The late Intersynodical Conference which was convened at Fort Wayne during August, 1905, had met for the stated purpose of examining the proof-texts of Scripture bearing on the doctrine of election. As frequently happens during discussions of this nature, matters not really essential to the business in hand were touched upon by the speakers. Thus the Fort Wayne Convention was advised that the Missouri Synod had adopted a new catechism for use in its churches and schools in lieu of Conrad Dietrich's Catechism, formerly the authorized catechism of the Missouri Synod; and that this action was tantamount to a repudiation of Missouri's former teaching on the subject of election, inasmuch as Dietrich's Catechism taught the doctrine which the Missouri Synod at present rejects. We quote the information as it was communicated to the public through church papers at the time.

Dietrich's Catechism was referred to in order to prove that the opponents of Missouri stand where this Synod (Missouri) stood formerly. Dietrich's edition of Luther's Smaller Catechism was for years published by the Missouri Synod and used in its churches. This catechism teaches on election: The grounds for election are threefold, to-wit: 1. the unfathomable goodness and mercy of God; 2. the unlimited atonement proclaimed in the Gospel; 3. the abiding saving faith in Christ. This catechism has for some years been replaced by another edition which, it is claimed, is in greater harmony with the present teaching of the Synod.

(Dr. Nicum in report to The Lutheran of August 31, 1905, regarding the Intersynodical Conference held at Fort Wayne, Ind., Aug. 8-10.)

The latter (the Joint Synod of Ohio, and the German Synod of Iowa, and some others) undoubtedly made a strong point against Missouri by showing that Dietrich's Catechism (that is, his edition of Luther's Small Catechism), which had been used in the churches of the Missouri Synod for many years, really occupied the position maintained by Ohio and Iowa, and that "this catechism has for years been replaced by another edition which, it is claimed, is in greater harmony with the present position of the Missouri Synod."

One would suppose that if it can be shown, from their own publications, that the Missouri theologians formerly taught what they do not teach now, there is some reason to hope that they may see the error of their way, and return to their former position, which, as their opponents claim, is that which has been and is held by the great majority of Lutheran theologians, as in accordance with the Scriptures and the Confessions of the Church.

(Editorial in The Lutheran of August 31, 1905.)

Now, as before stated, the question here raised was really foreign to the express purpose for which the Conference had

met.

For supposing that the claim of Missouri's opponents was correct, what would the opponents gain by it, so long as the acknowledged proof-texts of Scripture bear out Missouri in the pending controversy? The claim of the opponents necessarily implies that Missouri had discovered that Dietrich's Catechism was not in agreement with what Missouri considered Scriptural teaching on the subject of election. Let us assume that Missourians were mistaken in their view of what Scripture really teaches on that subject, still, if they thought that they had discovered the true teaching of Scripture and at the same time discovered a disagreement between the teaching of Scripture and their catechism, it became their duty to either change their catechism so as to bring it into harmony with Scripture, or, if that proved impracticable, to abolish the cate chism. The consistency of faith would have demanded such action peremptorily, and Missouri would have been dishonest, had she failed to take such action. If her hymns were found to contain sentiments contrary to Scripture, those hymns must be expurgated, or the entire hymnbook withdrawn. If her liturgies were proven to deviate from the teaching of Scripture,

the liturgies must be cashiered. All this would be sound practice, in accordance with God's Word, and entitling the Missouri Synod to the praise and commendation of all lovers of purity, i. e., strict scripturalness, of doctrine. Hence, the fact of the change in itself does not prove the Missouri Synod heterodox; for she might have become strictly orthodox through just such a change. The point to be established against Missouri is this: Has this synod, by adopting a new catechism, departed from the teaching of Scripture? Before this question every other question pales into insignificance. It is desirable that this question remain the paramount issue, if the public discussion of doctrinal differences between the Missouri Synod and her opponents is to be continued. And it has been chiefly for this reason that comparatively little has been said on our part since the Fort Wayne Convention regarding the misleading reports, that Missouri had for doctrinal reasons exchanged Dietrich's Catechism for another: we would like to keep the discussion to the main point at issue. For our part, the discussion of this matter of the change of catechism might be postponed, in order that the discussion of Scripture may not be disturbed. It appears, however, that our opponents really believe, as the editor of The Lutheran has conditionally stated, that "a strong point was made" by the introduction of this matter. And as silence might be construed to mean consent, it becomes a duty to speak.

We were astonished to find that the report to which we have referred could gain acceptance. For two things must be quite plain to men like those who were discussing election at Fort Wayne: 1. that the report misrepresents Dietrich's Catechism; 2. that it misrepresents the Missouri Synod.

No matter what Conrad Dietrich may have taught in his other writings, or what τрóло лaideias he may have adopted in presenting the doctrine of election, in his Catechism he does not say or teach that man was elected in view of faith. The claim that Dietrich's Catechism posits three causes of election, and that faith is one of these causes, rests, in a merciful esti