our doctrine, E. L. S. T. would also make it appear, as though we attempted to solve the mystery of election whilst it is well known to him, that we reject and condemn all attempted solutions, whether they proceed from Calvinists or Joint Synod men. What we have said concerning this is the following: “Thus we have seen that the two ways in which an explanation of the mystery of election might be thought possible by reason, and in which it has been attempted, result in the gravest errors; for whilst Calvinism makes God [[@VolumePage:2,63]]the author of damnation, Synergism finds in man a cause of salvation.” (See Sermons on Pred., p. 16.) Again (p. 25): “What the mystery of predestination is, that we know, that the Scriptures tell us very plainly; but the how is hidden. That it is the will of God to save all men, and that He chose unto salvation before the foundation of the world, that we know; but how God, whilst wanting all saved, could choose unto salvation, that we can not comprehend to make it agree with our understanding. Shall we, with the Calvinists, deny the one, or with the other sects say, that the cause of election is in man? Then, indeed, the mystery is away, but it is put away by denying the plain Word of God.” Let E. L. S. T. mark well that we do not, as he falsely accuses us, say, that God “wills only to elect a few,” but we say: Whilst wanting all saved God chose unto salvation. By the will of God we do not understand a fictitious will, but a real, actual, serious will to save all men, and by the choice of God we do not understand a fictitious choice, not a blind grab as Calvin, nor a mere judicial act, a judging between worthy and unworthy, as E. L. S. T., but a real actual election of grace, without any merit or worthiness in the person chosen. That is the mystery to us: “How God, whilst wanting all saved, could choose unto salvation.” How God, whilst wanting both Adam and his children saved, could choose from amongst them unto salvation, that is to us the incomprehensible thing, of which we say: “This doctrine is misapplied, or rather misused, if we, giving way to our natural curiosity, seek to search out and to comprehend its mysteries.” (See Sermons, p. 24.)So our commentator also represents us as denying the will of God to convert all men, when he writes: “We will never say the reason why many are not converted is because God did not will to elect them.” He would have the reader believe our doctrine were, that the cause of non-conversion lies in the will and election of God, but the direct contrary is the case. If he will turn to p. 8 of our Sermons he will find the following: “Our Church teaches concerning them that will be lost, that they are lost not because they had been fore-ordained to damnation. God has predestinated no one to death; they are lost, not because God had not desired their salvation, not because they had not been redeemed, not because salvation had not been effectually offered them in the means of grace, nor because God in His eternal election had passed them by with His grace, but simply and only because they pass by God’s grace, or although they accept it for a while cast it away again.”These are a few examples of how E. L. S. T. prevaricates our doctrine. We think it unnecessary to enlarge on his misrepresentations. It would certainly have been troublesome for [[@VolumePage:2,64]]him to examine, what we do say and teach, and it was his interest to make our doctrine appear Calvinistic.To his comments on our third reason E. L. S. T. also attaches his order of election thus: “The order that God has revealed to us in His Word respecting election is this: His will to save all, the redemption of the world by Christ, calling of the world through the Gospel, giving of faith to those who do not wilfully resist the call, the election of each and every one who truly believes unto everlasting life.” That he calls the order revealed to us, but St. Paul, Romans 8. 29-30., writes: “Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestine to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified.” The reader will see, that E. L. S. T. inverts Paul’s order, besides making man’s non-resistance the pivot on which election depends.The comments on our reasons close with the words: “We can only say, Lord, have mercy upon him (Rev. K.) and open his eyes to see from whence he has fallen.” Yea, Lord, have mercy upon us and open our eyes to see ever more, that we are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but that our salvation is alone in Thee. Amen. f.k. General Religious Intelligence.The English revisers of the Old Testament have completed the second revision of Jeremiah as far as chapter 46.Mormonism is advancing into Arizona. Some of its most valuable land has been taken up by Mormon settlers and stocked with large herds of cattle.A Pastoral staff, whatever that may be, has been presented to the Bishop of Central Pennsylvania. Price, $500.Rome. The pope has addressed an urgent letter to the Italian Bishops, commanding them, in view of the dangers surrounding the church, to increase their activity, to encourage Catholic societies among the laity, to develop the Catholic press, and to advocate boldly the temporal independence of the pope.On a recent Sunday a count was taken in Edinburgh, by which it appeared that the total attendance at two services out of a population of 228,000 was 101,713. In the case of the Free and the Established Churches the attendance was smaller than the membership, showing that a considerable proportion of the communicants were not at church.The United States Bureau shows that the number of churches built in the country has steadily increased from the first till now, and never was increasing so rapidly as now. Church property in 1850, in the United States, was worth about eighty-seven millions of dollars; in 1860, one hundred and seventy-one millions; in 1870, three hundred and fifty-four millions. The number of church organizations in 1850 was thirty-eight thousand; in 1860, fifty-four thousand; in 1870, seventy-two thousand. There were church accommodations in 1850 for fourteen millions of people; in 1860, for nineteen millions; in 1870, for twenty-one millions. The census statistics for 1880 are not yet accessible. Alph. [[@VolumePage:2,65]]THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.Vol. 2. May 1882. No. 5.(For the “Theological Monthly.”)“Perfection.”“If God does not forgive us continually, we are lost.” ([[L. Cat. 5th Pet. >> BookOfConcord:Large Cat.:iii:v:91]])With the manifold errors which rob God of His glory, disgrace the merits of Christ, and do harm to immortal souls, ranks the sectarian doctrine of perfect sanctification or sinless perfection in the present life. This presumption of a complete holiness of life as an essential part of true Christianity, is not at all of a recent date. Even in the days of the ancient church some false teachers labored to disseminate that haughty notion, so that it became a necessity to contend against them and to excommunicate from the Church those that persisted in defending their aberration. Thus, for instance, the Valentinians, a branch of the Alexandrian Gnostics in the second century, amongst other peculiar, idle fables maintained that when God took possession of the heart of man, its carnal passions were altogether annihilated and man restored to perfection. Of the same type were the Marcites, a sect of heretics cotemporary with the Valentinians. Following their chief, a fanatic by the name of Marcus, they claimed that in holiness of life, they excelled even St. Paul and St. Peter. They went so far as to call themselves “perfecti.”—About the last of the fourth, and the beginning of the fifth century, perfectionism was again advanced by Pelagius and Celestius, who, contrary to the clear Word of God, asserted that man could live perfectly holy, without sinning, if he only decided to do so,—a heresy, which found its way into the monasteries, schools and pulpits of the antichristian Church of Rome, where it ever since [[@VolumePage:2,66]]has been, and continually is proclaimed, however different the wordings of that doctrine may be. For what else but perfectionism is the absurd doctrine of supererogation, which was invented in the 12th century and embellished by Thomas of Aquinas in the 13th, according to which the “saints” do beyond their duty and beyond what is necessary for their own salvation?—In later years the false doctrine of perfect holiness in man was served up and introduced in England by John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist sect, with whom it was a favorite idea, as it still is with a large portion of the Wesleyan faction. In proof of a fancied perfect state in the present life Wesley referred to the Savior’s words: “It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master” (Matth. 10. 25.). But that this text of the Scriptures was grossly misapplied, is evident from the fact that it has no relation whatever to freedom from corruption and sin. Other scriptural passages have been brought in support of the conceited notion that converted Christians can and actually do attain to a perfect obedience to the divine law, so as to become innocent and guiltless inwardly and outwardly. Now, if we inquire into the matter in order to ascertain, whence it comes that the perfectionists embrace and defend such an error, the fact will present itself before our eyes, that they have not yet learned what the Bible teaches concerning justification and sanctification; they did not yet learn to judge rightly between the Law and the Gospel. Disregarding the great difference between the righteousness of grace (the free and full forgiveness of sins) and the righteousness of life (good works by faith), they maintain that, as justification is perfect, sanctification also must be perfect. They identify the fruit with the root, because they do not submit to the truth, by which we are taught that justification entirely excludes good works on the part of man, whereas in sanctification the justified Christian’s good works are included. In the act of justification God forgives sins and imputes to the penitent the righteousness of Christ. In sanctification the true believer’s new will and spiritual faculties serve God and the neighbor through the strength and guidance of the Holy Ghost.—To be saved from sin in this life is, to the [[@VolumePage:2,67]]perfectionists, not only pardon and deliverance from the dominion and penalty of sins, but at the same time the extermination of what the Scriptures express by the terms “flesh” and “the lusts of the flesh”. Hence the heinous error and wicked presumption that Christians can “be as completely saved from sin in this life as Christ was free from sin”, and that “they can love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength, and their neighbor as themselves”,—an out and out Pelagian heresy, as it is set forth and contended for in A. Clarke’s Commentary, in an explanatory note to 1 John 3. 3.God, the giver of the Law, tells us that, because sin dwells in us as long as we live in the present world, it is impossible for us that we should fulfil the law in such a manner as required by the Law itself and that, moral perfection can not be attained to in this life. It is not true that our motions, thoughts and deeds are pure from all sin, for though we, through the operation of the Holy Spirit, are inflamed with love both towards God and the neighbor, this love is not yet perfect and will be short of perfection as long as “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit”. True Christians, however, will never excuse their shortcomings, no more than they do despair on account thereof. They are convinced not only that they are poor sinners, but also that their infirmities do not condemn them, because Christ Jesus is their “wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption”. Their frailty is covered with the cloak of that righteousness which their Savior has purchased for them. Their joy and consolation is this that they are accounted perfect, being justified through faith for Christ’s sake.With reference to our daily infirmities and offences M. Luther has set forth the pure Scripture-doctrine over against the dangerous errors of the popish and all other fanatics who boast that they can live without sinning in this world, thus claiming for themselves a state of perfect holiness. Luther, it is true, firmly believed and with great rejoicing taught that true Christians are holy, or, the saints upon earth. “Whosoever believe in Christ, are all saints.” This truth neither the pope nor the devil could wrest out of his heart. Applying this cheering truth to himself, he said, “God has given me to [[@VolumePage:2,68]]see not only one, but countless saints, not such as I have heretofore imagined them to be, but such as Christ Himself and His apostles describe them, of which number I myself am one by the grace of God. For I am baptized and I do believe that my Lord Jesus Christ by His death has redeemed me from my sins and has given to me eternal righteousness and holiness. And cursed be all they that do not give this honor unto Christ, to believe that they are delivered from sin, justified and saved through His death and resurrection.” This is the Gospel-truth! But it is no less true, that the saints, yea, none but they, daily ask for forgiveness of sins, because they know and feel their shortcomings. Concerning this highly important matter, Luther preached and wrote extensively. The following lines contain some of his instructive and consolatory remarks on “daily sins”, or the sins of infirmity:—All the saints have experienced this battle of the flesh against the Spirit, and so do we feel it too. For whoever searches his own conscience, if he be not a hypocrite, shall perceive and must confess that, within his heart, he finds it to be true what St. Paul here has written, that the flesh lusteth against the Spirit. All saints confess and deplore the fact that their flesh resists the Spirit and that these two are so contrary one to the other, that the Spirit can not do what he is willing to do. Thus the flesh hinders us that we do not keep the commandments of God, that we do not love our neighbor as ourselves, much less love God with all our heart etc., and for this reason it is impossible for us to become righteous by the deeds of the law. The good will is there, indeed, and must be there, for it is the Spirit itself that resists the flesh and would cheerfully do all that is right and good; it would gladly fulfil the law and love both God and the neighbor etc., but the flesh disobeys the good will and goes counter to it. God, however, does not impute such sins to us, but is merciful to us for Christ’s sake.But from this it does not follow that you may make a light matter of your sin, because God does not impute it to you. That He does not impute it, is most certainly true. But to whom, and for whose sake, does He show His mercy? Most assuredly not to the obstinate, impenitent and secure sinners, [[@VolumePage:2,69]]but to those that repent and by faith lay hold upon Christ, the Mediator. As unto these all sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, even so the remnants of sins, which are in their flesh, are not laid to their charge. But they do not consider their offences trifling and small; on the contrary do they look upon them as great and burdensome, wherefore they, according to St. Paul’s admonition Col. 3. 9., strive to put off the old man with his doings, withstanding the evil passions and all other sins.This I say lest anybody should think that, after he had received faith, sin were to be looked upon as a trifling matter. Sin is truly sin, odious in the sight of God and deserving punishment, whether you commit it before or after you have learned to know Christ. Yea, every sin secundum substantiam facti, that is, as it is in itself, is certainly mortal. That the believer’s sins are not laid to his charge unto death, is from no other cause than Christ the Reconciliator and the Mediator, who has blotted out the sins by His death. To him that does not believe in Him, not only the sins but all his good works are damnable, as it is written Rom. 14. 23.: “Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin.” It is, consequently, a pernicious error of the sophists, that they distinguish sin secundum substantiam facti (according to the facts themselves) and not according to believing or unbelieving persons. As far as the sins in themselves are considered, they are alike great with the believer and the unbeliever; but to the believer they are forgiven and not laid to his charge, to the unbeliever they are retained and imputed. What is a venial sin to the believer, is a mortal sin to the unbeliever,—not that there be a difference in the sin itself and that the believer’s sin be smaller and more trivial than that of the unbeliever, but on account of the difference of the persons. For the believer is, by faith, assured that his sins are pardoned for Christ’s sake, who has given Himself for it. Therefore, although he has sins, he nevertheless continues to be a godly man, whereas on the other hand the unbeliever is a wicked man. And such is the true wisdom and the comfort of the godly, that they know that, though they have and commit sin, it is not imputed to them for Christ’s sake, in whom they believe. This I say for the consolation of the godly, for they alone do feel that they have sins and [[@VolumePage:2,70]]commit sins; that it; to say, they do not so fervently love and trust God as they should do; they often doubt whether God in heaven cares for them, they are impatient in adversity and murmur against God and so forth. All this is the cause of those vehement complaints uttered by the holy men in the Scriptures and especially in the Psalms. For this reason St. Paul complains Rom 7. 14. that he is sold under the sin, and here he says, the flesh lusteth against the Spirit. But because the godly mortify the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit, Rom. 8. 13., and crucify the flesh with the affections and lusts, Gal. 5. 24., therefore such sins can do them no harm nor condemn them. Those, however, that yield submission to the will of their flesh in fulfilling the lusts thereof, lose both faith and the Holy Ghost and must die in sin, unless they return to Christ, who has given the keys to the Church, by which to assist and to raise up the fallen, that they may again receive faith and the Holy Ghost. We, then, do not here speak of those that only imagine that they have faith whilst they continue to live in sin, for the sentence of death is passed upon them, that they that live after the flesh, must die, Rom. 8. 13. And again Gal. 5. 19—21.: “The works of the flesh are manifest, etc., whereof I have told you, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”Thus, then, do we see who are the saints indeed. They are not dead sticks or stone images, insensible and insusceptible of carnal lusts, as the perverted sophists and nonsensical monks have dreamed, but the saints are those, according to St. Paul, whose flesh lusteth against the Spirit, wherefore they have sin and can sin. Even so does the [[32. Psalm (5, 6.) >> Ps 32.5-6]] plainly testify that the saints confess their unrighteousness, praying that the iniquity of their sins may be forgiven them: “I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. For this shall every one that is godly pray unto Thee” etc. Likewise the whole Church, which is holy indeed, prays for remission of sin and believes the forgiveness of sin. And in the 143. Psalm David prays: “O Lord, enter not into judgment with Thy servant: for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified.” Again Psalm 130. 3, 4.: “If Thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, [[@VolumePage:2,71]]who shall stand? But there is forgiveness with Thee” etc. In this manner the greatest saints, as David, Paul etc., do speak and pray, and it is beyond question that all holy men speak and pray the same thing with the same spirit, which they would not do, if there were no sin in them. The sophists do not read the Scriptures, and if they read them they, like the Jews 2 Cor. 3. 13., have a veil before their eyes, so that they neither understand nor profit by what they read, and therefore they know of sin and holiness no more than of any other thing taught in the Scriptures. [[(Luther. Com. Gal. 5.17 Germ. Ed. >> logosres:lw27;ref=VolumePage.V_27,_pp_75-77;off=3327]]To the above we add the words of the Form. of Conc. ([[Art. III. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:iii:22]]): “When we teach, that we are born anew and justified through the operation of the Holy Ghost, it must not be understood, as if no unrighteousness whatever adhered to the justified and regenerate in their essence or in their conduct after regeneration; but that Christ with His perfect obedience covers all their sins, which still adhere to nature in this life.”—G. R.(For the “Theological Monthly”.)Those Innovations.These are the rather unfriendly words, used by the leader of the Ohio Synod when speaking of the labors of the Missouri Synod which are termed by him innovations of the Missouri leaders, which have always given rise to controversy. The disparagement conveyed by this term induced us to give this matter a little meditation.Before we begin, however, we take pleasure in stating that we are no so-called “St. Louis man,” nor, by any means, among the so-called “leaders” of the Missouri Synod, and, consequently, if anything in these lines should seem to be written in particular praise of “St. Louis men” and “Missouri leaders,” we are not, on that account, liable to that old common-place objection of having sung our own praise. Still, as it was not by us that those “innovations” were called to the front, we can not but feel inclined, time and space of the [[@VolumePage:2,72]]St. Louis Monthly permitting, to give our readers something like a panorama of the history of those “innovations,” by way of an historical sketch, based upon generally conceded historical facts. Of course, if, in this as in other cases, history proves to be greatly in favor of Missouri, we are not to blame.We begin our remarks with quoting a sentence contained in a leader of the Lutheran Standard of October 19th, 1881, entitled, “What the trouble is about,” and which is as follows: “But the leaders of the Missouri Synod, whose innovations gave rise to the controversy, accustomed to have everything their own way in the organization to which they belonged and irritated at the opposition which confronted them in this case, resorted to measures which rendered a peaceable adjustment of the difficulty impossible.” We shall not waste time in exposing what in this sentence every well-informed person knows to be a falsehood; we shall here only treat the quotation as a curiosity. For by simply changing controversy into controversies, you will have a short expression for an historical fact, viz., that the leaders of the Missouri Synod always made innovations, i. e., they brought forth something which, though thoroughly, genuinely Lutheran, was still unknown to the rest of the American Lutheran Church, thus giving rise to controversies. For illustration’s sake, let us retrace our steps some 30 or 40 years. A generation or so ago, what a pity to view the picture the so-called Lutheran Church of that time presented. The General Synod, whose congregations for the greater part had lost the language of their fathers, was what the General Synod is now, a sham without a body, nothing of the Lutheranism of Muhlenberg and his co-laborers left, no more Lutheranism about them than about the Methodist Ecumenical Council, while they were thoroughly infected by Methodism,—in a word, naught being left but the Lutheran name, even this being merely traditional. We don’t like to display everything the old so-called Lutheran periodicals disclose in that line. Surely, in the time when “the leaders of the Missouri Synod” came to be part of the Lutheran Church, there was more than one thing to mar its appearance. Look at the Lutheran churches of that time, what would you behold? All “new measure” appliances, mourners’ seats, &c., in the best [[@VolumePage:2,73]]of style; preachers hallowing at the top of their voices to bring down the Spirit; a Reformed brother to the right, a Methodist to the left, ever ready to help their brother in his arduous task; at the communion table bread and wine, and mere bread and wine, for both Lutherans and Reformed; union churches, union services, union funerals; in short, a perfect conglomerate of everything un-Lutheran. But behold, who are those bold innovators fearlessly stepping up to clear the altars of their church from these desecrations? Who are those preaching that there is no means of grace except the Word and sacraments? Who are those denouncing all syncretism without respect of persons? They are the leaders of the Missouri Synod. They were making their first “innovations,” and tireless were they in their exertions. To sustain their “innovations” they referred to the confessions of the Lutheran Church. But who knew them? Who knew the Book of Concord? Not to say anything about the laity, Lutheran ministers, the bulk of Lutheran ministers, were more ignorant about the Book of Concord than about the Chinese language, and still they claimed to know Lutheranism, and be thoroughly Lutheran. But “the leaders” of the Missouri Synod with their innovating tendency were not so easily baffled, they kept on importing copies of the Book of Concord until they had it published under their auspices; but, above all, they kept on inculcating that axiom, which to us seems so familiar and selfevident, viz., if you wish to be truly Lutheran, you have to know the Lutheran confessions and embrace the doctrine they contain. Behold the first great innovation of “the leaders” of the Missouri Synod, and the belief that this was a grand innovation, is a belief not confined to the realms of the Missouri Synod. It had a wide-felt influence, even where it is not acknowledged. It gave rise to controversy, but it was followed by victory. New measures and unionism vanished from a great many churches, and the Book of Concord ceased to be an unknown treasure.An other phase. In those old times, students ( !?) who very often had to spend the first year on very, very elementary studies, after staying and studying two years with a minister, were licensed to preach and administer the sacraments, no [[@VolumePage:2,74]]reference being taken to the scriptural fact that the license to preach ([[according to Art. XIV of the Augsburg Confession >> BookOfConcord:AC:I:XIV]]) is contained nowhere but in the call of the congregation. Then, after a year or so, they were ordained and the character indelibilis put upon them, in virtue of which they (according to the views of the German Lutheran Church of that time) remained ministers from the very moment of ordination unto their last breath, and all this in the face of the explicit statements of the [[Smalcald Articles. >> BookOfConcord:Smalcald: Power and Primacy of the Pope:67]] Finally, it was an established and approved custom for congregations to engage their ministers by the year, just as a farmer hires his hands by the season, notwithstanding synods deposed ministers; for who knew that, the right of calling a minister belonging to the congregation, it also remains with the congregation to depose their minister from that office they bestowed upon him?Then came the leaders of the Missouri Synod and in a little German paper, then appearing in a very plain garb, preached “the second series of innovations.” They gave rise to controversy and controversies. We guess, at least a part of the Ohio Synod knows a good deal about that. But what was the result of the controversies? Victory. Truth carried the day and, thanks to God, last but not least, in the very ranks of the Ohio Synod.The same was the case with reference to the lodge question. Those grand institutions, based on the principles of charity, of inter human fraternity, embracing the highest principles of morality and religion, some thirty years ago what Christian Church would be fool enough to cross their course, discourage its sheep from membership? Least of all the then Lutheran Church. Not counting a few old-school ministers, there was nobody in the Lutheran Church to oppose those societies, of whose oaths President John Quincy Adams once said a common cannibal would be ashamed. Only that little German paper took a different course. The “leaders” of the Missouri Synod gave rise to controversy, and (we may safely add) again, by the grace of God, carried the victory, and, thanks to God, last but not least, within the ranks of the Ohio Synod which has become truly Lutheran inasmuch as it is a zealous champion against secret societism. [[@VolumePage:2,75]]And thus we may, even in the present time, talk about “innovations of the leaders of the Missouri Synod,” inasmuch as they have brought forth something which, though truly Lutheran, in spite of its not being clearly seen by some of the pillars of the Lutheran Church of two centuries ago, is new to a part of the Lutheran Church of our country. In this sense, it is equal to honoring them, if anybody says they are again giving rise to controversy. And the present controversy, because it involves divine truth, will again be followed by victory even within the ranks of the Ohio Synod, in direct proportion to the number of men of piety, honesty, and principles it embraces. And even in this present time a great many more Ohio men would side with the plain truth of the Word of God and the [[XI. Article of the Formula of Concord, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi]] i. e., the newest innovation of the leaders of the Missouri Synod, if they would go by the classical principle: Amicus Plato, amicus Aristoteles, magis amica Veritas.So much for “those innovations.” Perhaps we shall, some other time, continue our comment on that long period crowded with information, i. e., if we don’t lack time and— inclination. Aug .(For the “Theological Monthly”.)Dr. M. Luther on the Christian’s Certainty of Predestination and Salvation.(Translated from [[Walch’s Ed. of Luther’s Works, II, 255—270. >> logosres:lw05;ref=VolumePage.V_5,_pp_42-46;off=27]])It is with pleasure that I here take occasion to treat of doubt—doubt concerning God and His will. For I hear it said that here and there, among those of the nobility and among other great lords, evil words are uttered and spread abroad concerning God’s predestination or foreknowledge. For they are said to speak thus: If I am predestinated I shall be saved, whether I do good or evil; but if I am not predestinated I shall be damned, notwithstanding my works.Against these wicked words I would like to write a long disputation, if my health of which I am now not very certain would allow it. For if these words were true, as they imagine, the incarnation of the Son of God, His suffering and resurrection, arid all that He did for the sake of the world’s welfare and salvation, would be entirely destroyed, and taken away by [[@VolumePage:2,76]]them. Of what use then would the prophets and the whole Sacred Scriptures be to us? Of what service were the Holy Sacraments then to us? Therefore let us just reject all this and tread it under, foot.They are devilish and poisoned darts, and it is original sin itself, whereby the devil seduced our first parents, when he said: Ye shall be as God. Gen. 3. 5. For they were not satisfied with the godhead revealed to them, by the knowledge of which they were saved persons, but they wanted to penetrate into the depth of the godhead. For they thought there must be a secret, concealed cause, why God forbade them to eat of the fruit of the tree which was in the midst of the garden; this cause they wanted to know.Just as these men at the present time also speak: What God hath predestinated must come to pass, therefore it would all be uncertain and in vain if we were much concerned about religion and the soul’s salvation. But thou art not commanded to judge thereof; for God’s sentence or judgment is unsearchable. Why dost thou doubt, or reject the faith which God hath commanded thee? For of what service was it that God sent His Son to suffer and be crucified for us; of what use was it for Him to institute the Holy Sacraments, if it is all uncertain and vain in order to our salvation? For otherwise, if any one were predestinated, he were saved without the Son and without the Sacraments or the Holy Scriptures. Therefore, according to the blasphemy of these people, God must have been amazingly foolish to send His Son, give the Law and Gospel, and send the apostles, if He only wanted us to be uncertain and doubt whether we shall be saved or damned.But this is the devil’s phantom and deception, by which he ventures to make us doubtful and unbelieving, whereas Christ hath come into this world for the purpose of making us quite certain of salvation. For this blasphemous opinion must necessarily be followed at last either by despair or by contempt of God, of the Holy Bible, of Baptism, and all divine benefits, by which it hath been His will to strengthen us, that we should by no means be uncertain of our salvation. For these blasphemers will at last say with the Epicureans: Let us live a jolly life; let us eat and drink, we must die to-morrow any way. They will wickedly and boldly fall upon their swords and cast themselves into the fire, as the Turks are wont to do, because, in their opinion, the hour hath already been appointed in which thou wilt either be knocked down and killed, or escape.But against these thoughts the true and certain knowledge of Christ must be held, as I often remind that it is above all things useful and necessary that the knowledge of God in us [[@VolumePage:2,77]]be quite certain, and that we embrace it in the heart with certainty and cling to it with firmness, else our faith will be in vain and for nothing. For if God is not sure to keep His promises, then our salvation is entirely at an end. Over against which our comfort is this: Although we are changed, He is our refuge who is not changed, but always remaineth the same. For thus He saith of Himself in the prophet Malachi, 3. 6.: “I am the Lord, I change not” [Luther: I lie not]. And St. Paul saith, Rom. 11. 29.: “The gifts and calling of God are without repentance.”Therefore I have taught in my book De Servo Arbitrio (against Erasmus), and in other places, that a distinction must be made when the knowledge of the godhead (or I would rather call it subjectum Divinitatis) is being treated of. For one must treat either de Deo abscondito, that is, of God concealed, or de Deo revelato, that is, of God revealed to us. Concerning God, as far as He is not revealed, there is no faith and no knowledge, and of such a God nothing can be known; and here we must follow the proverb: “Quae supra nos, nihil ad nos”, i. e., whatever is above us, with that we have nothing to do (we are not to trouble ourselves about it). For such thoughts as would search for something higher above or aside of the revelation of God, are real devilish thoughts, with which we can accomplish nothing else but plunge ourselves into perdition; for they, in return, hold up to us a counter-argument that is unsearchable, namely, God who is not revealed. It is much better to let God keep His decrees and mysteries secret. We need not trouble ourselves so very much about having them revealed to us.Moses, Ex. 33. 18., also desired God to let him see His face or glory; but the Lord answered him thus, [[v. 23.: >> Ex 33.23]] “Thou shalt see My back parts; but My face shall not be seen.” For this curiosity is original sin itself, by which we are driven and incited to seek a way to God by natural speculation. It is, however, a great sin, and useless, and in vain, to venture upon such a thing. For thus Christ saith, John 6. 65, 14. 6.: “No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.” Therefore, when we approach the God who hath not revealed Himself, there is no faith, no Word, or, no knowledge whatever. For it is an invisible God, whom thou wilt not make visible.Then, God hath also quite earnestly forbidden to covet the knowledge of His godhead in such a manner; just as Christ said to the apostles, Acts 1.7., when they asked Him: Lord, is it not so predestinated that at this time the kingdom of Israel shall be restored again?—“It is not for you to know the times or the seasons,” &c. Let Me, saith God, remain concealed where I have not revealed Myself to thee, or else thou [[@VolumePage:2,78]]wilt be thyself a cause of thine own perdition, just as Adam horribly fell. For the searcher of majesty will be crushed by glory.And in the beginning God, indeed, wanted to obviate this curiosity at once. For He held up to us His will and counsel, saying thus: Behold, O man, I will gloriously reveal unto thee my predestination, but not by the way of thy reason and carnal wisdom, as thou dreamest and thinkest. I will do it in this wise: I, a God, who is not revealed, will become a revealed God, and still remain the same God. I will be made man, or, I will send My Son; He shall die for thy sin and arise again from the dead; and thus I will fulfill thy desire, that thou mayest know whether thou art predestinated or not. Behold, this is my Son, hear Him, Matth. 17. 5., look at Him how He lieth in the manger and at His mother’s bosom, besides also, how He hangeth on the cross; behold what He doth, what He speaketh; there thou wilt surely apprehend Me; for Christ saith, John 14. 9.: “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.” If thou hearest Him, and art baptized in His name, and, besides, lovest His Word, then thou art surely predestinated and quite certain of thy salvation. But if thou blasphemest or despisest the Word, thou art damned; for “he that believeth not shall be damned,” Mark 16. 16.The other thoughts and ways which thy reason, or thy flesh, suggesteth to thee, thou shouldst kill. For God is hostile to them. Only let this be thy concern that thou receivest My Son, that Christ be acceptable to thee in thy heart in His birth, miracles, and cross. For here is the Book of Life, in which thou art written. And this is the only and most certain advice against this abominable disease in which men always want to keep .on searching God in His supreme Majesty, according to their speculation and high thoughts, and, in doing so, finally fall in despair or contempt of God. Now, if thou wilt flee despair, enmity and blasphemy of God, let the speculation and high thoughts concerning God concealed fly, and stop desiring and striving in vain to see (in this life) the face or glory of God, else thou wilt for ever and ever keep hanging in unbelief and damnation, and be lost. For he that doubteth believeth not, and he that believeth not will be damned.Therefore we are to be hostile to, and beware of, those shameful, evil words made use of by the Epicureans, when they say: If this must of necessity thus occur, let it occur. For God did not come down from heaven in order to render thee uncertain of predestination and to teach thee to despise the Sacraments, absolution, and other divine ordinances, yea, He hath instituted all this in order to make thee quite certain and to take away out of thy heart the great deficiency and fault— [[@VolumePage:2,79]]doubt—, so that thou mightest not only believe in the heart, but also see with bodily eyes and apprehend with the hands. Now, why dost thou reject all this and complain of not knowing whether thou art predestinated to salvation? Thou hast the Gospel, art baptized, hast absolution, art a Christian, and thou still doubtest and sayest thou dost not know whether thou believest or not, whether thou holdest it to be true what is said and preached to thee in the Word and Sacraments!But thou wilt perhaps say: “I cannot believe;” as there are many who are plagued with this affliction. And I recollect that at Torgau a poor woman came to me complaining with bitter tears that she could not believe. When I then rehearsed the articles of the Creed one by one and asked her in regard to each in particular whether she thought it was all true and that it had so occurred, or not, she answered me and said: I really take it all to be true, but I cannot believe it. That was a devilish deception. Therefore I said to her: If thou takest all this to be true, thou hast no reason for complaining about thy unbelief; for, if thou dost not doubt that the Son of God hath died for thee, thou believest surely. For believing is nothing else but taking this (to wit, that the Son of God hath died for us) to be certain, indubitable truth.(To be concluded.)General Religious Intelligence.The forcible use of a Methodist parsonage for dancing by the members of a donation party occurred recently in a country town. The minister protested against the indulgence in such amusement, but the dancing was kept up, and on the following Sunday he returned the money which had been presented to him, with the request that it be redistributed among the donors.The statements made concerning the probable departure of the Pope from Rome should be accepted with many qualifications. The notion that Pope Leo will make his future home in Canada may be readily dismissed. It is within the range of possibility that the idea has been discussed at the Vatican of organizing a great religious emigration scheme in Europe, and, under such condition, Canada might be the place chosen for a new papal state. But such a scheme was analogous to that of the now exploded Union Generale Company. By the failure of that speculative association, which had received the blessing of the Pope, not only have a large number of the clergy and the faithful among the laity lost their money, but the prestige of the church has suffered in consequence of the close connection which its prelates allowed to be built up between it and the financial company. The event must have opened the eyes of Pope Leo and his advisers, and they will wholly belie their reputation for shrewdness if, after this sorry experience, they allow the Roman Catholic church to risk its future on the success of a Canadian emigration scheme. If the Canadian colony broke down, and the Pope were compelled to return to Europe, the church of which he is the head would suffer a terrible blow. Even if the religious colony proved successful, it is questionable whether Pope Leo could carry his European influence with him [[@VolumePage:2,80]]across the Atlantic. The entire plan may be set aside as chimerical. It is not likely that Pope Leo will leave Rome unless he is forced to do so by difficulties not now anticipated. In this connection it may be said that there is a curious and apposite tradition which, it is understood, has great influence on the papal mind. On one of the roads leading from Rome is a chapel which bears the name of “Domine quo vadis?” (Lord, where goest thou?) The tradition is that St. Peter, when about to be seized by the Roman authorities, became alarmed and hurried from the capital. On the spot where the chapel now stands he met the Saviour going toward the city. To Peter’s question, “Lord, where goest thou?” the Saviour replied: “As my apostles desert my cause to save their lives, I go to Rome to be again crucified.” The tradition then goes on to say that, stung by this reproach, St. Peter turned back and met his death with a resolute heart. The chapel built in commemoration of the vision is of necessity a standing rebuke to the so-called successor of St. Peter who contemplates departing from the Holy city. Alph. “Noedtvunget Forsvar.” The first numbers of “Noedtvunget Forsvar” (Necessitated Defense) has made its appearance. For its Motto it has the words of the apostle 1 Cor. 13. 4—7. concerning charity. In “recommending itself to its readers”, this paper has the following language. “In spite of all our own infirmity it will prove to our church people, that we are wrongly attacked, that we do not teach a new Calvinistic doctrine, nor intend to introduce the same, but that our doctrine is well grounded in the holy word of God and the Confessions of our Church and is also, in all essential parts, defended by those renowned teachers of our church who have used a more recent form of doctrine without stigmatizing the older form.” In another place it says: “In publishing this paper, we do not intend to arouse strife in any place whatever, but on the contrary, to quench it wherever it has been aroused or might be aroused, as far as we believe that the truth can do so in all charity. We, therefore, do not request you to work for the circulation of our paper in such places where there is no dissension about these things. But there is one thing we do expect, viz., that every conscientious christian who reads and knows the attacks made upon us, would also hear our defense, before he passes judgment.” The paper costs 50 cents per annum (12 Numbers, each at least 16 pages) and is to be ordered from Rev. H. Halvorsen, Westby P. O., Vernon Co., Wis.” Thus the Ev. Luth. Kirket.: “We suppose that this new enterprise on the part of our Norwegian brethren among whom we have many friends, has a great claim on our support, though all we can do in that line is to warmly recommend it to all such among our clergy who understand the Norwegian language if not fully, at least to some extent. The appearance of the paper needs no apology. It is as its name says, nothing else but a “Necessitated Reply” to the semi-pelagianizing views and theories of Prof. F. A. Schmidt who some time ago, not satisfied with crypto-calvinizing and calvinizing the doctrine of the XI. Article of the Formula of Concord in “Altes und Neues”, started a new paper (Samle og Nye Viduesbyrd) with a view of disseminating his rationalizing erroristic predestination doctrine among the clergy and laity of the Norwegian synod in their vernacular tongue. Such being the circumstances, it was the sacred duty of the orthodox among the Norwegian clergy to oppose these efforts with all available means. Thus it is that they started “Necessitated Defense”, with the view of showing that “we do not teach a new, Calvinistic doctrine nor do intend to introduce the same.” We pray that the blessing of God may rest upon this new enterprise so as to let it promote the glory of God and the spiritual welfare of our fellowmen, enlightening such of our Norwegian brethren as should chance to need a little light concerning the true predestination doctrine of our Lutheran Standards. And resting ourselves on the promises of God’s Word (Is. 55.10.) we rest assured that through the instrumentality of this new periodical, many a soul will be internally convinced that, even in this point, Missouri is doing nothing new, but the very same thing it has been doing by the Grace of God, for these 30—40 years, viz., zealously defending the banner of true Old Lutheranism. Augustus. [[@VolumePage:2,81]]THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.Vol. 2. June 1882. No. 6.Quenstedt on Synergism.In the following we present to our readers those errors which according to Quenstedt have been condemned by the Lutheran Church as Synergism. We think the perusal of a representation of Synergism as given by Quenstedt will not be found void of interest at a time when those very errors which Quenstedt condemned are clandestinely, that is by a change of phraseology, disseminated among the unwary under color of the authority of Quenstedt and other dogmaticians of the Seventeenth Century, by a new race of battologists who delight in noisily proclaiming themselves the legitimate offspring of those “old heroes, their fathers.”A few remarks by way of introduction will not, perhaps, be out of place. Synergism has its roots in Pelagianism, that heresy which Luther terms “the chief heresy, which from the beginning of the world at all times has intermeddled with the pure doctrine and stuck to it like mud to a wheel, and in which the world was thoroughly drowned under the pope.” (Erl. Ed. 19, 184.) Synergism was that sacrifice of divine truth which was offered to the popish idol of Pelagianism at the time of the Interim, by faithless Lutherans for the favor of being allowed a further enjoyment of peace, property and life. But at all periods of the Church of God there will be found men who yield to this error of Synergism, it belonging to the tribute exacted of human nature by reason when it is permitted to engage in removing what appear to be “inconsistencies” in revelation. “The strife against this error,” Luther [[@VolumePage:2,82]]says ibid., “shall and must continue incessantly. We must be resigned, therefore, seeing that though some sect declines, soon many others arise so as to prevent a firm state of purity. The cause of it is this, that it is impossible for reason to submit to faith alone. If a person is to believe solely and purely because of the Word of God, the Holy Spirit must work and accomplish it in the heart, nature is incapable of doing it by its own powers.”That part of divine revelation over which Synergism spreads its bane in a direct manner, is the doctrine of Conversion. An obvious practical consequence of the destruction of the divine doctrine of conversion is that true and genuine conversion itself, and consequently eternal salvation, are impossible. According to divine revelation man, in conversion, is in a state of pure passiveness, for it is he himself, i. e., his mind, his will, that is to be converted, that is, brought into a state contrary to that which is his own, from a state of spiritual death into a state of spiritual life, from a condition in which his will is resisting the change to a condition of willing compliance. This change is, according to divine revelation, solely and wholly the work of God; man is totally excluded from this work in so far as if he exerted an influence so that he be brought into the state of conversion; both his intellect and his will are wholly and merely subjectum convertendum, wholly and merely subject to the work of the Holy Spirit.Both Pelagianism and Synergism reject this revelation on the basis of the demands of human reason. They both deny that conversion is solely and wholly the work of God; that man exerts no influence whatever in being brought into the state of conversion; that in the act of conversion man’s state is that of death changed into life; that it is not in the natural powers of man to cause the absence of resistance to the change. In the positive parts of their respective doctrines, however, they vary greatly. Nor are the Synergists of one accord in their opinions. Still they all concur in holding a co-operation of both God and man in conversion so that the Holy Ghost is not believed to be a Creator in the work of salvation, but only man’s assistant and helper. Quenstedt in his Syst. de Libero Arbitrio, Quest. II, [[@VolumePage:2,83]]Antithesis A, having enumerated among the number of those who are opposed to the true doctrine concerning the powers of man in conversion, the Pelagians, the Semipelagians, the Schoolmen, the Papists, the Jesuits in particular, the Socinians, the Arminians, the Anabaptists, the Enthusiasts and followers of Weigel: he concludes Antithesis A, as follows: .“IX. The Lutheran Synergists, who set up a synergy or co-operation on the part of both the human powers and grace in the work of conversion. For they pretend ‘that man is not entirely dead to every thing that is good in spiritual things, but that he is seriously wounded, and half dead. Wherefore, although freewill is too feeble to make the beginning, and by its own powers to convert itself to God and to be obedient to the law of God from the heart; yet, when the Holy Spirit shall have made the beginning, and called us through the Gospel, and offered us His grace, the forgiveness of sins, and eternal salvation, that then man’s freewill, by its own natural powers, is able to meet God, and to a limited extent, to contribute somewhat, though feebly, towards this conversion, to aid and cooperate, to fit and apply itself to the grace of God, to apprehend and accept the same, and to believe the gospel, and also by its own powers to co-operate with the Holy Ghost in continuing and maintaining this work;’ as the Declaration of the Formula of Concord sets forth the opinion of the Synergists pag. 677 ([[New Market Edition, p. 626 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:77]]). Cf. Epitome, pag. 581 ([[New Market Edition, p. 558 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:ii:11]]). The seeds of this Synergistic error, which proved sufficiently prolific, were sowed by Philip Melanchthon in various writings and books of his. For since both Pelagianism respecting the powers of nature in spiritual things, and Semipelagianism respecting a synergy of the human will were as by the standard plainly condemned by the [[XVIII. Article of the Augsburg Confession, >> BookOfConcord:AC:I:xviii]] he distinctly writes in the same article of the altered and adulterated Augsburg Confession, that ‘we are aided by the Holy Spirit in effecting spiritual righteousness in us.’ And again, that ‘the Holy Spirit aids our hearts in effecting internal motions.’ So we also read in the former edition of the German Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Vol. VI., Jen. fol. 474, that ‘in spiritual things freewill and intellect can do Nothing;’ and farther on, that [[@VolumePage:2,84]] ‘to be regenerated inwardly in the heart, to be renewed in mind and sense, this is Solely worked by the Holy Spirit.’ But in the corrupt edition of the German Apology we read Vol. IX, Witteb. f. 361: ‘We affirm, however, that in spiritual things freewill and reason can do nothing Alone.’ And somewhat farther on, ‘to be regenerated inwardly and to be renewed in heart and sense, to believe in, and fear, God, this is worked by the Holy Spirit.’ Here, in the first place, the exclusive particle: Solely by the Holy Spirit, which we read in the former edition, is omitted; in the second place, the negative Nothing, which in the first edition thoroughly denies to human powers all ability to act, is restricted in the later corrupt edition by the particle Alone being added, namely, that in spiritual things freewill can do nothing Alone. Every body sees that by this very method the Synergistic error is established. In the third edition of Philip’s (Melanchthon’s) Loci Communes which appeared two years after the demise of the sainted Luther, and which was inserted in the Corpus Doctrinae, there is the following definition of freewill, which the sainted Luther rebuked in Erasmus as erroneous: ‘Freewill in man is the facultas applicandi se ad gratiam (the power of adapting oneself to divine grace): that is, it hears the promise, and endeavors to give its assent, and discards sins against conscience.’ In the same place we also meet with these words, which do not obscurely confirm Synergism: ‘Thou wilt say, I cannot obey the voice of the gospel, cannot hear the Son of God, cannot acknowledge the Mediator;’ to which Philip answers: ‘Yes, indeed, thou canst in some sort, and when thou sustainest thyself by the voice of the gospel, thou ought to pray to be aided by God, &c.’ Hence Dr. Chemnitz, as Dr. Hutter relates in his exposition of the Formula of Concord, Article II. of Freewill, pag. 231 margin, expressed himself somewhere in these words: ‘Der Heilige Geist ist Philippo nur ein Mithelfer’ (according to Philip the Holy Spirit is only a worker together with us). In his Examen Ordinand, in the article on Freewill he laid down three causes of conversion, saying: ‘In conversion [[@VolumePage:2,85]]these causes concur: the Word of God, the Holy Spirit who is sent by the Father and the Son to incite our hearts, and our will when assenting to and not resisting the Word of God.’ “The footsteps of Philip Melanchthon were afterwards stubbornly followed, and the idol of Synergism daubed, by Dr. Johann Pfeffinger, inasmuch as he in the year 1555 at Leipsic proposed a disputation concerning Freewill, in which he in thesis 13. asserted three causes of conversion, declaring them to be co-operative: namely, ‘the Holy Spirit who moves through the Word, the human mind which cogitates, and the will which obeys the Holy Spirit when He is moving it, and petitions God’s aid.’ In his 12th proposition he says: ‘Men, before they receive the Holy Spirit, already have the power not to despise God, they have the power to assent to Him, indeed even with sighs implore God’s aid.’ Dr. Georg Major also professed a co-operation of unregenerated man with the Holy Spirit and the Word of God in man’s conversion to God. For in his Homilies on the Epistles for Sundays, pag. 233, he condemns that sentence which the sainted Luther had contended for in his book concerning Freewill against Erasmus, ‘as a diabolic madness, that man in conversion brings to the actions of God a nature resisting up to the time at which the Holy Ghost through the Word corrects that evil nature and renders willing the unwilling.’ He also asserts ‘that the faculty of discerning and choosing things is, indeed, most sadly disturbed and disordered; still there is some liberty left for judgment and choice, and that the Son of God heals these wounds in our mangled and disordered nature, and aids it by the Holy Spirit through the Word.’ Finally Victorinus Strigel, at first professor at the university of Jena, then of Leipsic, and lastly of Heidelberg, arose as the chief defender of this error. Partly in his two Declarations and in his Commentary on the Psalms, partly however and principally in the Disputation concerning this article instituted between him and Matthias Flacius Illyricus at Weimar in the year 1560, he by mouth and in writing defended this proposition ‘that there was still left to man before his regeneration so much of natural power that he is able in some manner, though indeed feebly, to prepare himself for the grace of God, to apply it to himself, [[@VolumePage:2,86]]and to assent to the divine promises.’ He also asserted that there were three efficient causes of conversion, God, the Word, and the Will of man. In that same time, namely, about the year 63 of the preceding century, Dr. Johannes St?ssel, then professor of theology and superintendent at Jena, who afterwards, having become a base apostate, went over to the camp of the Calvinists, undertook the defence of Synergism for Strigel, maintaining that ‘the will and intellect of man are a joint or secondary cause of our conversion.’ In consequence thereof a great number of pious pastors in Thuringia, who did not assent to the figments of the Pelagianism of Victorinus and St?ssel, were removed from office. The history of the Synergists may be read in Schlusselburg’s seventh book of the Catalogue of Heretics. Compare also the Confession of Mansfeld and Gera, Heshusius on Freewill, Wigand, and others.”“X. The modern errorists, who also maintain that freewill, when incited by the Holy Spirit, may co-operate with Him in the act of conversion. For Dr. Conrad Hornejus, part II, Disputat. Theol. Disput. Ill, Sectio I, § 45, thus expresses himself: ‘Our will, therefore, becomes a worker together with God, that is, it co-operates with divine grace, not only when man already converted, regenerated and justified increases in faith and love, and performs the works of piety through justifying and inhabiting grace, but also when through the aid of prevenient, preparing and assisting grace he is converted to God and justified at first.’—Dr. Dreyerus in his Praelection. super 1 Cor. XV. 10. hesitated not to publicly defend the following subjects: ‘Natural liberty is facilitated through spiritual grace coming upon it; both natural and spiritual powers concur in man’s conversion.; In his Er?rterung (disquisition) pag. 647, he says: ‘Es ist wohl in Acht zu nehmen, dass wir wirken k?nnen und sollen, nicht nur, wenn der Heilige Geist die ganze Bekehrung schon vollendet hat, sondern wenn er die Wiedergeburt und Erneuerung [conversion he had called it before] nur angefangen hat.’ (We must well observe that we are able to operate, and ought to operate, not only when the Holy Spirit has accomplished our whole conversion, but when he has only commenced our regeneration and renewing [conversion he had called it before].)—Johannes Laterman in his [[@VolumePage:2,87]]exercises concerning Predestination, performed at Helmst?dt under the presidency of Dr. G. Calixt, advanced the following paradoxes, thes. 32.: ‘That the grace of God is offered in order that by its being offered it might be in man’s power to execute through this grace all the things necessary to his conversion and salvation, and in case he should be willing to yield to his depravity, not to execute them: we now demonstrate in this manner, &c.’ Again he says, thes. 33.: ‘All men are able to convert themselves in case they are willing.’ And thes. 34.: ‘It is in the power of man to be willing to convert himself, and to be not willing to convert himself.’ Thes. 35.: ‘Man converts himself freely, &c.’ And finally, thes. 42.: ‘If it be conceded that (divine) exhortations are not for nothing, as indeed they are not, every thing at once will depend upon the cooperation of man, that is, upon man who, by the power of grace, operates freely, believes freely, perseveres freely.’ The theologians at Strassburg in their judgment concerning the words and deeds of Joh. Laterman, pag. 8, comment on the above quoted words of Joh. Laterman in this manner: 1. He asserts nothing that has not been asserted and maintained also by Bellarmin, Greg. de Valentia, Becanus, Tanner, and others, who were nevertheless with great unanimity pronounced guilty of Pelagianism or Semipelagianism by the theologians. 2. He asserts nothing that has not been asserted by the Synergists. For they aim added the benefit of grace, and in the plainest manner protested: ‘We put the will as prepared by the Lord, and assert that as such it freely converts itself to God, not in the sense as if the free will of man did so by its own powers, but that by the power of grace divinely bestowed upon it, this will converts itself in such manner as to be able also not to convert itself.’ This could be proved (the Strassburg theologians continue) by a great many testimonies of Victor Strigel’s, if it were not perfectly known to everybody.—Compare Dr. Calov’s Harmonia Calixtino-Papistic., cap. V, de Conversion, § XVI.” [[@VolumePage:2,88]](For the “Theological Monthly”.)Dr. M. Luther on the Christian’s Certainty of Predestination and Salvation.(Translated from [[Walch’s Ed. of Luther’s Works, II, 255—270. >> logosres:lw05;ref=VolumePage.V_5,_pp_46-51;off=8760]]) (Concluded.)God saith to thee: Behold, there thou hast My Son, hear Him and receive Him; if thou doest that, thou art now already certain of thy faith and thy salvation. Yes, sayest thou, but I do not know whether I can abide in faith. Oh, then accept the present promise and predestination, and take care lest thou curiously and too closely search into the secret decrees of God. If thou believest in the revealed God, and receives His word, by and by the concealed God will also be revealed to thee. For Christ saith, John 14. 9.: “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.” But he that rejecteth the Son, loseth with the revealed God the concealed God, also, who hath not revealed Himself. But if thou, with a firm faith, adherest to the revealed God in such a manner, that thou art so disposed in thy heart that thou wouldst not lose Christ, even if thou shouldst be robbed of everything else that thou hast: thou art surely predestinated and wilt understand the concealed God, yea, thou now understandest Him already; if thou knowest the Son and knowest that He will reveal Himself unto thee and be thy Lord and Saviour, thou art certain that God will also be thy Lord and thy Father.Behold, in how friendly and gracious a manner God delivereth thee from this abominable affliction, which Satan is making use of with force beyond measure at the present time, in order to render the people doubtful and uncertain and finally also to turn them away from God’s Word altogether. For why wouldst thou hear the Gospel, the Epicureans say, as all depends upon predestination? Thus Satan forcibly taketh predestination away from us, of which we are assured by the Son of God and by the Holy Sacraments, and maketh us uncertain, whilst we were quite certain before. And when he attacketh the poor, terrified consciences with this affliction, they die away in despair; just as it also would almost have happened to me, if Dr. Staupitz had not liberated me, as I had the very same affliction. But if they who are thus afflicted be despisers, they become the most wicked and shameless Epicureans.Therefore we must much rather conceive the meaning of these passages in our hearts, as, when Christ saith, John 6. 44.: [[@VolumePage:2,89]] “No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him.” But by whom doth He draw him? Answer: By Me. For “he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.” And to Moses God saith, Ex. 33. 20.: “Thou canst not see My face: for there shall no man see Me and live.” Again, in the [[Acts of the Apostles, 1.7., >> Acts 1.7]] Christ saith to the disciples: “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power,” but go ye and do what I have commanded you. Again, [[Sirach saith, 3. 21—23.: >> Sir 3.21-23]] “Seek not out the things that are too hard for thee, neither search the things that are above thy strength. But what is commanded thee, think thereupon with reverence; for it is not needful for thee to see with thine eyes the things that are in secret. Be not curious in unnecessary matters: for more things are shewed unto thee than men understand.” God saith: Hear My Son who hath been made man, then predestination will come, of itself.Dr. Staupitz comforted me with these words: Why dost thou thus torment thyself with these speculations and high thoughts? Look thou at the wounds of Christ and at His blood which He hath shed for thee; out of them God’s predestination will shine forth unto thee. Therefore, the Son of God must be heard, who was sent in the flesh, became man, and was manifested, that He might destroy this work of the devil (1 John 3. 8.), and render thee certain of predestination. And therefore He also saith to thee: Thou art My sheep, for thou hearest My voice, and no one will pluck thee out of My hand. John 10. 28.There are many who have not resisted this affliction in this manner, and have been precipitated into perdition and eternal damnation. The hearts of godly-minded persons must, therefore, be strengthened diligently, that they may always be prepared for this affliction. Thus a hermit, in “vitis patrum,” admonished his hearers to avoid and abstain from such speculations and high thoughts; and said: If thou seest that any one hath put his foot into heaven, draw it back again. For thus the saints or Christians who are yet novices, are wont to think of God outside of Christ; and it is these who dare to climb up into heaven and put both feet there; but they are soon cast down and sunk into hell.The godly-minded should, therefore, be on their guard and endeavor only to learn to cleave to Jesus, the Child and Son of God, who is thy God and became man for thy sake: thou shalt know and hear Him, delight also in Him and thank Him. If thou hast Him, thou also hast the concealed God together with the one revealed. And this is the only way, the [[@VolumePage:2,90]]truth, and the life; outside of this way, truth, and life, thou wilt find nothing but perdition, damnation, and death.Therefore He hath manifested Himself in the flesh in order to release and redeem us from death, from the flesh, and from the devil’s power. Out of such knowledge must surely come great joy and pleasure at this, that God is immutable, and that He worketh according to immutable necessity, and cannot deny Himself, but faithfully keepeth His promises.Therefore we are not free to occupy ourselves with such high thoughts, and doubt of predestination; but those thoughts are godless, wicked and devilish. Hence, if the devil afflict thee with them, say thou only: I believe in Jesus Christ, our Lord, who I doubt not hath been made man, suffered and died for me, in whose death I am baptized. At this answer the affliction will vanish and Satan will turn his back to thee. As I have in other places often related the remarkable example of a nun, who also had the very same affliction. For under popery there were also many godly-minded persons, who felt these spiritual afflictions, which are real devilish thoughts, and thoughts of the damned; for there is no difference between a doubter and a damned person. Therefore, as often as that nun felt that she was attacked with the fiery darts of Satan, she said nothing else but: I am a Christian.So we must also do over against him. One must abstain from disputing, and say: I am a Christian, that is, the Son of God was made man and born into this world, He hath redeemed me, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and is my Saviour. In this manner drive the devil away from thee with as few words as thou canst, and say: “Get thee hence, Satan,” Matth. 4. 10., cause me no doubt: the Son of God is come into this world to destroy thy work and doubt. Then the affliction ceases and the heart returns to the peace, rest and love of God.To doubt of the will of any man, is no sin, as Isaac doubted whether he would remain alive, or, whether he would have a pious host. Of a man I may and shall doubt; for he is not my Saviour. And in the [[146th Psalm, v. 3, >> Ps 146.3]] it is written: “Put not your trust in princes.” For “all men are liars,” Ps. 116. 11., and cannot help. But with God one cannot thus deal in doubt. For He will, and can, not be mutable or a liar; but the highest service of God which He required and will have is, that thou esteem Him true. For on that account He hath given such powerful evidences and tokens of His truth and that with Him all things are quite certain. He hath given His Son to be made flesh and to die, and, in addition thereto, hath instituted the Sacraments, in order that thou shouldest know He is no liar, but true. [[@VolumePage:2,91]]And this He proves and confirms, not with spiritual, but with comprehensible arguments and tokens. For I see the water (in Baptism); I see the bread and wine (in the Holy Supper); I see the minister of the Word: which all are bodily, indeed; in which bodily figures or images He revealeth Himself. When one must deal with men, he may doubt what and to what extent he is to believe and how others may be affected towards him; but, concerning God, thou shalt hold it to be certain and indubitable that He is gracious unto thee for Christ’s sake and that thou art redeemed and made holy by the precious blood of the Son of God; and thus thou wilt also be certain of thy predestination; thou wilt relinquish all curious and dangerous questions, concerning God’s secret decrees, to which the devil ventures to lead thee, as He led and brought Adam, our first father, to them.O how great would his salvation have been on the other hand, had he diligently kept God’s Word before his eyes and eaten of all the trees with the exception of the only one of which he was forbidden to eat! But he wanted to search out what God had meant by the command not to use, and eat of, that one only tree. Besides, Satan, the roguish master, came, who augmented and aided the curiosity. Thus Adam was plunged into sin and death.God revealeth unto us His will through Christ and the Gospel. But this we despise and, following Adam’s example, we also covet the forbidden tree above all other trees. This fault we all have by nature. When paradise and heaven is closed, and the angel is placed there to keep it, we venture in vain to get into it. For Christ hath rightly said, John 1. 18.: “No man hath seen God at any time.” And yet, God hath revealed Himself unto us from unmeasurable grace, to fulfill and satisfy our desire. He hath placed before us a visible image, and saith: See, there thou hast My Son; he who heareth Him and is baptized, is written in the Book of Life; this I reveal to thee through My Son, whom thou canst apprehend with the hands and see with the eyes.This I have wanted to say by way of admonition with diligence. For, after my death, many will produce my books and quote from them, and endeavor to prove from and confirm by, them all kinds of errors and their own fancies. Now I wrote, among other things, that everything is, and must come to pass, of necessity; but I also, at the same time, added that the God who hath revealed Himself shall be looked at; as we sing in the [[45th Psalm: >> Ps 45]] He is called Jesus Christ, the Lord of hosts, and there is no other God; and in many other places. But they will pass by all these places and accept those only in which the concealed God is treated of. [[@VolumePage:2,92]]Therefore think of it, ye who hear me now, that I have taught this, to wit, that the predestination of the concealed God shall not be searched for, but that we shall be satisfied with the predestination that is revealed through the call and the office of preaching. For there thou canst become certain of thy faith and salvation, and say: I believe on the Son of God who hath said: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life;” therefore, no damnation or wrath, but God the Father’s pleasure is on him. And the very same have I also publicly taught in my other books, and teach it now yet with a living voice. I will therefore be excused. (Of the year 1545. Translated by C. S. K.)(For the “Theological Monthly”.)THE BOOK OF CONCORD; or, the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.Translated from the Original Languages, with Notes. By Henry E. Jacobs, D.D., Franklin Professor of the Greek Language and Literature in Pennsylvania College, Gettysburg, Pa. (A new translation.)This translation is no reliable one, as it does not give the exact sense of the original. In order not to be too lengthy, the writer of this will substantiate this judgement by showing especially how some words, clauses and whole sentences contained in the Declaration of the second article of the Formula of Concord have been translated. “Allersinnreichsten” (Latin: “ingenlosissimi”), [[§ 9, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:9]] is translated “most able”; “die gefallene b?se Geister in Ewigkeit verworfen (in aeternum abjecerit)”, [[§ 22, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:22]] “eternally casts away the fallen evil spirits”; “der Mensch durch den Heiligen Geist… gezogen wird”, [[§ 24, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:24]] “man is… led by the Holy Ghost”; “Block oder Ton”, [[§ 24, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:24]] “block of clay”; “das wirket (opus est) allein der Heilige Geist”, [[§ 26, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:26]] “this only the Holy Ghost effects”; “für sich selbst (ex sese) mitzuwirken”, [[§ 32, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:32]] “for itself co-operating”; “Denn vorhin, ehe wir dazu, zur christlichen Kirche, kommen (sind), sind wir gar (penitus) des Teufels gewesen”, [[§ 37, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:37]] “for formerly, before we had attained to this, we were of the devil”; “und es (das Gute) ihnen liebet (eoque delectentur)”, [[§ 39, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:39]] “and love it (what is good)”; “steht also (sic) geschrieben”, [[§40, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:40]] “it is also written”; “bei ihm (Christo) erhalten werden”, [[§42, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:42]] “upheld in him”; “unsern freien Willen preisen (praedicant)”, [[§43, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:43]] “extol our free will”; “da? der Mensch verblendet und gefangen allein des Teufels Willen… thue”, [[§44, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:44]] “that man is blinded and held captive, to do only the devil’s will”; “ist (est) kein Gedanken”, [[§44, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:44]] “the thought… cannot arise”; “Sache”, [[§44, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:44]] “position”; “verdammt werde”, [[§49, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:49]] “perish”; “von seinem ewigen Sohn”, [[§50, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:50]] “of his dear Son”; “in das Herz gegeben”, [[§54, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:54]] “given to the heart”; “in der Finsternis seines Unglaubens stecken und verderben l?sset”, [[§58, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:58]] “he be allowed to remain in the darkness of his unbelief and to parish”; “in diesem Fall mag man wohl sagen”, [[§59, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:59]] “in this respect it might well be said”; “widerstrebt dem nicht, der ihn bewegt”, [[§59, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:59]] “does not resist that which moves it”; “die Wiedergeburt (regeneratio) nicht vollkommen, sondern in uns allein angefangen”, [[§68, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:68]] “the new birth is not complete, but only begun in us”; “in wahrhaftige (vera) Bekehrung”, [[§70, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:70]] “in genuine conversion”; “Gott… uns zuvorkomme”, [[§71, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:71]] “God…comes first to us”; “gottselig (pietatis)”, [[§71, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:71]] “divine”; “k?nnen nun auch zum letzten die eingefallenen Fragen…geurteilt…werden”, [[§73, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:73]] [[@VolumePage:2,93]]“we can now judge also with respect to the last of the questions”; “allerdings (prorsus)”, [[§ 77, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:77]] “absolutely”; “da? da keine Bekehrung geschehe (fieri)”, [[§ 83, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:83]] “there no conversion has occurred”; “annehmen (apprehendere)”, [[§ 83, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:83]] “receive”; “lasset allein Gott in ihm (in ipsa” sc. voluntate) “wirken”, [[§ 90, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:90]] “allows God alone to work in him”.The incorrectness of the translation in these examples, becomes obvious as soon as what is here given in English is translated back again into the German. Yet, some may be of the opinion that as a translation will seldom come up to the original in every respect, it is nothing else but syllable-hunting when such faults as the above are here shown. But this is not the case. “Amid all the misunderstandings and errors which have prevailed”, as B. M. Schmucker, D. D., lately expressed himself in the Lutheran (No. 1074) in regard to the new translation, “there is great need of clear, precise, unmistakable utterance on the part of the confessing Church.” It is more or less, in every case, a misrepresentation of the Lutheran confession if its exact sense is not retained in a translation. By enlarging upon some of the examples given above we hope to be able to snow a little more clearly what importance is attached to this matter. It is said above that “ist (est) kein Gedanken”, [[§ 44, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:44]] is translated “the thought… cannot arise.” The whole sentence, in the original, in which these words occur, reads as follows: “Darum ist hier kein Mitwirken unsers Willens in der Bekehrung des Menschen, und mu? der Mensch gezogen und aus Gott neu geboren werden; sonst ist kein Gedanke in unsern Herzen, der sich zu dem heiligen Evangelio, dasselbe anzunehmen, von sich selbst wenden m?chte.” The new translation says: “Therefore here there is no co-operation of our will in the conversion of man, and man must be drawn and be born anew of God; otherwise the thought of turning one’s self to the Holy Gospel for the purpose of accepting it cannot arise in our hearts.” According to this translation the Formula of Concord seems to imply (especially as the words “von sich selbst” have been omitted in the translation) that if man be drawn and born anew of God, the thought of turning one’s self to the holy Gospel for the purpose of accepting it can, indeed, arise in our hearts, as, it is here said, otherwise this thought cannot arise in our hearts. But, according to what the Formula of Concord teaches in other places, concerning man’s conversion, the thought of turning one’s self to the Gospel for the purpose of accepting it cannot even then “arise” in the heart when man is drawn and born anew of God, there being nothing in the heart from which it could possibly “arise”. Then, indeed, the thought of turning one’s self is there, but it is put there by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel. By the use of the word “arise” instead of “is” in this place, “the utterance on the part of the confessing Church” is made to be neither “clear”, nor “precise”, nor “unmistakable”. Another example. It is said above that in [[§ 58 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:58]] the word “l?sset” is translated “he be allowed”. In the original we have the following sentence: “Da aber ein solcher Mensch Verachtet des Heiligen Geistes Werkzeug und will nicht h?ren, so geschieht ihm nicht unrecht, wenn der Heilige Geist ihn nicht erleuchtet, sondern in der Finsternis seines Unglaubens stecken und verderben l?sset, davon geschrieben steht: Wie oft habe ich deine Kinder versammeln wollen, wie eine Henne versammelt ihre Jungen unter ihre Flügel, und ihr habt nicht gewollt. Matth. 23.” The new translation has this instead: “But where such a man despises the instrument of the Holy Ghost, and will not hear, no injustice befalls him if the Holy Ghost do not enlighten him, but he be allowed to remain in the darkness of his unbelief, and to perish; for of this is written (Matth. 23. 37.): ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!’” By this translation our confession is made to say that God allows some men to remain and perish in the darkness of their unbelief. “L?sset” in the German does not always signify as much as “allows”. The proof-text here quoted plainly shows that one is not allowed by God to remain or perish in unbelief, but that Christ, moreover, rebukes the Jews for so doing. A third example. It is said above that “L?sset allein Gott in ihm (in ipsa” sc. voluntate = in the will) “wirken”, [[§ 90, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:90]] is translated “allows God alone to work in him” (?). Here Melanchthon’s error that the Word of God, the Holy Ghost and the will of man concur in man’s conversion, is, to a certain extent, approved of in the translation. The Formula of Concord says in the original: “Zu welchem Werk des Menschen Wille, so bekehrt soll [[@VolumePage:2,94]] werden, nichts thut, sondern l?sset allein Gott in ihm (in ipsa) wirken, bis er wiedergeboren.” The translation: “for which work the will of man who is to be converted does nothing, but allows God alone to work in him, until he is regenerate.” If the will of man allows God alone to work in it (the will), until it is regenerated (i. e. before regeneration), it is obvious that it thereby concurs in its own conversion. What more must it do than allow the same in order to concur? But then its enmity before conversion is not really “widersp?nstig” ([[cf. § 22 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii.22]]), and the Formula of Concord is wrong in saying in the same breath, as it were, according to the new translation: “The understanding and will of the unregenerate man are nothing else than the subjectum convertendum, i. e. that which is to be converted, as the understanding and will of a spiritually dead man, in whom the Holy Ghost works conversion and renewal”; for our confession then proceeds by saying, according to the faulty translation: “for which work” &c. Did Lazarus while he was dead allow Christ alone to work in him until he was made alive? Surely not. Why? Because he was dead until Christ made him alive. Indeed, if the Formula of Concord contained the idea that the will of man allows God alone to work in him (or: it) until he is regenerated, or spiritually brought to life, it would not give to God the honor of His being our sole converter, and would deserve the flames. But, thanks be to God, it is not so. “L?sset allein” in the sentence quoted last, is only translated “patitur” (suffers) in the Latin edition, because “allein”, grammatically, belongs, not to “Gott”, but to “l?sset”, and both express one idea. Therefore “l?sset allein” is here as much as “leidet” or suffers, so that our pious fathers here again say what they had said before, to wit, that before regeneration the will of man does nothing, but suffers God’s working in it, until it is regenerated.The second article before us has not been preserved complete in the translation. Among the several omissions we find the very important one: that man is by nature “des Teufels Gefangener, davon er getrieben wird”. [[§ 7. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:7]]Further. In the translation we find to desire, to wish, to be willing for the German wollen. “Wie und durch was Mittel der Heilige Geist in uns kr?ftig sein und wahre Bu?e wirken und geben wolle (velit)”, [[§ 48, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:48]] is translated: “How and through what means the Holy Ghost is efficacious in us, and is willing to work and bestow (?)… true repentance.” “Und will Gott… die Menschen zur ewigen Seligkeit berufen, [[§ 50, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:50]] is translated: “God desires to call men to eternal salvation.” “Durch welche er kr?ftig wirken… will”, [[§ 52, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:52]] “through which he desires to work efficaciously.” “Welchen er bekehren will (quem convertere decrevit)”, [[§ 60, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:60]] is translated: “Whom he wishes to convert.” “Daburch der Heilige Geist solches Bekehrung… in uns wirken… will (vult)”, [[§ 71, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:71]] is translated: “Whereby the Holy Ghost desires to work… in us this conversion.” “Dadurch der Heilige Geist solches anfangen und wirken will (vult)”, [[§ 72, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:72]] is translated: “Whereby the Holy Ghost desires to begin and work this.”Again. When the Formula of Concord says our nature and will are “widersp?nstig (rebellavit, contumaci natura)” before regeneration, [[§ 18, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:18]] the translation only says they are “perverse,” and when the Formula of Concord declares the enmity of our nature before regeneration to be “widersp?nstig”, [[§ 22, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:22]] the translation again only pronounces it to be “perverse.” For: “Und aus einem widersp?nstigen Willen ein gehorsamer Wille wird”, [[§ 60, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:60]] we have in the translation: “His will, in place of perverse, becomes obedient.” In another place, [[§ 24, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:24]] “widersp?nstig (rebellis)” is translated “rebellious.” In [[§ 60 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:60]] “widersp?nstig (rebellis)” is again translated “perverse.” Then, when the Formula of Concord says: “Und zwar alle die, so des Heiligen Geistes Wirkungen und Bewegungen, die durchs Wort geschehen, widersp?nstig, beharrlich (contumaciter et perseveranter) widerstreben, die empfahen nicht… den Heiligen Geist”, [[§ 83, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:83]] the translation runs thus: “And indeed all those who obstinately and persistently (?) resist the operations and movements” (in [[§ 89 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:89]] we find “emotion” for “Bewegung”) “of the Holy Ghost, which take place through the Word, do not receive… the Holy Ghost.” Again, where the Formula of Concord says: “Nun bleibet gleichwohl auch in den Wiedergebornen eine Widersp?nstigkeit (rebellio quaedam),” [[§84, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:84]] the translation has: “There remains, nevertheless, also in the regenerate a refractoriness.” Again, in [[§ 88, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:88]] the “Widersp?nstigen” (rebelles) are “stubborn.”It is evident that, partly, it was not the Doctor’s intention to give to the public a strictly literal translation of the Book of Concord, partly, that he [[@VolumePage:2,95]]was not quite master of the situation. The Declaration of the second article of the Formula of Concord comprises just 19 pages, say a little over one thirtieth part of the whole work. The old New Market (Henkel and Bros.’) edition of the Book of Concord (of the year 1854) contains exact translations of the majority of the words and passages translated wrong by Dr. Jacobs in the Declaration of the second article before us, and is decidedly preferable to the new one in this article, at least. It, for instance, translates the omitted words spoken of above, as follows: He, man, is “the captive of Satan, by whom he is led.” The old translation of the whole Declaration of the Formula of Concord bears witness throughout that Rev. J. R. Moser, the translator of this part of the Lutheran symbols, did all in his power, in all Christian simplicity and with Lutheran devoutness, to give the exact sense of the original in as literal a translation as possible, although he was not always successful; but the new translation does not make this impression. It seems as if it had been prepared in another spirit and for sectional purposes.It will certainly not be uninteresting to the reader to hear B. M. Schmucker, D. D.’s, opinion on the Apology of the Augsburg Confession in its new English dress. Having corrected “a few mistakes” occurring “in the signatures to the Smalcald Articles” and “to the Appendix,” he writes, among other things, the following in the number of the Lutheran referred to above: “In the examination of the Apology an interesting question has arisen. Both the German and Latin texts have symbolical authority, and yet they differ from each other so much that they may almost claim both to be originals. The Latin is the original of the author, Melanchthon, and therefore has rightly (?) been taken by Dr. Jacobs. But the German is so much fuller that it is not a mere translation, but to an important extent a new work on the same topics. It was prepared by Jonas with the co-operation of Melanchthon himself… While the concise, precise statements of Melanchthon may suffice for the exact scholar, the fuller statements of Jonas are so admirable and add so much of value to the original that we are sorry to miss them in so complete (?) an edition of the Confessions.”Luther’s Large Catechism which “was translated,” as the Editor of the new translation says in the preface, “for this work by Rev. A. Martin, Professor of the German Language and Literature in Pennsylvania College,” and which has been compared in many places by the writer, is a much better translation throughout, although it has also been adorned with some odious features on account of which orthodox and intelligent Lutherans cannot adopt it. They may, however, be owing, to some extent, to the fact that “some changes have been made” in it “to conform it as nearly as possible to the plan of translation adopted (by the Editor) in the rest of the volume,” as is said in the preface.The new translation of the whole Book of Concord is recommended in the Lutheran by Dr. Krotel, the editor of this church paper, in these words: “While those members of our church who are familiar with the English language only, have had the New Market translation, referred to above, and have had great reason to be thankful to the publishers and translators of that volume,—they cannot fail to welcome this new volume, containing the same noble Confessions, and presented to them in a form which was not within the reach of the publishers of 1854…The reputation of Dr. Jacobs as a scholar And translator is so great, and deservedly so, that we are confident, before attempting an examination of the pages before us, that this edition will be looked upon as the Standard edition… The Editor and Publisher… have rendered a most acceptable service to the church, and we trust that it will meet with general recognition, and that too in the most substantial form.” No. 1070. To which, for conscience sake, we must reply: Quod non!We are now no better off than we were before, worse rather. For we now have two English translations of the Book of Concord which do not supply the Church’s present wants as they should. That is a burden! It is surprising and deplorable, that as yet our Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Church of the Reformation, the true visible Church of God on earth, the Church of the pure Word and unadulterated Sacraments, the real Mission Church — has no exact and reliable English translation of her precious Symbols! C. S. K. [[@VolumePage:2,96]]Literature.The Lutheran Witness, published semi-monthly under the auspices of the Cleveland District Conference, and devoted to the interests of the Joint Synod of Missouri and its friends. C. A. Frank, Editor. $1.00 per year in advance. All communications to be addressed to “The Lutheran Witness,” 16 Harvey St., Zanesville, O.It is with sincere joy and satisfaction that we find occasion to announce the appearance of this new periodical. We are convinced that it will not be slow in gaining readers who will consider each of its successive numbers a welcome guest in their homes. For it is the earnest purpose of those who have by a sense of sacred duty been prompted to send it forth, to have its work faithfully performed, which work is no other than the offering of aid in the knowledge of the precious truths of the everlasting gospel which never fails to impart new heavenly light, joy and peace to those who are willing to receive it in its original divine purity. A work like this, however, must entirely fail of its desired object unless it be favored with God’s gracious help. And since it is His divine will that we shall supplicate the gifts of grace He intends to bestow, lest they be unknown and unheeded, we desire all those of our readers who wish well to the affairs of our Lutheran church to unite with us in petitioning God to grant His blessings to this undertaking, that this Witness may ever be found faithful in the service it is to perform, that it may be strengthened and supported in its wants, continually increase in usefulness, have the field of its labors more and more widened, and effectually assist our church in bringing forth much fruit which shall remain.General Religious Intelligence.A Sect called the “New Israel” has arisen among the Jews of Russia. It abandons circumcision, abstinence from certain viands, changes the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week and abolishes usury.“Le Temoin,” the organ of the Waldenses, shows that an earnest, intelligent, and even learned Protestantism is advancing in Italy. A new evangelical chapel has been established at Florence, which, with the residence and garden, becomes the property of the Vaudois by virtue of an act of sale registered. The evangelical Protestants own now no fewer than seven places of worship, without reckoning those possessed by foreign Protestants. The pastors of all these churches are spoken of in very high terms, with reference especially to their good knowledge of the Scripture. Alph. The summaries of the Roman Catholic church in the United States for 1881 show some growth in that church during the year. There were 75 prelates, an increase of 6; 6366 priests, a decrease of 64; 1532 ecclesiastical students, an increase of 362; 5975 churches, an increase of 119; 1145 chapels, an increase of 184; 1568 stations, a decrease of 155; 79 colleges and 513 academies; 2476 parochial schools with 399,188 scholars, a decrease of 24,195; 248 asylums; 126 hospitals; and 6,370,858 Catholic population, a gain of about 3,500. [[@VolumePage:2,97]]THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.Vol. 2. July 1882. No. 7.(For the “Theological Monthly”.)Investigation of the Causes producing the Decline of Orthodoxy.It is an open fact that orthodoxy is on the decline. It has been on the decline for more than a century. Even the words “orthodoxy” and “orthodox” have lost their full import. As long as a Church holds to the doctrine of salvation through Christ Jesus, as long as it thus has a good claim to be called Christian, as long as it is not Mormon, Spiritualistic, Unitarian, Universalist, Swedenborgian, &c., it is still considered an “orthodox” Church. This is a deplorable sign of our times. Such views were not in vogue in the golden age of Lutheranism, nor will they be cherished by true confessional Lutherans of our days. We will not let ourselves be swept away by the tide of our times, by the popular indifferentistic views of our era. For, “we ought to obey God rather than men.” We will not give ourselves up to popular theories and love of popularity in preference to divine revelation which is by no means in favor of indifferentism. By the grace of God, we shall oppose the progress of syncretism in its old and newest forms. We shall work against the decline of orthodoxy whenever and in whatever way we may be able to do so. This is our duty.This is also the object of this essay. We shall show that the reasons why a great many are opposed to orthodoxy are futile, and that, at the same time, most of those who are affected by syncretistic views, are so because they, in a manner, permit themselves to be products of our age. In short, we shall try to present to our readers an investigation of the causes, producing the decline of orthodoxy. [[@VolumePage:2,98]]The causes of declining orthodoxy can safely be divided into ideal and real causes. The former exist merely in the mind of men. They are made up of unscriptural opinions, unhistorical views and illogical reasoning. One of these so-called causes (for in reality they are no causes) is the theory that orthodoxy, like scholasticism and orthodoxism, will be the cause of spiritual death.Such as hold this hypothesis as a basis upon which to wage war against orthodoxy, claim that a sure attendant upon orthodoxy is spiritual death. To strengthen their position, they will say that orthodoxy is very nearly essentially of the same nature as scholasticism and orthodoxism, and, therefore, will have the same or at least a similar effect, viz., spiritual death.—But this is a wrong supposition. Scholasticism and orthodoxism on the one hand, and orthodoxy on the other hand are essentially differing. For proof’s sake we shall compare each of the former with that orthodoxy now on the decline.—We openly confess we see the faults of Scholasticism as well as the indifferentistic opponents of orthodoxy. Still we do not concur with the bulk of modern theologians, leaving to the scholastics hardly any merit whatever. We can not but give them credit for making at least a good start towards setting forth theology in systematic order, in the general anatyzing division into Theology proper, Anthropology, and Soterology, or, as the old Latin standards have it, finis, subjectum et media salutis. That this is a real and noteworthy merit will be acknowledged by all who are not satisfied with [[@VolumePage:2,99]]superficial, unsatisfactory vague, lecture-like sketches of dogmatics, though they will not, on that account, fail to see that this method has its disadvantages as well as all other methods. At the same time we are convinced that scholastical theology, in general, was, in some respects, a mere parody of that true orthodoxy which we advocate against the noisy claims of the indifferentism now so greatly prevailing. It was more a philosophy, dealing in matters theological, thus being to a certain degree a counterpart of Gnosticism. This does not imply that the scholastics were men of inferior intellect and little culture. By no means, but the very fact that this was not the case, gives us the reason why they, more or less deviating from theology proper and the true prrinciples of scriptural Exegetics, basing their opinions preeminently upon logical, physical and metaphysical principles, and treating the Scripture very lightly (cf. Annotat. *), became the authors of very abstruse dogmatical systems, comprising a great deal of errors, and (sometimes even very ridiculous) superstitions. As a general thing, the truths of the Bible were lost sight of on account of too much Realism, Platonic or Aristotelian Nominalism, too much of battology a la Peter Abaelardus, too much Thomistry and Scotistry, too much vain debating about the meritum ex congruo, or condigno, about the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, in our times sanctioned by papal infallibility; not to say anything about that question of unspeakable importance, whether a mouse, eating a wafer, in fact ate the body of Christ. To this question which in our times hardly anybody who had some knowledge of the Catechism would fail to answer, great scholastici were at variance, giving evidence that they were lacking in truly theological knowledge of the nature of the Sacraments. Therefore the Apology justly says that the “sophists (viz., going by the context, the scholastics) have disputed in their schools against the plain and open Scriptures,” “conceived in their own imagination From Philosophy their own dreams and opinions.” (Symb. Bb. Ed. by Müller, p. 85, 45.) And Quenstedtius calls their whole theology a “mixture of philosophy and theology.” [[@VolumePage:2,100]]So much for a sketch of that scholasticism which Indifferentists delight in holding up as a good means of scaring men from giving themselves up to orthodoxy in theory and practice by trying to make it appear that orthodoxy and scholasticism were essentially similar, and, hence, productive of the same effect—spiritual death. But they are essentially greatly different. We shall restrict ourselves to showing that they are essentially different in their respective basis. For what is orthodoxy? Orthodoxy consists in a faithful heart’s firmly holding to everything that the God-inspired Scriptures reveal about God, Fallen Man and the Means of salvation. Orthodoxy consists in a believers firmly believing that everything that is necessary towards our salvation, is contained in the divinely inspired Scriptures, either expressly, or by analogy, or explicitly, or implicitly, or γενικ??, or ε?δικ??, or α?τολ?ξει, or κατ? πρ?γμα. It consists in holding to all theological knowledge thus arrived at, not to be saved thereby, but because it is the contents, or the necessary outcome of the divine, firm, unchangeable, infallible Word of God. Such is true orthodoxy. The basis of orthodoxy is the Word of God. What communion has it with the scholastical theology and its objectionable features of dryness and spiritual death? Can the latter be called an abominable outgrowth of the former? By no means, for they have nothing in common. They rest upon two different bases. While orthodoxy means adhering to the divine, infallible Word of God, the scholastic theologians, according to the Apology, have “disputed against the plain and open Scriptures.” According to the Apology, the scholastic theologians “conceived from philosophy in their own imagination their own dreams and opinions.” And so it was. Their main stronghold was philosophy, their work tending towards making theology an Aristotelic christian philosophy, their proofs were decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, sententiae of the Fathers, traditions and fragments of traditions, [[@VolumePage:2,101]]Aristotelian and Platonic logical, psychological and metaphysical axioms. (Cf. Note p. 99.) And thus it came to pass what will always come to pass wherever speculation takes the place of revelation. As it was with the heathen of old, not excepting those of ancient Egypt and Greece, the result will not be knowledge of God and Christ the Saviour, but wandering away from God and—spiritual death. But though this was, to a great extent, the natural consequence of scholastic theology, we should never forget that orthodoxy and scholasticism are essentially dissimilar, particularly as to the respective basis, and that therefore, orthodoxy being not essentially similar to scholasticism, it will not produce the same effect, viz., spiritual death.Nor is it logical to make inferences about orthodoxy and its supposed inevitable consequences from the state of things attending orthodoxism. Speaking of orthodoxism in this connection, we have no reference to any intermediate states whatever. All we have in view, is orthodoxism strictly speaking, orthodoxism (quatenus talis). For, though to the superficial observer, orthodoxy and orthodoxism may present some very striking points of similarity, still they are essentially very dissimilar in their individual source and nature. For what is true orthodoxy? Orthodoxy is the firm adherence of a true believer to everything which is revealed in the divinely inspired Scriptures which inform us about everything, the knowledge of which is directly or indirectly necessary unto our eternal salvation. In a word, to be truly orthodox presupposes a faithful heart. And whosoever in seeming orthodoxy adheres to doctrinal positions devoid of that only basis of all true orthodoxy,—a faithful heart which, being constrained by the love of God and of fellow-men, will not, for that very reason, deviate from the Will of God, as revealed in the Scriptures, in any seemingly ever so unimportant details, is no representative of true orthodoxy. In short, true orthodoxy flows forth from spiritual life, and, hence, is indicative of spiritual life, and favorable unto spiritual life, true orthodoxy is the climax of spiritual life. Just the reverse holds good with reference to orthodoxism. While orthodoxy is justly defined in the words of the definition of true theology, as an habitus[[@VolumePage:2,102]] Practicus ΘΕΟΣΔΟΤΟΣ, orthodoxism is essentially nothing more or less than ars MENTALISque facultas disputandi de rebus theologicis. While true orthodoxy is deeply rooted in a believing heart, orthodoxism is merely a product of a fertile and genial intellect. A man of great talents, if he apply himself diligently to reading theology, as a medical student will give himself to reading medicine, may in the course of time become a representative of orthodoxism, a brilliant disputant in matters theological, though his heart be unregenerate and without living faith. But being devoid of this living faith, all his orthodoxistic knowledge of theology will never make him an orthodox theologian. For all he can boast of, is spiritual death and such a pseudo-theology which can be produced on such barren soil, a dead ars disputandi de rebus theologicis, which will never supply that only source of all true theology, of all true orthodoxy, that habitus practicus ?εοσδοτο? which formally constitutes a theologian.So grandly different in their individual source, orthodoxy and orthodoxism can not but be greatly dissimilar in their nature. It is the nature of orthodoxy to hold that which is necessary to our salvation, as revealed in the Scriptures, induced not by speculative, philosophical interests, but by a devout and reverent regard for God, as addressing us in His Word. The advocates of true orthodoxy are induced to search the Scriptures (Acts 17. 11.), to hold fast the faithful word, so as to be able by Sound both to exhort and convince the gainsayers (Tit. 1. 9.), not permitting themselves to be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine,” by the firm belief that the divine authors of the Scriptures, as Paul himself declares 1 Cor. 2.13., have spoken, “not in the Words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which The Holy Ghost Teacheth.” Orthodoxy will always remember that God’s ways and nature are, to a great extent, inscrutable and a great many things pertaining to the knowledge of God and His Will, are unrevealed and, therefore, past finding out. Orthodoxy will not delight in trying to find out minor matters that have no bearing to our eternal salvation. In holding fast to the Word, orthodoxy “brings into captivity every thought to the [[@VolumePage:2,103]]obedience of Christ,” never trying to explain the teachings of infinite Wisdom according to the dictates of the finite intellect of man.—Orthodoxism will do the very opposite. Instead of, according to 2 Cor. 10. 5., in a child-like manner expounding and adhering to revelation, even if this in some respects should be far superior to human reason, it will correct God’s teachings so as to suit the limited capacity of human intellect. It will systematize, no matter whether the matter in question, as divinely revealed, will admit of this or not. Where true orthodoxy will keep silence, saying: Malo ?π?χειν, orthodoxism will delight in propounding questions not pertaining to salvation and, therefore, not revealed; it will speculate on them even professing to be able by empty speculations to solve difficulties the solution of which God has refused to reveal. The reason why orthodoxism firmly embraces and valiantly defends its own unrevealed, empty speculation is to be sought for in its acting “through strife and vain glory” (Phil. 2. 3.), surely a sign of spiritual death, surely to produce spiritual death, wherever it exerts its influence.In fact, we are well aware of the spiritual decay attending orthodoxism and that from this fact the general public, not excluding indifferentistic theologians, make conclusions as to a similar state of things to accompany and follow orthodoxy. But these conclusions are arrived at by very illogical logic and unobserving observation. Though a great English poet says: What’s in a name? even similarity of names sometimes contain the germ of causes with far-felt and wide-spread effect. Thus orthodoxy and orthodoxism sounding so near alike, will prompt a great many who know about the spiritual decay attending upon orthodoxism to enter upon the war-path against true orthodoxy, choosing for their motto: Pereat orthodoxia. That this way of arguing is faulty, is among others the opinion of Dr. Guericke, one of the most renowned of church historians of our times. He says: “Though such fleshliness of dead orthodoxy did, indeed, cause great calamities to the church, nothing were more unjust than to make pure doctrine, orthodox theology and a zeal for it accountable for these calamities; the fault lay in the abuse to which things pure are exposed also.” (Kirchengeschichte, 9. Edit. III. p. 298.) [[@VolumePage:2,104]]Such as argue in the manner above referred to are the victims of a logical fallacy, taking for granted the false hypotheses that orthodoxy either is of the same, or very nearly the same, nature as orthodoxism, or that it will inevitably result in orthodoxism, thus being a cause of spiritual decay. Either of these hypotheses is wrong. Orthodoxy and orthodoxism are decidedly heterogeneous. For proof, we refer our readers to the preceding sketch of their source and nature. Carefully considering the points there adduced, they will be convinced that, while orthodoxism is carnal, orthodoxy is spiritual, and hence not produced nor accompanied nor followed by spiritual decay, but spiritual life. Nor is orthodoxism a product of orthodoxy, much less an inevitable consequence. No, orthodoxy truly and properly such, can not generate orthodoxism. The latter is not a species of the former. They are generically differing. While orthodoxy is based upon an ardent desire of a faithful heart to know and preserve the revealed will of God in all its purity, orthodoxism is the outcome of a perhaps ever so talented, still carnal mind. Orthodoxy (a state of spiritual man) embraces with all its heart the teachings of the Word of God and only these, because they are the Word of God which we are (Tit. 1. 9.) commanded to hold fast. Orthodoxism (to be looked for nowhere else but in carnal men) will merely by way of an historical faith embrace the teachings of the Word of God and his own speculations therefrom derived, because he has found the contents of the Word of God historically true and finds enjoyment in its own systemization and speculations in matters theological. Thus, orthodoxism is, properly speaking, neither a sister of orthodoxy, nor outgrowth of orthodoxy. No, indeed, it grows on an entirely different soil. Orthodoxism is merely a parody of orthodoxy, having no affinity whatever except in the similarity of their names. And just as little as “abusus tollit usum,” just as little should that parody of orthodoxy make friends for indifferentism, and bring true orthodoxy into disfavor. Yet it is a fact that the decline of true orthodoxy is, to a great extent, due to the inferences as to the imaginary attendant evils of true orthodoxy, illogically derived from the state of things cotemporary with orthodoxism and the imaginary; close affinity between orthodoxism and orthodoxy.In fact, orthodoxy is not essentially the same as scholasticism and orthodoxism, nor is it the parent of spiritual death. Of course, we are well aware that this is affirmed by a host of theologians of our times, and more particularly in our country, some of whom even go so far as to usurp the Lutheran name, though they would shrink back with horror from using, even [[@VolumePage:2,105]] overagainst the grossest errorists, such plain, outspoken, unmistakable, unambiguous, stern, stalwart Lutheran language as Dr. Luther did at the diet of Worms. They seem to have entirely forgotten that genuinely Lutheran motto of true confessional Lutherans: “Here I stand, I can not otherwise, God help me. Amen.” They are like unto walls which are gradually bending and, in part, have given way to the tide of our time. As in olden times, by a miracle of God, the walls of Jericho fell down flat at the sound of the trumpet and the shout of the approaching enemy, so are they giving way to the presumptuous claims of the popular, and in some respects we might be justified to say, vulgar indifferentism of our day. If the fathers of the Lutheran church of this country, that lived about the middle of the preceding century, could return and behold their epigoni, they would be very much aggrieved beholding with great sadness some of the fruit that sprung from the good seed they had planted. There are so-called Lutherans whose whole Lutheran orthodoxy would be overthrown, if any body would object to it on the following grounds: You Lutherans are always at hand with your confessions, your Standards.—You are ever ready in your theological schools to dissect all doctrines, to explain them logically, show how they are logically derived from the Scriptures.—Wherever possible, you are going back to the original Greek or Hebrew, applying principles derived from Grammar and Comparative Philology, &c. You are so particular about every little κα?, the position of the article, of the adjective, of the moods, of the tenses, of the context, &c.—In short, you are laying too much stress on the dead letter, and that is what you are forbidden to do, 2 Cor. 3. 6., for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth live. This objection is so common now-a-days, we suppose all our readers have heard it more than once. Still it is as groundless as a great many other things that are now considered “scientifically” infallible. But it won't stand its ground if attacked by the dry logic of the Fathers which is greatly ahead of the superficial, pseudo-scientific flutter by which involuntary feats of illogical sophistry are kept from the eyes of a scrutinizing public. As to 2 Cor. 3. 6. a careful observer will notice that two things are contrasted in that and the following verses, viz., the ministration of the New Testament, of the spirit ([[vs. 6. >> 2 Cor 3.6]] and [[8. >> 2 Cor 3.8]]), the ministration of righteousness ([[v. 9. >> 2 Cor 3.9]]) on the one hand, and the ministration of the letter ([[v. 6. >> 2 Cor 3.6]]), the ministration of condemnation ([[v. 9. >> 2 Cor 3.9]]), the ministration of death ([[v. 7. >> 2 Cor 3.7]]) on the other. The context which some claim belongs to the letter by which they mean what may, according to their [[@VolumePage:2,106]]notions, safely be called the dead matter of the Bible, plainly gives evidence that letter, as used in [[v. 6., >> 2 Cor 3.6]] has reference merely to a part of the Bible, viz., the law. But then, there is no reason whatever to infer that that letter, i. e., law, is dead. All the above passage tells us is that it “killeth,” condemning us on account of our sins ([[v. 9. >> 2 Cor 3.9]]), pronouncing us to be heirs of eternal death ([[v. 7. >> 2 Cor 3.7]]). Still, though the “letter” (law) “killeth,” it is by no means dead, for whatsoever killeth, can not be dead. On the contrary, it is “quick and powerful” (Heb. 4. 12.), as all the Scriptures are. (Compare Dietrich, Institutiones, translated to German by Dr. F. W. A. Notz, p. 40.)So much for that old objection against orthodoxy derived from that stale “dead letter” theory which Luther has so admirably refuted in his sermon on the epistle lesson of the XIIIth Sunday after Trinity. (Compare Dr. Luther’s Church Postill. Translated from the German. New Market, Va. II, pp. 119, &c.) That “dead letter” theory does not prove that orthodoxy is productive of spiritual death. On the contrary, it is the parent of spiritual life.This becomes evident to all who closely and impartially consider what true orthodoxy consists in. Orthodoxy is the firm adherence of a true believer to everything which is revealed in the divinely inspired Scriptures which inform us about everything, the knowledge of which is directly or indirectly necessary unto our salvation. Hence it is a believer’s firm adherence to the Scriptures and whatsoever it reveals. Such as are truly orthodox will steadfastly hold to the revelation of God as contained in His Word. For “how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard,” and how shall they firmly hold to what they have not read nor accurately studied? In other words, all who would become truly orthodox, must diligently search the Scriptures, and being truly orthodox, presupposes the most exact and detailed scrutiny as to what the Scripture or rather God in the Scriptures has revealed about Himself, Fallen Man and the Means of Salvation. It presupposes obedience to the passage: “Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life. And they are they which testify of me.” It presupposes having followed the example of the Bereans, “searching the Scriptures daily whether those things were so.” It presupposes going by the scriptural axiom: “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, a light unto my path.” In short, orthodoxy implies diligent study of the revelation of God, as contained in His Word. And this very Word of God, so diligently studied by all who would become truly orthodox, by all who are truly orthodox, is [[@VolumePage:2,107]]productive of spiritual life. For, “the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword.” (Hebr. 4. 12.) It will not lull us into spiritual indolence. Spiritual indolence is merely a result of not using that two-edged sword of the Word of God. Nay, the Word of God is quick and powerful. It is quick, i. e. living (ζ?ν), and so are all who truly cling to the living Word, so are all that are truly orthodox. It is powerful, i. e. operative (?νεργ??). And what else can be the object, the result of its operations than to make us “quick”, i. e. living, spiritually living? The words which Christ, which God, which the Bible speaks unto us, “they are spirit, they are life.” (John 6. 63.) As far as the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit working through them are concerned they can and will work in us faith (Rom. 10. 19.), true faith, faith unto life eternal, living faith, faith which worketh by love (Gal. 5. 6.), true living faith, which is the very principle of spiritual life. Now, orthodoxy is in its very nature tending towards making all its advocates and adherents thoroughly conversant with the Word of God and its contents, even in respect to details and seemingly unimportant matters. For how can we “hold fast the form of sound words,” if it is not thoroughly known by us. Therefore it is evident that if we would do so, if we would be truly orthodox we are bound to diligently and prayerfully (for to become truly orthodox, our understanding must be enlightened by the Holy Spirit 1 Cor. 2. 14. f. Luke 11. 13.) study the Word of God, the word of life, which will work in us true faith and, that which is unseparably connected with true faith,—spiritual life. And the more we shall, by the grace of God, exert ourselves to “hold fast the form of sound words” (2 Tim. 2. 13.), the more ardent we shall be to “affirm constantly” (Tit. 3. 8.), i. e. to affirm most firmly and strongly (cf. δια-βεβαιο?σ?αι) what we derive from divine revelation, as contained in the “more sure word of prophecy,” which is as firm and reliable as its divine Author, the more we “give attendance to reading,” so as to by the help of God, receive an inward δια-βεβαι?τη?, so as to be fitted to be truly orthodox—the more will the Word of God have an opportunity to work on our hearts towards producing that unto which it is sent, viz. faith and—spiritual life. Thus it is that Dr. Walther in his lectures on Pastoral Theology when he discourses on the necessity of good sermons being doctrinal, uses the following language:“Still others perhaps may be induced to treat very little of doctrine, because they have the false idea that detailed expositions of doctrine were too dry, would not move the [[@VolumePage:2,108]]hearers, nor be apt to produce awakening, or conversion or true, living, active, heart-felt christianity. But this is a great mistake. Those very eternal thoughts of the heart of God, revealed to man unto his salvation, these very truths, decrees and mysteries of faith kept secret since the world began, but now made known to us by the scriptures of the prophets, they are the heavenly seed that must be implanted in the heart of men, if the fruit of true repentance, of faith unfeigned, of true, active charity should grow therefrom.” (See Amer.-Luth. Pastoraltheologie by Dr. C. F. W. Walther, 2d ed. p. 81.) And what we said about orthodoxy being the parent of spiritual life, he has admirably set forth in a sermon on Titus III. 8., the theme being, If we would promote truly christian life, it is absolutely necessary with great earnestness to give heed to pure doctrine. The third reason which is there adduced in proof of the position promulgated in the theme is, because nothing but pure doctrine imparts inclination and power to lead a truly christian life. In the closing paragraph of this part Dr. Walther says: “Therefore, even if all who are thoroughly anxious to retain pure doctrine, are designated as dead orthodoxists, even if their congregations be despisingly looked down upon as upon a mass of unconverted sinners, even if every offense which we confess comes to pass also within congregations of pure faith, is used to prove that anxiously holding to pure doctrine would not permit spiritual life to spring forth: still nothing but pseudo-orthodoxy is dead, true, pure doctrine is always full of spirit power, life, light, and fire. As false doctrine is a prolific seed of tares, viz. a fertile parent of false (i. e. not genuinely christian, not spiritual) works and life, so true, pure doctrine is a prolific seed of wheat, viz. a fertile parent of truly good works, truly good life (rechter Werke, rechten Lebens). It has frequently been stated that the Lutheran reformation was a reformation of doctrine only, not a reformation of life. But this is nothing but the verdict of blind reason. Every true reformation of doctrine is also a true reformation of life. As often as pure doctrine came into favor and was generally acknowledged, true christian life began to bloom, so that thousands again were ‘careful to maintain good works’ (Tit. 3.8.), for the Word of God will never return void. (Is. 4. 11.)” (See Dr. Walther, Brosamen. p. 416.)That true orthodoxy, theoretically considered, in its very essence and nature is productive of spiritual life, will be evident to all who impartially read and carefully meditate on the contents of the preceding argument, giving special consideration to that selection from Dr. Walthers Brosamen. [[@VolumePage:2,109]]We shall take a brief survey of the practical aspect of the matter with a view of showing that firm adherents of orthodoxy have given unquestionable evidence that they had their eyes open to the necessity of spiritual life.—Thus Dr. Luther in his explanation of the first petition of the Lord’s Prayer tells us that “God’s name is hallowed,” if the Word of God is preached in all its purity, and we, as the children of God live accordingly. Now, he would have us daily pray Hallowed be Thy name, implying a prayer for having the Word of God, preached in all its purity. He would have us give heed not to “teach otherwise than the Word of God teacheth.” He wants us to do all we can to preserve the Word of God in all its purity. He is very severe on those that lie and deceive by his name. (Compare 2d Commandment.) Still he knew Romans, still he was so thoroughly convinced of the necessity of spiritual life so as to embody this conviction in his Smaller Catechism, so as to give it expression in the last question of the IVth Part of the Catechism in the answer to the question: What does such baptizing of water signify?—Moreover, Dr. Baier in his Compendium Theol. Pos., treating of the office of the ministry, states that it belongs to that office to plainly propose and solidly substantiate (solide confirmentur) the true doctrine of the Scriptures, and to distinctly point out the opposite errors (distincte monstrentur) and prove them to be contrary to the Word of God and injurious (et tanquam cum verbo Dei pugnantes atque noxii arguantur. See Baieri Comp. Theol. Pos. ed. Preuss. p. 630). Still Dr. Baier knows that regeneration is necessary (see p. 408) and that its final object (terminus ad quem) is spiritual life (p. 404).—Among us Dr. Walther is very often decried as an orthodoxist by such who don’t know his writings, nor take pains to know his writings with a view of correcting their to a great extent hereditary prejudiced ideas. But, though Dr. Walther is zealously and vigorously “holding fast to the form of sound faith,” still he is as thoroughly convinced of the necessity of spiritual life, as will be easily seen from a sermon of his on the question: Have ye received the Holy Ghost? preached from the gospel of Whitsunday. (See Mag. für Ev.-Luth. Homiletik IV, pp. 129—136.) We select from Part I (see p. 132). It reads (p. 132): “I therefore ask you, Can you tell of a time when the Holy Ghost again entered into your hearts? Can you, dear hearers, say, Alas, for a long time I passed life in fleshly security without any care for my salvation. God did, indeed, follow me, and did knock at the door in sundry ways, but, alas, I did not open to Him, but again and again suppressed and stifled the good motions rising in my conscience. At [[@VolumePage:2,110]]length, however, God was too strong for me. At length the Word of God pierced through my soul like a sword. At length I perceived with dismay that I was on a wrong way to eternity, that the wrath of God was upon me, that such as I was I could never be saved. Even then I did not at once follow the drawing of grace, but still conferred with flesh and blood; but God did not let me go, hence my disquiet and anguish concerning perdition increased constantly. At last I began to sigh wheresoever I was. My sins stood before my eyes like mountains incapable of being passed over. Then I would with tears throw myself down upon my knees before God in the silence of my chamber, ardently beseeching grace and mercy. And behold, after a severe inner struggle I lastly felt as if the sun was rising within my heart. I remembered the precious passages of comfort which I had often before read or heard without being moved by them; e. g. ‘Jesus receiveth sinners,’ ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved’ and the like. To such passages I now clung as a man in danger of drowning clings to the boat that will rescue him. The consequence was that a new light and a new power were pouring into my heart, that the Spirit of grace and of supplications came upon me, entered within me, made his abode with me and from this time changed me into another man, into a new man.—I ask you, beloved hearers, did I in these words describe the experience of your hearts? If not, you are not as yet true Christians. It is true, men are not converted in a manner the same throughout. Some, like Saul, pass quickly and immediately from darkness into light, from death to life, from wrath to grace. Others, like Nicodemus, first pass through continued resistance and consequently through many violent struggles with the flesh, world and Satan, sometimes for weeks, months, and even years, before they fully open their hearts to the Holy Spirit and are fully assured of having obtained grace and salvation. Some, like David, are seized with great anguish and the terrors of hell on account of their sins, before they feel comforted; others, like many of the hearers of Peter’s sermon on Pentecost, taste but little of this bitterness and immediately on being pricked in their heart when hearing the Word, feel the sweet consolation of their sins being forgiven them. Some, like the Galatians, stumble repeatedly after their first awakening, and as often rise again, before making firm steps on the narrow way to heaven; others again, like the jailer at Philippi, are brands plucked out of the fire at once, and immediately shine as lights in the Lord. But, my dear hearers, different as the ways are on which God leads men in order to make their hearts His habitation, no man [[@VolumePage:2,111]]becomes a temple of the Holy Ghost without some experience of true repentance. He who knows nothing of it, is still dead in his sins; whatever he may do, without such experience he remains a hypocrite during his life, and is on the way to eternal perdition.Finally we refer to our Symbolical Books. Passages in which the necessity of spiritual life is earnestly inculcated, are numerous. We select one from the Apology: “And surely there is no true repentance in our hearts, if we do not externally show good works and christian patience. And this is what St. John means when he says: Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance, what St. Paul means, saying: ‘Yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.’ And when Christ says: ‘Repent’, he is surely speaking of the whole repentance and of the whole new life and its fruits.” (Symb. Bücher, Muellers ed. p. 191, 35.) Thus the Apology. At the same time the Epitome most especially is by no means slow to denounce false doctrine (errores oppositi) in seemingly rather too vigorous terms. It rejects and damns the errores oppositi, calling them blasphemous and horrible doctrines. It is full of vigorous orthodoxy. And at the same time these orthodox Symbolical Books give evidence that their authors were thoroughly convinced of the necessity of spiritual life.Now we could go on recounting how truly orthodox theologians have given evidence of their having spiritual life. But this is a subject which we could not do justice to, in an essay, like the one we are now writing. It would be a long essay of itself which would include a great many things from the church history of the preceding centuries. In this connection we can merely touch upon this subject, restricting ourselves to outlining one particular point.It is generally known that particularly the orthodox theologians of the XVIIth century very closely adhered to what they knew was the doctrine of the Scriptures. Sometimes kings and emperors, principalities and powers tried to make them give up at least some particle of their faith. They were told that, if they would not give up certain particular points, they would lose their professorship, their fortunes, their homes, they would be ostracized or thrown into dungeons of the most terrible description. What did they do? Did they give way unto false doctrine even for a moment? No, never; they left their professorships, homes, enduring ostracism or prison life, for they would rather suffer for the cause of their Lord and be truly orthodox than deviate from the Word of God in any particular whatever. Now, by what was this accounted for, spiritual death or spiritual life?—Considered in [[@VolumePage:2,112]]the way of the world it would not have been so very difficult to evade all those troubles. They might have recanted with some Jesuitical reservatio mentalis. Why did not they do so? —The answer is, because that could not be harmonized with their true faith, with their true inward piety. And their way of acting was a de facto demonstration of what we have hitherto endeavored to prove, viz., that orthodoxy is not the parent of spiritual death, but the very stronghold of spiritual life.General Religious Intelligence.The Prince of Wales, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Duke of Albany, and nearly all the members of the government voted with the minority in the British House of Lords on the motion ordering the bill legalizing marriage with a deceased wife’s sister to its second reading. The bulk of the Conservatives and all the bishops voted with the majority.Modern Idolatry. During the great reception of Italian pilgrims at Rome recently many persons were taken severely ill on account of the intense fatigue of waiting their turn to see the Pope. Delicate women and small children stood in long rows from eleven in the morning to seven in the evening for the purpose of kissing the hem of the Antichrist’s garments and presenting to the priests attendant their offering to St. Peter.Dr. N. G. Clark of the American Board of Foreign Missions protests against the proposed Baptist mission in Turkey, for the reason that the Congregationalists have long had the ground. The editor of the Congregationalist thinks it would be lamentable to send missionaries of division to “preach a gospel of immersion as necessary to salvation.” In reply to both the WatchTower says: “It is enough to say that Baptist missionaries would not preach such a doctrine that Turkey is already occupied by more than one denomination and that we have waited until we have been sent for, not by a vision, but by living men from ‘Macedonia.’ This certainly goes to show how little real unity exists among those who pride themselves in calling everybody ‘brother’.”The Campbellites. The doctrinal faith of the “Disciples of Christ,” with which society our lamented President was connected, is stated in the following declaration of faith which is taken from a synopsis of their belief, as drawn by Alexander Campbell, one of the founders of the society, from whom the name “Campbellites” is taken. Vid. American Cyclopaedia, 1. c. “I believe in one God, as manifested in the person of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, who are, therefore, one in nature, power, and volition. —I believe that every human being participates in all the consequences of the fall of Adam, and is born into the world frail and depraved in all his moral powers and capacities; so that, without faith in Christ, it is impossible for him, while in that state, to please God.—I believe that the Word, which from the beginning was with God, and which was God, became flesh and dwelt among us as Immanuel, or ‘God manifest in the flesh,’ and did make an expiation of sin ‘by the sacrifice of Himself,’ which no being could have done that was not possessed of a superhuman, superangelic and divine nature.— I believe in the justification of a sinner by faith, without the deeds of the law, and of a Christian, not by faith alone, but by the obedience of faith.—I believe in the operation of the Holy Spirit, through the Word, but not without it, in the conversion and sanctification of the sinner.” Alph. [[@VolumePage:2,113]]THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.Vol. 2. August 1882. No. 8.(For the “Theological Monthly”.)Investigation of the Causes producing the Decline of Orthodoxy.(Continued.)Again, there are such who will say: Orthodoxy, as you define that term, claims to be infallible, but this is simply absurd. This is the second objection generally raised against orthodoxy, no less futile than the preceding objection about orthodoxy being a source of spiritual death. This objection we shall now investigate, showing its futility in all its parts.Some affirm, it is absurd because so many churches differ from the Lutheran Church. Indifferentists who try to make capital out of the imaginary absurdity of orthodox infallibility will argue: Why? We can't see how you Lutherans of the orthodox shade can claim that you have the true and strictly unadulterated doctrine of the Scriptures. There is Dr. So and So, he is a very learned baptist, there is Dr. X., he is a thoroughly educated Methodist theologian and a devout christian, how can you dare say, he is lacking in orthodoxy, you, and nobody but you have the pure and unadulterated doctrine of the Word of God. But still we can not but, in this respect, hold fast to what is unspeakably absurd not to sound theologians, but to such as permit themselves to be mercilessly swept away by the current of the unionistic tide of our times.To begin with, we shall state that, judging and rejecting all unscriptural un-Lutheran doctrine, we do not judge the hearts of those that may be its advocates and standard-bearers. “The Lord knoweth them that are his” (2 Tim. 2. 19.), and “the Lord searches the heart, tries the reins, even gives every man according to his ways and according to the fruit of his doings. (Jer. 17. 10.) Still, though we are to refrain from judging men (which we will explain more fully in a later article of this series), we have a solemn duty to judge all [[@VolumePage:2,114]]doctrine by the infallible standard of the Scripture. Thus it is that we can not but claim that the true doctrine of the Word in all its parts is held by no other church than the Lutheran, and laid down nowhere but in her incomparably grand Confessions, though, within the bounds of the General Synod, “there they stand,” “more to be admired than used.” This so-called exclusivism does, by no means, enjoy the favor of the indifferentistic theology of our times. It is looked down upon as a relic of mediaeval darkness, of old school orthodoxism which, in the opinion of the present indifferentistic theological world, should have no place in our enlightened century. This prejudice against orthodoxy is so universal and so deeply rooted with all that cherish indifferentistic views so common in our age, that they will not even listen to an argument, the object of which is to prove that our own Lutheran Church has the truth, nothing but the truth, and all there is of it. It has all there is of it. We don’t believe in that historico-philosophico-dogmatical development of theology that is the idol of the supposed scientific philosophical theology that almost everywhere has taken the place of the chaste theology of former golden eras. If the Lutheran theology, or rather theology in general, need development, we are very sorry for Timothy who did not partake of that blessing and, hence, must have been a very inferior theologian. The Lutheran Church has nothing but the truth, for it rejects everything besides the only real source of truth, viz., the Word of God. The Lutheran Church alone has nothing but the truth, and all there is of it. For it is evident that the Lutheran Church differs from other churches in a great many particulars. Now, in each individual case, only one party can have the truth, either the Lutheran Church, or that church which in such and such a particular respect may oppose its doctrine. Now, we openly and most emphatically claim that in each individual case the truth will be found on the side of the Lutheran Church and its official doctrine, as embodied in the Lutheran Confessions.The internal reason of this fact we cheerfully give in, we do not know. All we know is that “if God gives His Word in one place, but declines to do so in another, if God takes away the Word (and we may well add, the pure doctrine of His Word) and permits it to remain in another, we should remember that God owes us nothing and His judgments are just.” (See Rom. 11. 22., also Book of Concord, ed. Müller, 716, 57.) If, however, He gives us anything, it is grace, and nothing but grace. (See Rom. 9. 33, Rom. 11. 22, Rom. 9. 20.) We know that God says: “Who maketh thee differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou [[@VolumePage:2,115]]didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?” (1 Cor. 4. 7.) And thus the Lutheran Church knows that it has no merit on account of which it could have received the pure doctrine of God, and that, therefore, it has no reason to glory on account of something God has bestowed upon the Lutheran Church out of mere grace. “It was nothing but free grace that God opened the door of Luther’s heart that he gave heed to the Word. It was nothing but free grace that He put His Word into his mouth, preparing unto this Word an open door that many accepted it… It was given (See 1 Cor. 4. 7.) to the Lutheran Church to adhere to the Word and not to permit itself to be led astray therefrom. It was grace. We know of no merit. It is grace, that God in our times has made our hearts willing to entirely and absolutely subject ourselves to His Word and not to deviate from a single word of Holy Writ.” (See Popul?re Symbolik, by Rev. Prof. M. Günther, publ. by L. Volkening, 1872, p. 5.)The external reason why we, and we alone, have the full truth, and nothing but the truth, is because we strictly adhere to the Scriptures, and to the Scriptures exclusively, and in all particulars. The Lutheran will always bear in mind Rev. 22. 18, 19., where it says: “If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life.” The Lutheran Church, on that account, is very careful not to act against that divine command. “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it.” (Deut. 4. 2.) And this is the external reason accounting for every difference of the doctrine of the various denominations from that of the church of the Reformation, our own dear Lutheran Church.In the first place, we never make traditions a principle of theology. For us, there is but one source of true doctrine, nothing but the Word. We don’t acknowledge traditions, sayings of the Fathers, &c., as being an integral part of that from which we should derive our theology. This, however, was done, and is still done, by the Church of Rome. They are constantly adding to the Word of God by tradition. Thus it is that they have a purgatory, indulgences, the monastery system, celibacy of the clergy, secular power of the church, the episcopal system, the Pope as the visible representative of Christ, papal infallibility, &c. All of these things rest principally on traditions, and on the sayings of the Fathers, in short, on the word of man. Hence it is that we don’t acknowledge all these things because they are based upon the [[@VolumePage:2,116]]word of men which, by no means, should be added to the Word of God, nor regarded, revered, and followed as the Word of God. As, in our times, however, very few besides regular bigotted Romanists are inclined to permit themselves to be influenced by traditions, and sayings of the Fathers as added unto the Word, the sole principle of all true theology, we shall not enter upon illustrations showing that particular errors of particular churches can be safely traced to tradition. If we would, our readers would join in with the words of William of Bavaria, which he said to Dr. Eck at the diet of Augsburg, when Dr. Eck stated that he could refute Dr. Luther’s doctrine though not with the Scriptures, still with the church fathers. They are: “Well, I perceive, the Lutherans are in the (fort of the) Scriptures, while we are outside.”Still, adding to the Scriptures from tradition is not confined to the church of Rome. Thus a great many sects of our country add unto the Scriptures by holding that baptism is not baptism except it be performed by immersion. They, argue, for instance, from Matthew 3. 16. that Christ went up straightway out of the water. From this they infer in support of their traditional error, that hence Christ and John must have been in the water, that is, entirely immersed in the Jordan, and then they went straightway up out of the water In this, as in other cases, tradition adds unto the Bible, for, consulting the original, we find that it reads: ?π? το? ?δατο?, i. e. away from the water. This may be safely expressed by “went up straightway out of the water,” just as a mother will persuade her child to “get out of the water,” when it, after a rain for instance, has been “in the water” merely with its bare feet. Immersionists add unto the Scriptures, in support of their theory, what directly militates against the Word of God and strictly scriptural exegetics. For Titus 3. 5 baptism is called a washing of regeneration (δι? το? λουτρο? παλιγγενεσ?α?). Ephes. 5. 26. it is called the “washing of water, by the word” (τ? λουτρ? το? ?δατο? ?ν ??ματι). Luke 11. 38. we read: “And when the Pharisee saw it he marvelled that he (Christ) had not first washed before dinner” (?βαπτ?σθη). Mark 7. 4. it reads: “And when they (the Pharisees) come from the market, except they wash, they eat not” (βαπτ?σωνται). In both of these passages we find the original root of the word baptize, and what must we conclude it signifies? Can we imagine that the general custom of the Pharisees was to bathe in the strictest sense, that is, to be immersed before every meal? Is this the meaning of βαπτ?ζειν? Certainly not. This supposition would be the climax of absurdity. On the contrary, it simply refers to those manifold washings before meal and [[@VolumePage:2,117]]after meals, as the Mohammedans and the orientals of our present time are even now accustomed to. This becomes still more evident, if we bear in mind that (Mark 7. 4.) “many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing (i. e., according to the original, the baptizing [βαπτισμο??]) of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels and tables.” The Scriptures do not force me to believe that, every time they washed them, they had to immerse their tables. (See also Acts 1. 5., comp. to Acts 2. 15, 16. Hebr. 10. 22.)Chiliasm may also be counted one of those things in which tradition is added unto the Scriptures, as Chiliasm in its first beginnings rests upon Jewish ideas about the time following the coming of the Messiah. The Lutheran Church, however, also in this case rejecting all traditions, adheres strictly to the Word of God, which says (Hebr. 9. 28.), that as Two things are “appointed unto men”, viz., “once to die” and “thereafter the judgment”, so Christ is to come but Two times, once Full Of Sins, in as much as he was to be “once offered to bear the sins of many” (?παξ προσενεχθε?? ε?? τ? πολλ?ν ?νενεγκε?ν ?μαρτ?α?), “the second time Without Sin” to appear unto them that look for him unto salvation (?κ δευτ?ρου χωρ?? ?μαρτ?α? ?φθ?σεται το?? α?τ?ν ?πεκδεχομ?νοι? ε?? σωτηρ?αν).We take liberty to refer to another instance in which traditions have influenced some churches to detract from the Scriptures. We have reference to their still insisting that we are bound to keep, at least, some parts of the ceremonial law, inconsistent though it be, for “consistency is a jewel,” and as rare as a jewel too. With regard to this, however, the Scriptures plainly declare that we “should stand in the liberty wherewith Christ had made us free,” and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage (Gal. 5. 1.). For we are no more under the law, servants of the law, sons of the bondwoman, but under the gospel, servants of the new covenant, sons of the free woman. (See Gal. 4.) This is a point of scriptural doctrine from which some would detract, influenced by tradition. They would have us keep the ceremonial law, as we said before, at least in part. Thus the claim that the Sunday is a divine institution, that it is a divine command to keep one day out of seven, and that for this purpose Sunday was appointed by God. Though they cannot adduce divine proof for their assertions, still they persist in their endeavors to detract christian liberty by zealously trying to uphold the divine institution of the Sunday on the basis of tradition. Hence the difference between all the host of churches that hold that doctrine, on the one hand, and our own, on the other. In our efforts to oppose their endeavors to take away from the [[@VolumePage:2,118]]Scriptures, in this particular respect, we appeal to Rom. 14. 6., where it says: “He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.” Thus it is that the [[XXVIII. article of the Augsburg Confession >> BookOfConcord:AC:II:xxviii:53]] says: “What, then, be held concerning Sunday and other similar church ordinances and ceremonies? To this we make the following reply:—That the bishops or pastors may make regulations, so that things may be carried on orderly in the church,—not to obtain the grace of God, nor yet to atone for sins, or to bind the consciences of men to hold these regulations as necessary services of God, and to regard them, as if those commit sin who break them without offence to others. Thus St. Paul to the Corinthians ordains, that the women in the congregation should cover their heads, 1 Cor. 11. 5. Again, that the preachers should speak in the congregation, not all at the same time, but in order, one after another.“It is proper for a Christian congregation to observe such regulations for the sake of peace and love, and in such cases to be obedient to the bishops and pastors, and to observe these regulations so far as that one offend not another, that there may be no disorder or unseemly conduct in the church; yet that the consciences of men be not encumbered with the idea that these observations are held as necessary to salvation, and that those commit sin who violate them even without offence to others: as, no one says that a woman commits sin in going abroad bareheaded, unless thereby she offend the people. In like manner such is the case with the institution of Sunday, of Easter, of Pentecost, and the like holidays and rites. Those, then, who are of opinion, that such institution of Sunday instead of the Sabbath, was established as a thing necessary, err very much. For the holy Scripture has abolished the Sabbath, and it teaches that all ceremonies of the old law, since the revelation of the Gospel, may be discontinued. And yet as it was necessary to appoint a certain day, so that the people might know when they should assemble, the Christian church ordained Sunday for that purpose, and possessed rather more inclination and willingness for this alteration, in order that the people might have an example of Christian liberty, that they might know that neither the observance of the Sabbath, nor of any other day, is indispensable.“There are many unwarrantable disputations relative to the change of the Law, to the ceremonies of the New Testament, to the alteration of the Sabbath; all of which have sprung from the false and erroneous opinion, that there must be in the Christian church a divine service corresponding with [[@VolumePage:2,119]]the Levitical or Jewish service of God, and that Christ had commanded the Apostles and bishops to devise new ceremonies, which should be necessary to salvation. These errors obtained in Christendom when the righteousness of faith was not clearly and purely taught and preached. Some also argue, that Sunday must be kept, although not from divine authority, prescribing in what form and to what degree labor may be performed on that day. But what else are such disputations, but snares of conscience? For although they presume to modify and mitigate human traditions, yet no ?πιε?κεια or mitigation can be attained, so long as the opinion exists and continues, that they are necessary. Now this opinion must continue, if men know nothing of the righteousness of faith, and of Christian liberty. The Apostles have given the command, to abstain from blood and things strangled. But who observes this now? Yet those do not sin who do not observe it, because even the Apostles themselves did not wish to burden the conscience with such servitude, but they prohibited it for a time to avoid offence. For we must have regard, in view of this ordinance, to the chief article of the Christian doctrine, which is not abrogated by this decree.”And Dr. Walther says: “Hence there cannot be any doubt that the keeping of Sunday is no commandment of God, but a free regulation of the Christian church in memory of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the institution of the holy ministry, appointed for the holy assemblies of the Christians. Sunday, it is true, is mentioned in the Holy Scriptures, but nowhere commanded; it is a part of Christian liberty.” (Brosamen p. 190. 191.) Moreover, other churches claim that for the purpose of hallowing the Sabbath day it is a divine command and, therefore, essential to abstain from all manual labor. Such as hold this erroneous view cannot but keep all the old Jewish ordinances as contained in the ceremonial law; for example, to abstain from everything that requires bodily exertion. Some of these consistently go by this, don’t cook meals on Sunday, don’t by any means take a pleasure ride, etc. Some even go as far as the Blue Laws of a century or so ago, which found it wrong to walk a distance exceeding a Jewish Sabbath way, even pronouncing it desecration of the Sabbath, if a father would kiss his child. All such views are due to proneness to detracting from the Scriptures on account of the traditional Sabbath notions of ages and eras when the Gospel was mixed up and obscured by the laws, when Christian liberty was, in this respect, lost sight of on account of ascetic views, then prevailing. We, therefore, cannot but differ therefrom, nor is it absurd, [[@VolumePage:2,120]]if we claim to have the absolutely true position, because the truth we confess is based on the Scriptures, which have an undeniable claim to absolute certainty. But the Scriptures say: “Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or In Respect Of An Holy Day, or the new moon, or the Sabbath day,” Col. 2. 16., and Heb. 9. 10. we are told that “meats and drinks, and divers washings and Carnal Ordinances” were imposed only “until the time of reformation.” Notwithstanding, we know that we should sanctify the holy-day. But what is essential, if we do so? Is it sanctified, as some suppose, if we stop from our daily occupation and rest? Is it really sanctified, if we, as a great many New England folks fancy, sit down in our best suit of clothes, make as little noise as possible, and rigidly abstain from everything that might require a little more bodily exertion than absolutely necessary, not even daring to go to church, if it be a long way, for fear of Sabbath desecration? No, certainly not. We know that, if we would sanctify the holy-day, the only way in which we could do it, is by the Word of God and prayer.Thus it is that Dr. Walther says: “The same holds with the ordinance concerning Sunday; the Christian knows that its keeping is free, but for this very reason he keeps it the more willingly and gladly, he does not suffer himself to be forced and impelled thereto by anybody, he keeps it from love to the Word of God, from love to good order, from love to his weak neighbor. In the grace of the New Testament he uncompelled keeps Sunday as holy as any of the faithful of the Old Testament kept his Sabbath. We must, therefore, finally here make this argument, that he who despises and neglects the keeping of the Lord’s day, acts for this reason not as a Christian, not as a believer; for with such the word obtains: ‘Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, I think on these things.’ Though the old rigor of the Sabbath is hot to bear rule on the Sunday of the Christians, though among Christians deeds of necessity and love are still less forbidden for the sake of Pharisaic holiness; yet he who on that day which the Christian Church has instituted for the works of divine service to the honor of Jesus Christ and His glorious resurrection, to the honor of the preaching of the gospel, to the salvation of the souls, he who on Sunday without the case of necessity, perhaps out of avarice or a desire to please man, plies the works of his vocation, and without the case of necessity neglects the [[@VolumePage:2,121]]preaching and public service: he who on that day pursues worldly pleasures, seeks after worldly entertainment instead of conversation on divine things: manifests in doing so a contempt of the Word of God, a contempt of Christian discipline and good order, and a contempt of his weak neighbor whom he offends; he sins against God, against his neighbor, against himself, and against the whole Christian congregation.”—“Consider, brethren, that our Christian ancestors knew Christian liberty well and better than we, and yet with what care did they keep their Sunday! If we desire to be Lutherans, let us, then, return to their zeal, and the more we acknowledge ourselves to be free, the more willingly keep this good, Christian ordinance. Let us consider, also, that the government of our country has given strict laws concerning the keeping of the Sunday; here we must needs obey not merely for necessity, but for conscience’ sake, not as members of the Church, but as subjects. This the Word of God tells us: ‘Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.’ Here no Christian liberty obtains. He who in the least does on Sunday what government has prohibited resisteth God and may expect His judgment.”In short, the difference of the doctrine of other churches from that of the Lutheran Church is to a great extent owing to the fact that the Lutheran Church declines to let anything be added unto or detracted from the Scriptures (cf. Deut. 4. 2.) on the basis of tradition and the effata of the church fathers. This is evident from the preceding illustrations. Much less will the Lutheran Church permit anything to be taken away there from on account of our own reason. And this is the second cause why its pure doctrine differs from the adulterated doctrine of various other denominations. The greater part of the churches of our day acknowledge reason, if not in theory at least in practice, to be a secondary principle of theology, so that they actually have two principles of theology, viz: the Scriptures and their own reason. In vain do they try to hide this from the view of observing readers by saying, all they give heed to is enlightened reason. As far as we Lutherans are concerned, we cannot but openly confess that, in a certain sense, we are opposed to the use of reason in matters theological. Of course, we have to use our reason in logical, historical, exegetical respect. Theologians can not but use their reason in as much as it denotes the mental faculties whereby we deduct and evolve theological conclusions from the Word of God. This [[@VolumePage:2,122]]is not what we object to. On the contrary, we know that without this use of reason we would be unable to write even a sermon. But we object to the use of reason when understood as that from which certain primary principles are derived,—philosophical principles (principia praecognita),principles, which sustain the same relations to metaphysics as geometrical axioms to geometry,—principles, which, though purely rooted in philosophy, are transplanted to the sphere and used side by side with theological principles, as contained and evolved from the Scriptures. Our opposition to the use of reason, as just now explained, is based on firm scriptural ground. We know that we ought not refuse to believe anything, because it may chance to be against certain principles of reason or “common sense”. For we know that our faith is not “in the wisdom of men” (1 Cor. 2. 5.), that the Bible speaks “not the wisdom of this world” (i. e., σοφ?αν δ? ο? το? α??νο? το?του) [[v. 6., >> 1 Cor 2.6]] but “the wisdom of God in a mystery (θεο? σοφ?αν ?Ν ΜΥΣΤΗΡΙΩ τ?ν ?ποκεκρυμμ?νην) [[v. 7. >> 1 Cor 2.7]] By the grace of God, we are aware that there is one particular passage in the Bible, which seems to have been expressly inspired by the Holy Ghost for the very purpose of informing us, that a certain use of reason, before referred to, is against the will of God. For Col. 2. 8. we read: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world (κατ? τ? στοιχε?α το? κ?σμου) and not after Christ.” I. e., don’t let yourselves be led astray by the στοιχε?α, i. e., “the first principles (See Hebr. 5. 12.) of the world,” i. e., taking the whole verse together,—don’t permit yourselves to be led astray by the generally taught (κατ? τ?ν παρ?δοσιν τ?ν ?νθρ?πων, i. e. παρ?δοσι? =instruction, cf. 2 Thess. 3. 6. tradition, in German “Satzungen”, see also 2 Thess. 2. 15.) philosophical (δι? τ?? φιλοσοφ?α?) i. e., metaphysical principles of the world. Therefore, we Lutherans regard it our duty to “cast down imaginations and every high thing that exalleth itself against the knowledge of God, and to bring into captivity every thought unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10. 5.). Thus it is that we exlude reason from a sphere which, according to divine revelation, is to be reserved exclusively for the Word of God. This is not done by various other denominations and even some shades of our own church, and hence it is that differences arise.In proof of this, we shall adduce but two illustrations. The Socinians of old and the Unitarians of our age refuse to believe that there are three persons in God, though they are clearly revealed. They do so because of their high intellectual [[@VolumePage:2,123]]culture not admitting of such an unintelligent belief. To take away from the Bible in regard to the doctrine of a triune God is a very difficult thing. For the purpose of doing this, all who are Unitarians or borne by Unitarian sentiment have to make the efforts rivaling those of Hercules of old, and still they find it very hard to render unclear what God has so clearly revealed. They find it very hard to try to make people believe that they can refute the doctrine of the trinity, as plainly revealed in the formula of baptism and the passages telling us how at the baptism of Christ each of the three persons in God became distinctly manifest. They will find it still harder to disprove John 14. 16, 17., where Christ says, that He would pray “the Father” (i. e. a different person from Himself, the Son), that He should give to His disciples “ another comforter” (i. e. God the Holy Ghost, another different person), whom He (Christ) was to send from the Father (comp. John 15. 26.). In spite of all, Unitarians and a host of others partaking of Unitarian sentiments will war against the doctrine of the trinity, because “reason has decided against it,” because, as Dr. Eliot says, we “become Christians only by the use of reason” (Discourses on the doctrine of Christianity, p. 7), and. natural men with “blind reason”, as Luther calls it, are ever so prone to receive and sound the praises of such “sensible, reasonable” scriptural (?) exegesis, because it flatters human vanity. The reason why we differ from the Unitarians is manifest. They take away from the Bible, we don’t. In doing so, they cling to finite reason, while we, taking our reason into the subjection of faith, do soar far above in the aerial flight of infinite, divine Wisdom, Wisdom personified.Another instance: We believe that in the Holy Eucharist Christ’s body and blood are really present in, with, and under the external elements. We don’t teach transsubstantiation, implying that the bread and wine are changed in substance so as to cease being bread and wine, simply being naught but body and blood of Christ. Neither do we teach consubstantiation, or the mixing up of the two substances of body and blood of Christ on the one hand, and bread and wine on the other. All we teach is that, by virtue of a sacramental union in the Holy Eucharist, the body and blood of Christ is really and truly present in, with, and under the bread and wine.What say the Reformed Churches? The body and blood of Christ can not be really present, because it is against our senses, our reason. This is no imputation, these are the very words. Because it is “against the senses” and the axioms therewith connected and herefrom evolved, because it is against philosophical principles, that are perhaps, and very probably, [[@VolumePage:2,124]]entirely void outside of the immediate sphere of our globe, they will not believe the το?τ? ?στιν τ? σ?μα μου, they will not believe that the bread and wine are the communion (κοινων?α) of the body and blood of Christ. (1 Cor. 10. 16.) They will not, on that very account, believe that even unworthy communicants who, therefore, cannot spiritually partake of the body and blood of Christ, do receive the real body and blood of Christ, as sacramentally present in the Holy Eucharist, though this is plainly seen from the fact, that they are accused of not discerning the body and blood of Christ. (1 Cor. 12. 27—29.) For how could they be accused of not discerning the body of Christ, if it be not really present?— Whence this deviation of the Reformed Churches from the doctrine of the Lutheran Confessions, of the Bible? Because of that doctrine’s contradicting the senses. Thence it is that the Reformed Church and a host of its legitimate offspring detract from the Word of God. And this is the second cause why so many differ from the Word of God and the Lutheran Confession.And thus it is that the so-called infallibility of true orthodoxy is by no means absurd. But this is just what non-Lutherans and Pseudo-Lutherans of to-day would like to impress and sometimes succeed in impressing upon the minds of such as either have never had a good opportunity to be initiated into truly Lutheran theology, or have studied it only very carelessly and superficially. Such, we admit, will very easily be caught by the futile arguments of the enemies of true, firm, unchanging orthodoxy. These will very often argue: Why? Your old-Lutheran theology is hardly known, how can it be the only infallible theology? As to this, it is a real fact that it is as yet but very little known. We hope that the time will not be far distant when this will have ceased to be true. It is due in part to the fact that old-Lutheranism, up to this time, has but very rarely appeared in an English dress. Then there is new-Lutheranism that has carefully purged ( ! ) its theology from almost everything characteristically Lutheran and is, up to the present time, considered to be genuine Lutheran theology, thus causing Lutheran, i. e., truly old-Lutheran theology to be but very little known. Finally, there are a great many Lutherans who lack independence of thought, who blindly follow anybody that may chance to have a D.D. bestowed by some fashionable university after his name and delight in making the earth resound with his stentorian clamor against true orthodoxy and Scripture-infallibility. We say, there are a great many Lutherans who are disinclined to go to trouble to study old-Lutheranism, because Dr. So and So says, it isn’t worth [[@VolumePage:2,125]]while. There are a great many Lutherans who, on hearing that Dr. Schem’s Cyclopedia calls Dr. Quenstedt’s Systema “A work which can not be used in our age” (“Ein für die heutige Zeit unbrauchbares Werk”), and that most of the supposed peers of theology of to-day agree with him, blindly follow those authorities and remain ignorant of and prejudiced against Lutheran theology. But how, in the world, can their ignorance be a proof that the infallibility of Lutheran theology be absurd?—We have shown to what this ignorance on the part of outsiders to the old-Lutheran Church is due. In addition to this, we shall show the fallacy of the above arguments of our opponents by but one illustration. We refer to the Bible and truly evangelical gospel-doctrine up to and immediately before the time of the Reformation. We ask, was it really universally known? Surely not. On the contrary, by the grace of God it was brought to light by Dr. Luther and THE Church of the Reformation. Though to read the Bible was then universally considered unpardonable heresy, though, in consequence of this, the Bible and the doctrine of the gospel was but very little known, still the Churches are unanimous in pronouncing it not absurd, and thus, true, unwavering, infallible orthodoxy (“not tossed about by every wind of doctrine”), though little known, is not absurd.Moreover, old-Lutheranism is not to be called absurd, because it is not in fashion. This fact is very easily accounted for. It is a fundamental principle in Lutheran theology to ascribe everything good to God, everything bad to man. This is a rule which true Lutheranism never disobeys. At the same time it is far from being calculated to flatter human vanity. The carnal mind is enmity against God and particularly against old-Lutheranism. We don’t wonder at all that old-Lutheranism is unfashionable with such as make religion a matter of fashions. For, as fashions in dress have their origin in Paris, and London, so the religious ( ! ) fashions and ideas of religious fashion of that whole class just now alluded to, are framed by Dr. So and So of London, or Dr. So and So of Philadelphia, &c. With such followers of authority it is a matter of course that old-Lutheranism is out of fashion. Upon the whole, it is a very queer criterion of absurdity, or nonabsurdity, whether anything is out of fashion. Up to most recent times, it was a principle generally received, that suicide is immoral and cowardice. That principle is out of fashion now. Is it, therefore, absurd?—Up to most recent times, it was considered out of fashion to believe that anybody who performed manual labor could be truly called a gentleman. Now this is generally believed and nobody will pronounce it [[@VolumePage:2,126]]absurd. If all would diligently study old-Lutheran theology, something similar would happen in a majority of cases. It would no more be considered absurd, because it should have chanced to have been out of fashion.Nor can it be adduced as a proof against the infallible orthodoxy of old-Lutheranism that old-Lutherans are comparatively few in numbers. What absurdities would result, if we would accept this as an axiom: It is absurd not to believe what is held by an overwhelming majority? By far the most men in christian nations would say: Churches are superfluous, and it would be absurd to disbelieve them. Just about as many would in their ignorance claim that “taxes should be abolished,” and it would be absurd not to join in with them. But it is beyond doubt that at different times truths have been known by comparatively few persons. Archimedes of old knew principles of natural philosophy, especially optical principles not known by any of his time. During the Middle Ages only a few persons knew that the earth was round, while that idea was derided by the geographical authorities of their time. Still later, in the 15th century, it was nobody but Columbus who adhered to the truth of that theory that no scientific ( !? ) authorities could dissuade him from putting it to a practical test. In the same manner, there were but comparatively few who in the darkness of the Middle Ages had more or less of evangelical light. We have reference to John Huss, John Wycleffe, and other heralds of the future Reformation, and others, comparatively unknown as Dr. Staupitz. And the truth which those few knew and proclaimed is now universally acknowledged not to be absurd, nor to have been absurd.Nor is infallible orthodoxy of old-Lutheranism absurd, because it denounces so-called scientific development of theology in any form whatever. This, however, is the idol of the spirit of our times. Everything is nowadays “scientifically developed,” and sometimes in such a form that a humorist, writing for the New York Graphic, could put it into the department of Wit and Humor without the slightest alterations. Everything we say is now “scientifically developed,” armies of philosophical systems, armies of different species of Darwinism, husbandry, the art of cooking, the art of hair-dressing. We shouldn't wonder, if we should sooner or later come across a “Scientifical Development of the Art of Driving a Nail.” In short, our age is in a perfect “craze of development.” But the worst of all is that the majority of people of a superficial education have really wonderful ideas about these matters, holding such treatises to be superior in “scientifical development” which contain the biggest words with a minimum of [[@VolumePage:2,127]]meaning,—treatises of which as little as possible can be understood. This is particularly true with regard to a great many scientific developments of theology as produced in Germany, the home of thinkers and philosophers. Not excluding our own country, it is more especially in Germany that the “craze of development” has taken hold of the theological world. There they do develope according to the different ways in which the theological matters may present themselves to individual authors of that host of “Scientific Developments of Theology.” Thus it is that their “theology” is as variable as the color of the skin of a chameleon, that it changes with the moon, that what is an highly admired Development to-day, is derided and looked down upon as obsolete to-morrow. Also in this respect we do not permit ourselves to be swept away by the current of our times. For God has said: Ye shall not add thereto nor diminish aught from it. From this we do correctly infer that whatsoever is revealed in the Bible is not something which we could change, present, model according to our own individual notions, even if we should condescend to euphemistically call it “developping.” That passage tells us that whatsoever truths are revealed in the Bible, they are all sustaining the same relations to theology, as axioms do to their respective science, and that they, last but not least,— should be respected as such. Now, what would you say, if some one speculate about and “develop” some of the axioms of algebra, so as to make out that, if b and c, being equal, were either of them added to a, the result should not be equal, but differing by c/2? Would you call that scientific? Certainly not. But the Word of God tells us that all the truths revealed in the Bible are axioms which we can not, ought not, dare not develop. We can develop on the basis of these axioms, the result will be systematic theology, or, to use a common term, Dogmatics. But in doing so, we never dare change the axioms, never dare change the truths revealed, though we may present them, i. e., Those Very Same Unchangeable Truths, in different light, from different standpoints. These are our reasons, why we can not believe, nor take part in that kind of “developping” which results in theology, or rather “theologies,” changing with the moon,—a kind of “developping” which is contradictorily opposed to true, infallible orthodoxy. Such “developping” is unscriptural and, therefore, false. Hence, our opposition against such a chameleon-theology does not render our true, infallible (because scriptural) orthodoxy absurd.To recapitulate, the reasons adduced to prove the absurdity of the infallible orthodoxy of old-Lutheranism are very [[@VolumePage:2,128]]windy. Nor is old-Lutheran orthodoxy absurd in itself. Though we do admit, we don’t know the internal reason why God has granted old-Lutheranism the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, still we have shown the external reasons why the infallibility of old-Lutheran orthodoxy is not absurd, though other churches differ therefrom. We have shown that the cause of the latter fact was to be sought for in their making reason and tradition secondary principles of theology. For proof, we refer to the illustrations in the preceding pages. What we have there demonstrated with regard to certain points in theology, could be demonstrated about every other point. Hence, because we can very reasonably account for the difference between the doctrine of our Lutheran Church and that of others, the infallibility of true orthodoxy can not be said to imply something absurd, and, therefore, to be absurd.General Religious Intelligence.The Old Testament. The Work of Revision to be completed in two years.—The members of the Old Testament Company of the American Bible revision committee will hold their next meeting on Monday, Sept. 24, in Bible House, New York, the meeting to continue the whole of the week. Thereafter a monthly meeting lasting three days will be held at the same place during the last week of every month until the revision is completed. The members are now in the midst of a second revision of the Old Testament, at the completion of which a third and final revision will be made. During the first week of the month a pleasant session of the company was held at the Lake Mohonk House, at which considerable progress in the work of revision was made. The work is not expected to be entirely completed before 18 months or two years from the present time, but circulars are already being sent out for subscriptions for authorized memorial copies of the revised Old Testament similar to those published on the completion of the revision of the New Testament. These memorial copies and additional ones for presentation only may be subscribed for at $20 a copy. The finance committee of the American Bible revision committee considers this method the most convenient mode of raising the necessary expenses required for the completion of the revision of the Old Testament. The money should be sent to the treasurer, Mr. Andrew L. Taylor, No. 6 Bible House. In case the number of subscribers shall warrant it, the committee intends to present to each subscriber a handsomely bound copy of the “Documentary History of the Anglo-American Bible Revision,” to be prepared by order of the revision committee. This committee is composed of Philip Schaff, D. D., LL. D., president, and George E. Day, D. D., secretary. The Old Testament Company, by whom the American revision of the Old Testament is being made, is composed of Prof. William Henry Green, D.D., Princeton, N. J., chairman; Prof. George E. Day, D.D., New Haven, Ct., secretary; Prof. Charles A. Aiken, D. D., Princeton, N. J.; Rev. T. W. Chambers, D. D., New York city; Prof. John DeWitt, D. D., New Brunswick, N. J.; Prof. George Emlen Hare, D. D., Philadelphia, Pa.; Prof. Charles P. Krauth, D. D., LL. D., University of Pennsylvania; Prof. Charles M. Mead, D. D., Andover, Mass.; Prof. Howard Osgood, D. D., Rochester, N. Y.; Prof. Joseph Packard, D. D., Theological Seminary. Fairfax County, Va., and Prof. James Strong, S.T.D., Madison, N.J. Alph.. [[@VolumePage:2,129]]THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.Vol. 2. September 1882. No. 9.(For the “Theological Monthly.”)A Brief Recapitulation.Not long after our opponents had commenced their public warfare against the scriptural doctrine concerning predestination, they were reminded in a friendly manner that, should they continue in attacking and denouncing the clear doctrine of the Formula of Concord, they would by the very defence of their own conceptions soon be driven into Synergism, if they not then already were infected with that papistic leaven. There were, at the very start, some watchful eyes and “senses exercised,” which perceived and discerned well marked prognostic signs in the opposite movements, indicative of the course and event of the contest carried on by our new enemies. And now, what does the history of a short space of time teach us? The strenuous but useless efforts on the part of the Ohioans etc.— aiming at the rescue of their wrecked ship as well as at the destruction of the old reliable fortress of truth, have hitherto corroborated that prediction in a truly remarkable manner.When our opponents affirmed and obstinately maintained that election be depending upon man’s own conduct, they could not stop there. The legitimate sequel was the assertion, that, it is a matter resting in man’s own will and determination, whether he would willfully resist the Holy Spirit in His work or abstain from willfull resistance, so as to render his conversion possible,—to prepare himself for receiving a new heart. It is true, they took great pains to beat about the bush as long as possible, but being driven to straits, there was no alternative but either to surrender or to take refuge under the shelter of Synergism. Preferring the latter resort, it being considered the more safe because “rational”—they made use of such downright synergistic language that on the side of the defenders of truth the triumphant cry of battle was sounded, “Praised be God, who has delivered our most furious enemies into our hands!” [[@VolumePage:2,130]]Denouncing the plain and true declaration of the F. C. with reference to the disputed article, our opponents claim that they were led to raise their voice against “Missouri” by no other motive than to defend God’s glory and to secure to Christians the peace and the comfort of the Gospel. We have no objection to raise against a motive of that kind. Most certainly not. But, letting the alleged cause unimpeached, the question arises, Did and can they really accomplish their purpose by means of their views, as promulgated by them in opposition to what they still are pleased to contradict as Calvinistic heresy? By examining a few points, we soon shall find the proper, correct answer to our question.It will readily be conceded, that the mere intent and purpose can not be taken as proofs of the end aimed at. Thousands of instances serve to verify the saying that“The flighty purpose ne’er is overtook, Unless the deed go with it.”Zwinglius supposed he was defending Christ’s honor, and yet he only dishonored His glorious Name by his false doctrine concerning the Lord’s Supper and by what he termed “Alloeosis”, which, to use Luther’s severe but righteous sentence, “is the mask of the devil”, and which “will finally devise a Christ according to whom I certainly would not wish to be a Christian” etc. ([[B.C. p. 692. N.M. Ed. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:viii:20-22]]) Arms intended to assign all glory to God alone and he supposed, or at least avowed, that he purposed nothing else. But did his opinions, for the support of which he referred even to the Scriptures, in reality glorify God? Contradicting the scriptural doctrine of the Holy Trinity, he argued “that such a conception was impossible to human reason” and hence could not be true. This was exalting “common sense” to the disparagement of the glory of God. When, through the lenity of Theodosius the Great, the Arians had succeeded in disseminating their God-dishonoring creed, the pious Amphilochus most justly censured the emperor, saying, “What must the eternal God think of you, who have allowed His co-equal and co-eternal Son to be degraded in His proper divinity?”Flacius and his followers certainly had no other motive than to vindicate God’s glorious Name, when they fought for terms implying their Manichean error, that original sin is the substance, nature and essence itself of corrupt man. But to show how far they were from the reality of their purpose, we may simply quote the words of our confession: “The difference between nature itself and original sin is as great as the difference between the works of God and the works of the devil.” ([[F. C. Ep. I. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:I:2]]) [[@VolumePage:2,131]]Not to add any more examples of similar import, we would now ask, How so is all the glory ascribed and attributed to God alone by the explanation of predestination as set forth by our opponents? How so is the true comfort secured to disturbed consciences by their doctrine?According to their version, God decreed to elect to the adoption of sons and everlasting life those sinners that would fulfill a certain condition. This condition is something against the corrupt nature of man, it is persevering faith in Christ. Now God knows from eternity, that but a few of the human race will against their own nature fulfill this condition. Foreknowing and foreseeing this conduct of the few, He pronounced the judiciary sentence before the beginning of the world: “These few only can be my elect”. Thus predestination is, in fact, nothing but the decree of God to crown with eternal glory and honor that grand moral achievement by which those few excel the rest of their race. In the method of argumentation adopted by our opponents God’s mercy and the merits of Christ are not the cause of the election unto salvation, but rather the motive prompting Him to pronounce those His elect who conduct themselves in the manner described. In short: God bestows His mercy and the merits of Christ upon them who, in His judgment, are worthy of His blessings. But does this assumption serve to give the praise and glory to God alone? Does it not make void the solemn declaration of God: “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help”? Hos. 13. 9.But how great the difference between the offensive opinions of our opponents and the pure doctrine of our F. C.! There we read that it is false and erroneous if it be taught “that not the mercy of God alone and the most holy merit of Christ are the cause, but that in us also there is a cause of the election of God, on account of which God has elected us to everlasting life.” And what arguments are advanced in support of this affirmation? Our Confession proceeds to say: “For, not only before we had done anything good, but also before we were born, yea, before the foundation of the world, He elected us in Christ” etc. “Before we had done anything good”—and now come our innovators and would-be-emendators, trying to make us believe that the elect are not elected until they have performed something good, even the duty of persevering faith! But is this the “doctrine and explanation of the eternal and saving election of the elect children of God”, by which “the honor of God is wholly and fully attributed to Him, namely that through pure mercy in Christ, without any of our merits or good works, He saves us according to the purpose of His [[@VolumePage:2,132]]will”? ([[N.M. Ed. p. 726 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:88]]) Verily not! God’s grace is undervalued and man’s doings are exalted.And how about the comfort derived from the explanations advanced by the Ohioans &c.? So little comfort is found therein that it rather drives troubled and distressed consciences to desperation. “You do not know whether you are in the number of the elect, because you do not know, whether you will endure to the end, and whereas you have received no revelation as to the state in which you will be found when death’s summons will reach you, it is well enough for you to “be in hopes” of salvation, but whether your hope shall be realized or frustrated, is depending on your own conduct, and whereas your perseverance is quite uncertain, your election, as a matter of course, is likewise a matter of uncertainty.” Such is the consolation extended by the sentiments of our assailants. A peculiar way of comforting distressed Christians! This very manner of instructing, that is to say, of misleading Christians, is forcibly rejected and condemned by our Confession which, in very plain words, declares that, “if any one inculcates this doctrine concerning the gracious election of God in such a manner that distressed Christians can not console themselves by it, but are rather led into despair, or that the impenitent are encouraged in their wickedness, it is undoubtedly certain and true, that this doctrine, is set forth not according to the Word and will of God, but according to mere human reason and suggestions of the devil.” ([[N. M. Ed. p. 727. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:91]]) According to the statements of the Ohioans &c. the true believer in Christ is to remain in suspense and to wait for his departure from life in order to see whether he shall be in the number of the elect. How, then, can the believer take comfort from and rejoice in his election, since he must doubt whether he shall be among the elected or not? Is it possible to receive courage and joy from what is either not in existence or whose existence we act wisely to doubt? Children of God are taught to take comfort from their election and here come the Ohio-men and try to make us believe that we “may be and may be not” elected. What comfort is there in a may-be-election? If our adversaries were correct, what comfort could there be in the Words of our Savior, that if it were possible the very elect should be deceived and led astray by the cunning artifice of false prophets? Mat. 24. 24. What sense were there in the comforting words of St. Paul: Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? Rom. 8. 33.According to the confession of the Lutheran Church the eternal election of God is “the ordaining of God unto salvation, pertaining only to the children of God, who were elected [[@VolumePage:2,133]]and ordained to eternal life before the foundation of the world.” And this “eternal election not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect, but is also… a cause which procures… our salvation and whatever pertains to it, upon which (election or cause) our salvation is so firmly grounded, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” According to our Confession this doctrine affords to troubled and agitated minds the surest consolation, since thereby they know that their salvation is not entrusted to their hands, but that it depends on the gracious election of God. ([[p. 727. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:90]])“Thereby they know”—“inde certi fiunt”—they are made sure thereby. Whereby? By what is said concerning the eternal, gracious, saving election. Of what are they assured? Of their salvation! And why? Because they are made sure, 1. that their salvation is entrusted not to their own hands, but to the hands of their good Shepherd, 2. that their salvation depends on the gracious election of God:—“eam (salutem) in clementi divina Praedestinatione fundatam esse”. And this is the comfort wherewith we are comforted of God! 2 Cor. 1. 4.With reference to the doctrine concerning conversion, we meet with the same lamentable fact that the Ohio Synod, having deserted the Standards of the Lutheran Church, sets forth an “explanation”, by which the honor of God is not “wholly and fully attributed to Him”. The turning hinge throughout their argumentations is to represent conversion to rest, in some measure, at the decision of the sinner himself. To refrain from willfull resistance, we are told, is only a matter of freewill. All that is necessary for the willfully counteracting sinner, is merely to resolve to quit resistance and to act accordingly. This done, the solid, impenetrable rock, the insurmountable obstacle is removed from the heart and grace is enabled to deal with the pliant cover remaining! Man’s own preparation, as the primary condition, is to precede the converting work of the Holy Spirit!—Our F. C, with regard to the natural state and abilities of man, confesses the “deep, evil, horrible, fathomless, unsearchable and unspeakable corruption of the whole nature and of all the powers of man”, “an innate evil disposition and an inward impurity of the heart, evil desires and inclinations… diametrically opposed to God by nature… at enmity with God, especially with respect to divine and spiritual things”. ([[p. 599, 600. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:i:11]]) But nowhere do we read that the sinner, by his own will and consent, could or must change this inimical opposition into a quiet, submissive disposition. On the contrary, the question, whether man “can prepare himself for the [[@VolumePage:2,134]]apprehension of this grace” is answered in the negative and at the same time it is most emphatically declared, that the sinner “remains an enemy to God until he is converted”; that man “by nature and character is altogether evil, stubborn, and inimical to God, actively, eagerly and energetically engaged in doing everything that is displeasing and opposed to God”; that natural freewill “previous to regeneration, is Rebellious and inimical to the law and will of God.” ([[Art. II. F. C. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:7]]) But where do we read that the wicked, in order to be renewed, before their regeneration can and must, by their own consent and ability, desist from their active, eager and energetic rebellion against God? Nowhere! “Freewill by its own natural powers not only can not effect, or co-operate in effecting any thing in respect to conversion, righteousness and salvation… it also, in a hostile manner, opposes God and His will, unless it is enlightened and governed by the Spirit of God.” ([[ib. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:17]]) We recommend to the perusal and meditation of our opponents that [[passage from Luther’s Commentary on the 90. Psalm as inserted in the second Art. of F. C., >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:20-21]] and would advise them to compare their theory with the pure doctrine of the Lutheran Church. May they learn that “poor, fallen human nature obtains conversion—not through its own fitness or capacity—for the nature is obstinately opposed to God— but from grace alone, through the merciful and efficacious operation of the Holy Spirit”, and that all that pertains to the accomplishment of man’s conversion, is “in solidum”— wholly and entirely, the operation of God’s free grace.G. R.(For the “Theological Monthly”.)An Answer to the Question whether we teach what Calvinists term “Irresistible Grace.”One of the objections which our present principal opponents have frequently laid before their readers in opposition to our doctrine concerning predestination or election of grace, consists in the imputation that we teach a Calvinistic irresistible working of God’s grace in the case of the elect. The clamoring of our opponents in this respect has at times been so loud and boisterous as though the war-field already belonged to them, and some of their arguments set to work to sustain the false charge are put forth with an appearance of right and piety and honesty so captious that it is not at all to be wondered at if such as are not able here to understand at once the depths of Satan [[@VolumePage:2,135]]are deceived. The imputation referred to is also the quintessence of what Professor Loy writes in his “introductory” to the Columbus Theological Magazine on pp. 24 and 25 of the 1st number, and on pp. 348 and 349 of number 6, of that bimonthly, although we shall quote from two or three other pages also, that the reader may view the imputation and, consequently, the falseness of the same in their proper light, or rather, blackness. What is there said is all calculated to make the reader believe that we teach what the Calvinists in their church-language commonly call irresistible grace and that, therefore, our doctrine concerning predestination or election is Calvinistic. Let us, therefore, here subject this point to our earnest consideration.But before we hear what Prof. Loy imputes to us, it will certainly not be out of place for us to take a short look at the Calvinistic doctrine of irresistible grace itself.J. A. Quenstedt, a well known and renowned orthodox theologian of our Lutheran Church, who had studied and was well versed in the Calvinistic system of doctrine, writes as follows: “The propositions (hypotheses) of the Calvinists, from which passive irresistibility of the divine grace which cannot suffer itself to be resisted, is inferred, are these: 1. that grace or the power of God to convert man is absolute by reason (ex = in consequence) of God’s absolute decree, 2. that grace or the power of God to convert man works omnipotently or by absolute omnipotence, 3. that grace or the power of God to convert man is immediate or that it determines the will without means (immediate).” Cap. VII. q. 3. fol. 512. According to this, God’s grace, in the Calvinistic system of doctrine, is absolute because God’s decree to save and to damn is absolute. We purposely say, God’s decree to save and to damn, as the same refers to the good and the evil of mankind, in that system. For Calvin himself writes: “Predestination we call the eternal decree of God according to which He has appointed for Himself what it would be His will should be done in regard to every human being. For all are not created in the same condition; but, eternal life is preordained for the ones, eternal damnation for the others. As, therefore, each one is created (conditus) for this or that end, so we say he is predestinated either to life or to death.” [[Inst. III. 21. 5. >> cicr:III:21:5]] The Synod of Dort speaks of the absolute decree in this wise: “That some are donated by God in time with faith, some not, this flows from His eternal decree… according to which decree God graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however hard they may be, and inflects them to believe, but leaves the non-elect in their malice and hardness according to His just judgment. And [[@VolumePage:2,136]]here, above all, that… decree of election and reprobation… opens itself to us.” [[Can. Dordr. cap. I. art. 6. >> CanonsOfDort:I:1:6]] This is the horrible absolute decree of the Calvinists, according to which they say God has from eternity preordained this man to salvation and that man to damnation. But they therefore also hold God’s grace to be no less absolute than the decree to save and to damn, that is, by this absolute grace, which is regarded as particular, the elect are saved under all circumstances whatever may oppose and no matter how hard their hearts may be, even if they were as hard as Pharaoh’s heart was, no matter how much they may resist grace and of what nature their resistance may be, even if it were ever so pertinacious and were what the Formula of Concord calls, in the non-elect, persistent resistance; what is called faith and what is called softening of the hard heart in that system, is forced upon them; whilst the others shall not be saved, do what they may. Whilst grace shall not be resisted in the elect, it shall and must be resisted in the reprobate; for, says Calvin, God “has created them” (the reprobate) “to be vessels of His wrath and examples of His severity; in order that they may reach their end, He now deprives them of the faculty of hearing His word, now blinds and stupefies them still more by the preaching of the same… Behold, He directs His voice to them, but in order that they may become the more deaf; He kindles the light, but in order that they may be made more blind; He sets forth the doctrine, but in order that they may be stupified the more by it; He presents the remedy, but in order that they may not be healed.” [[Inst. III. 24.12. >> cicr:III:24:12]] Thus the Gospel is preached to these men, but it shall not and cannot save them, and those who have heard the Gospel and have been brought to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ by the same have no consolation when the devil afflicts them on account of their sins; one would have to say to them, according to this blasphemous doctrine: It is questionable whether the divine absolute decree puts you into heaven or into hell; if you are predestinated to life you are or will be enlightened by the Word; but if you are predestinated to death you are already or will once be made more blind by it, &c. This miserable, damnable doctrine, dear reader, our opponents declare to be the doctrine of the orthodox Lutheran Missouri Synod.Yet, we have not quite got through looking at the Calvinistic doctrine of irresistible grace. Calvin says: “Meanwhile this must be maintained that however small and weak faith in the elect may be, yet, because the Spirit of God is a sure earnest in them, and a seal of their adoption, the sculpture of it can never be destroyed in their hearts.” [[Inst. III. 2. 12. >> cicr:III:2:12]] [[@VolumePage:2,137]] “We assert that the root of faith is never pulled out of the pious breast.” [[Ibid. 21. >> cicr:III:2:21]] Zanchius says in Miscellan., p. 65.: “The Holy Spirit, once given to one born anew, remains with him forever.” Beza, Calvin’s successor, says: “Those who have once been donated with true faith can never lose the same any more. David did not lose the Spirit of regeneration by perpetrating and continuing in adultery, but something of the Spirit and of faith was reserved and, for a while), slept in him,” Resp. 2. ad Coll. Momp., pp. 880 and 74. Piscator says, contra Schaffm., p. 160.: “Not even did David by adultery and homicide, nor did Peter by denying his Lord, lose the Holy Spirit.” The same doctrine is also set forth in the Dort Canons. According to it, whilst the non-elect, in consequence of God’s absolute decree and will, shall be left without grace from the beginning to the end of their lives, the elect are forced, in consequence of the same decree and will of God, to have and keep faith, grace and the Spirit and cannot even lose them by committing the most atrocious sins.From what the Calvinists say in the above quotations from their own writings on the imagined impossibility of the elect to lose grace when it has once been bestowed upon them, we also see what kind of faith they have in their system. It is not true faith in our Savior Jesus Christ by which men are actually saved. They teach that faith is not lost by adultery and murder. If we judge the faith which, according to the Calvinistic system, is given to the elect at the time of their conversion by the faith which is said to remain in the hearts of adulterers and murderers while they are yet impenitent, we must conclude that, in fact, there is no real faith taught in that system. Therefore it is idle talk when it is said in one of the above quotations that the hard hearts of the elect are softened by God. They may be softened, according to the Calvinistic system, not only when God has wrought true repentance and faith in them by His Word and grace, as these terms are taken by all true Christians, but also when the hearts are void of true repentance and faith, as the Calvinists speak only of one kind of faith. And when the Synod of Dort says: “Election was made… to faith and obedience of faith, to sanctity etc.”, [[cap. I. art. 9., >> CanonsOfDort:I:1:9]] we know what meaning the words have. To the Calvinists their absolute decree is everything; upon it is based whatever they teach in their theology. It, therefore, matters little for them whether they speak of faith in their doctrine of election or not.Now, when the Missouri Synod in 1877, 1879 and 1880 [[@VolumePage:2,138]]discussed the doctrine concerning predestination or election in its meetings, did it adopt or approve of the Calvinistic doctrine, as the same is here in part set forth? We say, No. The Missouri Synod, whilst it does not deny that it is composed of human beings the frailty of whose natures may at times appear in their expressions also, has never promulgated doctrines based upon the suggestions and conclusions of our depraved reason, but from its very beginning God has led it, as He is still doing, to spread truly Lutheran doctrines as they are drawn from the Holy Scriptures and contained in the Confessions of the Lutheran Church.(1) In its recent meetings the Missouri Synod said, among other things, the following: “Here we must firmly adhere to this, that election or predestination refers to the elect alone, but by no means to the reprobate simultaneously; for God has predestinated no man to damnation. God predestinates to life, to salvation only. Of course, our reason always wants to draw the conclusion: If man cannot do anything unto his salvation, but God alone must do everything, then God must also have destined him who is lost to damnation. But a Christian is accustomed to bring his reason into captivity to the obedience of faith, and this he does in this doctrine, and he thereby gains the victory over all the protestations and afflictions of his reason; he is humbly awaiting eternity where God will solve the enigma in the most beautiful and clearest manner. Surely enough, the two revealed doctrines of the Holy Scriptures seem to contradict each other: that God, from eternity, by mere grace, elected certain individuals to salvation and that, nevertheless, it is man’s own fault if he is lost; but the Lutheran Church has the rule of faith that when the Scriptures clearly reveal to us two seemingly contradictory truths, we believe both… It is said (to us): You are obliged to draw this conclusion: that God predestinates the ones to salvation, the others to damnation… But we do not draw this conclusion. Why not? Because God has forbidden us to do it. And where has He forbidden it? In the Holy Scriptures where He teaches that election, indeed, is an election of grace, but that in men alone is the fault of their damnation, as, for instance, in our passage from Hosea. (Hos. 13. 9.: ‘O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in Me is thine help.’) We are by no means inconsistent, we are only obedient to God and His Word, and that is our duty, if we want to be Christians. Whoever will not be obedient to God and His holy Word, may draw that forbidden conclusion, but he must not wonder, if he in this disobedience falls into despair and goes to hell. Calvin has drawn this conclusion; but he [[@VolumePage:2,139]]thereby also became a heretic making God to be the devil. He thought the difficulty that God saves us by grace alone and that, nevertheless, so many are damned, was easy to solve by saying: God predestinates not only to salvation, but also to damnation. But, how terrible!” Western Synodical Report of the year 1877, pp. 46. 47.(2) Further, the Missouri Synod said: “Luther says: ‘Human reason feigns an unequal will of God, as though God were a tyrant who has some individuals with whose conduct he is pleased, whether it be good or not good, and, on the other hand, hates the others, may they do what they will.’ Here Luther shows that by reason one gets into Calvinism. As soon as reason hears: Whoever is elected, is elected merely by grace and could do nothing towards his being elected, it thinks: Well, if that is so, God must not have wanted to save the others; if mere grace is here, then the free will of God must be there, namely: Those shall not be saved. It thinks here like Calvin: God has certain individuals who may do what they choose, they are His favorites, He brings them to heaven. And others may do what they choose, they shall not get to heaven. Here one might think: It seems as if Calvin had very strong faith. There are, indeed, some Scripture passages which seem to indicate that there is an absolute election and reprobation. It thus has the appearance, as if Calvin wanted to subject himself to God’s Word unconditionally, to do which he himself professed. But it is nothing but rationalism, they are only rational conclusions. The only reason why he brought up the doctrine was because it was consistent with his system. This has its origin in the thought: God is an absolute essence, He can do and think what He pleases, it is all right. He made God to be an iron fate having its throne above the world and dealing with the creatures quite arbitrarily. Calvin is in this respect no better than the modern theologians who construct a system for themselves to which the Holy Scriptures must then assent.” West. Syn. Rep. of the year 1879, p. 43.(3) The Missouri Synod says: “Calvin teaches further: In order to reveal His love, God from eternity elected certain men to salvation, these shall be saved at any rate under all circumstances. He will bring them to faith by an irresistible grace, so that, even if they resist ever so much, He will nevertheless force them to faith and, in like manner, also preserve them in faith by force, by giving them a grace that may not be lost… He also decreed to create the greatest portion of men for the purpose that they should be damned and go into everlasting torment. These it was not His will to redeem or to [[@VolumePage:2,140]]give them faith. Of course, God must have the Gospel preached in the whole world, or else His elect would not hear it; but he who is not elected is not meant when the Gospel is preached. God is not in earnest at all in calling him, He does not offer His grace to him at all; for He has decreed for once that he shall and must be damned. This is Calvin’s shameful doctrine; of all this we just teach the very contrary. We teach according to the Holy Scriptures that God will have all men to be saved, that He loved the whole world from eternity and gave them His Son Jesus Christ for a Savior… We teach that God calls every man earnestly to whom the Gospel is preached, and that God also surely saves him if he does not wilfully and pertinaciously resist; that it is God’s intention to bring every man to faith and to preserve him therein. There is no man that could say: But, perhaps I am not elected; of what use is it therefore for me to hear the preaching? Whoever speaks in this way is uttering what the devil says; for the power to believe lies in the Word. Therefore, to whom the Word is preached, to him God also offers His grace and eternal life. Therefore, if you are lost, do not accuse God, but cry out against yourself. Hence, no one who is solicitous for his salvation, needs to say: Ah, but perhaps I am not elected. Just this one should say: This is surely a proof for its being God’s will that I should believe I am elected, because He has given me His Gospel and I would like to believe.” W. S. Rep. of the year 1880, pp. 25. 26.(4) The Missouri Synod says further: “We follow the Holy Scriptures which say, that the unbelievers do not come to faith, is in consequence of their persistent resistance, hence, not in consequence of this” (as is taught by the Calvinists) “that God did not want to give them faith. Paul says the unbelieving Jews judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life; hence, everlasting life was offered to them in earnest.” Ibid. p. 30.(5) We say: “Of course, if I would wilfully, stubbornly, maliciously and persistentlv resist the Word of God, I would be lost.” W. S. Rep. of the year 1877, p. 36,(6) The 4th thesis presented for discussion and adopted in the synodical meetings of the Western District Synod in 1877 reads as follows: “It” (the Ev. Luth. Church) “rejects the doctrine ‘that God will not have all men to be saved, but, without regard to their sins, by His bare counsel, purpose and will alone, some are ordained to damnation, so that they cannot be saved’; it teaches on the contrary: ‘The cause that not all those who have heard the Word believe and some are therefore so much the more deeply damned, is not that God [[@VolumePage:2,141]]grudged them salvation, but they themselves are in fault, because they have heard the Word in such a manner as not to learn, but only to despise, to blaspheme and disgrace it, and have resisted the Holy Spirit whose will it was to work in them through the Word’; it also teaches ‘that the cause of this contempt of the Word is not God’s predestination [vel praescientia vel praedestinatio], but man’s perverse will’.” Report p. 22.( 7 ) Said synod declares: “Man cannot only do nothing towards his conversion, but he also has the awful power to resist, and this we all do when God wants to convert us.” W. S. Rep. of 1877, p. 71.(8) “Wernicke, the historian, writes: ‘Oliver Cromwell, protector of England (who died 1658), asked his chaplain in the night before he died, whether it was possible to fall from grace. When the chaplain answered in the negative, he exclaimed: Then I am happy, for I certainly know that I was once in grace. Was that not a terrible comfort? This chaplain gave the poor soul over to hell by this accursed doctrine that, if one is once in grace, he cannot fall from the same again. A wicked child of the world that was once converted, still recollects the time when it was in grace; but, instead of leading it on to repentance, the Calvinists plunge it into carnal security and, thus, into hell.” W. S. Rep. of 1879, p. 31.(9) On page 30 of the same report it is represented as false when “the Calvinists teach that not only Peter kept faith at the time when he denied the Lord, forswearing and accursing himself three times, but that David also when he fell into murder and adultery continued to be a true, believing child of God, … whilst the prophet himself called out to him that he was a child of death, consequently, worthy of damnation, and that he would be lost eternally, if he did not repent.” (10) “If your faith does not apprehend Christ, even if it were as glowing as an oven, you go to hell with it; but if it apprehends Christ, then, be your hand of faith ever so weak, you have God’s grace just as well as David, the hero of faith, who could by his God leap over a wall.) … Whoever is obliged to say to himself: You call yourself a Christian, but you love money and not Christ, you love the world and its pleasures and vanities and not the blessings of grace, you evidently love sin and fear not God’s wrath, to him we say: Stop your talk, you are no elect one” (where the connection shows the meaning to be: You have as yet no right to take [[@VolumePage:2,142]]comfort with the thought that you are elected). Rep. of Western Distr. Synod, 1879, p. 110. 112.(11) Lastly, the Missouri Synod says: “It is dreadful to see how Calvin distorts the clearest passages treating of the universality of the grace of God. He writes:… ‘The passage 1 Tim. 2. 4. is quoted where he (Paul) teaches that God will have all men to be saved… I answer that God thereby indicates nothing else than that he has foreclosed the way of salvation to no order of men.’ Thus his (Calvin’s) meaning is: Paul only wanted to say with these words that God has men in all stations, among the tailors, shoemakers, among the French, the Germans, etc., whom He will have to be saved.” W. S. Rep. of 1877, pp. 95. 96.(To be concluded.)General Religious Intelligence.Absurd Reports, apparently reverberations of the sound of Prof. F. A. Schmidt’s “alarm-bell” in predestination-matters, maybe met with in the secular press. The Daily Twin City News of August 1st, 1882, e. g., deludes the public in this way: “Crazy Christians.—The Lutherans at Oshkosh becoming lunatics owing to a religious excitement.—The question of predestination creates a rumpus in the church.—Members of the German Lutheran Church at Oshkosh are having a big row all among themselves, on the question of predestination. The Wisconsin Synod, to which the church belonged, was held at La Crosse, commencing June 9th. The question of putting the doctrine of predestination into the tenets of the church had been discussed among some of the synods during the last few years, and the Missouri Synod has already adopted it. At the Wisconsin Synod at this time, the question came up and it was vetoed (sic!) by a majority to adopt the foreordination plank, and instructed the ministers (sic!) to go home to their congregations and secure their submission to the new dogma. The pastor of the Oshkosh church at once introduced the new dogma. A majority of the members, however, rebelled against the new innovation, denouncing the doctrine of predestination and demanded that the preacher should either cease preaching his new creed or leave the church,” &c., &c. The report was corrected in the same paper, August 11th, by N. P. N. H., who says: “It is a fact that there is no church on earth more opposed to what is ‘new’ than the Lutheran Church is. It is also a fact that the Missouri Synod as well as the Wisconsin Synod and other synods connected with these, are so far from ‘introducing’ or ‘preaching’ anything ‘new,’ that these synods are just the ones that cling to the old truth and defend it against what is ‘new’ more firmly than any other church. That there are a few members within the synods who because of exotic influence or ignorance do not agree with the old doctrine does, of course, not abrogate my statement.”The Religious Statistics Of The City Of Baltimore compared with those of New York.—The population not connected with the churches.—The New York Times in a recent issue published a collection of statistics concerning church membership in the great metropolis which has awakened a good deal of interest and provoked much criticism. If the figures as published in the Times are correct the Protestant church membership of the city is only 90,579, out of a population of 1,300,000. The Roman Catholic population is placed at 500,000, but this estimate has been attacked from certain sources as [[@VolumePage:2,143]]an exaggeration. If, however, it be assumed that it is correct, the total church membership of New York city will number only 590,579, or 118,842 less than one-half of the total population. From these figures the Times draws the inference that the majority of the inhabitants of the city are indifferent in regard to religious matters. This showing will seem still more startling if the estimate of the Catholic membership, which embraces the whole population of that faith, is subtracted from the total population. This would leave a non-Catholic population of 800,000. Out of this number only a little more than one-ninth part is connected with the church. These figures have an important bearing upon many questions connected with the social and political status of the metropolis and deserve to be carefully studied. Similar statistics of other cities will be observed with equal interest, and a representative of the News has gathered from the most reliable sources the statistics of church membership in Baltimore with a view to comparing the resulting figures with those of the metropolis. Such statistics must, from their very nature, be more or less unreliable, and their accuracy is almost sure to be questioned by those to whom the results are disappointing. The figures given below, however, have been taken from the latest official publications of the denominations which publish statistics, and in the cases of other denominations the pastor of each church has been visited and an estimate obtained from him. This estimate has been then submitted to the consideration of other clergymen, and where there seemed to be any reason to believe that an error of judgment had been made, the estimate was submitted to the pastor for reconsideration and correction. The sum total shows a church membership in Baltimore of 177,689 out of a population of about 340,000 (exclusive of the “belt”), or a little more than 52 per cent. In New York the proportion was 45 per cent., or about 7 per cent, less than in Baltimore. The figures for the various denominations are as follows:Roman Catholic110,000Methodist:Methodist Episcopal 11,945Methodist Episcopal (colored) 6,477Methodist Episcopal (German) 417Methodist Episcopal South 1,821African M. E 3,482African M. E Zion100Methodist Protestant1,334Independent Methodist1,500Evangelical Association590United Brethren97028,642Lutheran 11,474Protestant Episcopal 8,561Baptist6,887Presbyterian:Northern Church3,190Southern Church855Other Presbyterian Churches9504,995Reformed Church4,109Friends1,003Christian (Disciples)600Universalist398Reformed Episcopal250Congregational160Swedenborgian160Unitarian50Independent400It will appear from this statement that the Roman Catholic population is about 61 per cent, of the total church membership, and a little less than one-third of the entire population of the city. The estimate here given was furnished to the News by Archbishop Gibbons, and is based upon the reports submitted to the archbishop by the parish priests. The Catholic Church regards all baptized children as within the bosom of the church, and includes [[@VolumePage:2,144]]in its statistics the whole body of the Catholic population. It would be unfair, however, to deduct from the figures given any number approximating to the number of nominal adherents of the Protestant Churches, while, on the other hand, it would be equally unfair to estimate the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, or Episcopal population at the figure given in their returns of communicants. Dr. L. P. Brockett, geographical and statistical editor of Johnson’s Cyclop?dia, estimates the adherent population of the leading Protestant denominations at four and a-half times the number of communicants. The Lutheran Reformed and other German churches, however, draw a much larger proportion of their people into their communion, a large majority of the children of those churches being confirmed and at least outwardly observing the forms of their religion unless drawn off into other churches or into rationalism, in either of which cases they of course cease to constitute a part of the adherent population of their hereditary church. It is among the great evangelical churches of the native American population that the indifference to church associations is principally found. If the adherent population of these churches is calculated at the ratio of four to one communicant (that being the lowest estimated ratio contended for by statisticians) and the membership of the other churches added, it will be seen that more than the 340,000 population allotted to the city will be included in the membership. The census of 1880 places the population of Baltimore at a little over 332,000 persons, which was probably less than the actual number of inhabitants of the city, but, on the other hand, there are probably many names on the church registers whose membership is merely nominal, and who should belong to the adherent population rather than to the membership. As the greater portion of the church records consulted were for the year 1881, the estimate of the population was not raised very much above the census of 1881, and, as there is also a Jewish population to be deducted from the total, it will clearly appear that the estimate here given of the church membership errs, if it errs at all, on the side of the church. There are, therefore, at least 162,311 persons in the city of Baltimore who are not members of any Christian Church, and whose non-membership is continued in the face of all the various denominations to secure them. The proportion of this number which is without faith in the doctrines of the Christian religion it is impossible to state, as there are very few avowedly irreligious organizations in the city. The Christian churches usually styled non-orthodox have an aggregate memberhip of nearly 2,000; the vast majority of the Hebrew population belongs to the reformed or deistic faith, the central idea of which is the “oneness of God,” but within which materialistic influences have worked to such an extent as to sweep away almost every vestige of the old faith, the Spiritualists professed free-thinkers and atheists, differing in their creeds as radically as the various sects of Christians, have each a fluctuating number of avowed adherents which it is impossible to estimate with any degree of accuracy, but which constitutes an inconsiderable portion of the population. It is safe, however, to say that excluding the Israelites and the professed Orthodox Christians, not more than two and a half per cent, of the remainder of the population is avowedly heterodox in its religious opinions.—The Baltimore Daily Nexus. Baptist Bible. A committee of nine, which has recently been appointed to consider the question of a distinctively Baptist Bible, has decided to call a convention to meet in Cincinnati in November, in which the whole denomination of this country shall be represented, and the question be thoroughly considered. Alph. [[@VolumePage:2,145]]THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.Vol. 2. October & November 1882. No. 10 & 11.(For the “Theological Monthly”.)An Answer to the Question whether we teach what Calvinists term “Irresistible Grace.”(Concluded.)After we had thus clearly and unmistakably rejected the Calvinistic doctrine of irresistible grace in our meetings of 1877, 1879, and 1880, Prof. Loy who, of course, read our reports of those meetings, comes hobbling along in 1881, from what motives is not quite clear to all, and denounces us as Calvinists who teach the very doctrine which we reject and would never harbor among us. He writes, among other things, the following: “The new theory” (of the Missourians) “…depraves the Lutheran system by introducing specifically Calvinistic elements; … the new theory is only a modified form of Calvinism.” He declares that the election taught by us is a “decree absolutely formed with regard to the favored persons.” Col. Theol. Mag. I, p. 25. This is refuted especially in the 2nd of the above quotations from our reports. He says that “He” (God), according to our doctrine, “selects from the condemned mass not those that believe, but just whom He pleases.” This is refuted in the 10th and 2nd quotation. He says: “In harmony with the Calvinists they” (the Missourians) “teach an absolute election… With them election makes the difference between those that are saved and those that perish… The confession says that men block up the way of the Spirit, so that He cannot perform His work in them, and thus adopts the Bible explanation. But Missouri throws the fault back upon God,” pp. 348. 349. This is all refuted in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th quotation. It is admitted by Prof. Loy on p. 92 that we are “justly charged with teaching a doctrine that leads to the Calvinistic heresy of absolute reprobation.” And on p. 93 he accuses us in this wise: “But when this election” (which we teach) “takes place those who are not elected are simply not elected They are passed [[@VolumePage:2,146]]by. That, the advocates of the new theory may say, does not mean that they are rejected and doomed. But what can it mean else?” This is refuted especially in the 1st and 3rd quotation. Prof. Loy says further that one of the “specifically Calvinistic elements” in our doctrine is that, “in other words, the grace of God, in the case of the elect, works irresistibly,” that “He” (God) “has resolved under all circumstances to save” “the select few,” p. 24. Our doctrine is denominated “the Calvinistic error of the irresistibility of divine grace.” This is refuted above in 3 and 7. “The Calvinistic dream of irresistible grace” is ascribed to us, “according to which it depends wholly upon God’s sovereign will whether a person shall believe and be saved, or not believe and be lost, … it fixes by a divine decree the eternal destiny of all men, whatever their hearts might desire or their course might be,” p. 355. This is refuted especially in 3 and 4. Prof. Loy casts “the universality of saving grace” out of our doctrine, p. 349, and tries to make his readers believe we teach “particular electing grace,” p. 165. Refuted above in 3 and 11. He ascribes the doctrine to us “that one in whom true faith has been wrought by the Holy Ghost can never fall,” p. 165. This is refuted in the 8th and 9th quotation. He insinuates that if the Scriptures did not expressly pronounce faith to be necessary to salvation, we would say nothing about faith in our doctrine of election. We read on pp. 348 and 349: “God’s Word speaks too frequently of the necessity of faith unto eternal salvation, else the doctrine might be set forth by Missourians that God’s election to such salvation will be executed in the elect whether they believe or not, their resistance to the Spirit’s work not being permitted to frustrate the absolute decree. As it is, the doctrine can only be that, as faith is said to be necessary, it can be bestowed and justification can ensue even where there is the most obstinate and malicious resistance to the Holy Spirit, since in the favored persons the end of election must be attained, whatever may oppose.” The necessary correction of all this is found in all the above quotations. The reader will please compare especially 9 and 10.It is evident that the Calvinistic doctrine of the irresistibility of divine grace has been imputed to us by Prof. Loy with no cause or right whatever. Instead of informing his readers of what we really do say and teach on election or predestination, he has first, in his own mind (a mode of procedure which has got to be very common among our present opponents) imputed to us this and that which we do not teach, and has then placed his conclusions drawn therefrom before the readers for the purpose of branding us as heretics and concealing the heresy into which he himself has fallen and which is as [[@VolumePage:2,147]]destructible as Calvinism, namely, Synergism. All readers who are seeking or rejoice in the truth will gladly admit that it is not true that we have the doctrine imputed to us, but that our doctrine is a quite different one, a doctrine occupying the golden middle between Calvinism and Synergism. We, therefore, cannot but feel ourselves scandalously slandered by Prof. Loy.The second of the three propositions lying at the bottom of the Calvinistic doctrine of irresistibility of divine grace is, as Quenstedt says, “that grace or the power of God to convert man works omnipotently or by absolute omnipotence.” Thus, in the Calvinistic system of doctrine, not only the divine decree concerning a man’s eternal welfare as well as the grace of God that converts man are both considered to be absolute, as has been shown above, but the instrumentality employed by grace in the conversion of man is the absolute omnipotence of God. From this it follows that grace, in this horrible system, works immediately by omnipotence alone, so that here the third proposition, as given by Quenstedt, comes in, to-wit, “that grace or the power of God to convert man is immediate or that it determines the will (of man in conversion) immediately or without means.” Omnipotence, then, without the Word is the instrumentality by which grace converts a man or, which is the same thing in that system, an elect, as the others shall not be converted. In other words, the elect are converted absolutely and immediately. By this theory omnipotence, grace, and the Holy Spirit are separated from the Word in the conversion of a man. When Calvin says that, “in order that the reprobates may reach their end,” “God blinds and stupefies them still more by the preaching of the Word”; that God “directs His voice to them, but in order that they may become the more deaf, kindles the light, but in order that they may be made more blind, sets forth the doctrine, but in order that they may be stupefied the more by it, presents the remedy, but in order that they may not be healed”; when Calvin expresses himself in this manner in regard to the divine Word, his opinion obviously is that God, according to His absolute decree and by His omnipotence, works in the reprobates in such a manner that, although they hear the preaching of the Word and the doctrine, they are still more blinded and stupefied thereby. The divine Word is thus made to be a means by which the opposite of what grace works is wrought. How can the same Word by which men are made more deaf, more blind, and more stupefied, be a means of grace which opens the ears and eyes and enlightens the heart? And which sinner that has heard God’s Word can ever, according to this system, be sure whether he is to be stupefied [[@VolumePage:2,148]]or enlightened by that Word? Thus the nature of being a means of grace is taken away from the Word. Grace being absolute, it attains its end in the elect, namely, their conversion and salvation, properly speaking without means by absolute omnipotence. In the Calvinistic system of doctrine, the Word must work in two opposite directions like the absolute God, His absolute decree, His absolute grace and omnipotence. The elect must be saved and the others must be damned absolutely and, hence, irresistibly.Further, the Synod of Dort expressed itself in such a manner,—the Word by which they say God efficaciously calls and draws the elect being solely an inner word of the Spirit—, that, in their written opinions on the Synod of Dort, the Britannic Calvinists said: “It is not in the will of human power to hinder God who thus regenerates immediately,” and the Calvinists in the Palatinate: “God works conversion by the supereminent magnitude of His might and according to the efficacy of the strength of His powers, by which He can subject all things unto Himself. The operation of God, which is so efficacious, so potent, can be called irresistible with the very best of right. . . As though dust and ashes could impede and elude the most omnipotent working of God!”That all this essentially belongs to the Calvinistic doctrine of the irresistibility of God’s grace no consistent follower of Calvin will dispute. But it is not our doctrine. It implies that, as the reprobates are forced to remain unconverted unto their end, the elect are forced to be converted and saved. We teach that, while the reprobates are lost by their own fault, the elect are saved without force. So, also, the elect and all those who believe for a time only are truly converted or turned, but not by coaction or compulsion. We, indeed, teach that conversion is God’s work alone, with the Formula of Concord, which says: “The conversion of our depraved will, which is nothing else but a resuscitation of it from spiritual death, is the work of God alone, as the resuscitation in the bodily resurrection of the flesh shall also be ascribed to God alone.” [[Art. II. Decl. § 87. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:87]] We also teach that a man who is to be converted is unable to do anything towards his conversion as such, as the Formula of Concord says in the same article, [[§ 61: >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:61]] “For this reason it also cannot be rightly said that man, before his conversion, has a modus agendi or a way of doing anything good and salutary in divine matters. For, because man, before his conversion, is dead in sins, Eph. 2. 5., there can be no strength in him to work anything good in divine matters, and hence he has also no modus agendi or way of working in divine matters.” But, although God alone converts man and man only suffers conversion, his conversion is [[@VolumePage:2,149]]nevertheless not an act of force or compulsion on the part of God, but a truly gracious act. The wonderful work of God, which is called conversion, does, indeed, appear to be something forced upon the sinner in the eyes of reason and the unconverted, but not in the eyes of faith and those in whom true conversion has been wrought.Let us call to our minds how our orthodox fathers have presented this matter in the Declaration of the 2nd article of the Formula of Concord. They write: “And although God does not force man, so that he must become pious [hominem non cogit, ut convertatur = does not force man to be converted] (for those who always resist the Holy Ghost and persevere in their repugnance to the known truth, as Stephen says concerning the hardened Jews, Acts 7., are not converted), yet God the Lord draws the man whom He will convert, and draws him in such a manner that a darkened understanding becomes an enlightened understanding, “and a rebellious will an obedient will. And this the Scriptures call creating a new heart,” [[§60. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:60]] It is remarkable that our fathers here say that God does not force man, so that he must become pious or be converted; and yet they indicate that God performs a most wonderful work in the unconverted man whom God will convert. In previous paragraphs they describe the man who is to be converted as an enemy of God and a blind, resisting, rebellious, contumacious, spiritually dead being, and here they declare that God powerfully draws such an unconverted man to Christ by His Word and grace.Yet, “This drawing is not as when the hangman draws a thief upon the ladder or the gallows; but it is a friendly enticing and drawing to Himself, as a pleasant man draws the people to himself by being friendly and kind and every one likes to go to him. Thus also God entices men to Himself and brings them to Himself in a gentle manner, so that they like to be with Him.” Luther, [[Walch’s ed., VII, 2026. >> logosres:lw23;ref=VolumePage.V_23,_p_86;off=2049]] In another place, Luther writes: “The impious man comes not, even after hearing the Word, unless the Father inwardly draw and teach him, which He does when He gives the Spirit. There there is another drawing than that which is done outwardly, there Christ is shown by the Spirit’s illumination through which a man is transported to Christ with the sweetest rapture and suffers the teacher speaking and God drawing rather than that he should himself seek and run.” [[De servo arbitrio, cap. 242. >> logosres:lw33;ref=VolumePage.V_33,_p_286;off=689]] After the sinner has been drawn to God and Christ, he loves to be in their communion, for he has now learnt to know what a true Savior and a reconciled God are. Thus a beginning has been made by God to dispel the darkness from the sinner’s understanding and to enlighten the latter with the light of [[@VolumePage:2,150]]saving knowledge, then, in continued conversion, God continues to put away darkness from the understanding by the light of His Word. This wonderful work is performed by God alone in all those whom He will convert, whilst the others who are not converted are themselves the cause of their damnation. But especially because God alone can perform this work, the Scriptures and our fathers call it a creation. In the understanding and will of an unconverted man God brings something new into existence, something new that was not there before, and cannot be there, until it is created. Where there was no new heart, there God creates a new heart, not in such a manner as to force a man to have the new heart in him, but so, that the man in whom the new heart has been created is highly pleased with, and is full of heavenly joy, over the new creation, although he cannot comprehend how all this can be.A little further ahead in the same article, [[§§52 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:52]] and [[54, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:54]] the Formula of Concord says: “The preaching and hearing of God’s Word are the instrument of the Holy Spirit, at, with and through which He will powerfully work, and convert men to God, and work in them both to will and to do. Through this means, namely, the preaching and hearing of His Word, God works, and breaks our hearts, and draws man, so that, through the preaching of the Law, he knows his sins and God’s wrath, and feels true terror, remorse and sorrow, and, through the preaching of and meditation on the holy Gospel of the gracious remission of sins in Christ, a small spark of faith is kindled in him, which accepts the remission of sins for Christ’s sake and comforts itself with the promise of the Gospel; and thus the Holy Spirit (who works all this) is sent forth into the heart.”There is nothing said here about the sinner first suffering, allowing or permitting the Holy Ghost to be sent forth into his heart, whereupon God, in view of such good or evil conduct of the sinner, makes up His mind, so to say, or decrees to send His Spirit forth into the heart. It is simply said that God, in the manner stated, sends forth His Spirit into the heart or converts it. The Holy Spirit, it is here said, even breaks the hearts which, in [[§ 19, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:19]] are compared to hard stones that yield not to him who touches them, but resist. It is not man that breaks his own heart so far as to suffer the Holy Spirit to be sent forth into it, or to enter it, else such an important fact would not have remained unmentioned here, but the Holy Spirit does all the breaking Himself. He draws such men to Christ as have heretofore resisted, and He rests not until He has brought the sinner, in whom He is working knowledge of sin and God’s wrath and a feeling of true terror, remorse and sorrow,—to true faith in Christ and thus changed [[@VolumePage:2,151]]his heart. For “conversion is such a change through the operation of the Holy Spirit in the understanding, will and heart of man, that, by such operation of the Holy Spirit, the man can accept offered grace.” [[F. of C, Decl. Art. II, § 83. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:83]] The sinner who is said to have no will to do anything that is spiritually good, or to cease from doing anything that is spiritually evil, he being yet unable to “think” so far, [[§ 12, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:12]] is powerfully called and drawn out of the world to Christ by the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit converts him and thus works in him to will in regard to the good as well as the evil. Still there is nothing Calvinistic about this doctrine. It is not teaching Calvinistic irresistibility when we say the unconverted sinner is drawn to Christ powerfully before he is willing to suffer himself to be drawn, nor is there any Calvinistic irresistibility about conversion so far as it is represented as being a new creation or a resuscitation, as the meaning is not that the new heart shall and must be created, or the new man brought to life, by force, under all circumstances, however hard the heart may be and whatever may oppose on the part of the subject of conversion which is man in his unconverted state, whilst others shall not be converted or created anew, &c., all in consequence of an absolute decree. Our confession to which we firmly hold declares expressly that God does not force men, so that they must become pious or be converted. It does not say a word from which it could be rightly inferred that it meant: The elect are converted and saved by absolute omnipotence, not mediately through the Word. It rather tells us in plain words how true conversion is wrought. True conversion is God’s work alone, and is performed by the power of the Spirit of God, the instrument and means being the preaching and hearing of the Word. By this doctrine all honor is truly given to God alone and no honor is given to man.Yet, it should not be overlooked that the Formula of Concord treats of the manner in which man is converted to God, with special reference to the elect, in order to make them certain of their election. It says: “As also other hearts which are discouraged might fall into heavy thoughts and doubt as to whether God has elected them, and whether He will work in them also those gifts of His through the Holy Spirit, since they are sensible of no strong, burning faith and prompt obedience, but only weakness, anxiety and misery: we will now show further from God’s Word, how man is converted to God,” &c. [[Art. II. Decl. §§ 47, 48. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:47-48]] Thus, from the manner in which they have been converted to God, the weak and discouraged Christians, are to infer that they really belong to the number of those whom God elected in His dear Son to eternal life before the world began, and their heavy thoughts [[@VolumePage:2,152]]and their doubt as to whether they are elected and whether God will surely save them are disapproved of. The confession then also speaks of the conversion of the elect as having been decreed by God, when it says in a passage already quoted above: “God the Lord draws the man whom He will [decrevit = has decreed to] convert,” [[Art. II. § 60. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:60]] And this doctrine is again treated of in the Declaration of the 11th article. There we teach and confess that God’s eternal election or predestination which is God’s ordination (not to damnation, but only) to salvation, [[§ 5, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:5]] is, from the gracious will and good pleasure of God in Christ Jesus, a cause which procures, works, helps, and promotes the salvation of the elect and whatever pertains thereto, [[§ 8. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:8]] Thus, election or predestination is also a cause of the conversion of the elect, because their conversion pertains to their salvation. God has predestinated the elect to salvation on the way of conversion. He has decreed to bring them to faith or, which amounts to the same thing, to convert them and thus to give them salvation. The conversion of the elect is an effect of election or predestination, or, in other words, the elect shall and must be converted. They shall not and, hence, cannot die without being presented with salvation by a true conversion. It, therefore, also says in [[§ 45: >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:45]] “This doctrine (concerning election or predestination) also thus affords the precious, glorious consolation that God took so deep an interest in, and so faithfully cared for, the conversion, righteousness, and salvation of each Christian that, before the foundation of the world, He deliberated and ordained in His purpose, how He would bring me thereto and keep me therein.” The conversion of the elect will surely take place. God did not absolutely predestinate or ordain them to conversion, righteousness, and salvation, nor are they converted and saved absolutely or in an absolutely irresistible manner (unless the decree of predestination taught by us were declared to be an absolute one by our opponents because we teach that no other being except the triune God took counsel in the eternal council when the decree was made and no other being except the triune God executes the decree in time), but their conversion is a true one, wrought by God alone and in the manner stated above. The Scriptures declare: “The counsel of the Lord, that shall stand,” Prov. 19. 21. “The counsel of the Lord standeth forever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord; and the people whom He hath chosen for His own inheritance.” Ps. 33.11, 12. “The Lord of hosts is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working,” Is. 28. 29. And all those who have been made certain and glad of their salvation by the Word exclaim: “Thou shalt guide me with Thy counsel, and afterward receive me to [[@VolumePage:2,153]]glory. Whom have I in heaven but Thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside Thee. My flesh and my heart fatteth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion forever.” Ps. 73. 24—26. Yea, God, who, according to the [[Augsburg Confession, Art. 5, >> BookOfConcord:AC:I:V]] gives through the Word and Sacraments the Holy Spirit who works faith in those who hear the Gospel where and when it is His will to do so,—has appointed the very hour in which He will work faith in the hearts of the elect or convert them. It says in the [[Formula of Concord, Art. 11, § 56: >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:56]] “Thus too, without any doubt, God knows and has appointed the time and hour of each one’s call and conversion [and when He will again raise up the fallen one].” When the appointed time and hour has come, according to God’s decree, for the calling and conversion of the elect, the calling and conversion of the elect shall and must take place, the one being called and converted at this time, the other at another. Then that powerful and wonderful divine drawing to Christ, spoken of above (which is not a violent or forcible drawing) is put in act. And if an elect one has fallen from grace he is again raised up by God at the time and in the hour set apart for this purpose by God in His eternal decree of predestination. Then the same drawing of the sinner to Christ takes place by God’s Spirit through the Word as in the first conversion.Now, because we promulgate this doctrine, our opponents charge us with teaching the absolute decree and irresistible grace of the Calvinists. Prof. Loy writes in the Col. Mag. on p. 23 below: “We are constrained to oppose the new theory, furthermore, because it undermines the precious biblical doctrine of the means of grace, which the Lutheran Church so purely and so fully confesses and which she has held so dear.” The truth is that Prof. Loy is not opposing any new theory, but a doctrine well founded in the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, and that by his Synergism he is himself, as much as lieth in him, undermining the precious biblical doctrine of the means of grace. He proceeds by saying on p. 24.: “Its advocates do not, indeed, say that grace is not offered to a large portion of mankind, even when they are recipients of the means; they do not say that the grace is irresistible in the other, comparatively small portion.” It would have been better if Prof. Loy had here avoided the negative way of expressing himself and had written that we say that grace is offered to all those to whom the means are brought, and that we say that grace is not irresistible in the Calvinistic acceptation of the word, in the comparatively small portion of mankind. For in regard to these very two points our synod has not been silent, but rather prolix, as has been shown already in the [[@VolumePage:2,154]]beginning of this article. Prof. Loy writes further: “But they do teach that God has determined to save a definite number, and that as surely as He is God these and no others shall be saved. These must obtain the salvation to which He has unalterably ordained them.” Do we teach that God has determined to save a definite number? We say, Yes; although the word “determine” seems to have been used here by Prof. Loy for the purpose of exciting suspicion in the reader that we teach Calvin’s determinism. For God has really determined to save a definite number, if the word determine be taken in its common acceptation. Cf. Acts 17. 26. We have no relish for quarreling about words. We hold what the Lutheran Church teaches when it says in accordance with the Holy Scriptures: “And in that counsel, purpose and ordination of His, God did not only in general prepare the salvation [of those that are His], but He also graciously thought of and elected to salvation each and every person of the elect who shall be saved through Christ, and also decreed that it be His will to bring them to salvation… in the manner above mentioned.” [[Decl. of art. 11. § 23. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:23]] Our Lutheran Church manifestly teaches here that God decreed to save a definite number of men who are called the .elect. They are those few of whom Christ says: “Many be called, but few chosen” (or elected). Matt. 20. 16. Any one can see that our doctrine is firmly based upon the Scriptures and the Lutheran confession, but that Prof. Loy, and our other opponents who here agree with him, have forsaken the Scriptures and the Lutheran confession. There is no doctrine of Calvinistic irresistible grace to be found in our publications, because the doctrine of an absolute decree to save the ones and damn the others, is wanting.Further, the sentence: “as surely as He is God these and no others shall be saved”, does not properly express what we teach. Its construction is such that most readers cannot but receive the impression as though we taught like the Calvinists that God decreed, according to an absolute decree, that the few shall be saved and the others shall not be saved, or, that God predestinated the few to salvation and the others to damnation. The only words of ours, to which Prof. Loy can refer here, are contained in the Western synodical report of the year 1877 on p. 24, and read as follows: “Yes, from eternity already God elected a number of men to salvation; He decrees these shall and must be saved; and as surely as God is God they will also be saved and besides them no other one. This the Scriptures teach and this is also our faith, our doctrine, our confession.” We challenge the whole world to arise and show us where we have ever said in any of our publications: As surely as God is God these and no others shall [[@VolumePage:2,155]]be saved. Instead of informing his readers of what we really said, Prof. Loy has distorted our words by making a very bad excerpt of them. Whilst the sentence: “They will also be saved and besides them no other one”, — expresses certainty of facts, the other sentence: “These and no others shall be saved”, contains Calvinistic leaven. We teach: “As God has ordained in His [eternal] counsel that the Holy Spirit will call, enlighten and convert the elect through the Word and that He will justify and [eternally] save all those who receive Christ through true faith: so He has also resolved [decreed] in His [same] counsel that He will harden, reject and damn those who are called through the Word, if they put the Word from them and resist the Holy Spirit whose will it is to be powerful and to work in them through the Word, and if they persist therein. And thus many are called, and few are chosen.” [[Form, of C., Decl. Art. 11. § 40. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:40]]From this we also see how the Lutheran doctrine differs from the Calvinistic when the decrees' of God concerning the eternal weal or woe of men are under consideration. While the Calvinists teach that predestination is the eternal decree of God according to which He has appointed for Himself what it would be His will should be done in regard to every human being; that each one is so predestinated either to life or to death as he is created by God for this or that end; that it flows from God’s eternal decree that some are donated with faith by God in time, some not: the Lutheran Church teaches, on the one hand, that the elect are called, enlightened and converted by the Holy Spirit in consequence of God’s eternal ordination or predestination and that all those who have experienced such calling, enlightenment and conversion of the Holy Spirit and thus have received Christ through true faith, may be certain that God justifies or forgives them their sins and saves them; on the other hand, that although it is the will of the Holy Spirit to be as powerful and to work in the same manner through the Word in others that are called, as in the elect, they put the Word from them, resist the Holy Spirit and persist therein, and are therefore punished by being hardened, rejected and damned by God in accordance with His eternal resolution or decree concerning them, so that they themselves are in fault of their own damnation. This is the pure doctrine of the Holy Scriptures and has always been taught by the Missouri synod. But what is here said in regard to the elect is rejected by Prof. Loy when he sneers at our doctrine in this way: “Accordingly, when the means of grace are brought to an elect person, the purpose of God, which no power can frustrate, must work faith in him and bring him to the Savior. He shall and must be saved, according to the divine decree; and [[@VolumePage:2,156]]he must be saved by the grace of God working its will, without possibility of defeat. In other words the grace of God, in the case of the elect, works irresistibly through the means; or, if this be denied, the only alternative is that grace works irresistibly without the means. One way or the other, the select few whom He has resolved under all circumstances to save, must be saved.” p. 24. A pity we say that Prof. Loy’s philosophy is not devoted to a better cause. By drawing other false conclusions from what we teach on the predestination of the elect he evinces his dissatisfaction with what the Formula of Concord declares in the above quotation in regard to the non-elect, when he writes: “He (God) has not resolved” (according to the Missouri i. e. Lutheran doctrine) “that the non-elect shall be brought to faith and salvation, and therefore the means have not the saving efficacy when such persons are the subjects. The most that could be said in such a case is that the means still contain grace, but in the absence of a decree ordaining the salvation of an individual they are inoperative.” p. 25. Here again we are constrained to say it is a pity that Prof. Loy’s philosophy is not devoted to a better cause. So long as he does not embrace the true Lutheran doctrine concerning predestination, however mysterious the same may appear to him, — and mysterious it is, indeed, — he will continue to accuse us of propagating the Calvinistic doctrine of an absolute decree; and so long as he has no true conversion in his doctrine, but teaches that man can cease to resist God and suffer himself to be converted before conversion, which is Synergism, he will continue to impute to us the Calvinistic doctrine of irresistible grace.If we were to follow our opponents in their mode of reasoning, we would have to say with reference to what the Formula of Concord teaches on conversion, especially in [[art. II. § 60, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:60]] about the following: The framers of the confession do not say that God forces man that he must become pious or be converted, but they do say that God draws the man whom He will (or has decreed to) convert. Those whom God will convert or whom He has decreed to convert, are drawn by Him and thus converted. This is teaching irresistible grace or conversion by coaction. The others are not drawn, the writers of the Formula simply say they “are not converted,” so they are passed by; because God will not convert them. God has not decreed that they shall be converted. Here the absolute decree of reprobation is taught. The reason assigned for their non-conversion is that they always resist the Holy Spirit and persevere in their repugnance to the known truth, but this is all hypocrisy (sit venia verbo) on the part of the framers of the confession, for they say that the elect are drawn and thus [[@VolumePage:2,157]]converted, so that they cannot always resist and persevere in their repugnance to the known truth. Why does He not draw the others? Because they are doomed. Therefore the Formula of Concord teaches particular electing grace. Hence, it contains specifically Calvinistic elements. Therefore the true difference between the elect and non-elect is this: The elect cease to resist and suffer themselves to be converted, before conversion has taken place, the non-elect resist persistently. God foresaw all this conduct of men from eternity. In view 'of this prevision He elected the ones and rejected the others.— This fairly illustrates the doctrinal standpoint of our opponents and their way of imputing Calvinism to us and clearing up the mystery of predestination and conversion by Rationalism. But, then, where have the Scriptures and the Lutheran confession been left?As Prof. Loy rests the chief weight of his arguments to prove that we teach a Calvinistic working of God’s grace “in the case of the elect” upon the fact that we teach the elect shall and must be saved, shall and must be converted and be preserved in faith unto their end: it has struck us that he has heretofore been mistaking the word “irresistible” which frequently occurs in common usage and is found in some of the writings of Lutheran fathers in an allowable sense, for the word “irresistible” as it is used in a peculiar sense by the Calvinists in their system. The flying argument is in this wise: The Missourians teach “the elect person” “shall and must be saved, according to the divine decree; and he must lie saved by the grace of God working its will, without possibility of defeat. In other words the grace of God, in the case of the elect, works irresistibly through the means, or, … irresistibly without the means.”… Hence, “the new theory is only a modified form of Calvinism”, etc. pp. 24. 25. Or, the Missourians teach the elect shall and must be converted. Therefore they are converted irresistibly. Hence, there is a specifically Calvinistic element in the doctrine. It has been shown that grace or conversion is irresistible in the new theory, in whatever sense the word be taken. Hence, Calvinism!The assertion that Prof. Loy did not know exactly what he was about when he imputed to us the doctrine of an irresistible grace is confirmed by the fact that Prof. Loy who claims to be a stark Lutheran thinks he has proven that we have the specifically Calvinistic element of irresistible grace in our doctrine and nevertheless maintains that we teach a working of such irresistible grace through means. As, in the opinion of those claiming themselves to be stark Lutherans, there is, in fact, no irresistible grace in the Calvinistic system that works through means, Prof. Loy has proven too much, consequently [[@VolumePage:2,158]]nothing. He also seems to have been somewhat aware of this fact. He allows the conclusion he has arrived at to slip, if any one should deny the same. “In other words the grace of God, in the case of the elect, works irresistibly through the means; or, if this be denied, the only alternative is that His grace works irresistibly without the means. One way or other, the select few… must be saved.” After all, then, it is not decided whether it is a working through means or without means. No, since he had undertaken the mean job, it was his business to prove that we have what the Calvinists call “irresistible grace”, a working of grace by absolute omnipotence, and not to leave the decision of so important a matter to the denial, which might happen to enter the mind of any one, of the justness of his conclusion. It is evident that he is himself not quite in the clear whether he has conclusively shown that we teach what is irresistible grace in the Calvinistic system, or not.It is truly not so much the word “irresistible” itself as its history and the whole Calvinistic system of doctrine with which it is interwoven that have rendered it odious to Lutherans. The expressions: irresistible grace, irresistible good motions in the heart, irresistible conversion, etc., which we are by no means eager to employ in our teaching, do not themselves infect a theological system, but the Calvinistic system of doctrine has, alas! badly infected these expressions in that system. What men daily, experience as coming from God irresistibly (the word taken in an allowable sense) they do not always experience by coaction or compulsion, or in an absolutely irresistible manner. So, also, irresistible attestations of one’s veracity and irrisistible fascinations of a quibble are spoken of. If the use of the word “irresistible”, in such connections, were always to be rejected, because the word is used by the Calvinists to designate the forcible working of absolute power, the word “inevitable”, for instance, would have to share the same fate, as it is a fact that Calvinistic irresistible grace was by some Calvinists also called inevitable grace, for instance, by Molinaeus and the Calvinistic Hessians.A converted person may well say: Thanks be to God for His unspeakable grace by which He has been so powerful over me! Before my conversion I was spiritually dead, dead in trespasses and sins, but His grace has quickened me and raised me up spiritually. Before my conversion there was not a spark of spiritual powers in me, but grace has wrought faith in my dear Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in my dark heart. God, from His goodness and mercy in Christ, drew me so powerfully by the voice of the Gospel that I was conquered, and I am glad it is all so. Before conversion my heart was [[@VolumePage:2,159]]like a hard stone and worse than a block because of my rebellion and enmity against God, but grace has crushed my hard heart, I have been overpowered by the grace of God. When God’s Word took hold of me, I was placed in such a state that I could no longer resist as I had formerly done, grace placed me in that state and overcame my heart’s enmity against God and put down its rebellion so far that I could be a child of God. The resistance which is yet in my heart by nature and otherwise my God daily forgives me for Christ’s sake.—And if such a person were not aware that a battle was going on in the Church about the word “irresistible”, he would perhaps say: God’s grace was irresistible to me in my conversion; and whilst he said in his unconverted state: A horrible preacher, he wants to force me into heaven! and: A horrible word that he preaches!—he will perhaps say now: An irresistible preacher, and: An irresistible Word that he preaches! Quenstedt writes: “Divine efficacy is the same (eadem) towards all, but the event and success are unequal. In the event actual resistance is conquered with the elect, still divine grace has not been idle with the reprobates.” Theol. did.—pol., III. q. 3. fol. 511.According to the Lutheran doctrine some rebellion remains in the heart during and after conversion. The removal of resistance by grace to such an extent that a true conversion may be effected in every respect forms a part of true conversion, and if grace were called irresistible because it is not resisted to that extent in conversion, it would not be the irresistible grace of the Calvinists, because their irresistible grace is absolute in the same sense as is their absolute decree.Our fathers who wrote the Formula of Concord and were well versed in Calvin’s theory appear to have been very careful not to make use of such an equivocal word as the word “irresistible” (which can be taken absolutely or relatively, properly or figuratively), when they touch upon or reject the Calvinistic theory.When Prof. Loy reasons in this manner: “He” (the elect) “shall and must be saved, according to the divine decree; and he must be saved by the grace of God working its will without possibility of defeat. In other words the grace of God, in the case of the elect, works irresistibly through the means”;—we say: It is true, as has been shown above in this article, that he who is elected shall and must be saved, or election would be nothing; it is also true that God alone saves the elect, not violently, by force or by compulsion, but by grace in the order and manner instituted by Himself, by drawing him to Christ, enlightening him and preserving him in true faith to the end. But when Prof. Loy concludes that [[@VolumePage:2,160]]we have introduced a specifically Calvinistic element he is deceiving himself and his readers.In order, therefore, to prove that we teach a Calvinistic irresistible working of God’s grace in the case of the elect, Prof. Loy would have to first prove that we have the “absolute decree” in our doctrine, as Calvinistic irresistibility of grace could never have been taught, had it not been for the invention of that decree. But this neither Prof. Loy nor any of our opponents will ever be able to do. C. S. K.(For the “Theological Monthly “)A “Cheap” Tract.Prof. F. W. Stellhorn of Columbus, the “famous” author of the tract “Worum,” seems to be a regular Bourbon, inasmuch as he also “has neither learned, nor forgotten anything.” Last year he published his cheap tract “Worum,” dealing largely in the cheapest kind of polemics, in misconstruction of words, in falsification of historical facts, in perversion of the doctrine of his adversaries, in willful imputations and the most shallow reasoning. Notwithstanding this cheap kind of warfare, Dr. Walther was kind enough to review the “Worum” in a very thorough manner, by following the tractarian page for page and point by point, and disclosing his unfairness and dishonesty. This “Review” (fitly called by some the “Dorum”) was followed by a counter-review, in which the poor tractarian endeavored to defend himself against the crushing blows of his reviewer; but, alas! he “fell out of the frying-pan into the fire,” for Dr. Walther again reviewed this “counter-review” of the Columbus professor and succeeded in spiking the enemy’s guns so completely, that “all was quiet, dismally quiet on the Potomac.” This ominous silence on the part of Prof. Stellhorn led to the belief that (for self-evident reason!) he would leave tract-writing alone, at least for some time to come; for his first effort had met with such poor success! But, alas! how short-sighted we mortals are! Not even a twelve-month has passed, before the luckless tractarian tries his luck again, this time with even a cheaper tract than before. He has published lately in pamphlet-form about four pages in answer to the question: “What does the Ohio Synod, and what does the Missouri Synod teach concerning Predestination?” This recent little tract (a regular campaign-document!) is cheap, very cheap, indeed: only three cents, yea, only two cents each, if bought by the hundred! Whether also a chromo is thrown in, the advertisement does not say. This, [[@VolumePage:2,161]]however, is not the only reason, why the new tract is rightly called “cheap”; with good reason we may call it so in consideration of the cheap kind of polemics the tractarian indulges in. For the very same false accusations, perversions, falsifications, and imputations, which Prof. St. had imbodied into his first tract, and which had been pointed out to him and disproved time and again, especially by Dr. Walther in his two pamphlets directed against Prof. St.,—these very same falsehoods are simply repeated over and over in the new tract, often even in the very same words, that had been used in the notorious “Worum.” Indeed, it seems as if Prof. St. had chosen for his maxim: “Calumniare audacter, semper aliquid haeret” (i. e., calumniate boldly, some part of it will always find believers). For he can not but know that his calumniations have repeatedly been disproved, and nevertheless he goes on repeating them over and over! Shame upon such cheap, such dog- cheap warfare!Undoubtedly Prof. St., under these circumstances, has no right to demand or expect an answer to his tract; nor will he dare deny that the points he makes in his new tract have repeatedly been answered and refuted. Were he to ask: when? and where? we would simply remind him of Dr. Walther’s latest two pamphlets. But our readers, perhaps, have not read these controversial documents, and for their sake we will, as briefly as possible, show that and how the divers points of the new tract have long ago been met by Dr. Walther.1. Prof. St. writes: “The Ohio Synod teaches exactly like the Catechism of Dieterich (published by the Missouri Synod) in question 321: Election of grace ‘is that act of God by which He, according to the purpose of His will, alone out of His grace and mercy in Christ, has resolved to save all those who shall steadfastly believe in Christ, to the praise of His glorious grace’.”Dr. Walther: “It is true, in these books the doctrine is taught that from eternity God elected all those and only those that will believe in Christ unto the end, or of whom God foresaw this, for ‘Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world,’ that is, from eternity (Acts 15. 18.); but this is as different as heaven and earth from the doctrine that God predestinated the elect ‘in view of faith,’ namely, as our opponents understand and interpret it.” (Review, p. 32.)Again: “St. writes: On the same page the ‘falsehood’ is decidedly on Dr. W.’s side, when he asserts that the Altenburg Bible, Dieterich’s Catechism, and the large ‘Treasure of Prayers’ do not contain the doctrine of an election ‘in view of faith.’—The man boldly publishes this, and does not even cite [[@VolumePage:2,162]]a single passage from these books, where the phrase ‘in view of faith’ is found! Why?—Because there is no such passage in these writings. What name, then, do such polemics deserve, dear reader?” (Correction, p. 137.)2. Prof. St. writes: “The Ohio Synod teaches like the old celebrated Lutheran theologian John Gerhard,” and then cites several passages from Gerhard’s Dogmatics.Dr. Walther: “St. cites several passages from the renowned John Gerhard’s great work on Dogmatics, thus trying to prove that the doctrine of election ‘in view of faith’ is truly Lutheran. To be sure, he should have endeavored to prove this from the Confessions of our Lutheran Church, for only from these we can prove with certainty that a doctrine, about which there is a controversy within our Church, is truly Lutheran. For the present, however, we will pass this by. But we must tell Prof. St., and he himself knows it only too well, that if he and his confederates had taught nothing but what Gerhard teaches in the passages cited, we, indeed, would not have admitted this presentation of the doctrine to be truly Lutheran and in conformity to the Scriptures and the Confession, that, however, on this account we would not have declared him an errorist, but would have honored his respect for Gerhard, and would have tolerated him. But, of course, we would have watched whether he and his confederates use the phrase: ‘in view of faith,’ really in the same meaning as Gerhard did… And we did watch, and find that he and his confederates went far beyond Gerhard, and did not avoid the danger connected with the dogmatical phrase: ‘in view of faith’.” (Review, p. 15.)3. Prof. St. writes: “In this doctrine the Ohio Synod furthermore agrees with all Lutheran theologians, that have treated expressly on this subject, for instance with Scriver in his ‘Seelenschatz,’ and with the authors of the celebrated Weimar Bible.”Dr. Walther: “By this assertion he strikes historical truth in the face. As, however, Revs. A. W… and R. P… in the June number of Lehre und Wehre did already expose, prove indisputably, and censure severely this falsification of history,… we deem it unnecessary to adduce still more crushing counter-evidence… In order, however, to help Prof. St. to a better knowledge of his own self, we think it our duty to remind him of what Chemnitz writes in his ‘Manual’: ‘God’s election does not follow our faith and righteousness, but goes before as a cause of all this, for, whom He did predestinate or elect, them He also called and justified, Rom. 8.’ But also Prof. St. was acquainted with this passage, and he knew that [[@VolumePage:2,163]]Chemnitz, in the year 1586, died professing the doctrines contained in his Manual, consequently also in this passage. How, then, could he write: ‘And this is the uniform doctrine of all our truly Lutheran theologians who have entered upon this very point,’ knowing at least this much that Chemnitz did not assent? We attribute this to an infatuation which temporarily made him forget entirely even familiar truths.” (Review, pp. 16, 17.)It is true, Prof. St. in his “Examination of Dr. Walther’s Review” endeavored to get out of the scrape by citing some passages from Chemnitz’ writings, by means of which he tried to prove that Chemnitz teaches a predestination in the wider, yea, in the widest sense of the word (pp. 14—21). But, alas! “his wish was father to that thought,” as Dr. Walther in his “Correction of Prof. Stellhorn’s Examination” (pp. 43—53) has clearly shown. Dr. W. proves beyond the possibility of a doubt, that Prof. St. repeatedly misconstructs, yea, falsifies the words of Chemnitz, by omitting those sentences from which his true meaning can be learned. In proof of this we will cite only the following passage (pp. 44, 45): “The first proof, by which Prof. St. wishes to demonstrate that Chemnitz takes predestination in the wider sense, is the famous passage from his ‘Examen’… , in which Chemnitz, treating of the doctrine of predestination (doctrina praedestinationis), indeed cites only the decrees of redemption, vocation, conversion, justification, beatification, and damnation. But Prof. St. does not reveal to his readers, in the first place, why Chemnitz does this, and secondly, that Chemnitz himself says that it had by no means been his intention to demonstrate the whole doctrine of election or predestination. For thus Chemnitz concludes his demonstration: ‘It has not been my intention now to demonstrate the whole doctrine of predestination; but I only intended to show that the election of God, as revealed in the Word of God, does not shake the certainty of salvation and the confidence of the believers, but confirms and strengthens it.’… Thus while Chemnitz says in express words that, in the passages cited by Prof. St., he did ‘not intend to demonstrate the whole doctrine of predestination,’ St. on the contrary says that this is not so, but that in the four propositions of Chemnitz is contained, ‘according To Chemnitz, predestination in the whole and in its separate parts!’ A more impudent perversion of the words of a Christian author we have not yet met with. Yea, what do we say? the word ‘perversion’ is a great deal too mild to characterize Prof. Stellhorn’s action, for that which Chemnitz denies, St. affirms, and this affirmation he palms upon Chemnitz! And this is the foundation, upon which St. builds his proof that Chemnitz [[@VolumePage:2,164]]teaches a ‘predestination in the wider, yea, in the very widest sense of the word’!!”4. Prof. St. writes: The Ohio Synod furthermore agrees in this doctrine “with the Confession of our Lutheran Church, which, in the Formula of Concord, in the article concerning predestination, p. 556, says as follows: God has ‘decreed in His eternal, divine counsel, that beside those who acknowledge Christ to be His Son and truly believe in Him, He will save no one,’ and p. 712 s.: ‘God has ordained in His counsel, that He will justify and save all those who receive Christ through true faith.’” Dr. Walther: “In his first tract ‘Worum,’ p. 20 s., Prof. St. had cited the passage from the Formula of Concord ([[p. 555, § 12 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:12]]) in which the reason is stated, why so few are elected. He then proceeds: ‘This is developed at length in Mueller’s edition, [[p. 711, § 34—43, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:34-43]] and it is especially emphasized that God has ordained in His counsel, that He will justify and Save all those who receive Christ by true faith’ (thus St. himself underlined this sentence). Hereupon St. adds: ‘The sense here is manifestly again the following: … ‘In the selection of persons God has been guided by faith or unbelief foreseen by Him.’—So far Mr. Stellhorn. But the passage from the Formula of Concord, the sense of which Mr. St. pretends to state, reads as follows: ‘For, even as God has ordained in His counsel, that the Holy Spirit shall call, enlighten, and convert the elect, through the Word, and that He will justify and save all those who receive Christ through true faith: so He has also decreed in His counsel, that He will harden, reject, and condemn those who are called through the Word, if they cast off the Word, resist the Holy Spirit, who desires to be efficacious and to operate in them through the Word, and persevere in this course.’ Accordingly, in our ‘Review,’ pp. 73—75, we accused Mr. St. of being guilty of a horrid perversion of the Confession, for, after the words of the confession: ‘As God has ordained in His counsel,’ he omits those words which follow immediately after them, namely: ‘that the Holy Spirit shall call, enlighten, and convert the elect, through the Word’—in order to make it appear that, according to the Formula of Concord, election consists only in the decree: ‘That He will justify and save all those who receive Christ through true faith’ (as in the Formula of Concord it reads after those words which he omitted); that therefore also the Formula of Concord teaches the very same doctrine as he, namely, that God elected in view of faith foreseen by Him. Now, instead of giving glory to God and confessing in his ‘Examination,’ that in this case he neither cited [[@VolumePage:2,165]]correctly, nor expounded correctly the confession, he again, in order to get out of the scrape, practices sophistry, for he asserts: ‘In the first sentence the ‘subject’ is changed; in the beginning the ‘elect’ are the subject, to whom refers the ‘predicate’ that by the Holy Spirit they shall be called, enlightened, and converted through the Word; then another ‘subject’ follows, namely, ‘all those who receive Christ through true faith,’ and to them refers the ‘predicate,’ that God ‘in His counsel,’ that is, in predestination, has ‘ordained,’ that He will justify and save them, and no one else.’ Here we ask the reader to notice in the first place this: that from the sentence of the Formula of Concord: ‘As God has ordained in His counsel, that the Holy Spirit shall call, enlighten, and convert the elect, through the Word,’ Prof. St. omits the word ‘ordained,’ but adds the word: ‘ordained’ to the following words: ‘and that He will justify and save all those who receive Christ through true faith.’… Prof. St. knew very well that he was refuted, as soon as he placed the word: ‘ordained’ before the first sentence, as the Formula of Concord has it; for if the elect are ‘ordained’ to be called, enlightened, and converted, God cannot have elected them in view of their foreseen enlightenment and conversion, nor, consequently, in view of their foreseen faith, which above all things belongs to enlightenment and conversion.—In the second place, it is true that in the cited passage the Formula of Concord speaks also of the decree of reprobation; but nothig can be more foolish than to infer from this, that it teaches also an election of grace in the wider sense. Indeed, a fine election of grace, which proclaims to men their everlasting rejection! Besides this Mr. St. here again” (as also in citing p. 556 of the F. C.) “practices the deceit; which he practices constantly in all his impositions (I meant to say, expositions) of the Formula of Concord, namely, in referring to predestination itself, what it says of the right use of the doctrine concerning predestination.” (Correction, pp. 113—115.)5. Prof. St. writes: “This doctrine of the Ohio Synod and of the whole Lutheran Church for the past 300 years” ( ! ) “is, however, the doctrine of the Scriptures. For these do not only say in general: ‘Without faith it is impossible to please God’ (Hebr. 11. 6.), and: ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned’ (Mark 16. 16.), thus in general making the obtaining of salvation dependent upon faith; but they also teach in express terms that God in election regarded faith, for instance, 2 Thess. 2. 13.: ‘God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the [[@VolumePage:2,166]]truth.’ He who has a Weimar Bible, may refer to it, in order to see how it expounds this passage and Eph. 1. 4. and Rom. 8. 29.”Dr.Walther: “On p. 13 it reads: ‘They’ (the so-called St. Louis men) ‘maintain that the general rule Hebr. 11. 6.: ‘Without faith it is impossible to please God’ had no validity before God, in the selection of persons.’—If this is to say that God was not induced by the foreseen faith of a man to elect him, Prof. St. is right… If, however, the reader is to believe that we teach an election to salvation without faith, it is an inexcusable slander. Thus, for instance, it reads in the synodical report of our Western District of the year 1879: ‘If God had not seen me in Christ, He would not have elected me’ (p. 56). Namely, we believe—we repeat it here—from the bottom of our heart, according to the words of the Formula of Concord, that God ‘decreed in His eternal, divine counsel, that besides those who acknowledge Christ to be His Son and truly believe in Him, He will save no one’ (p. 556).” (Review, pp. 44, 45.)Again: “On page 48 of his ‘Examination’ our examiner asks: ‘How does Dr. W. know (?) that in Eph. 1.4., for instance, the words: ‘in Christ’ are not equivalent to: ‘in the union with Christ effected through faith,’ or ‘in Christ embraced by faith’? Perhaps from the passage itself? Where is there a word of it?’—Answer: What silly question! Does the Professor not know the old maxim: ‘Affirmanti incumbit probatio,’ that is to say, ‘He who asserts something, is in duty bound to prove his assertion’? And if in a certain passage something is not said, which somebody tries to find in it, is it not silly to demand that we prove to him yet, that it is not in the passage?” (Correction, p. 131.)In regard to 2 Thess. 2. 13. Prof. St. in his ‘Examination’ (p. 48) had written that this passage was not as easily understood as other passages, and therefore comparatively dark. Now, in his second tract, he goes a step further and says, this passage teaches “in express terms, that God in election regarded faith!” And if we answer: Where is the express term ‘regarded faith’ or ‘in view of faith’ to be found in this passage, he directs us to the Weimar Bible to look for it there!6. Prof. St. writes: “This doctrine of the Ohio Synod is full of consolation for every poor sinner. Whoever believes this doctrine, needs not be alarmed, when he thinks of predestination. But this is also the only doctrine of predestination which begets neither carnal security, nor despair. No other doctrine, therefore, can be true.” [[@VolumePage:2,167]]Dr.Walther: “This talk is hardly worthy of consideration. Whoever meditates only a little upon the subject, will soon perceive that just the reverse is the case. Since, according to the Formula of Concord, ‘the eternal election of God’ is nothing else but the (irrevocable) ‘ordination of God to salvation,’ self-evidently the consolation, which the doctrine of predestination affords, can be nothing else but the certainty of our salvation. According to Prof. St., however, nobody can be certain, whether he is one of the elect, nor, consequently, whether he will be saved, because (likewise according to the Formula of Concord) ‘only the elect will be saved’ (p. 709)… According to this it is evident that our opponents have no particular consolation derived from the doctrine of predestination. Their consolation is borrowed from other doctrines, but they are pleased to call it consolation of predestination. Nor can they do otherwise according to their doctrine; for since they teach that in election God adhered to the ‘rule’ of electing those of whom He foresaw that they would conduct themselves correctly and remain faithful unto death, and since, as a matter of course, by their own reason and strength they cannot know whether they will conduct themselves correctly also in future, and remain faithful unto death: they are, as ‘Altes und Neues’ (vol. I, p. 10) says so plainly, ‘from day to day between fear and hope, as it were between two millstones, on probation!’ A fine consolation, indeed! But, Prof. St. says, how do ye, with your doctrine of predestination, know for certain that ye are of the elect who will surely be saved? We answer: Let him read the passage from the Formula of Concord, which tells us, ‘by what means and whence it can be discerned who the elect are, who can and should embrace this doctrine to their own consolation’ (pp. 709—715). There he will find that a believing Christian can and should be certain of his election, neither by judging according to his reason, nor to the law, nor to any external appearance, much less by attempting to scrutinize the concealed, hidden depth of divine predestination, but above all things by his being called through the Word which proclaims universal grace; further, by his baptism, by the Holy Supper, by private absolution, and by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. There he will find, moreover, why a believing Christian should not allow his certainty to be shaken by the fact that many are called, but few are chosen, that many either do not receive the word, or, having received it with joy, afterwards fall away. Lastly, however, he will find, that even afflictions do not shake, but confirm this certainty. For thus it reads in conclusion: ‘Hence St. Paul, Rom. 8., in consolatory terms, teaches that God ordained in [[@VolumePage:2,168]]His purpose, before the world was made, by what crosses and afflictions He would conform each one of His elect to the image of His Son; and that the crosses of each one Must work together for his good, because he is called according to the purpose of God. Hence, Paul draws the sure and certain conclusion, that ‘neither tribulation nor distress, &c., neither death nor life, &c., can separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord.’ From this Prof. St. will see that the Formula of Concord strictly conforms to Rom. 8. 28—39., where the way is described, in which God leads His chosen children to glory, and from this, therefore, the Formula of Concord draws the conclusion that whoever finds himself on this way, should not doubt that he is one of the elect, and that, therefore, he should cheerfully join in the triumphal song of the apostle: ‘I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, &c., shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord.’—But as to the caution and admonition, which certainly must be contained in the true doctrine of predestination, Prof. St. may be at ease. Whoever knows in which way alone God leads His chosen children to salvation, namely, in the way of repentance and conversion, of faith and sanctification, of affliction and constancy, has, in our opinion, sufficient caution and admonition in this knowledge; for as soon as he willfully leaves this way, his certainty of salvation is lost, according to our pure doctrine.” (Correction, pp. 120—122.)7. Prof. writes: The Missouri Synod “denies that this old-Lutheran and biblical doctrine of the Ohio Synod is the true doctrine… And what is the consequence of this rejection of the pure doctrine? This: If I am not elected, no matter what I do, I cannot go to heaven at any rate. And this the Missourians teach in the most explicit terms. For thus it reads in the synodical report of their Western District of the year 1879, p. 33: ‘He who is spiritually perplexed thinks: If God knows that I will be cast into hell, then I will surely be cast into it, no matter what I do; the number of the elect can neither be increased, nor diminished. What God knows beforehand, that must take place. If I do not belong to the elect, I may hear the Word of God ever so faithfully, may receive absolution, may go to the Lord’s Supper, and it is all in vain. How does Luther answer this? ‘That indeed is true and must be conceded.’ There he does not make a new Gospel for him, but leaves him in this truth.’ Thus, these terrible thoughts of a spiritually perplexed person the Missourians declare to be ‘true.’ Of course, they also assert, that Luther says this. But that is by no means the case. They pervert [[@VolumePage:2,169]]Luther’s words. The Missourians themselves, however, say this and call those terrible thoughts a ‘truth.’ From this we may see, what horrid, dreadful doctrine of predestination they hold, namely, one which affords no consolation to anybody.”Dr. Walther: “Prof. St. quotes the following words from the synodical report of our Western District of the year 1879: ‘He who is spiritually perplexed’… After having quoted these our words, Prof. St. suddenly stops short, and exclaims horrorstruck: ‘Is this not terrible?’—To this we reply in the first place: Yes, indeed! this is ‘terrible’; but is it perhaps not true? Must not that take place, of which God foreknows that it will take place? Can God, perhaps, be mistaken in His foreknowledge, so that, what he foreknows, does not take place after all?… Only a fool will affirm this, who does not believe in the omniscience and infallibility of God. Now then, if God foreknows who are NON-elect, because they die in their unbelief (and, we hope, no one will deny that God foreknows that also): will and can, in that case, such persons be saved after all, because they hear the Word of God assiduously, although without faith, because they receive absolution assiduously, although without faith, because they go to the Lord’s Supper assiduously, although without faith? Only a heathen, but no Christian, least of all a Lutheran Christian, will affirm that. Even Prof. St. will not dare affirm it… Now, if a person who is spiritually perplexed, says.: ‘Ah! if I am not one of the elect, I may be ever so assiduous in hearing the Word of God, in receiving absolution, in going to the Lord’s Supper, it is all in vain,’ must we, in that case, reply to such a person: ‘Although thou art not one of the elect, it will not do thee any harm; if only thou leadest an externally Christian life, thou canst and wilt be saved after all?’ Must we not, on the contrary, admit: ‘Yes, indeed, it is true, if thou wert one of the non-elect, thy going to church, &c., would certainly not help thee to go to heaven?’… But, of course, a faithful pastor, having admitted to the spiritually perplexed person that he indeed cannot be saved, if he is not one of the elect, must not let the matter rest here; but now a faithful pastor must show to the spiritually perplexed person that the thought: ‘I am not one of the elect, and therefore also all my going to church, all my receiving absolution, all my going to communion, is in vain,’ that this thought is suggested by the devil, because the Word of God promises mercy, justification and salvation to all poor sinners; that, if he clings to this, he may and must firmly believe that he also is one of the elect… —In this matter, however, Prof. St. is repeatedly guilty of a most dishonest proceeding also in other respects. Of this we will now add [[@VolumePage:2,170]]but a few words. The words cited from our synodical report are nothing but an affirmation of what had been quoted from Luther immediately previous to them. Now, if St. intended to deal honestly with his readers, he, of course, ought to have quoted these words of Luther also, and to have at least endeavored to show that we misunderstood or misused Luther’s words. But what does St. do? He simply omits Luther’s words; for he knew well enough that every reader, when learning Luther’s words, would say, or at least might possibly say: ‘Why, St.! what the St. Louis men say, is nothing else but what Luther said! Dost thou mean to stigmatize also our father Luther as a heretic, in order to bring the St. Louis men into disrepute?’ Yes, he feared that at least some of his readers would form this judgment, and for that reason he rather does not cite at all the words of Luther quoted by us! This is indeed shrewd and cunning; but is it honest? No, it is very dishonest!—But even with that Prof. St. was not yet satisfied: instead of honestly communicating to his readers the words of Luther, to which our words refer, he not only does not even cite a syllable of them, but he also writes; ‘But Luther himself is to have taught thus, say the St. Louis men! Luther does not teach thus at all, although at the first glance he may appear to do so.’… What sort of readers of his tract had the Professor in view, we wonder, when he wrote this?— Either such as do not ask for proof and take his word for it, or such as ‘love to dance, for whom, therefore, it is easy fiddling,’ that is, such as in advance already take for certain all that is written against the hated ‘St. Louis men,’ whether it be true or not… —But… Prof. St. does not only not cite Luther’s words to which we referred, but he also omits what we added in explanation of our words contested by him. For in our synodical report after, and that immediately after the words quoted by St., it reads as follows: ‘But now he’ (Luther) ‘offers also his universal medicine, the Gospel, saying: If, however, on that account thou thinkest that thou shalt be damned, then these are thy own thoughts; God has no such thoughts, for God will have all men to be saved. This he has plainly revealed, and for no other reason than that thou shalt believe it. Then, if all men are to be saved, thou knowest that thou also art to be saved, for thou art one of them.—It is quite wonderful, how purely, powerfully, and consolingly Luther teaches the universality of God’s grace; it is, therefore, an infamous calumny on Luther, to say (and we meet with such slander also here in America) that Luther was a Particularism that is, that he denied the universality of God’s grace; while no one has ever taught it so emphatically as he did.’ This [[@VolumePage:2,171]]we added. Of this, however, Prof. St. does not cite a single word, but suddenly cuts our words short, and (as though he shuddered at reading them) exclaims: ‘Is this not terrible?’ Yes, Prof. St., this is ‘terrible’ indeed; not, however, what we wrote, but that you omitted our explanation and put quite another construction upon our words than their real meaning is. For Prof. St. construes our words so as to make us teach the horrible doctrine that God, in the selection of persons, did not take into consideration ‘whether they would, in spite of all His grace, die in persistent unbelief.’ This, indeed, surpasses all the other falsifications by which Prof. St. in his tract trespassed against us.” (Review, pp. 46—56.)Again: “What does Prof. St. answer to this? … ‘In order to make this explanation appear plausible, Dr. W. presents to us such a spiritually perplexed person, as certainly there never yet was one. For who did ever hear of a ‘spiritually perplexed person,’ that had such thoughts (as, according to this explanation, he must have had): ‘If God knows that I am not one of the elect, because I shall die in willful unbelief, I may conduct myself outwardly ever so much like a Christian, hear the Word of God and go to the Lord’s Supper without faith, yet it is all in vain?’ That would be a queer ‘spiritually perplexed person,’ to be sure! And this is likewise a queer way of getting out of a scrape. But is it an ‘honest’ one?'—To this we answer, in the first place, the following: Mr. St. thus does evidently concede that, if there were such ‘spiritually perplexed’ persons, our explanation would be satisfactory. But as there have been and still are a great many of such spiritually perplexed persons, we are heartily content with his criticism. For that he never yet met with such persons, we will readily believe; that, however, does not prove anything, for he was pastor of a congregation but for a very short time. If he had been pastor for a longer period, and if in that position he had earned the confidence of spiritually perplexed Christians, that also in such difficult spiritual affairs he was an experienced man, he certainly would have met with spiritually perplexed persons that were much ‘queerer’ yet (as he is pleased to call it). In the second place: Since Prof. St. does not enter into our detailed and thorough explication, we beg leave to refer our dear readers to our ‘Review,’ if they care to persuade themselves of the correctness of our statement.” (Correction, pp. 153 s.)8. Prof. St. writes: “According to this doctrine of Missouri, therefore, not all men can really be saved. God has indeed given innumerable assurances in His Word that He wishes to save all men without exception, but in eternity He has [[@VolumePage:2,172]]arranged it so that by far the greatest number of men cannot be saved at all. When He decreed, which men should infallibly go to heaven, He did not take into consideration whether men would apprehend Christ’s merit in faith. But faith, according to our Confession, makes the only difference among men. If, therefore, in election God did not take faith into consideration, all men were fully equal in His eyes. And if then He could elect some, He could also elect all. If nevertheless He did not do it, He simply would not do it. And as no one is saved that is not elected, God does not really wish to save all men; on the contrary, although He could have done otherwise, He arranged it so through His predestination, that by far the greatest number of men cannot be saved, while the few elect must be saved. This and nothing else is at the bottom of Missouri’s doctrine, although as yet they are afraid of declaring it always so plainly and fairly. Sometimes, however, they do declare it, for instance in the passage cited above and in the following (West. Report, 1877, p. 25): ‘Yes, God has elected to salvation a certain number of men already from eternity; He has decreed that these shall and must be saved; and as surely as God is God, so surely these will be saved, and beside them no others’.”Dr. Walther: “Prof. St. criticizes the great, majestic God, so as to shock a pious reader. As an arch-rationalist he determines precisely, what God could have done and what He could not have done, what He could have willed and what He could not have willed, and finally, what He must have done, if He had earnestly willed it. Yea, finally St. even deals in irony, that is, in ridicule, and says: ‘Then, notwithstanding all His sweet ( ! ) promises that he would gladly save all men, He would have arranged it so through His predestination that only the smallest number Could be saved. And this He would have done, although He could have easily done otherwise, if He had only wished.’ We shudder at having these words even reprinted here. For in these words the great, mysterious God is placed before the tribunal of human reason, and is read a lecture by a human being, that compared to Him is but a miserable ‘worm’ (Job 25.6.). Even if Prof. St. has so little fear of God, as to prescribe such rules to Him, he should at least cease to appeal to the old Lutheran theologians, who were so modest and humble in speaking of the concerns of God, as to his predecessors in doctrine. For they confessed that God could have indeed converted all men, but that a human being, when coming to speak of this point, must command silence to his reason, lay his hand upon his mouth, and say with St. Paul: ‘O the depth, &c.!’ (Rom. 11. 33—36.)”—In the following, Dr. [[@VolumePage:2,173]]Walther proves this by several citations from the writings of Chemnitz, Andreae, Selneccer, Koerner, &c. (Review, pp. 38—44.)Again: “On page 55 of Stellhorn’s ‘Examination’ it reads: ‘On page 39’ (of our ‘Review’) ‘we are said to ‘determine precisely as an arch-rationalist, what God could have done and what He could not have-done.’ On page 35 Dr. W. does the same thing in quite the same manner, for he says: ‘We teach that God could not have elected any one to salvation, if He had not also elected him to faith.’ The Formula of Concord also does the same thing in stating exactly ([[p. 555, § 12 >> BookOfConcord:Formula:Ep:xi:12]]) in whom the Holy Spirit cannot perform His work. The ‘criticizing’ is a mere invention of Dr. W. Commonly it is called drawing correct’ (?) ‘conclusions. On the same page the old Lutheran theologians are said’ ( ?! ) ‘to have confessed that God indeed could have converted all men. That this has reference to the absolute omnipotence, which, however, God will not exercise in the work of conversion, and that, therefore, the expression is not good and proper, Dr. W. knows very well.’ So far Mr. St. In the following he shows quite correctly that we ourselves referred these expressions of the old Lutheran theologians to the absolute omnipotence, and then he adds: ‘But that we do not speak of that which God can do according to His absolute omnipotence, but of that which He can do according to the order of salvation, which He Himself has established, every reader of our tract will perceive at the first glance.’—Yes, if that were only true! In that case we cheerfully would retract our reproof (that he criticized God) and would only object to his conclusions. But Prof. St. wrote in his tract ‘Worum,’ p. 12 s. as follows: ‘If God would or could have been guided by the merit of Christ without taking into consideration whether this merit had been apprehended and retained in faith or not, then He could have elected all men without exception; and if He had not done so, then the cause thereof would have to be found in His will alone. For then He would have failed to elect all men, only because He would not, although He could. Then, notwithstanding all His sweet ( ! ) promises that He would gladly save all men, He would have arranged it so through His predestination that only the smallest number could be saved. And this He would have done, although He could have easily done otherwise, if He had only wished.’—‘Every reader’ of Prof. St.’s tract ‘perceives at the first glance’ (in order to use his own words) that he evidently does not only speak of that which God ‘can do and cannot do according to the order of salvation which He Himself has established,’ but at the same time of that which [[@VolumePage:2,174]]in general He could and might do or not do according to His absolute omnipotence, yea, how His order of salvation ought to have been constituted. For, in the first place, he does not mention by a single word this distinction between the revealed and the absolute will of God, which here was so necessary; and in the second place, he says point-blank: if God would have failed to elect all men, only because He would not, although He could, ‘then He would have arranged it so through His predestination that only the smallest number could be saved.’ Thus Prof. St. gives directions to God, how He ought to have ‘arranged’ it, if He wanted to be justified before human reason and to be clear of partiality; yea, he says that, if God would not also do all that He could do, then it is His own fault that only the smallest number can be saved. That Prof. St. would prevaricate, if he were attacked, and plead that he only spoke of the revealed will of God, we had already suspected; for this reason, already on page 44 of our ‘Review,’ in order to help him to a better knowledge of his own self, we put the following words into his mouth: ‘Of course, I know, when I say that God could not have converted and brought to faith all men, because He has once for all established His order of salvation,—that even Thus I have not in the least solved the mystery.’ Why does he not answer an earthly word to this reproof?—For the simple reason, because he found himself defeated. And why did he not try, as he is wont to do at other times, to comment upon the passages from the old theologians which we had quoted, so that they would agree with his doctrine? For the simple reason, because they cannot be explained in such a manner with any pretence to justice. For Andreae, for instance, writes: That this grace or this gift of faith is not given by God unto all, although He calls all, and that earnestly, according to His infinite goodness: ‘Come unto the marriage, all things are ready’,—is a profound mystery, known to God alone, inscrutable by human reason, a mystery which we are to meditate upon with awe and to adore; for it is written: ‘O the depth etc.’!—Again Chemnitz writes: ‘How is it that God does not bestow such faith upon the heart of Judas, so that he also could have believed that Christ could help him? Here we must restrain our questions and say (Rom. 11.): ‘O the depth etc.’!—Again Selneccer writes: ‘Although God could convert all non-willing persons into willing persons, He nevertheless does not do so; and for not doing so He has His most just and wise reasons which we are not to explore.’—Again Koerner writes: ‘His (God’s) judgments, according to which He elects and saves one, but does not elect and save the other, no man with his thoughts in no manner [[@VolumePage:2,175]]whatsoever, can explore and find out.’—Again, Chemnitz, Selneccer and Kirchner, in the official Apology of the Formula of Concord, jointly write thus: ‘If, however, the question is asked, why the Lord through His Holy Spirit does not convert and bring to faith all men etc., (and this, indeed, He could do), we must say with the Apostle: ‘How unsearchable are His judgments etc.!’—All these passages we had pointed out to Prof. St. and had quoted them still more fully. Why—we repeat it—did he not reply to it?—Because he knew that he could not reply anything, except perhaps this, that he was speaking only, ‘of the order of salvation which God Himself had established’; because he also knew at the same time that the unexplainable mystery consists in this very fact, that God has not determined to convert, bring to faith, and save all men by means of His absolute omnipotence; and because finally he knew that he is not allowed to draw any conclusion impeaching God from the fact that God will not do many things, although He could do them; that, on the contrary, together with St. Paul, Chemnitz, Andreae, Selneccer, Kirchner, Koerner, and other truly Lutheran theologians, he should command silence to his reason and humbly exclaim: ‘O the depth etc.!’” (Correction pp. 150—152).Again: “On p. 16 of his tract he (Prof. St.) cites from the synodical report of our Western District of the year 1877 the following words: ‘Yes, God has elected to salvation a certain number of men already from eternity; He has decreed that these shall and must be saved; and as surely as God is God, so surely these too shall be saved, and beside them no other.’ … Now, that this is nothing but the precise truth, no one can deny who believes yet that the Bible is the Word of God. For Christ plainly says: ‘There shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect’ (Matth. 24. 24.). Consequently, according to the words of Christ, it is impossible that the elect also are deceived and are lost. Compare John 10. 28. Again, the holy apostle Paul writes thus: ‘Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?… I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, northings present, northings to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord.’ (Rom. 8. 33, 38. compare [[28—30. >> Rom 8.28-30]]) That the words which Prof. St. cites from our synodical report, contain the precise truth, least of all those can deny that claim to be Lutherans. For in our public Lutheran Confession it reads as follows: ‘The eternal election of God not only foresees and[[@VolumePage:2,176]] foreknows the salvation of the elect, but through His gracious will and good pleasure in Christ Jesus is also the cause which procures, works, facilitates, and promotes our salvation and whatever pertains to it; and upon this our salvation is so firmly grounded that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; for it is written: Neither shall any pluck my sheep out of my hand; and again: And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.’ (p. 705 s.) Again: ‘This doctrine’ (concerning predestination) ‘also affords the eminent and precious consolation, that God… wished to secure my salvation so truly and firmly, that in his eternal purpose, which cannot fail or be overthrown, He decreed it’ (namely my salvation) ‘and to secure it, placed it in the omnipotent hands of our Saviour Jesus Christ, out of which none shall pluck us, John 10. 28. For if our salvation were committed unto us, it might easily be lost through the weakness and wickedness of our flesh, or be taken and plucked out of our hands, by the fraud and power of the devil and the world. Hence St. Paul, Rom. 8. says: Since we are called according to the purpose of God, who shall separate us from the love of God, which is in Jesus Christ our Lord?’ (p. 714). — Who, then, can be so bold as to pronounce the words, cited from our synodical report, unlutheran?—But St. says, you add the words: ‘And beside them’ (namely the elect) ‘no others’, which words St. has underlined twice, in order to emphasize the hideousness of our doctrine. Hence, the poor man seems not to have read that in the day of judgment only the ‘elect’ shall be gathered into the everlasting barns, as we have remarked already above; he also seems not to have read that, according to the words of our Confession ‘only the elect will be saved’ (p. 709).” (Review p. 57 s.)9. Prof. St. writes: “Is not this a terrible doctrine? This, however is the necessary consequence of rejecting the old Lutheran doctrine that God has elected His children in view of faith, or in view of Christ’s merit embraced through faith. For this reason our most able Lutheran theologians, nearly 300 years ago, pronounced the following judgment: ‘That, when there is taught such a particularity that God should have chosen to eternal life only a few certain and particular persons at random, and without reference to faith, simply because it pleased God to do so, this we regard as Calvinistic and unchristian.’”Dr. Walther: “It is foolish to apply these words to us. This becomes evident immediately, if we consider against whom they are directed. Namely they are directed against the charge of a man like Huber, that Leyser, and others taught Calvinism, [[@VolumePage:2,177]]because they rejected his (Huber’s) doctrine that God from eternity elected to salvation all men (heathen, Jews, Turks, in short, all unbelievers included), that, consequently, faith is out of question here. Over against this horrible doctrine Leyser and other theologians confess in the cited passage, that although they reject this universal election as taught by Huber and indeed teach a particular election, they nevertheless reject the Calvinistic particularity, namely according to which God is to have elected to salvation a few persons, irrespectively of, Christ and of faith, absolutely, ‘at random’, and is to have determined only after making this absolute decree and after finishing such mere ‘military review’ and such arbitrary election, that He would cause only these, already absolutely elected persons to be redeemed, only these to be eflicaciously called, only these (and that through an irresistible grace) to be brought to faith and to persevere in it unto the end; that, on the contrary He would not cause to be redeemed, nor eflicaciously call, nor bring to faith all the rest, but pass them by with His grace. All this, however, we reject and condemn from the bottom of our heart, as well as Leyser and other theologians connected with him, and this our opponents know very well. That doctrine, therefore, which in the cited passage is rejected as ‘Calvinistic and unchristian’, does no more appertain to us, than the reproach of the fanatics was to the point, when they accused Luther of being a twofold Papist, because he had retained private confession which they declared to be nothing else but the papistical auricular confession. Not less shameful than this reproach of the fanatics, is the charge of Prof. St. who declares our doctrine to be ‘Calvinistic,’ because we (together with the Calvinists, as he pretends) will not make the foresight of faith the reason of election.” (Correction p. 33.)10. Prof. St. concludes his cheap tract with the following disgraceful words: “Whoever, therefore, loves his old Lutheran faith and his soul’s salvation, must in good earnest beware of this new doctrine” (of Missouri) “and must not suffer himself to be misled and disconcerted by the fact that Dr. Walther, the father and chief defender of the new doctrine, was in former days with good reason esteemed so highly on account of his orthodoxy, and has still such a great name and so many partisans. For also the Pope was in former times the most orthodox bishop in all christendom, and has still the greatest name and the most partisans, and nevertheless he is Antichrist.”Dr. Walther, in concluding his ‘Review’ of Prof. St.’s first tract, writes: ‘“Finis coronat opus!’ is an old proverb, the meaning of which is: ‘The end crowns the work.’ How, [[@VolumePage:2,178]]then, does the end crown the work of Prof. St.’s little tract? … Prof. St. is not satisfied with accusing us of teaching a false doctrine, nay, he is not even satisfied with joining ‘Altes und Neues’ in its coarse and boisterous cry of ‘Calvinism! Calvinism!’—but… he now goes even so far as to stigmatize us as men who have ‘associated themselves with the archenemies of the pure Lutheran doctrine, the Calvinists.’” Our readers will perceive that in his latest, cheapest tract Prof. St. goes yet a step further. Not satisfied with stigmatizing that great and good man to whom, next to God, he owes what little he may know of truly Lutheran theology, as an associate of the arch-enemies of the pure Lutheran doctrine, the Calvinists, he is not even ashamed of drawing a parallel between Dr. Walther and—Antichrist!! Comment is unnecessary.Thus we have proved by documentary evidence that also in his latest tract Prof. St.,—the very same man who avails himself of every occasion, in season and out of season, to preach the eighth commandment to others, — has repeatedly been guilty of deliberate falsehood and foulmouthed slander. For the very same charges which in his former tract he had preferred against the Missouri Synod in general and against Dr. Walther in particular, which, as Prof. St. knew, had been disproved time and again in the most able and thorough manner, these very same charges the Columbus tractarian in cool impudence simply reiterates in his latest infamous scribble, which, therefore, although it may admirably answer its purpose of being used as an Ohio ‘campaign-document’ against the hated and dreaded Missouri Synod, we are perfectly justified in characterizing as a very “cheap” tract. A. C.General Religious Intelligence.Moody, the “Evangelist,” has been Invited to go to Asia Minor as a missionary.Girard College.—The well-known condition left on Girard College by its founder, excluding ministers from its doors and forbidding all sectarian religious teaching, is said to have been violated for many years. “The officers of the Girard estate,” it is explained, “have always felt that while sectarianism was to be excluded from the college, religion, as a principle of life, was to be inculcated in the minds of the youth, who received the benefit of the institution.”In The Primitive Methodist Denomination seventy new churches were erected during the year, accommodating 18,000 and costing ?78,296. [[@VolumePage:2,179]]The two theological colleges have been temporarily suspended. There is an over supply of candidates, and no more can be accepted for a time. It is the same in Wesleyanism, and the Rev. Charles Garrett, the President of the Conference, appeals for ?5000 to send the unemployed young men, for whom no circuits are available, out as home missionaries to break up new ground.Alph. “The House Of Israel.” A company of very serious-minded people have put in an appearance on Trumbull avenue, just north of Grand River, Mich. It numbers three husbands and their wives, one young woman, two young men and a small child, ten in all. They travel in three large covered wagons, specially prepared for their purpose. They also have a double carriage and 10 horses. They have two tents, one for the horses about 20 feet square, and one in which to hold religious services 50 by 70 feet. Nearly one-third of the larger tent is partitioned off with a curtain and used for household purposes. They are representatives of “The house of Israel,” and are travelling from place to place in search of the members of the true Israel of God. The chief ones of the party are James Jeshurun Jezreel—about 40 years old—and wife, recently arrived from England, and Noah Drew and wife, who have had their home on a farm six miles northwest of Howell in this State for the past 40 years. Mr. and Mrs. Drew are aged people. From a special study of the prophecies of the bible and from observation of the general and growing dearth of religious power in the “gentile” churches, these persons and their associates are convinced that the times of the gentiles are closing very fast, and that God is setting his hand again the second time to recover the true descendants of Abraham, or children of the free woman. All these are now living, some, perhaps, mere babes in age and the rest of other years. They are scattered throughout the entire world, very few and far between as to localities. They number just 144,000, as indicated in Revelation, and when gathered will constitute the twelve tribes of Israel. Of these tribes two are to be gathered out from among the two tribes of the Hebrews that returned from captivity, and 10 from among the lost tribes. They further differ from Christendom in believing in the complete redemption of “body, soul and spirit” from all sin, and as physical death is the wages of sin they hold that these 144,000 will never die physically, but be those who “shall not all sleep” and will be caught up to meet the descending Lord in the air. The gentile or present churches have the two, and only two principles of faith and repentance, while the House of Israel has beside these the promises of immortality this side, or without death. As Christ ascended into heaven with his mortal body made immortal, so it shall be with these. It is furthermore stated that the body of Christ contained 144,000 bones, and each of these true Israelites is one bone, the whole constituting his perfect body or bride. This present time marks the fullness of the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, only the shadow of which was experienced on the day of Pentecost. Because of this fullness of the Spirit the true Israelites will be able to overcome all evil and attain to physical immortality. It is not held, however, that every one who accepts the doctrines and unites with the House of Israel, is thereby proved to be a genuine Israelite and destined to the blessing of escape from the death of the grave. Many of even the most devout will be proved mistaken, or for some other reason will be rejected in this respect, although they and many from other “churches” shall be saved. These peculiar [[@VolumePage:2,180]]doctrines are not claimed to be new, because they come only from the bible, but they have been kept secret for many generations, and are now revealed in these “last times.” Mr. Jezreel, of the party now in Detroit, is not only their leader, he is also the divinely appointed head, or “instrument” of the House of Israel in the entire world. His headship marks the beginning of the third watch of the passage which speaks of Christ’s coming in the second or third watch. The first watch began some 60 years ago and continued less than 25 years, and was succeeded by the second watch, which in turn gave way to the present watch. The fourth watch will be the millenium, being ushered in by the personal coming of Christ, but the day and hour of this coming are not revealed. He will appear about the close of this century, when his people become ready to receive him. When in 1875 Mr. Jezreel received revelation of his call to this work, he was sent by the Spirit into Egypt, where he remained six years. During this time, and under divine inspiration, somewhat like John in the isle of Patmos, he wrote a book called the Flying Roll, a volume of religious instruction for the people at large. This he sent in parts to the House of Israel in England and they had it printed. It is now accepted as God’s latest revelation to his people. Mr. Jezreel heads his small bills advertising the meetings with the phrase “The Messenger of the Lord.” He closes them with the quotation from Malachi: “Behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me— ‘shiloh,’ and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” Mr. Jezreel’s followers, the entire House of Israel throughout the world, apply this prophecy to him, and consider him as a second John the Baptist, or the forerunner of Christ in his second coming. This belief is held and promulgated, so far as taught at all, very modestly and devoutly, Mr. Jezreel’s adherents seeming to be entirely removed from that self-confidence and boisterous method of assertion sometimes found among the advocates of unusual doctrines.— Like Israel in the wilderness, they journey both as to time and place only as commanded by God. It is therefore wholly uncertain how long they will remain in Detroit. Mr. Jezreel has been sick at one of the hotels since coming into the city last Saturday, which has prevented all public services thus far. His malady is a somewhat mysterious one which has afflicted him at times since he was called to this work. It is spoken of as similar to Paul’s thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan sent to buffet him for some divine purpose. He was sufficiently recovered last evening to be removed to his usual home at the tent in one of the wagons. The tent work began at Howell some two weeks ago, and the result was the organization of a “church” there of six members, four from Howell, one from Fowlerville, and one from Detroit. The party has since spent a week at Ypsilanti, but are not yet aware of the full results. The probabilities are that not more than a half-dozen of the 144,000 bones of the body of Christ will be found here. When cold weather comes the present party and those who may have joined them will scatter by twos for a wider promulgation of doctrine. When Mr. Drew and his wife united with the church they were obliged to go to New York, where is an organization of 200 or more members. The earliest members in the United States went for such purpose to England, where the church originated. It is strongest in Australia, there numbering thousands.—Extract from “The Echo” No. 201. Detroit. [[@VolumePage:2,181]]THE ST. LOUIS THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY.Vol. 2. December 1882. No. 12.(For the “Theological Monthly.”)Wilful Resistance.Prof. Loy in the Standard of Aug. 5. wants to know whether we pronounce the answer to be true which he himself gives to the question: “Why are some men not saved, notwithstanding all that God has done and does for them?” His answer is: “Because some men wilfully resist as others who are saved do not.” He adds: “The question that should be settled prior to all discussion of these difficulties is whether the answer is true or not. That the Scriptures give it, and that our Confessions repeat it, is so evident that it would seem reckless to deny the fact. Is that answer true? … We emphatically declare that it is, and are ready to face all consequences which the truth may involve.” As to the first part of this answer, Prof. L. well knows that we never gave the least occasion to any one to doubt that we sincerely and earnestly teach that “some men are not saved because they wilfully resist.” But as the second part of Prof. L.’s answer denies that a man may be converted and saved who is involved in the same crime (in eadem culpa haeret) with him who is hardened, blinded, and given up to a reprobate mind, [[F. of C. XI, 5-7., >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:5-7]] we in accordance with the Confession of the Lutheran church reject this part of Prof. L.’s answer.And when Prof. L., in the same article in which he wants an answer from us to his question, writes: “No, says Missouri, the conduct of man has nothing to do with the matter… Those who are not elected cannot be saved, as the elective cause of salvation is lacking, man’s resistance, wilful or otherwise, has nothing to do with it,” we, as Prof. L. knows as [[@VolumePage:2,182]]well, are perfectly justified in calling this assertion of his a base slander. This shall however not prevent our offering some explanations of the diversities in Prof. L.’s and our doctrines concerning his question and answer.First. Prof. L. makes an unconfessional and unscriptural distinction between natural and wilful resistance. He writes, e. g.: “Wilful resistance to divine grace… is thus opposed to natural resistance… In one sense all resist. All have by nature the carnal mind which is enmity against God, and no one can rid himself of that carnality and enmity. But when the Holy Ghost approaches man with His converting and saving grace, some are contumacious and resist wilfully, refusing the light and the life which He brings… In the sinfulness of our nature lies the repugnance to the grace of God which is common to all men, … but the wilfulness is something superadded by his will.” Col. Th. Mag. II, 260. 265. 267. The Formula of Concord, however, like the Holy Scriptures, knows only of a natural resistance of man, as it also only knows of a natural man, a natural understanding, heart and will, before conversion. Natural resistance is, in general, the resistance which takes its origin from the natural heart and will of man, whether it be conscious or unconscious. Whenever the natural will resists, we have natural resistance. The Formula of Concord says: “Natural free will, according to its corrupt disposition and nature, is powerful and active to do only that which is displeasing and contrary to God.” [[Art. II. Declaration, § 7. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:7]] “The understanding, heart and will of natural, unregenerated man… is so miserably perverted, poisoned and corrupted by original sin that, by disposition and nature, it is altogether evil and contumacious and inimical to God, and only too powerful, alive and active to do what is displeasing and contrary to God. Gen. 8. The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Jer. 17. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.” [[§ 17. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:17]] “Natural or carnal free will, even after regeneration, strives against God’s law, much more will it be contumacious and inimical to God’s Law and will before regeneration. . . From its innate, evil, contumacious (pro insita sua rebelli et contumaci = according to its innate rebellious and contumacious) nature it hostilely [[@VolumePage:2,183]]strives against God and His will, if it is not enlightened and governed by God’s Spirit. Wherefore the Holy Scriptures also compare the heart of unregenerated man to a hard stone which yields not to him who touches it, but resists, and to a rough block, and to a wild, untamed animal.” [[§ 18. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:18]] Here we have a short description of natural resistance which may be very wilful. Wilful resistance should not be opposed to natural resistance since it is owing to the nature of an unregenerated man’s will when the latter is powerful, alive and active to do only that which is displeasing and contrary to God, when it is desperately wicked, when it hostilely strives against God and His Law, when it resists in any manner, and is like a wild, untamed animal. This wilfulness is not superadded to natural resistance, but natural resistance itself. Man resists God and His will wilfully by the power of his natural will. “Man after the fall . . . continually keeps on in his security, knowingly and willingly also, and thus gets into a thousand dangers and, finally, into eternal death and damnation. No beseeching, no entreating, no admonishing, not even threatening or chiding, is of any avail, yea, all teaching and preaching is lost on him before he is enlightened, converted and regenerated by the Holy Spirit.” [[§ 19—21. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:19-21]] Here we hear how man after the fall conducts himself towards God and His Word. Such conduct is natural to him. He cannot act otherwise unless he is converted. In the doctrine of conversion we are to be occupied, on the one hand, with man’s corrupt and contumacious nature, with the inability and wickedness of our natural free will, and, on the other hand, with God’s grace, with our conversion and regeneration as a work of God alone and not of our powers. As long as a man who has heard the Word is not enlightened, converted, and regenerated, he keeps on in his natural or carnal security. Although he well knows from the Word that he is not to do so, he nevertheless does so willingly, and thus by not heeding the beseeching, the entreating, the admonishing, the threatening or chiding, or any other teaching and preaching of the Holy Spirit he resists more or less wilfully the work which it is the Holy Spirit’s will to effect in his understanding, heart and will. This wilfulness is not superadded to what is natural in man, but the natural evilness, [[@VolumePage:2,184]]rebelliousness and contumacy of the human heart show themselves in this manner where conversion has not taken place.The Formula of Concord, therefore, from a fear, as it were, of saying too much or too little, attributes the cause of the damnation of those who, having heard the Word, are the more deeply damned simply to themselves. The words to which we have reference are the following: “The cause that not all those who have heard the Word believe and are therefore the more deeply damned, is not that God grudged them salvation, but they themselves are in fault, because they have heard the Word in such a manner as not to learn, but only to despise, to blaspheme and disgrace it, and have resisted the Holy Spirit whose will it was to work in them through the Word.” [[Art. XI. Decl. § 78. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:78]] Their natural, evil, rebellious and contumacious hearts have led them not only to hear the word in such a manner as not to learn, but only to despise, to blaspheme and disgrace it, but also to resist the Holy Spirit. All this is therefore not a resistance that is superadded to natural resistance, but natural resistance itself fully developed.The resistance of the contumacious heart and will is contumacious resistance. Such resistance, if persevered in, is the cause of a man’s damnation. The Formula of Concord declares: “All who contumaciously, perseveringly (widerspeustig = contumaciter et perseveranter) strive against the workings and motions of the Holy Spirit which take place through the Word, do not receive, but grieve and lose the Holy Spirit.” [[Art. II. Decl. § 83. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:83]] Thus, again, natural resistance is the cause.And if we especially ask what is the cause of the contempt of the Word the answer is very plain. The Formula of Concord says: “For few receive and follow the Word; the greatest multitude despise the Word and will not come to the wedding. Of such contempt of the Word the cause is not God’s predestination, but man’s perverse will which rejects or perverts the means and instrument of the Holy Ghost which God offers to it through the call, and strives against (repugnat) the Holy Ghost whose will it is to be powerful, and who works, through the Word; as Christ says: How often would I have gathered thee together, and thou wouldst not, Matt. 23. 37.” [[Art. XI. Decl. § 41. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:41]][[@VolumePage:2,185]]If Prof. L. distinguished between natural and wilful resistance merely for the sake of teaching, no one would have .anything to say against it. But he has not the conception of human resistance as it has been delivered to us in the Scriptures and by our fathers in the Formula of Concord. In many places in the Standard as well as in the Magazine he confounds most horribly what must be distinguished and makes opposite things of what in fact is one and the same thing, whilst the key to the true doctrine here is no other than that it is man’s natural will which does all the resistance, even the most wilful. He himself is obliged to acknowledge that “the distinction thus made (by him between natural and wilful resistance) does not remove all difficulty.” Col. Th. Mag. II. 265. But when it is considered that the “distinction” was invented by man for this very purpose, why then cling to such an invention to the detriment of true doctrine?Secondly. The word “wilful” is taken in such a signification by Prof. L. as to exclude any meaning in which the word is taken to express a very low stage or degree of wilfulness, and, besides, there is introduced into the definition at the very start, so to say, an extraneous element, namely that of “free choice.” Webster’s dictionary is indeed quoted as an authority. This dictionary says “wilful” means “governed by the will without yielding to reason.” Here the lowest degree of wilfulness is not excluded, but rather included. Only, when we, in theology, treat of man’s wilful resistance, we consider man as being under the government and rule of his natural will without yielding to God and His Word, at least not at once. The dictionary then says “wilful” also means, “obstinate; perverse; inflexible; stubborn; refractory,” to denote the worse degrees. Yet Prof. L. writes: “General usage decides that… a wilful act is one that is performed… with & free choice… An act is not wilful when there is no choice.” Col. Th. Mag. II, 259. 260. This speaks for itself. It would follow therefrom, among other things, that a natural man who, according to God’s Word and our Confessions, has no free choice between good and evil, but can only choose and do evil as a bound captive of Satan, may commit the greatest crimes without performing any wilful acts. [[@VolumePage:2,186]]The German word “muthwillig” which is commonly translated “wilful” (or “wilfully”) in English and is employed by the Germans when they speak of wilful resistance, for which they say muthwilliges Widerstreben,—is composed of Muth and willig. Muth, according to Kaltschmidt, is “mood, must” (e. g. of grapes), “mead, the sparkling” (e. g. of wine), “scum, spirit, inward impulse, sprightliness, feeling of strength, fearlessness, undauntedness, boldness, self-confidence, courageousness (courage), braveness.” “Willig” is “willing.” The Germans generally say a person does something muthwillig when he does a wrong not only willingly or with a will to do it, but also with what is understood by Muth, e. g., with a feeling of strength, or with boldness, or courage, etc. Thus Muthwille (wilfulness) has its lower and higher stages and degrees. A person’s acts may be very muthwillig although he is very ignorant of what he is doing or is acting very inconsiderately. Intelligent Germans are commonly at once aware of how the word muthwillig is to be taken when they hear or see in which connection it stands, as it is also with the use of the word wilful in English; but both “wilful” and “muthwillig” are terms which can be used equivocally to such an extent, especially in hot debate, that no one knows which is which. The expressions “to wilfully resist” and “wilful resistance” do not occur in the Scriptures nor in the Lutheran Confessions. They are purely ecclesiastical terms which, when used equivocally, may cause a great deal of trouble in the Church. In the Book of Concord, however, it is always quite plain at once what the word muthwillig means, and “wilful” or “wilfully” is undoubtedly one of the best words in the English language to express its meaning. Yet, care should be taken not to employ or explain it in such a manner as to destroy wholly or in part the meaning of the word muthwillig when it is designed to be a translation of this word. We say: “Prior to all discussion of these difficulties” let us also have proper language under our feet to stand on.Thirdly. While the meaning which Prof. L. attaches to the word “wilful” is too short in front, as has just been shown, it is too long behind. We Missourians maintained that wilful resistance can be overcome by the power of divine grace. [[@VolumePage:2,187]]Prof. L. therefore stretches the meaning of the word “wilful,” in order to make it appear as though “wilful resistance” could not be overcome by that power. He writes, among other things: “Necessity is therefore laid upon us… to distinguish… between the resistance that is common to all men, but does not in itself prevent conversion,” “and which only the power of God can overcome,” “and the resistance which is confined only to some men, but which excludes the Holy Ghost and prevents His operations in the soul.” Col. Th. Mag. II, 262. 264. “That is the wilful resistance which renders the accomplishment of the Holy Spirit’s work impossible as distinguished from the natural resistance which is common to all men, but which the Holy Spirit overcomes where wilful resistance is not superadded… When the ears are stopped and the heart is hardened by a personal act of the individual, so that not only the blindness and depravity of nature, but the stubbornness of the person with his individual will is thrown against the power of divine grace, not even God can save… Some give them (the marvelous works of God) an occasional thought… Some harden their ears and hearts against them. Only the latter belong properly to the class of those who at the outset wilfully resist all efforts of divine grace to save them. . . By their wilful resistance… they have put themselves beyond the reach of the Holy Spirit… He can close the book or stop his ears and hear or read no further, and can persistently refuse to pursue any train of thought or feeling that may have been started within him; in other words, he may wilfully resist the work of the Holy Spirit at the very outset.” Page 264. 272. 283. 279.Here Prof. L. introduces as an essential element into the definition of wilful resistance the hardening of the ears and hearts and persistency, and thus denies that there are any who “wilfully resist” for a time only. This is evidently wrong. For such as wilfully resist all efforts of divine grace to save them can yet be saved where the resistance is not wilful in the sense that they persevere or persist in their evil course. We remark here that we would enter into the discussion of a quite different subject if we were in this place to treat of the manner in which “wilful resistance” is removed or prevented by the [[@VolumePage:2,188]]power of grace in those who are saved, since the question is not: Why are some men saved, but: “Why are some men not saved.” Neither can an answer to the latter question at the same time be an answer to the former. We proceed. If a man who had heretofore wilfully and stubbornly resisted all efforts of God’s grace to save him and is now penitent, were to confess to us that he had heretofore wilfully resisted God and His Word, we would have to tell him, according to Prof. L.’s conception of wilful resistance, either: “It was no wilful resistance since the accomplishment of the Holy Spirit’s work is as yet not impossible in you” (and that would be a falsehood), or: “You belong to those who have wilfully resisted, consequently you cannot be saved” (and that would be a falsehood, also). Hardening of the ears and hearts and persistency in the evil course can, it is true, belong to the notion of wilful resistance, but they do not necessarily. There is such a thing as a real wilful resistance where hardening of the ears and hearts or persistency in resistance has not yet set in.As an answer to his question Prof. L. cites the following words of the Formula of Concord in his own translation: “That, however, ‘many are called, but few are chosen,’ does not mean that God is unwilling that all should be saved, but the reason is that they either do not at all hear God’s Word, but wilfully despise it, close their ears and harden their hearts, and in this manner foreclose the ordinary way to the Holy Ghost, so that He cannot effect His work in them” [The Italics are Prof. L.’s.], “or, when it is heard, they consider it of no account, and do not heed it. For this not God nor his election, but their wickedness, is responsible.” [[Epit. 11, § 12. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:12]] From these words he draws the following conclusion: “That is very plain. After all that the mercy of God has done for the rescue of man, some are still lost, not because God is not willing to save them as well as the rest, but because they wilfully block the Holy Spirit’s way, so that He cannot accomplish His salutary work in them. Both the Scriptures and the Confessions are unmistakably clear and explicit on this point.” Standard, August 5.There are remarkable items worthy of being closely considered in the words quoted from the Formula of Concord. In [[@VolumePage:2,189]]the first place, we are told that when men do not hear God’s Word at all, but wilfully despise it, close their ears and harden their hearts (or, as the German original has it, harden their ears and hearts), and in this manner foreclose the ordinary way to the Holy Ghost, so that He cannot have His work in them, or when men who have heard the Word consider it of no account and do not heed it, — their wickedness is responsible or, rather, according to the original, is to blame, for all this. Reason says: It is God’s fault, He is the cause, He is to blame, He could have forced these men to be other than they are, He could have elected them like the others. The Formula of Concord therefore adds that not God nor His election, which is His ordination to salvation, but the wickedness of those who are lost is the fault of it or is to blame. Thus the very words which Prof. L. quotes from our Confession to sustain his theory corroborate what has been maintained in the first part of this article. Throughout the whole paragraph quoted the question is not: What is the cause of the election of those few who are saved (as this question is answered in [[§ 20, >> BookOfConcord:Formula:EP:xi:20]] in which “only the mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ” are given as the cause), but: What is the cause that most men are not elected to salvation. In the beginning of the paragraph the original has not “reason” (since the Formula of Concord does not want to explain the matter), but “cause (Ursache)” and, according to the Latin edition, “the cause of the damnation of the impious (damnationis impiorum causa).” Whatever therefore those who are not saved have done or left undone by which they have got into hell, is all traced and attributed to their own natural wickedness, to the wickedness of the natural man, as the cause. Therefore, when Prof. L. asks the question: “Why are some men not saved?” we are loyal to the Lutheran Confession and the Holy Scriptures when we answer: Because they are naturally evil and wicked and therefore resist God more or less wilfully until their end, so that their conduct has a great deal to do with their being damned, whilst the honor of saving the rest of mankind by changing their hearts belongs to God’s grace alone.Further. Although there is a good deal said in the quotation about wilful resistance, it is remarkable that the expression [[@VolumePage:2,190]]is not at all made use of and that it is not expressly said that those who foreclose the ordinary way to the Holy Ghost do so “wilfully.” Such an addition was manifestly quite unnecessary, the object of the Formula of Concord being here simply to state that their wilful contempt of the Word and their hardening of their oars and hearts result in foreclosing the ordinary way to the Holy Ghost. Surely, if the ecclesiastical term “wilfully resist” in Prof. L.’s answer had been deemed so important by Dr. Chemnitz as to make it a touchstone of true doctrine, this should be the place to find it; but the term “wilfully” is only used in connection with “despise,” not with “harden.”A third important item is that it is said that some of those who are not saved have not heard the Word at all, but have wilfully despised it. Wilful contempt of the Word is indeed wilful resistance against God and His Word, without the hardening of the ears and hearts being added. It is a wilful act of such as arc under the rule and sway of their natural, wicked will. Many have resisted wilfully by wilfully despising the Word and have nevertheless been turned and saved, so that most wilful resistance which is a hardening of man’s own heart did not set in at all.The Formula of Concord says: “Those who always resist the Holy Ghost and persevere in their repugnance to the known truth, as Stephen says concerning the hardened Jews, Acts 7, are not converted.” [[Art. XI. Decl. § 60. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:60]] In this quotation the stress is evidently on “always” and “persevere.” For there are such men as resist the Holy Ghost and are repugnant to the known truth. Their resistance is undoubtedly much more wilful than that of which those are guilty who have not heard the Word at all and, consequently, have no knowledge of the truth. Some of them are converted and saved. These are the ones who do not always resist the Holy Ghost and do not persevere in their repugnance to the known truth. By conversion their heart has been changed. Others always resist the Holy Ghost and persevere in their repugnance to the known truth. These arc not converted. They are hardened. Hence, there is a “wilful resistance” from which perseverance (or persistency) and hardening are excluded. [[@VolumePage:2,191]]The same conclusion can be easily drawn from the following words of the Formula of Concord: “It is God’s… revealed will:… that He will also punish those who wilfully (sponte) turn from the holy commandment and entangle themselves again in the pollutions of the World, 2 Pet. 2, garnish the heart for Satan, Luke 11, do despite unto the Holy Spirit, Heb. 10, and that, if they persevere therein, they shall be hardened, blinded and eternally damned.” [[§ 83. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:83]] “He (God) has also resolved in His counsel that He will harden, reject and damn those who are called through the Word, if they put the Word from them and resist the Holy Spirit whose will it is to be powerful and to work in them through the Word, and if they persevere therein. And thus many are called, and few are chosen.” [[§ 40. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:40]] That by perseverance in these quotations the Formula of Concord means a continuance until the end, not for a time only, is plain from the following: “If a man will not hear the preaching, nor read God’s Word, but despises the Word and the Church of God, and dies thus, and perishes in his sins: he can neither take comfort with God’s eternal election, nor obtain His mercy.” [[Art. II. Decl. § 57. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:ii:57]]Therefore it cannot be rightly said of all those who are saved that they never wilfully resisted the Holy Spirit, of all those who have wilfully resisted that they are not saved. We will not have the door of salvation closed upon all those among us and throughout the whole world who wilfully resisted God and His Word, but know from God’s Word that the door is still open to them notwithstanding their former wilful resistance and all their other sins.This, then, may be regarded as Missouri’s answer to Prof. L.’s question: “Does Missouri also pronounce it true?” as far as the word “wilful” is concerned.It will perhaps not be superfluous to add the remark that it was not the writer’s intention to discuss the mystery which cannot be solved by man in this life and of which one is forcibly reminded by Prof. Loy’s answer to his question, to wit: Why does God whose most earnest will it is that all men shall be converted and saved and who alone can convert and save all men, convert and save only some men and not prevent, by working a true conversion, the natural depravity and evilness [[@VolumePage:2,192]]of the rest from running into a resistance in which they even persevere? In fact, it is not our business to solve this problem. God will certainly once solve it for us. Here the following words of Dr. Luther hit the mark: “Do you not think that the Light of Glory can most easily solve a question which in the Light of the Word and of Grace is insolvable, since the Light of Grace so easily solves a question which is insolvable in the Light of Nature? … The Light of Glory will then show that God whose judgment alone is one of incomprehensible Justice, is a God of most just and most manifest Justice. Meantime we are only to believe it, being reminded and confirmed by the example of the Light of Grace which performs a similar miracle in the Light of Nature.” [[De Servo Arbitrio, cap. CCXLVII. >> logosres:lw33;ref=VolumePage.V_33,_pp_292-293;off=508]] C. S. K.(For the “Theological Monthly”.)Original Sin.By the term “original sin” we understand the natural state of man in which he conies into the world, with the reason and will utterly corrupt and entirely incapable of knowing and loving God and spiritual things, on account of which natural, inborn condition man is subjected to the just wrath of God and to the just punishment of damnation.Although “original sin” is a theological (dogmatic) term, it nevertheless has its foundation in the holy Scriptures. In the words of St. Paul Rom. 7.17. original sin is the indwelling sin, a sin that has its habitation in man’s nature, and exercises an entire domination over his reason, darkening his understanding, perverting his judgment, acting in the soul as its lord, as a tyrant, whose will must be done. Of the same import are the words in [[verse 23, >> Rom 7.23]] where the apostle complains of “another law in my members.” The innate, corrupt state is the law to the whole carnal man. Indwelling sin reigns and rules in the members of its captive.—The term “original sin” was adopted in order briefly to express, first, the origin, whence this corrupt and depraved state of man came, namely, from Adam, the head and root of the human family. God did not cause sin and perdition to come into the world; no, this deplorable misery originated with Adam, contrary to the will of the Creator. And Adam, utterly degenerated through the fall, [[@VolumePage:2,193]]“begat a son in his own likeness, after his image.” Gen. 5. 3. From the very moment of his fall, Adam’s image was altogether different from what it was before; he had lost the holy resemblance to his maker. The begetting of children in his own image plainly implies that they were sinful and corrupt like himself. As it is impossible that a bitter spring could send forth sweet waters, so it was impossible that Adam, after having lost the divine image, could beget a pure offspring. What is said here of Seth, is an incontrovertible proof that the fallen Adam’s image and likeness are inherited by all his posterity.Secondly, the name of original sin is made use of to indicate the origin and fountain of all actual transgressions, namely, that “that horrible and abominable hereditary disease,” the natural, corrupt state, “is the principal sin and the root and fountain of all actual sins.” Man’s own perverted will is a cause of all inward and outward evil deeds, forbidden in the Law.That all mankind is degenerate in the manner described, the holy Scriptures testify in numerous passages. God—who alone searches the heart and tries the reins, and from whom alone it is that we can derive that instruction by which we can in some measure know ourselves—declares with regard to one and all of the fallen race, that every imagination of the thoughts of their heart is only evil continually. Gen. 6. 5. O the true, but dreadful sentence! All corrupt within, all unrighteous without; there is neither science of God’s holy will, nor a good thought of God and heavenly things. There is no piety, nor a desire to please God. Yea, the very imagination of thought, the thought in its very root is only, only evil, and that not only now and then, but continually—so long as nature is left to herself. Man’s purpose, wish, motive, and desire are like the fountain thereof—evil. Nothing good remaining? Nothing! Man is dead in sin if spiritual things are concerned, but altogether alive and diligent and willing in thinking, desiring, and doing if carnal and worldly things are concerned. In a word, he is ruined. Having lost the image of God, fallen away from original righteousness and filial communion with his Maker, he is now wholly defiled in all the faculties of both body and soul, living in opposition and rebellion against God —all of which is expressed by and included in the declaration of St. Paul, saying: The carnal mind is enmity against God. Rom. 8. 7.This most miserable ruin of human nature is, to its full extent, and in a plain but forcible manner described in the [[2d article of the Augsburg Confession, >> BookOfConcord:AC:i:ii]] where it is not only [[@VolumePage:2,194]]said that all men, according to their natural birth, are full of evil desires, &c., but also affirmed that, by nature, man can have no true fear of God, &c. By this statement, which sounds rather harsh in the tender ears of so-called “philanthropists,” our Confession does not exaggerate the consequences of the fall of the first parents. It simply repeats what God Himself has revealed in the holy Scriptures, and from the very words quoted from the Augsburg Confession we see that the Lutheran Church, giving God and His Word all due honor and humbly submitting to what is written, sets forth nothing but the truth with regard to the point in question. (Rom. 8.7.) This can be said of no other denomination.Notwithstanding that the Word of God is explicit and lucid with regard to original sin, the church has ever been troubled by teachers who had a preconceived notion of their own, which they sought to palm off as the only true doctrine. Amongst the various systems that of Pelagius and Coelestinus (in the beginning of the 5th century) may be looked upon as the most prominent, not merely, however, because of the keen, continued controversy resulting from it, but especially because of its direct contradiction to clear passages of the Scriptures. Pelagius denied that the fall of Adam had any evil influence on the moral constitution of his posterity, and affirmed that all men were born in a state of innocence and accordingly may, if they chose to do so, live without sin. By Augustine’s influence in the Western churches, Pelagianism was condemned as heresy and its defenders were excommunicated from church-fellowship. However, it was not long before another false doctrine was substituted by what is known as Semipelagianism. This heterodox system attributes to man a capacity for good things in the sight of God, which makes it possible for him at least to render himself capable of receiving God’s grace. Semipelagianism found acceptance especially amongst the monks, by whom it was also propagated with great zeal and, once introduced into the Romish church, it was made a stronghold of popery, where it continues to prevail.—After Luther’s death our Church was on the point of being infected with a dangerous doctrine concerning original sin; but God in His infinite mercy not only checked the spread of erroneous opinions, but also blessed the Church of the Reformation with a confession which excludes forever any tendency contrary to the orthodox doctrine, so that by the grace of God we have to-day what our fathers three centuries and a half ago received through the service of the faithful Reformer. And as in the days of M. Luther, even so to-day original sin, with the Lutheran Church, is a leading doctrine; and justly so. [[@VolumePage:2,195]]For, in the first place, unless we believe and teach without deviation “in phrases and explanations” what the Formula of Concord has bequeathed to us in the 1st Article and in connection with the same in the 2d, we shall never be enabled to combat effectively the Romish fiction of man’s own merits and of self-preparation (in part or in whole) for conversion. The new departure of our opponents is a conclusive proof to this assertion. They maintain that man may and can, from his own free choice, give up wilful resistance and that only upon the condition that he agrees or resolves to desist and does desist before his conversion, the operation of the Holy Ghost can take effect in his heart. And again they say, when grace is offered to man, it depends on his own decision whether he will accept or reject the offer. By such sentiments so much at least of a good capacity is ascribed to unconverted man that, if he wills, he can prepare himself for receiving the favor of God. But whence is this assumption which the Lutheran Symbolical Books most earnestly and emphatically have rejected as a characteristic tenet of Rome and its sectarian allies? Whence this assumption which never must be allowed the least particle of room within the pale of the Lutheran Church? It has its foundation in the denial of the complete corruption of fallen nature. It results from the want of a correct knowledge of original sin. If the sinner is able to comply with a certain condition preparatory to his conversion, and if those only are converted who conduct themselves in accordance with that requirement, it necessarily must be conceded that there is rather more than the “least spark” of something good in man —contrary to the express words of our confession. From this fact it is evident that our opponents have deserted the banner of the Lutheran Church and, instead of defending it, fight against it. Whoever sincerely believes what the Formula of Concord sets forth with reference to original sin, neither can nor will consent to a doctrine of conversion which is at variance with what the Lutheran Church confesses with regard to that article of faith. Bringing reason into captivity, he will believe and teach that conversion is altogether a free gift of the free grace in Christ Jesus, and that the sinner can help or add nothing whatever in receiving that gift of God.—That original sin consists both in the absence of original righteousness and in a real positive existing evil, that it is a corrupt habit, or state; is, with the Lutheran Church, justly a leading article because of another good reason. This reason is pointed out in the following words of the F. of C.: “When this doctrine is correctly set forth, according to the Word of God, and separated from all Pelagian and Manichean errors, [[@VolumePage:2,196]]the benefits of Christ, the Lord (as the Apology declares), His precious merits, and also the gracious operations of the Holy Spirit will be the better perceived and the more highly commended.” ([[Art. I. Decl. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:i:3]]) “Therefore,” says the Apology, “our preachers dwelt upon this important point with the greatest diligence.” Grant God that through His grace we continue to follow the good example of the sainted confessors!G. R.Notice.The new position into which, two years ago, the Ohio Synod put itself with respect to the Lutheran doctrine and our Synod made the performance of some new duties incumbent on us. One was a defense of our faith and church, imposed upon us by the misstatements and calumnious reports with which the leaders of the Ohio Synod endeavored to cloak their breach of formerly professed relations of brotherly love and unity in faith. This defense has been made. Our German publications offer whatever may appear to be requisite to distinguish between truth and falsehood in the public accusations made against us. Nor did we neglect to present our faith free from the odious admixtures by which the unchristian jealousy of our former friends is untiringly engaged to disfigure it. The cause of truth however demanded some defense in the English language also. It was in this language that the false reports were designed to gain general belief. To such, therefore, as were unacquainted with the German, but interested enough in this melancholy affair and averse to passing partial and unjust judgment, this periodical was to furnish materials for a correct view of our doctrine as well as of the motives which govern our opponents in their public outcry. This has, in our opinion, been sufficiently done by the testimonies that we have offered in this Monthly. In closing, therefore, our defense we shall give a brief recapitulation of the facts in the case as discussed in the successive numbers of this periodical. We remark that of the numbers inserted in the following statement the Roman point out the volume of the Monthly, the Arabic the page.The doctrine which has incurred the great displeasure and violent opposition of our former associates is as follows. We reject as errors the teaching that God is not willing that all persons should come to repentance and believe the gospel; that when God calls us, it is not His earnest desire that all men should come to Him; that God is not willing that all men [[@VolumePage:2,197]]should be saved, but without regard to their sins, solely through the bare counsel, purpose, and will of God, some are destined to damnation, so that they cannot be saved; that the mercy of God, and the most holy merit of Christ, are not the only cause of the election of God, but that in us also there is a cause, on account of which God has elected us to eternal life. I, 17. 18. The affirmative of our doctrine which is given in full I, 54—57, we here abridge as follows. God loved the whole world from eternity, created all men unto salvation, and wills the salvation of all men. The Son of God perfectly redeemed all men. God calls all men through the means of grace earnestly, that is, with the intention that through them they should come to repentance and faith, be preserved in faith and finally saved, to which end God offers to them through the means of grace the salvation purchased by Christ’s satisfaction, and the power to apprehend it in faith. No man is lost because it was not God’s will to save him, because God had passed by him with His grace and had not also offered to him the grace of constancy, and it was not His will to give this grace to him: but all men who are lost, are lost by their own fault, namely, on account of their unbelief and because they pertinaciously resist the Word and grace unto the end. The subject of election of grace or predestination are only the true believers who truly believe unto the end of their life or, at least, at their end. No elect can become a reprobate and be lost. It is foolish and dangerous if one will become sure of his future eternal salvation by means of searching the eternal, divine, secret decree. A believing Christian shall seek to become certain of his election out of God’s revealed will. The election of grace does not consist in a mere divine foreknowing of which men are saved; nor is it the mere purpose of God to redeem and save men, so as to be a universal one and to pertain to all men in common; nor does it concern those believing for a time only; nor is it a mere decree of God to save all those who would believe unto the end. The cause which moved God to elect the elect is only His grace and the merit of Jesus Christ, and not anything good foreseen by God in the elect, not even faith foreseen by God in them. Election of grace is a cause of the salvation of the elect and of all that which pertains to it. God has yet kept secret and concealed and reserved to His wisdom and knowledge alone much of this mystery of election which no man can or shall search out by reconciling with his reason what seems contradictory to his reason. It is necessary and salutary, publicly to set forth to the Christian people the mysterious doctrine concerning election of grace as far as it is clearly revealed in God’s Word.—The declarations of our [[@VolumePage:2,198]]doctrine must be taken in no other sense than the words give I, 18. 57. and we acknowledge nothing as our doctrine which is not in harmony with them I, 57.The doctrine stated above we believe, teach, and confess because it is clearly revealed in Scripture. For example, Eph. 1. 3—14. informs us that predestination is an unchangeable decree of God the ground of which is solely the mercy of God and the merit of Christ; that it is a cause of our salvation and of every thing that pertains to it, and that Christians ought to be certain of being embraced in it I, 105—110.—Rom. 8. 28—30. shows that God has from eternity chosen us unto Himself for His possession; that from this election flow our calling in time, our conversion, faith, justification and glorification; that it cannot be hindered by anything; and that we Christians can and ought to be perfectly sure of our future glory, and comfort ourselves with this truth I, 121—127.— Acts. 13. 48. exhibits election as a cause of faith I, 34. and Matth. 24. 24. as a cause of perseverance in faith I, 111—118.This doctrine is the doctrine of the Lutheran church as set forth in its Confessions. For both the Epitome and the Declaration of the Formula of Concord in explaining election assert that it is a predestination of persons, a cause of their salvation and faith in such a manner that God in the time of grace works out their salvation by providing every thing appropriate to it, and operating in and for them so that they are finally saved I, 156. 157. 38—41. Both the Epitome and the Declaration assert that election is the cause of the perseverance of the elect I, 127—130. In this doctrine we also preserve the important distinction made by the Confession between foreknowledge and predestination, the latter, not the former, being a cause of the salvation of the elect, not an addition to foreknowledge made to present foreknowledge as the real cause of God’s eternal election II, 27. 28. And that a believing Christian shall seek to become certain of his election out of God’s revealed will, as we teach, is also clearly the teaching of our Confessions which admonish us to meditate on it in the manner in which the counsel, purpose and ordination in Christ are revealed to us, which show Christ and His redemption to be the cause of God’s election; and repentance, knowledge of sin, faith in Christ and obedience to God’s commands to be the way and manner in which God’s election operates to effect the salvation of the elect. Hence, when a Christian finds himself placed on this way through God’s grace he ought to recognize in it God’s eternal election I, 158—162. and the gospel which is to be preached to all men is to be to the believer the assurance of the election of grace I, 13. 14. [[@VolumePage:2,199]]In earnestly holding and defending this doctrine we endeavor to faithfully follow the steps of the reformer of the Church, Dr. Luther, who has shown that to doubt of our election means to doubt of the truth of the gospel, because the Christian’s infallible certainty of his election is his firm trust in God’s gracious promises given us in His Word and the Sacraments, and because it is God’s revealed and holy will that to believe in Christ and to be predestinated to glory should be recognized by us as one thing II, 75—79. 88—92. For Christians ought to possess a full assurance of the Christian hope II, 6—10. since predestination is an election of grace only II, 17—25. I, 92—96.This, then, is the doctrine which our adversaries exert all their strength to exstirpate from the Lutheran church. To attain this end they proceed in this way. They urge the fact that there is a logical inconsistency in our doctrine with which a Christian’s faith ought not to be encumbered. For if God’s mercy and Christ’s merit are the only cause of the election of God, and both are universal, that is, embracing all men, it must follow that all men are elected. Now, by teaching that the subject of election are only the 'true believers we declare election to be particular. Hence, our doctrine is false. Again, we deny that in us also there is a cause on account of which God has elected us to eternal life. From this it must follow that we cannot but teach that God is unjust, partial and favoring a few; that He does not love the whole world; that He does not call all men through the means of grace earnestly; that if a man is lost, it is because it is God’s will not to save him, but to pass by him with His grace, or not to give him the grace of constancy. Consequently those who are lost are lost not by their own fault, but because God wills their perdition and for this reason did not predestinate them to eternal life.— In order, therefore, to have a doctrine which is logically consistent, the true doctrine of the Scriptures and the Lutheran church must be this, that the cause of the election of God is neither His mercy nor Christ’s merit, for they being universal cannot cause an election of grace, but what is called an election of individuals on the part of God is an act of God’s justice which, after equal grace having been offered to all men, deals out the merits of man’s conduct toward the offered grace, ordering those who rejected it to eternal damnation, and receiving those into eternal life who accepted His grace and persevered in faith unto the end. We must believe that those who may be said to be elected from among the rest of mankind owe the fact of being preferred to others solely to such an attitude of their natural will toward God and His grace as [[@VolumePage:2,200]]does not require a conversion of this will wrought by God; for only those men are saved whose will it is to be saved. And if God and not man himself could or would change man’s perverted will, God certainly would save all men.Over against such sort of teaching we maintain that whatever in our doctrine appears to the human mind and understanding to be inconsistent, only points to the fact that “God has concealed and kept in secret many things concerning this mystery, and reserved them in His wisdom and knowledge alone,” in consequence of which those things which God has revealed to us in His Word with respect to this matter are of that kind “that we are unable to reconcile them in our minds,” as our Confession declares, [[F. of C. XI. 52. 53. >> BookOfConcord:Formula:SD:xi:52-53]] Consequently this apparent inconsistency is intended by God to belong to His divine revelation, it should not be removed by us from it, but should induce us to adore the unsearchable depths of His wisdom in dealing with man. He constituted the gospel of His saving grace so that it is foolishness to the wise who accept as truth only what they find to be consistent with the results of their reasoning; for it is His will to save men only by believing His Word. We are not permitted to alter His revelations for the purpose that we be enabled to draw inferences from them which prove to be free from inconsistencies. We ought to believe what the Word of God clearly reveals in spite of the inconsistencies our reason may find in it. The very inconsistency e. g. in the revealed doctrine of God’s election serves to manifest to us God’s wisdom and power I, 21—27. II, 49. If by way of explaining e. g. the revealed doctrine of Conversion we fall to drawing inferences we cannot but fall into the errors of Calvinism or Synergism I, 96—99. The whole of Christian life may be said to be involved in an opposition, the opposition of divine wrath and grace. He who, on account of divine grace, alters the doctrine of man’s sin and God’s wrath as they are revealed in Scripture, or alters the doctrine of divine grace as revealed in Scripture on account of the doctrine of man’s sin and God’s wrath, because contradictory inferences may be drawn from the doctrines as Scripture reveals them: frames a false religion and destroys true repentance and faith. Both doctrines must be kept unaltered though our reason is unable to reconcile them II, 50—58.Our opponents in holding and defending their doctrine cannot but find themselves in opposition to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. This opposition manifests itself in their presentation of the Scriptural election of grace as a judicial act of God caused by the different conduct of the unconverted sinner I, 82. 88. 89. II, 51. 52. as well as in their [[@VolumePage:2,201]]representation of God as bestowing His mercy and the merits of Christ upon such as in His judgment are worthy of His blessing II, 131. By their doctrine the promise of the gospel, that he who believes shall be saved, which is the means by which God works our salvation, is made part of the law, by the fulfilment of which man is to save himself; and the gospel promise is changed into the promise of the law II, 59. Faith, which according to Scripture is a gift of God, is by the doctrine of our opponents explained to be the effect of the same cause with unbelief, viz. man’s free choice guiding God in election I, 61. God’s grace is described as being inoperative in the individual until that individual believes by his own natural powers,' otherwise grace would either be partial or render all men believers I, 163. Hence faith is not an effect of God’s election, but that work of man which constitutes the rule according to which God elects certain individuals in preference to others. We cannot, therefore, speak of election in its proper sense unless we regard it as being no cause of faith I, 154. 163—166. II, 41. According to our opponents the mystery in election which the Lutheran Confession points out cannot be acknowledged as such, since we know the rule which governs election I, 166. 167., we are ignorant merely in regard to who belongs to the elect I, 154. In opposition to our Confessions according to which foreknowledge is not to be considered a cause of election, they teach that God’s foreknowledge is the cause of the salvation of the elect, though in that case God’s predestination is a predestination to nothing, foreknowledge seeing the elect saved already II, 25—28. If our opponents were right, God’s election were a delusion, and all the mystery about it would belong to the science of psychology II, 55. In opposition to Scripture and Confession they deny the enmity against God of the natural man before conversion in the case of those who are saved I, 74—76. According to them, divine grace converts only when unconverted man by his natural powers resolves to quit resistance, acts accordingly, and changes his enmity into quiet submissiveness to grace. They therefore deny that conversion is “in solidum” the work of grace alone II, 133. 134. By permitting reason to guide them in religion they have been led into Arminianism I, 28—34. But reason is a guide that would lead us to rejecting the whole gospel I, 23. Against Scripture and Confession the doubting heart of the Christian must not, according to our opponents, be taught to hold the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end by trusting in the divine promises, but to remain uncertain until death I, 167. 168., since certainty is, as the papists teach, a dangerous delusion II, 6—9. They withhold from the Christian [[@VolumePage:2,202]]the great consolation contained in the assurance of election I, 94—96. and instead of admonishing him to believe that his salvation is intrusted to Christ they cause him to wait for his death to assure him of it II, 132. 133. According to their teaching they must even withhold the promise of the gospel from him who has come to know that he once offered wilful resistance to divine grace, and repents of it II, 181—192.Our opponents cannot deny that the Lutheran dogmaticians, on whose authority they mainly ground their claims to be acknowledged as orthodox teachers, are also against them. This is made evident by quotations from Hunnius, Gerhard, Quenstedt, Hutter, Calov, Seb. Schmidt, as also from Selneccer, Rhegius, Chemnitz, and Luther I, 84—87. In the statement made by Quenstedt of what the Lutheran church has condemned as synergism even the best expositions of the doctrine of our opponents are included, viz. it is synergism to teach that in spiritual things man can do nothing alone, instead of teaching that conversion is worked solely by the Holy Spirit; It is synergism, to add to God and the Word of God the non-resisting will of man as a joint or secondary cause of conversion; it is synergism, to teach that man’s will, not by its own powers, but as prepared by the Lord, that is, by the power of grace bestowed upon it, converts itself in such manner as to be also able not to convert itself; it is synergism, to condemn Luther’s assertion that man in conversion brings to the actions of God a nature which resists up to the time at which the Holy Ghost through the Word corrects that evil nature and renders willing the unwilling II, 81—87. Citations from Quenstedt and Brochmand also prove that our opponents in condemning an infallible certainty of faith disagree with the dogmaticians as well as with Scripture and Confession I, 99—101.In order to maintain their false doctrine they do not scruple to follow a course which must appear highly discreditable and even dishonest. While asserting that they still hold firmly to the Confessions of our church they have changed their former confessional basis, so as to adopt condemned doctrines, and condemn true doctrines II, 30. 31. I, 144. 145. By way of excuse they pretend that the Confessions cannot be their own interpreters, but that we must rely on what they call the Church and the Fathers II, 14. 15. 29., although such reliance is plainly rejected by the Lutheran Church II, 37. 38. They maintain that their intuitu fidei doctrine is the doctrine of the Confession and dogmaticians, although nothing of intuitu fidei is found in the Confession I, 30., and the intuitu fidei doctrine of the dogmaticians is by these dogmaticians declared [[@VolumePage:2,203]]to be another than the doctrine set forth by the Confession I, 9. 10. They are unable to insert their interpretation into the Confession I, 84. and their rule that the Confessions must be interpreted in the sense agreed upon by teachers subsequent to the establishment of these Confessions as rules of faith, is both preposterous and dangerous I, 6. 7. They feign an election in which there is no election at all I, 43. 44. and in presenting it as the doctrine of the Confession they take out of the latter that on account of which it is called election, and intrude as the main thing what the Confession excludes from the contemplation of election I, 41—47. They explain the doctrine of the Confession concerning the cause of the damnation of those who are lost in a manner which must be destructive of all true religion II, 53. 54. In order to sustain their synergism they even misquote Luther as being of their opinion II, 42. 43.To clear the way for the adoption by the church of their alterations of Lutheran doctrine they represent our exhibition of it as Calvinistic heresy. They falsely state that we cannot but teach the absolute decree of the Calvinists which, consisting of particular grace and particular justice and involving a denial of Christ’s universal salvation, necessitates the salvation of some and the damnation of others through a natural necessity brought about by divine omnipotence; in consequence of which decree each individual is created for his foreordained final salvation or damnation. They falsely state that we teach that the will of God causes the resistance to His grace in the case of those who are lost; that the means of grace are intended by God to cause damnation in the non-elect, and not to produce faith in the elect, it being only the work of omnipotence. These doctrines, our opponents state, are actually taught by us, or at least in a modified form. Such statements they make in the face of our repeated public declarations that we earnestly condemn them as not to be tolerated in the Church, as the offspring of reason produced in opposition to divine revelation; that we believe and teach the very contrary and in the way our Confession sets forth the Lutheran doctrine to the comfort of weak and discouraged Christians who are harassed by doubts concerning their salvation; and that a firm belief in the universality of divine grace offered earnestly in and through the means of grace is even essential in the doctrine of God’s election as we understand it. In order to sustain their false charges our opponents represent their unwarrantable inferences to be our doctrine and the mystery we adore. They even fall to altering the sense of our expressions by distorting them II, 135—142. 145—160. I, 28. 29. [[@VolumePage:2,204]]66—70. 58—65. II, 62. 63. In order the more to bring our doctrine into disrepute our opponents call it a new doctrine and charge Prof. Walther with having formerly taught another doctrine than he now does, although notes taken down more than twenty years ago by a fellow-student of the gentleman who is now the leading spirit in the Ohio Synod, prove the contrary I, 130—140. They insist on the assertion that the doctrine we hold and defend is an innovation in our synod, although the “Report of the First Session of the Western District of the Synod of Missouri” etc. which was printed in the year 1855, shows that the very same doctrine was held by that synod then as it is now II, 33—36. In short, in order to obtain their end our opponents reiterate charges which they know have been disproved repeatedly, misconstrue words, falsify historical facts, pervert our doctrine, deal in wilful imputations and most shallow reasoning, which has again been shown by the publication of their latest tract II, 160—178.This recapitulation of what the “Monthly” has presented in the way of defence against the false accusations spread by our opponents among the English reading public, taken in connection with the fact that our readers are almost exclusively readers of our German publications, and that of late “the Lutheran Witness” has been started to defend and sustain our cause, will, we hope, justify us when we say that we see no reason to continue in that defence. We may add that most of the friends of our Monthly whom we consulted have the same opinion.There are other considerations, however, which make it desirable for us to have an English periodical of our own beside the “Witness.” There are talents among; us that ought not to be buried in the earth; there are pounds that must not be wrapped up in the napkin; there is theological knowledge vouchsafed to us to increase and multiply in the service of that church whose surpassing spiritual riches lay a proportionate obligation on its members. The circumstances in which we are placed render the continuance of the Monthly in its present form inadequate to the attainment of the desired end. The expediency of new arrangements has become evident. The present number, therefore, brings our periodical to a close. We part from our readers in the hope that, God willing, we shall soon be able to offer a substitute better adapted to the purpose in view. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download