Theodore Emanuel Schmauk, D.D., LL.D.: a Biographical Sketch With

Theodore Emanuel Schmauk, D.D., LL.D.: A Bi o graph i cal Sketch

1 Also Avail able from Luther an- Li brary.org

The Con fessional Prin ciple by Theodore E. Schmauk. Hut ter’s Com pend of Christian Doctrine translated by Henry Eyster Jacobs. A Summary of the Christian Faith by Henry Eyster Jacobs.

2 3 About The Lutheran Li brary

The Lutheran Li brary is a non-profit pub lisher of good Chris tian books. All are avail- able in a vari ety of for mats for use by any one for free or at very lit tle cost. There are never any li censing fees. We are Bible believ ing Chris tians who sub scribe whole heartedly to the Augs burg Con- fession as an accu rate sum mary of Scrip ture, the chief arti cle of which is Jus ti fi cation by Faith. Our purpose is to make avail able solid and encour ag ing mate rial to strengthen believ ers in Christ. Prayers are requested for the next gen era tion, that the Lord will plant in them a love of the truth, such that the hard-learned lessons of the past will not be forgot ten. Please let others know of these books and this completely volun teer endeavor . May God bless you and keep you, help you, defend you, and lead you to know the depths of His kindness and love.

4 Theodore Emanuel Schmauk, D.D., LL.D.: A Bi o graph i cal Sketch

With Am ple Quo ta tions from his Let ters and other Writ ings

By George Wash ing ton Sandt

Luther an Li brary.org

5 Con tents

◊ Theodore Schmauk About The Lutheran Li brary Con tents List of Illus tra tions Pref ace by Lutheran Li brar ian Pref ace Part 1. Dr. Schmauk On Live Ques tions And Issues 1. On The Per son Of Christ 2. On The Doc trine Of The Trin ity 3. On The Free dom Of Will 4. On Neg ative Theol ogy 5. The Lutheran Con ception Of Sal vation 6. On Confes sion al ism 7. Luther And The New The ol ogy 8. On Pro gres sive Con ser vatism 9. On Lutheran Union 10. On Lutheran Pul pits For Lutheran Minis ters 11. On Lutheran Dis unity 12. On The Lodge And Pul pit-Fel low ship 13. On Un-Chris tian Soci eties 14. On Co-Op er ation 15. Dan gers To The Lutheran Church In Co op er at ing With Revival Movements 16. The Lutheran Church And Ex ter nal Re la tionships Stages Of Par tici pation In The Com mon Wel fare The Common Ground Of Coop er ation Of Im proper And Proper Partic i pation Prin ci ples Partic u larly Ap plica ble To The Lutheran Church Some Broad Lim i ta tions To Co-Oper ation

6 Some Movements With Which Luther ans In America Can Co-Oper - ate On The Basis Of Civil Righteous ness Some Movements With Which Luther ans In America Can Co-Oper - ate On The Basis Of A Common Christian ity Some Reasons Why The Orga nized In ter-De nom i national Teaching And Preach ing Of The Gospel In Church And School Is Not Pos si- ble To Luther ans In Amer ica The Historic Prece dents Against The Orga nized In ter denom i national Teaching Of The Gospel 17. Two Great Lessons Of Provi dence 18. The Church And So cial Prob lems 19. On Christ mas 20. The Tricky Con tro versial ist 21. On Possi bili ties Of Union Part 2 – A Bi o graphi cal Sketch 1 - The Schmauk Antecedents 2 - Birth and Boyhood (1860 to 1876) Young Schmauk At School Con firmed At Fif teen 3 - A Stu dent at Col lege (1876 to 1880) Phi los o phy Under Dr. Krauth 4 - Stu dent at Semi nary (1880 to 1883) His Twenty-First Birth day An In spi ra tional Book Dr. Krauth’s Death 5 - His Early Pastorate as As sociate of his Fa ther (1883-1898) 6 - Liter ary Ac tivi ties Begin “The Vil lage Black smith” “Heart Glow” Criti cal And Anx ious Days Dr. Trum bull And The Sun day School Times 7 - As Ed u cator - The Penn syl vania Chau tauqua 8 - As His to rian - No Traitor To His Blood 9 - Ed i tor and Sun day School Leader Pi o neer In Graded Sun day School In struction Opposes The In ter national Sys tem De vel op ment Of The Sys tem

7 10 - Citi zen, Patriot and Pub lic Speaker His Love Of Coun try As Public Speaker Schmauk And Taft Schmauk During The [Great] War [WWI] The Lutheran Church Not A For eign Church 11 - Death of his Fa ther (1898-1903) Dele gate To The Gen eral Synod 12 - Pres i dent of the General Coun cil (1903 to 1905) A Proclama tion “The One Conser vative Lutheran Body” The Gen eral Coun cil’s Atti tude To ward Mod ern Evange lism What Was Behind The Procla ma tion 13 - The Con fes sional High-Water Mark (1907) “Christ In The General Council” Catholic Lutheranism The Gen eral Coun cil And The Scrip tures On Coop er ation With The Gen eral Synod On Co-Op er ation With Other Christians Se ri ous Losses By Death 14 - Ad minis tra tive Prob lems On Men’s And Women’s Orga ni zations Dr. Schmauk And The Woman’s Mission ary Soci ety Dr. Schmauk And The Germans Water loo Semi nary Re la tions With The Iowa Synod Fifty Years Of Fruit less Woo ing 15 - A Try ing Conven tion (1909) Dr. Schmauk and the Swedes A Tem po rary Ray Of Hope Wants No Atlantic Coast Lutheranism The Fed er ation Move ment The Be gin ning Of The End Co-Oper ation With The Gen eral Synod 16 - “The Confes sional Princi ple” (1907-1911) Dr. Schmauk As Sem i nary Pro fes sor Meth ods Of Teaching

8 17 - The QuadriCen ten nial Cel ebra tion of the Refor ma tion (1917- 1920) The Lutheran War Com mission The Event ful Meet ing Of April 18, 1917 “A Far-Reaching Question” Facing Differ ences And Diffi cul ties Dr. Schmauk’s Ideal Of The Merger Working For The Merger Against Coalitions In The Church The Con vention In New York Dr. Knubel’s Christ mas Greeting (1919) The Na tional Lutheran Coun cil 18 - The Clos ing of a Stren u ous Life Dr. Schmauk’s Last Sermon Dr. Jacobs’ Funeral Sermon Ex pres sions Of Sor row Es ti mates Of Dr. Schmauk Po si tions Held in the Church Author of Fol low ing Books In dex of Per sons In dex of Places Gen eral Index Copy right No tice How Can You Find Peace With God? Benedic tion Ba sic Bibli cal Chris tianity | Books to Down load Es sential The ol ogy | Books to Download De vo tional Clas sics | Books to Download

9 List of Il lus tra tions

◊ Theodore Schmauk ◊ Benjamin W., Wil helmina, and Benjamin F. Schmauk ◊ Boyhood pic tures. ◊ Old Church and Historic Wil low Tree. ◊ Stu dent at the Univer sity and Semi nary ◊ Stu dent in the Sem i nary ◊ Old Salem Church ◊ The Old Par sonage. ◊ Asso ciate Pas tors of Salem Church ◊ Lebanon in the Forties ◊ St. Paul’s, An nville, and the Mis sions. ◊ Salem Parson age. ◊ Chancel lor Schmauk and His De part ment Heads, 1895 ◊ Mt. Gretna Chau tauqua Faculty , 1896 ◊ A Friend to Children. ◊ Com mon Ser vice Book Commit tee on Comple tion of Work ◊ Opening of the playground - As a public speaker ◊ A Wel come Service for Returned Sol diers, WWI ◊ Centen nial An niver sary ◊ Salem Memo rial Chapel ◊ In te rior of New Salem ◊ Pres i dent of the Penn syl vania Ger man So ci ety ◊ Pres i dent of the General Coun cil ◊ Pro fes sor, Mt. Airy, Presi dent, Min neap o lis, Pas tor, Lebanon ◊ The Phil adel phia Semi nary Fac ulty, 1914 ◊ The German Student Asso ci ation of the Theo log i cal Sem i nary ◊ Ways and Means Commit tee for Orga ni zation of United Lutheran Church

10 Pref ace by Lutheran Li brar ian

In re pub lishing this book, we seek to in tro duce this author to a new gener ation of those seek ing au then tic spiri tu al ity.

The Lutheran Li brary Pub lishing Ministry finds, re stores and re pub lishes good, readable books from Lutheran authors and those of other sound Chris tian tra di tions. All ti tles are avail able at lit tle to no cost in proof read and freshly type set edi tions. Many free e-books are avail able at our web site Luther anLi brary.org. Please enjoy this book and let oth ers know about this com pletely vol un teer ser vice to God’s people. May the Lord bless you and bring you peace.

A Note about Ty pos [Ty po graphi cal Er rors]: Over time we are re vis ing the books to make them bet ter and bet ter. If you would like to send the er rors you come across to us, we’ll make sure they are cor rected.

11 Pref ace

IN PRE SENT ING THIS POR TRAI TURE of the re mark ably re source- ful, vers atile and many-sided Dr. Schmauk, the author feels that very much of value has been left un said. Much of great in ter est and value in the form of ser mons, addresses, excerpts and other bi o graphi cal ma te rial was placed at his dis posal, and it was not easy to decide what to select and what to re- ject. Dr. Schmauk explored so many fields of knowl edge, touched so many spheres of useful ness and in flu ence, and affixed the impress of his person al- ity upon so many activ i ties and move ments as to make the task of present- ing a well-propo r tioned sketch of his life and work diffi cult. An effort has been made, however , to pic ture him in as life-like and re al is tic a man ner as possi ble. To do this, it was neces sary to dis re gard in large measure the chronolog i cal se quence of events in his life and to defy log i cal or der by thrust ing in here and there, more or less wan tonly, in ci dents and side-lights that might add to the truthful ness of the picture. The work of prepar ing this bi og ra phy, in spite of the pres sure of other tasks, proved to be most in ter est ing and in spir ing. The writer, though a classmate of Dr. Schmauk at the Sem i nary and asso ci ated with him in edi to- rial and other work for twenty-five years, made many a dis covery touch ing Dr. Schmauk’s work and his real in ner worth of which he had not been aware before. Dr. Schmauk’s life was too busy to make in ti mate and frequent personal in ter course with him possi ble. Hence much that was both new and re fresh ing came to light while enter ing into an exam i nation of the ma te rial which gave an in sight into the in ner work ings of his mind and placed his life and charac ter in richer and fuller per spective. What has deeply impressed the writer of this bi og ra phy is the abso lute unique ness of Dr. Schmauk’s person al ity. His life and char acter defies all or di nary stan dards of mea sure ment. It is as differ ent from the lives of such lead ers as Krauth, Seiss, Kro tel and Spaeth as is a re sist less moun tain tor-

12 rent, broaden ing out into many rivulets and cataracts, to the stately and ma- jes tic flow of the Mis sis sippi. There was a big-heart edness, a peren nial ar- dor and enthu si asm, a tremen dous seri ousness and earnestness of purpose, a childlike simplic ity and nat u ral ness, and a sym pathetic warmth and ten derness, that won for him a place in the life and affec tions of the Church occu- pied by few men. He touched the life of the Church at more points than any other Lutheran person al ity in America. He was a veri ta ble stor age bat tery, with in nu mer able connect ing wires to transmit sparks of in flu ence and power far and wide through out the Church, and beyond. He was the most ecu menical and in spi ra tional Lutheran America has yet produced — length, breadth, height and depth com bin ing to give him mas sive ness in body, mind and spirit. The author could do no other but write this bi og ra phy un der the spell of such an esti mate of Dr. Schmauk’s worth. Much as he tried, he found it impos si ble to bind himself to a purely ob jec tive method of treat- ment. An at tempt has been made to present to the reader with some full ness what Dr. Schmauk stood for. He ranks as one of the ablest and most consis- tent defend ers of the Lutheran faith. His catholicity of spirit enabled him to put himself in the place of his op po nent and see things from the latter ’s point of view. This gave him an advan tage over most Lutheran defend ers of the faith and saved him from the charge of narrow ness and big otry. And yet he never swerved from the strong conser vative po si tion he al ways took by mak ing weak or com promis ing con cessions. The quo ta tions given in the biog ra phy and in the supple ment will bear out what has thus been said of him as a force ful defender of the faith. Only such parts in past contr o versies are brought out in this bi og ra phy which seemed neces sary to give a correct per- spective. The author acknowl edges gratefully the valu able assis tance and coop er a- tion of the Lit er ature Manager of the Pub li cation Board, W. L. Hunton, Ph.D., D.D., to whom he is in debted for an account of Dr. Schmauk’s services as edi tor of the Graded Se ries of Sun day School Lessons. Dr. Hunton had been asso ci ated with him in this work for many years. He has also prepared the In dex. Prof. E. E. Fis cher, D.D., and Rev. Arthur H. Getz, one of Dr. Schmauk’s promis ing stu dents at the Sem i nary, who acted as his pri vate secre tary, have fur nished an esti mate of Dr. Schmauk’s ser vices as teacher of Apolo get ics, Ethics and re lated subjects at Mt. Airy. As Dr. H. E. Jacobs

13 was in ti mately asso ci ated with Dr. Schmauk for many years in maintain ing the stan dards of faith to which the Lutheran Church is com mit ted, and as he was in a posi tion to know him and his worth as few men knew him, a liberal use has been made of what Dr. Jacobs has so well said at differ ent in ter vals and un der varying cir cum stances. Last but not least, the writer acknowl- edges his in debt edness to the surviv ing sis ter of Dr. Schmauk, upon whom he re lied for much valu able in for ma tion that could not oth er wise have been secured.

GEORGE WASH ING TON SANDT

14 Part 1. Dr. Schmauk On Live Ques tions And Is sues

NO BI OG RA PHY OF DR. SCHMAUK can be sat is fac tory if not supple mented with extracts from his letters and other writ ings bear ing on living questions and is sues which absorbed much of his best thought and ener gy. It is the purpose of this supple mentary matter to let him speak for himself.

15 1. On The Person Of Christ

In the last hour with his class in 1919 he in tended to sum marize the course he had given in apolo get ics but was in ter rupted by a question which asked the differ ence between Jesus and the great East ern teach ers. Im me di ately seeing his op portu nity he com bined his ob ject of sum mariz ing the course with the an swer to the question, and without a moment’ s thought, with out the use of any kind of notes, he deliv- ered a lec ture which will never be forgot ten by the class. The follow- ing is a steno graphic report of the lec ture, as presented by one of his stu dents.

Many wise men, Socrates, Con fu cius, Plato, Bud dha, have said some of the things that Jesus said, but none was what He was. None said the things in actions as He did. What Jesus says is fi nal and ab solute. He never speaks specu la tively, never merely as a moral ist, never merely as a hu man re former. He al ways speaks cat egor i cally, declaring ei ther truth or fact, and as rooted in the abso- lute. What He says is so fi nal that it finds re sponse in our hearts, and in our hearts we know it to be true. No prophet ever lived who spoke with such cer ti tude of Him self as at once the Son of God and the Son of Man. In all the fullness of a world vi sion, with all the antic i pation of a fu ture, with the real knowl edge of a his toric past. He stands up with out, as we say, an edu- cation, and He begins to speak the truths that are as mighty and true to day as in the past. He lays down the laws that are the same yester day, to day, and for ever. No one ever did as this man, no one ever spake as this man, no one in this world could have begun to ut ter what He ut tered Other teachers are at best conscious that they point to a realm of truth; alone among lead ers of the soul Jesus absorbs the high est prin ci ples into His own person al ity. To

16 the seeker after light He says, “Follow me;” to one who would know the Fa- ther He says, “Hast thou not known me?” He says He is the Truth. The vi sion of God is in Him. He cannot merely point to rest and pardon, but they are in Him. Moses and the prophets did not dare to speak so, nor Bud dha, nor Plato, nor Con fu cius, nor Socrates, nor any other teacher in the world. Jesus Christ is the source of spir i tual re al ity. The spir i tu al ity of God, the spir i tu al ity of the First Cause of all things, the spir i tu al ity of the Ul ti mate Prin ci ple, of man, of life, of all wor ship, of the King dom that will prevail over all the world, of man’s heart, of the reign of right eousness, of conduct, has all been in tro duced into the founda tion of the world, into the his tory of mankind, in and through Jesus Christ. Spir i tu al ity is the em phasis of the truth of God as the great and conquer - ing re al ity of life. Our Sav ior in His person al ity is the one sublime expo si- tion of the conquer ing of the spir i tual in the midst of the vis i ble. He was equally at home in the bo som of nature and of God. He is the Light of the world. He is the Life of men. “In Him dwelleth all the full ness of the God- head bod ily.” He posses seth all power in heaven and earth, so that Christ is ever stand ing at the center of things, draw ing all men unto Him. By Him were all things cre ated, vis i ble and in vis i ble. He is before all in us, and in Him stand all things to gether. All things come to gether in Him, have or der in Him. In Him and around Him all things conver ge. Jesus Christ is far more to us than the source of spiri tual re al ity. He is the re vealer of God. He is God made man i fest in the flesh. He lives as the em- bod i ment of God. The Son re veals the Fa ther. The one is the man i fes ta tion of the other. Through the Son the Fa ther re veals Him self to the world, and thus God comes as the Fa ther. So the taberna cle of God is now with men. We dwell in Him, and He dwells in us. Any expla nation of Christ which stops short of present ing Him as God loses power. The secret is that He brings God to man and then man to God. God is in Christ rec on ciling the world to Him self. Christ shows God to us as a power which re leases from evil. The light and glory of the Lord comes through Him — “I in thee, and thou in me.” Therefore it is life eternal to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent, and it is

17 through Him alone that we are saved, for, “No man,” says He, “cometh to the Fa ther save by me.” The more I study Him, the more sure I am of Him. I know whom I have believed becaus e I know what He is. The world has had won derful seers whose vi sions have shone like a beacon across the ocean of time. Sci entists have made impor tant dis cover ies which have advanced the world’s progress; his to ri ans have com piled data and imparted in for ma tion of the greatest value; Homer, Virgil and Milton have charmed our senses by their po ems; the philosophers have stirred us by the profound ne ss of their thoughts; but none of these, nor all of them to gether, would be a com pensa- tion for the sin gle life of Christ, for there is only One who will take us straight to the heart of the Lord, and straight to the Source of Life. There is only One who will re move from us all sin and deprav ity and crime, who will free us from pain and fear, who can lift us with His ten der hand and cheery word, pure and joy ous, out from the depths into which we have fallen. There is only “One who hath re deemed me, a lost and condemned crea ture, from sin, death, and the power of the devil with His holy and precious blood in or der that I might be His.” There is Only one who can say, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father .” Our po ets paint the myr iad-hued bub bles of time; our Sav ior controls and verges the tides of eternity . Even a Shakespeare stands in this world, but to Christ this world is but a small segment in the cir cle. Christ is not of this world. Christ takes a man right to God. The great questions of faith and of life and death, the great problems of right eousness and sin, the greatest hopes, the greatest fears, the great est joys, the greatest judg ments, the greatest re wards, are those which Emer son and Spencer leave un touched, and which jMil ton and Dante clum sily imagine, but which Christ takes up as part of Him self in simple and sub stan tial cer tainty. Other great men offer us their thoughts, but Christ offers us Him self, Him self on the cross. Him self on the Right Hand of the Fa ther as our Advo cate and De fender. Chaucer’s men and women are more to us than Chaucer; Dante’s dreams are greater than Dante; Milton’ s words are might ier than Milton; but Christ’s words are only a com men tary on Christ. It is not the word, nor the in tell ect, nor the imagi nation, but the person that draws us unto Christ. To see Him, to come to Him, to be drawn to Him, to abide in Him, to fol low Him, to learn of Him, to find rest in Him, to beli eve in Him, to be saved by Him, is our de-

18 sire and hope, for we are from beneath but He is from above. He is the One that could say “He that loveth father and mother more than me is not worthy of me.” Let us hold on to Christ as our life. He Him self is the sum to tal of our un folded hu man ity. He nei ther does nor shows, but is. The truth that oth ers speak, He is. The life that oth ers feel and dream and describe, He is. He is Al pha and Omega. In the shadow of His hand will He hide thee and make thee a pol ished arrow , and in His quiver will He keep thee close.

19 2. On The Doctrine Of The Trin- ity

The follo w ing is a letter , written to his sis ter Emma at tend ing college, to counter act the ratio nal is tic teach ing concern ing God which a certain pro fes sor of physics was dissem i nat ing.

The doctrine of the Trin ity does not rest on 1 John (which is a com para- tively unimpor tant writ ing, and one whose text in this connec tion may not be def i nitely known); but upon the whole framework of Scrip ture. The doctrine of the cir cula tion of the blood or of the sphericity of the earth does not rest so much on a sin gle detached fact (as, e. g., on the beat ing of the pulse, in the for mer case) as on a great and broad background of more in di rect, but more substan tial proof. The doctrine is to be found in three classes of Scrip ture; those which teach the unity of God; those which teach a plu ral ity in God; and those which teach that there is a real and not simply a for mal or modal dis tinction in di cated by the plu ral ity. The entire body of Scrip ture is impreg nated with the truth of the Trin ity; just as the entire hu man body is impre g nated with the cir cula tion of the blood; though in the latter case the blood nowhere appears on the sur face. If such a great, deep, mys te ri ous truth which is the funda men tal thing in the being of God, were exposed openly on the surface, it would be al to gether contrary to what is nat u ral and to be expected. Surely the laws of God’s own in ner hid den being are not to be supposed to be more easily opened up than the laws of bi ol ogy, chem istry, physics, etc. Na ture flaunts none of these latter on the surface. And Na ture’s God on the same prin ci ple, would not be expecte d to open out the truth concern ing Him self (who is greater than any of His works) at first blush! And there is the mistake that am ateurs in the ol ogy make, when they pass their re marks in such a flip pant way on super fi cial exam i nation. If your Pro fes sor in Physics needs

20 in stru ments and tests, etc., ad in fini tum, and will not com mit himself at all yet on many sci entific problems — what right has he to speak on the o log i- cal problems un til he has given at least as much exact re search to them as to his physics. (This is said with no ani mus, but merely to show how fool ish it is for learned men who claim to be experts in their own de part ment to depart from their own prin ci ples of exact ness and pass off-hand judg ments in other depart ments. It is not only your Pro fes sor, but many of us, you and I both, who of ten are tempted to do this.) The Old Testa ment is full of the Trin ity in a la tent way; but as is the case with re demp tion, immor tality and the other great doctrines, there is not much patent in this in tro ductory stage. The Son and Spirit as well as the Fa- ther are spoken of in Ps. 2; Isa iah 48:16; and forms of speech are em ployed, in di cat ing the mighty mys tery of Trin ity in unity in Num. 6:23-26; Isa iah 6:3. In the New Testa ment al ready at the annun ci ation of the birth of Jesus, it was stated that it should be through the Holy Ghost, and that he should “be called the Son of the High est” (Luke 1:35). Here is the Trin ity. When Christ was baptized, the Spirit of God, in a bod ily form, descended upon him, and there was a voice from heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Here is a dis tinct reve la tion of Fa ther, Son and Holy Ghost. When Christ gave His deepest and fi nal teachings to His dis ci ples (preparatory to His death and ascen sion) (John’s Gospel), we have am ple state ments of the dis tinction and of some of the re la tions exist ing between the persons of the sacred Trin ity, (e. g., John 17 and preced ing and fol lowing chap ters.) God the Fa ther has sent forth God the Son into the world. The Son had left the glory he had with the Fa ther before the world was, and came to earth to suffer and die. He is about to re turn again to the Fa ther, having accom plished his mission. But another will be sent, the Holy Spirit, who will abide with the dis ci ples. Coming from the Fa ther and the Son, he will guide the dis ci ples into all truth. John 14:15-26; 15:26; 16:13, 15. Here is the Trin ity. When Christ was about to leave the world, and gave over the contin u- ance of the work which he had simply begun, to his dis ci ples, he com missioned them to go out into all the world and preach to and baptiz e all people

21 “in the name of the Fa ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Matt. 28:19. Here is the Trin ity in the most impor tant and offi cial com mission the Church ever re ceived. It would be an in com prehen si ble thing, if it were mean ing less. “In the name of Ferdi nand and Is abella” surely means much as to the re la tion between Ferd i nand and Is abella in an offi cial docu ment for mally deliv ered. The apostolic benedic tion (2 Cor. 13:14) is in the name of the Tri une God. Both Bap tism and Benedic tion, the most impor tant prac ti cal things in the new life of the Chris tian, are not in the name of God, or of Christ, or of the Lord; but of the Trin ity. The whole thought and speech of the Apos tles teaches the Trin ity. Thus Paul, “For through him (Christ) we both have access by one Spirit, unto the Fa ther. Eph. 2:18. Again, speaking of the great sal vation,”which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord (Christ), and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him, God (the Father), also bear ing them wit ness both with signs and wonders, etc., of the Holy Ghost." Heb. 2:3, 4. So Pe ter says “Elect accord ing to the fore knowl edge of God the Fa ther, through sancti fi- cation of the Spirit, unto obedi ence and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.” I Pe ter 1:2. Lan guage could not be plainer on so diffi cult a sub ject. But Take the Second Class of Passages:

I. Names or Ti tles of Di vin ity Ap plied to Each of the Three Persons of the Trin ity. A. The Fa ther Deut. 32:6; I Chron. 29:10; Isa iah 64:8; 53:16; Mal. 1:6; 2:10; Rom. 15:6; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 11:31; Gal. 1:3, 4; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2; I Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:2; 2 John 3. B. The Son Jer. 23:6; Isa. 41:1, 8, 10; 11:1-3; (w. John 12:41); John 1:1; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:16; Tit. 2:13; 1 John 5:20; Heb. 1:8; Rev. 19:17; I Cor. 15:47; Acts 10:36; Rev. 17:14; 19:16. C. The Holy Ghost Ex. 17:7; Ps. 95:7. 8; (w. Heb. 3:7-11); 2 Sam. 23:2; Acts 5:3, 4; 2 Cor. 3:17.

22 II. Di vine At tributes As cribed to each of the Three Per sons: A. Eter nity Fa ther — Deut. 33:27; Ps. 90:2; 93:2; Isa. 57:15; Hab. 1:12; 1 Tim. 1:17. The Son — Ps 45:6; Isa. 9:6; Mic. 5:2; John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5; Col. 1:17; Heb. 13:8; Rev. 1:7. Holy Ghost — Heb. 9:14. B. Om nipresence Fa ther — 1 Kings 8:27; Jer. 23:23, 24; Eph. 1:23. Son — Matt. 28:20; 18:20; John 1:18. Holy Ghost — Ps. 139:7; 1 Cor. 12:10-13. C. Om nipo tence Fa ther — Gen. 17:1; Jer. 32:17; Matt. 19:26; Rev. 11:17; 19:6. Son — Heb. 1:3; Isa. 9:6; Matt. 28:18; Rev. 1:8. Holy Ghost — Luke 1:35; Rom 15:19; Heb. 2:4. D. Om ni science Fa ther — Ps. 147:5; Isa. 11:28; 46:9; Acts 15:18; Heb. 4:13. Son — John 11:25; 21:17; Rev. 2:23; Acts 1:24. Holy Ghost — 1 Cor. 2:10, 11; John 14:26; 16:13. E. Creation Attrib uted to Each Fa ther — Gen. 1:1; Neh. 9:6; Isa. 42:5; Heb. 3:4; Rev. 4:11. Son — John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16, 17; Eph. 3:9; Heb. 1:2, 10. Holy Ghost — Gen. 1:2; Job 26:13; Ps. 33:6; 104:30. F. Preser vation and Prov i dence Fa ther — A long list. Son - Heb. 1:3; Col. 1:17; Matt. 28:18; Isa. 9:7; 1 Thess. 3:2; 1 Cor. 15:25; Rev. 11:15.

23 Holy Ghost — Ps. 104:30. G. Re demp tion and Sal vation Fa ther — John 3:16; 1 John 4:9; Isa. 53:16; 45:21. Son — Matt. 1:21; Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12; Acts 4:12; Heb. 2:10; John 4:42; 1 John 4:14. Holy Ghost — Heb. 9:14; Tit. 3:5; 2 Thess. 2:13; Rom. 5:5; 1 Pet. 1:2.

To the Fa ther the Son declared, “Thou lovedst me before the foun dation of the world” (John 17:24). The Fa ther “hath com mit ted all judg ment unto the Son.” Here there is cer tainly dis tinction of persons. Again, against the Holy Ghost there is a blas phemy dis tinguish ing it from other sins against the Fa ther and the Son, and dis tinguish ing Him from the other persons of the Trin ity. Matt. 12:31. The Holy Spirit is grieved, which can only be true of a Being pos sessed of person al ity. Ke pler’s laws are not as impor tant to the aver age man as are the laws of earthly temper a t ure. Neither are they as clearly re vealed. But they are more funda men tal. So the Trin ity is not of as great prac ti cal impor tance to us as our re demp tion, right eousness, provi dence, etc. But the Trin ity is back of and more funda men tal than all these; and He would be a poor sci entist who denies it sim ply be cause it is so far in the back ground.

24 3. On The Freedom Of Will

An other letter to his sis ter Emma to pro tect her against certain philosoph i cal teach ings at college.

There is no problem more diffi cult and com plicated than that of the Free- dom of the Will. There are many large treatises on the subject both from the meta physi cal and from the exper i men tal point of view. Your young man lec turer seems to take the po si tion of Emanuel Kant. Kant’s fun damen tal po si tion on conscious ness is sound; but in the way he fol lowed it out in his Cri tique of Pure Reason, he denied not merely the free dom of the will but the possi bility of ob jec tive knowl edge to the rea son. Hav ing thus by pure philosophic process made ship wreck of the in tellec tual and moral nature of man (with out the free dom of the will and re sponsi bility there can be no moral nature), he tried to save the latter in his Cri tique of the Practi cal Rea- son, by set ting up his Cat egor i cal Im pera tive, and the norma tive ideas of God, Lib erty and Im mor tality . But there is a fal lacy in all this. A man cannot hold one thing philosoph i cally, and another morally. We cannot teach one way sci entif i cally, and the con trary pri vately. Our mind will not perma- nently toler ate such a du al ism. If you hold to your pri vate view, you admit the impo tence and the fail ure of your sci entific method. If you maintain your sci entific view, you cut away every hon est and real founda tion and cannot legit i mately find a valid point of rest for your second po si tion. This is a case where philosoph i cally “No man can serve two mas ters.” If the man is convi nced by both el ements in a contra dic tion, the only true course is to say: Here are two things contra dic tory to my mind. I must believe in a hid- den and ul te rior harmony in both, which I cannot now see; or in some mistake in my rea soning on the one or the other side; and therefore I do prac ti- cally the best I can and wait for more light toward the so lu tion. Oth er wise there is a perma nent du al ism of prin ci ple in the mind which in val i dates thought and either para lyzes or cor rupts action.

25 4. On Neg a tive The ol ogy

A letter to his sister Emma while at Col lege.

I am surprised at the nature of the books you will use. In stead of being largely philosoph i cal, they are strictly the o log i cal, and will not give you the meta physi cal train ing you so much desired in a col lege edu cation. And — what is more impor tant to me — the course is even more nega tive and ra tional is tic than I supposed. These works are all special ties in the line of the ol- ogy, and I do not see where your phi los o phy comes in. They do not teach anything out side of crit i cism, and his tory, on a the o log i cal the ory which we Luther ans condemn from top to bot tom. I know that Fa ther would never have consented to my tak ing up such a the o log i cal course, even af ter I had gone through the uni versity , much less when I began my col lege course. My own po si tion is a lit tle differ ent. I feel that you have a right to ex am ine into these teachings if you feel that you ought; but I also feel that it is not fair to the or tho dox Bible truth that you should do so before you have given your mind an op portu nity to exam ine the other and more posi tive side. In other words, it is right first to be well grounded in posi tive and or tho dox teaching; and only then are you do ing jus tice to the faith of the fa thers. To take up the crit i cism of the or tho dox, before you have stud ied the or tho dox, is not fair to the lat ter. It is hear ing only the one side, the side now pop u lar and curr ent; and is re vers ing the proper his tor i cal or der. You will not hear both sides ei ther at or at any other secu lar in stitu tion in the land, and you can hardly fail to be in flu enced by cer tain general ways of thinking and by the at mos phere in which the new spirit lives. The whole subject is strictly tech ni cal and one cannot weigh it ju di cially by a few years’ col lege work on it, and yet one will hardly be able to escape the in fec tious spirit prevail ing. One can not argu e with the Pro fessors or take the op po site side because the greater weight of learning is against you. It is only if you are a thor ough expert on the detai ls, at first hand, that you can un dertake argu ment with those whose knowl edge of facts is so large and com prehen sive, and whose the o-

26 ries are so plau si ble. I know, my dear sister , through what a conflict I passed for years before I reached my present po si tion by hon est convic tion, and I know how many learned men in the ol ogy are miser able to day because they are un able to come to convic tion, and I would spare you the treading of the ter ri ble path if I could. If you en ter it, you will ei ther have to go through your work per functo- rily and ar ti fi cially, deter mined not to present the funda men tal is sues to your mind and to re main or tho dox at all costs; or you will present is sues and reach re sults in sym pathy with your surround ings (and un dermine your faith as you have held it); or you will have to fight your way through the thralldom and fas ci nation and weight of learning of all your author i ties and profes sors — a ter ri ble un dertak ing; one which you are capa ble of, but which I do not see the use or value of, un less you expect to make the ol ogy your one single specialty . I can not advise you what to do, not being on the ground or un der standing the cir cum stances, nor would I feel autho rized to say much to you in influ encing you, except for the deep love I have for you as a brother. What you are to learn is what I am giv ing my life and strength and all the powers of my mind to antag o nize; and it is my hope and prayer that these views will never take posses sion of the Church. I am not prej u diced against them, however , in so far as they are questions of fact, and my mind is fairly open to all evi dence these men may be able to present. I have said enough.

27 5. The Lutheran Con cep tion Of Sal va tion

Our trust is not sal vation by sci ence, and there fore we are against ratio- nal ism which sets man’s own think ing above the truth of God. Our sal vation is not by reli gious cere mony , and therefore we are against ritu al ism, which exter nal izes the ser vice of God into a sacred and passi ng show. Our sal vation is not by tu mul tuous feel ing, and therefore we are against emo tional ism which makes light of facts and history and centers all on passing cur rents in the soul. Our trust is not in sal vation by med i ta tion, and therefore we are against mys ti cism which raises the soul to God by an inner and po etic sight. These are extremes and one-sided. From them spring Sweden bor gian- ism, spir i tu al ism. Chris tian Sci ence, theos o phy, occultism, and many of the super fi cial re li gions of the moment. Lutheranism clings to God’s Written Word. Her motto is the Word of God, the whole Word of God, and noth ing but the Word of God, not as a prescrip tive let ter, but as the power of God unto salva tion. In the law and the prophets, in the Gospels and Epis tles, we find one mighty prin ci ple, the man who can stand before God and live, the man who is counted just in His sight, so to say the good man, is so by faith only. He is saved by his confi dence in that which he finds in the writ ten Word of God, by his trust in the blood of Jesus Christ which cleanseth us from all sin.

28 6. On Con fes sion al ism

In a let ter, dated No vem ber 22, 1907, he writes:

The differ ence between the Con fes sions of the Church and mod ern and up- to date per sonal confes sions is this, that the great confes sions of the Church were born out of the heart of the Church’s his tory, are a fruitage of the tra- vail of the hu man race, and are a precious posses sion given to us by the Prov i dence of God. Such confes sions are only possi ble in great epochs of faith, like the Refor ma tion, and not in mere crit i cal epochs, such as our own Twen ti eth Cen tury. The Lutheran Church can never survive un less she takes the ground that Con fes sion al ism is the Church provi dentially guided to put the Bible into a nut-shell in or der to guide the faith of her children; and that this guid ance is as neces sary to day as ever. Too much is made of the thought that the old Con fes sions are not fi nal. They are fi nal so far as they go, that is so far as their doc trines are concerned. The impor tant thing about any confes sion is its doctrine, and not its form. We must not give our ris ing gener ation the idea that the old Con fes sions are not fi nal They are fi nal, un til God in His Prov i dence raises up a mighty and ter ri ble spir i tual epoch, in which a new confes sion will be, not writ ten by the hand of man, but born out of the heart of his tory. And this new Con fes sion will be but a ree choing of the old truths in a cer tain sense. The Con fes sion is more power ful for eccle si asti cal use than the Scrip ture it self. The Scrip ture is like a field of wheat. It is sown promis cuously into all kinds of ground into the fields of his tory. The Con- fes sion is the ker nels gath ered to gether, ground into flour, and put into a loaf of bread. In other words, confes sions are the vi tal prin ci ples of truth sepa rated from the his tor i cal Scrip tural envi ronment in which they have sprung up. The Church’s confes sion is as impor tant to it as the in di vid ual’s Con fes sion of the Lord Jesus is impor tant to him. Con fes sions are Scrip ture assim i lated, and ready for the pro duction of new strength. Now to re gard

29 them simply as hu man is do ing them an in jus tice. It is to put all stress on the assim i lating process, which is hu man, but neces sary , and it is to ig nore the divine el ements which furnish the strength of that as simi la tion. There are only two roads possi ble to a great Church, the one is the road of op portunism; and the other is the road of prin ci ple. Oppor tunism mag ni- fies orga ni zation , and other outer facts. Con fes sion al ism mag ni fies the real substance of the Word of God. It is true that we must guard against hy per-confes sion al ism. But there is very lit tle danger of that to day. Half a century ago, when Dr. Krauth was in his prime, that danger was to be reck oned with. But the pendu lum has swung to the other side since then, and we must simi larly re al ize that which will meet the op po site dan ger.

30 7. Luther And The New The ol- ogy

Luther was not a lawyer, and was not drawn to the decr ees of God. Luther was not a judge, and was not in clined to the ab stract truths of God. Luther was not an artist and was not affected by the imag i na tive and scenic side of faith, in which sal vation is portrayed as a subjec tive thing, as ideal as a painted ship upon a painted ocean. Luther was not a soci ety man, and did not re gard the Church as an in stitute for the devel op ment of so cial values . Luther was not a reform man, re form being the excep tion and not the happy habi tus of his life. Luther was not a mys tic, but Luther was an hon est, hum ble-hearted sin- ner, sink ing un der the in ner burd ens of conscience, and needing and find ing the Son of God to set him on his feet and re store his peace. In Christ he found every thing, and his heart was at rest. Luther was the heart-man. He was the man of re al ity, of trust and confi- dence, of the great el emen tal com mon precious things of life. Therefore Lutheranism has a faith that app eals to the home feeling and goes straight to the heart, like the old song “Home Sweet Home,” with no one-sided or fa- nat i cal, but with a healthy, emo tion. The Lutheran Gospel is the Gospel of sal vation, and therein we differ from the new the ol ogy. The new the ol ogy is a mod ern pagan ism which glori fies the exist ing good ness of hu man nature (and believes in its ul ti mate perfect evolu tion).

31 The new the ol ogy rises (beyond the author ity of Scrip ture, and declares that phi loso phy and sci ence have given the fi nal concep tion of the uni verse. Scrip ture is not the only rule of faith, it is not a di rect reve la tion, (and its eth i cal and re li gious value are just as strong af ter its his tor i cal char acter is dis proven). The new the ol ogy sets aside the doctrine that Christ is our pro pi ti ation and that we are saved through the blood of Christ. To it di vin ity is of the essence of all human ity, and all hu man ity’s greatest thinkers are in spired. It urges that in stead of try ing to believe that we are lost sin ners, we should (at once, with out re penta nce) re al ize that we are the children of God, and that this child-like re la tion is the essence of all re li gion. The new the ol ogy declares that if we have done wrong, we shall re solve to do right, and God will receive us. It does not believe that there is no other name un der heaven than the name of Jesus whereby men may be saved, but it be lieves that the good God (who is the Fa ther of us all), has put some good into every heart, and that if we give this good, which was born in us, a chance, we shall be saved. The new the ol ogy fol lows Erasmus and not Luther. It does not say, “The sacri fices of God are a broken spirit.” Its chief prayer is not, “Create in me a clean heart, O God. Cast me not away from thy pres ence and take not thy Holy Spirit from me.”

32 8. On Pro gres sive Con ser- vatism

In re ply to a letter request ing an opin ion on “Pro gressive Con ser- vatism in the Lutheran Church,” he writes on Octo ber 25, 1912:

A progres sive conser vatism seeks that which is of value, that which is specific and dis tinctive in its own root, and strives to develop it to flour ish in growth along the lines of its own divinely or dered life. If conser vatism has become too fossilized and degen er ated, it may be neces sary to graft a more vig or ous shoot in the old stock, but it should be a shoot of the same species, and should look to the bring ing forth of its own perfec tions, and not to an imi ta tion of the perfec tions which are found in other species of spir i tual vi tality . The Lutheran Church will never grow as long as we are look ing for our progres sive ness to what oth ers out side of us are do ing and are using up our strength in adopt ing their devices and in imi tating them. We shall never be able to re produc e their finest fruit or flower, and we shall be depre ci at ing and fail ing to give at ten tion to our own. Let us take the strong el ements and qual i ties and char acter of faith and life that in here in our own Gospel, in our own confes sion, and in our own Church; let us plant this seed with out doubt. Let us be assured that it is the rich est, the strong est, and the most genuine Chris tianity in the world. Let us la bor patiently to keep the soil cul ti vated, to prune the trees, to keep them free from all para sitic and other destroy ers, and our own in her ent vi tality will as sert itself and bring forth splendid re sults. Pro gres sive con ser vatism is the appli ca tion of our own treasures in an up-to-date way, to the problems of the King dom of God and of the life about us. This ap plica tion should not ’be anti quated, but should be vig or ous

33 and enli ght ened. It should begin with that which is near est at home to us, in the greater is sues of faith and life, within our own congre ga tion, and should only be extende d out ward as we gather a suffi ciency of in ter nal strength to gradu ally as sume the larger and larger bur dens of the greater world be yond. In this view I am in di rect conf lict with the Modem Ameri can re li gious spirit, which will assume to it self all the problems of God’s King dom and soci ety in the heavens above, in the earth beneath and in the wa ters un der the earth, and will pass res o lu tions at tack ing them all, and in stit ute ener gies touch ing them all, but thor oughly dispos ing of none of them. In my judg ment the Church, like the in di vid ual, has the duty of re fusing to do good; if, thereby, she is kept in a swamped and over-weighted condi- tion, and is unable to do any effec tive good any where. It is our duty to select that which is most impor tant and most press ing and to keep on select ing up to the full lim its of our strength, and when we have once re moved a burden, to keep on contin u ously and never cease un til we have dis posed of it vic to ri ously, and mean time, as strength accu mu lates, tak ing on new loads of re sponsi bility . It is also our duty to leave many fields of endeavor abso lutely un- touched, on our part, and un til we are able to support the new growth which we have in duced. To call up new growths on every side is progress in deed; but to let them perish as soon as the heat of the day begins to be felt, is worse than not to have at tempted so large a task.

34 9. On Lutheran Union

The follow ing questions submit ted to him in 1916 were an swered as follows:

Ques tion 1 — Do you think there are any doctri nal barri ers, suffi cient to make organic coop er ation betw een the general body of which you are a member , and the other Syn od i cal bod ies in the fol low ing list, impos si ble: Gen eral Coun cil, United Synod of the South, Ger man Iowa Synod, Joint Synod of Ohio, Gen eral Synod? It is my belief that there are no such impos si ble doctri nal barri ers. The chief imped i ments, to my mind, are those that arise from other sources:

1. From prac tices in the vari ous bod ies which are in consis tent with the doctrine which the bod ies profess; 2. From a fail ure to speak right and judge gener ously of those out side of our selves; 3. From a narrow desire to put one’s own Synod or Gen eral Body before the welfare of the Church as a whole; that is, from the habit of inter pret ing the life, work, and progress of the Church in the terms of one’s own orga ni zation.

Ques tion 2 — Is the time ripe for such organic feder ation? Would you welcome a move ment in that di rec tion? I do not believe in fede r ation. Fed- er ation is no solu tion. Its aim is to continue the in depen dence of each sepa- rate unit with only a nom i nal gen eral al liance. The time is ripe for actual coop er ation of the vari ous Gen eral Bod ies with each other along all lines in which the prac ti cal works of the Church are bein g car ried out through par al lel orga ni zations that are willing to coop- er ate, e. g., Missions, Home and Foreign, Pub li cations, etc., etc.

35 Ques tion 3 — What should be the function s and scope of action of such a gen eral body? In other words, what should such “organic co op er ation” amount to? I do not think that the start should be made by orga niz ing a new Gen eral Body, but that a stand ing joint com mit tee should be appointed to in vesti gate the facts in each depart ment of activ ity , and, in consul ta tion with the vari- ous boards repr esent ing these activ i ties, should rec om mend what steps of coop er ation are pos si ble in the imme di ate future, and what fur ther steps will be possi ble in a few years to come. Thus the work of the Church should be knit to gether along the lines of the most promis ing possi bili ties, and where there is least re sis tance, with a grow ing unity step by step, and look ing toward a larger and final unity. This fi nal unity should not be pushed, but should at any given time, em- brace such conj oint activ i ties to the extent to which, and not fur ther, each partic u lar sphere is will ing to join in with other spheres in the other bod ies. Af ter this work has been in augu rated and has been grow ing, at some fa- vorable season, the general bod ies should hold a regu larly elected del egate conven tion, to orga nize a fi nal general body which, in the begin ning, would take over only such functions as have al ready become organ i cally united in prac tice. This is the expe r i men tal and prac ti cal method of at taining Church unity, start ing from the concrete and grow ing nat u rally to ward the gen eral. I am sat is fied that by the use of this method a united Lutheran Church will become an actual and effec tive fact in this country long before it could be reached by a the o ret i cal construc tion begun through the imme di ate orga ni- zation of a ten ta tive general body. I do not believe that Fed er ati on will ever ar rive at unity.

36 10. On Lutheran Pul pits For Lutheran Min is ters

When asked his opin ion about the Galesbur g Rule by a Lutheran pastor , he writes, Feb ruary 24, 1917, as fol lows:

We must be care ful not to degen er ate into un due em phasis upon mere me- chani cal dog matic rule on exter nal deci sions. I do not believe that any Con- fer ence does its duty if it merely passes a rule on the subject and does not system at i cally at tempt to reach the convic tion of the people by a plan of in- struction which will give the laity as well as the clergy the right conscience on the sub ject. In general, for an offi cer of the church, or a Con fer ence, or a minis ter, to enforce any rule on the Church without first mak ing a seri ous at tempt to en- lighten the minds and gain the convic tions and consciences of the people in behalf of that rule, is a le gal is tic, Re formed, and not a Lutheran, prin ci ple. To carry the laity with you in your convic tions in volves a vast amount of la- bor and patience , and less radi cal methods, but it not only pays in the end, it is also the right prin ci ple. It seems to me that the keynote of our po si tion is that we hold to the Lutheran prin ci ple in clud ing the Four Points just as strongly as they (Ohio and Mis souri) do, but that we do not approve of a le gal is tic method of enforc ing our po si tion, because

1. It is a mat ter of un enlight ened conscience. Three of the Four Points are nowhere taught in so many words in Scrip ture. They are not revealed in clear specific passages , such as are the doctrine of the Resur - rec tion, the doctrine of the forgi veness of sins, etc. They are le giti mate deduc tions from Scrip ture, but still deduc tions, and it re quires much train ing, in sight, and many other qual i ties, to enable a mind which is

37 sym pathet i cally and broadly consti tuted by nature to assume so firm a po si tion. 2. The day of cat egor i cal asser tion, with simple obedi ence thereunto by the laity, is gone. The day of the closed mind in re li gion is gone. Dr. Loy had such a closed mind, and it is a type char acter is tic of both Ohio and Mis souri. All things in heaven and earth are fixed and set tled in iron framework. It is the duty of the faith ful simply to be obedi ent thereunto. In vesti gation for one’s self, and the toil some process of ar- riv ing at a convic tion of the truth by consid er ing the force of the op po- site side, is not a method for which these people leave much place. Yet this is the Ameri can method. Doc trine and truth must stand on their mer its, and not on the asser - tion of the pastor or of the Church. The old Ger man the ory of obedi- ence to author ity cannot be success fully maintained as a perma nent thing. We must not only toler ate, but we must welcome in tel lec tual openness. As a conclu sion from this it fol lows that we must not hurriedly close the doors against those who are un cer tain, who are eager to be in the right, but who do not yet see the right as we see it. 3. The le gal is tic at ti tude, through which Church dis ci pline is put the o- ret i cally on the same level as the preach ing of the Gospel is one that cannot but re sult in the end in the subvert ing of the Gospel and in the preva lence of phar i saism.

In an other letter to a Lutheran pastor he writes on Au gust 27, 1914:

Life is larger than logic, and God is greater than man. Hence man has no right to press his logic on oth ers by force, and the Church must not devote herself chiefly to po lice acts of re pres sion. The Word of God gives us inspired prin ci ples and some in spired rules. But a rule which has hu man logic in it, that is, which is an in fer ence from in spired prin ci ple, still re tains some possi bility of er ror, espe cially as to its form and appli ca tion. It is re ally ra tional ism to back up such a rule by the force of the King dom of God. We may feel sure that we are right, and we may be al most right, and still be lack ing the di vine sanction for the use of force.

38 God’s Church will never prevail, and the world will never be saved, through dis ci pline, and as soon as it be comes the prevail ing spirit, we are on the wrong track. Yet dis ci pline ought and must be exer cised by the Church, but not as a rule, but only as the last and extreme re sort. And dis ci pline cannot be exer cised on the basis of canons or rules that are laid down by the lead ers but only as the uni versal convic tion and conscious ness of the Church re sponds to their ripeness. You can not leg is late Gospel convic tions into the people, and you cannot dis ci pline on the basis of those con vic tions where they do not ex ist, with out lay ing yourself open to autoc racy, and in some cases to hypocrisy. But where, through edu cation, real convic tion has been brought about, there there will be least need for dis ci pline, and if its need should occ ur, it should be exer cised promptly and fully. Our “edu cationa l” po si tion is cor rect, but our weak ness lies in this: that where dis ci pline re ally ought be car ried out, e. g., in gross and open sin, we fail to do so. I am in clined to think that Mis souri herself of ten fails simi- larly. But if we were able to show that where our convic tions un doubt edly are at one, there dis ci pline would be effec tively car ried out, our po si tion would be impreg nable. At a confer ence of Ger man synods in the United Lutheran Church in 1917 he said: “No union of the Lutheran Church will ever take place if the ‘Four Points’ (Galesbur g Rule) are made the condi tion upon which it is to be based. The child of union was killed before it (the Gen eral Coun cil) was born when the Four Points came into discus sion.”

39 11. On Lutheran Dis unity

The plain, bare and painful fact is that there is no Lutheran Church in this coun try, which can as such deal with it self or with oth ers. We are not a United States, but a lot of South Ameri can re publics. Be fore we get at least some treaty re la tions between ourselves, we cannot act as a unit to ward others. Our in ter nal dis ability makes any proposed exter nal effort super fi cial, presump tu ous, and even dishon or able. As a busi ness proposi tion, we have not even a paper capi taliza tion. In busi ness I do not believe in go ing in beyond the lim its of proper capi taliza- tion. In re li gion we must not over-cap i talize the confi dence of the Church beyond what we have fair rea son to believe is the limit of our backing. Many a busi ness man must leave tremen dous op portu ni ties go by because his capi tal ability is so small that his venture would be al most purely specu- la tive. If he goes beyond, he is a gam bler. This brings us to the question. What amount of confi dence have we as our back ing? How will the Church ul ti mately support us? In the rapid shifts of to day, this is a great problem. Out side the merger, can we com mand Joint Synod of Ohio, Nor way and Iowa? We cannot on this is sue in any other fo- cus than the men of the Na tional Commit tee. If they give their affir ma tive judg ment, I am will ing to take the risk. If they do not, we will not fairly repre sent Lutheranism to an Ameri can pub lic. We repre sent only a minor ity . And, at this mo ment (i. e. un til the end of June), it is un cer tain how much capi tal even the small United Church will repre sent. In other words, to me it seems our main and in ten sive problem as the inter nal one, the get ting of suffi cient confi dence capi tal to hon estly and hon- or ably enti tle us to repre sent Lutheranism before the out side world. If we have only a com para tive minor ity back of us, we dare not in conscience move as the repre senta tives of the whole or the large ma jor ity. How ever painful and para lyz ing it is to our cause, honor com pels us to admit that

40 Lutheranism is noth ing in a unity sense, that we must mend ourselves, before we appear before oth ers. We have succeeded in the mend ing in the sol- diers and sailors cause, but that cause is more com pelling in mov ing the whole heart of the Church, than are any of the perma nent is sues. If we can use that one point to draw in and convert strength for our more regu lar issues, we can act also with re spect to them, we can move. But if not, we are mere op portunists, adven tur ers, and take a gam bler’s risk, and we shall come to grief. Here is my diffi culty. We must put ourselves in a po si tion to be able to deliver the goods, before we en ter into contract to fur nish it to out siders. Right eousness is here at stake. Power with out right eousness is not perma- nent, and will ruin our Ameri can princi ple.

41 12. On The Lodge And Pul pit- Fel low ship

The follo w ing state ment was submit ted by Dr. Schmauk to a commit tee of the National Lutheran Coun cil in 1920.

1. The at tach ing one’s self to any life-broth er hood out side of the broth er hood in Christ with prin ci ples and rules of obedi ence which may or may not be in conflict with the Church of Christ, but which oper ates in depen de ntly of it, sets up a di vided al le giance. Our Sav ior said em phat i cally, “No man can serve two mas ters”; and it is espe cially true of the minis ter, who is un der solemn vow to obey Christ alone, and who is the offi cial repre senta tive of the Church of Christ in all re la- tions, that there are many situ ati ons which will di vide his al le giance. A whole-souled loy alty to two life-covenants, each claiming to be supreme in any field, even though nei ther in it self be harm ful, is im- possi ble. 2. Se cret and selec tive orga ni zatio ns of a few among the many is un- Ameri can, and is a relic of Old World and aristo cratic Medieval ism. America stands for openness and pub licity in all asso cia tive acti on and for equal ity in fra ter nity. The Gospel it self breaks down walls of special parti tion in the broth er hood of men. Frater nity in special priv i lege, espe cially when combined with se crecy of di rec tion and the hid den use of in flu ence, is against the spirit of democ racy, which stands on pub lic and open merit. The world is to day seeking to rid it self of covenants, cabals, treaties, and broth er hoods that op er ate by pri vate and secret un- derstand ing, that block square deals with out assign ing the rea son why, that do not open the door of op portu nity freely and equally to every one of merit where soever he may be found, and that cul ti vate the habit

42 and at ti tude of plan ning and act ing with out pub lic reve la tion of purpose.

If a min is ter be united in a spec ial selec tive and secret broth er hood with a few of the members of his congre ga tion in this (broth er hood, while the great ma jor ity, in clud ing women and children, are out side of it, it will be well-nigh impos si ble for him to fol low and apply the com mon prin ci ples of Chris tianity on the com mon and Ameri can ground of equal priv i leges and re sponsi bili ties for all, to every mem ber in his con grega tion. Please note that the term “secrecy” comes from the Latin secerner e, to put apart, to sepa rate. The funda men tal idea is to shut out the com mon broth er hood of man, to keep from it cer tain knowl edge and purposes, and to give to selected ones the special priv i leges of an exclu sive fra ter nity. This is conso nant nei ther with the prin ci ples of the Gospel nor with those of the Ameri can people. I think, too, that if the Lutheran Church takes a po si tion that in general its fel low ship in pul pit and al tar is not for non-Luther ans, that that fact in itself has a di rect bear ing on the prin ci ple of secret soci eties. Not only non- Luther ans, but Uni tar i ans, Jews, and non-Chris tians, are admit ted to mem- bership and partic i pation in the re li gious fel low ship and burial of these so ci- eties. Any orga n i zation that claims the right to bury a man with its own rite which is out side of, even if not contra dic tory to, the rite of the Chris tian Church, predi cates a fel low ship of faith and eternal life which is differ ent from that of Chris tianity in our pul pits and at our al tars, and we cannot in consis tency refuse to draw those lines also at the grave.

43 13. On Un-Chris tian So ci eties

Any ass o ci ation or soci ety which has re li gious exer cises from which the name of the Tri une God or the name of Jesus, as a matter of prin ci ple, is excluded, or which teaches sal vati on through works, must, accord ing to Holy Scrip ture, be re garded as in its very nature in com pat i ble with the faith and confes sion of the Chris tian Church and more espe cially the Lutheran Church, whether this be real ized or not.

44 14. On Co-Op er a tion

1. There is no point of doctrine in volved in member ship in the Ameri- can Bible So ci ety. The Bible is a com mon heritage of Chris tiani ty, and it is a good thing for Luther ans to aid in its common distri bu tion. To do so is as lit tle wrong for a Lutheran as it is for the Lutheran Church to make use of the King James ver sion in her services. 2. Mem bership in a com pany of Bible re vis ers stands on the same grounds, though, if the said com pany of re vis ers should in sist on trans- lating such a passage as “This is my body,” by “This is an em blem of my body,” a point of doc trine would be involved in the coop er ation. 3. There is no point of doctrine in volved in at ten dance on any higher edu cational school, whether it be a col lege, a uni versity , or sum mer school, so long as the pub lic im parta tion of re li gious truth be not one of its ob jects. The Penn syl vania Chau tauqua, for in stance, espe cially in its ear lier days, was a sum mer school of this type. It was, we believe, the only in stitu tion of the kind in the country which did not adopt the prin ci ples of the Mother Chau tauqua, and had no depen dence upon it. That it did not orig i nate as a mild type of re li gious camp-meet ing, with union re li gious meet ings and some edu cational in stitu tion thrown in is due proba bly to the efforts of the writer more than to any one else. In or der to prevent an in stitu tion of this kind from becom ing a re li gious plea sure re sort in the heart of Lutheran Lan caster and Lebanon counties, the writer went into the movement in its in cip i ency, and, at the time of his res ig nation was proba bly the only one of the first orig i na- tors still actively in ter ested. The in stitu tion was car ried on strictly as a school for some years, with the heads of the pub lic school system of the State of Penn syl vania in close offi cial touch with it; and, even at present, we believe, the in stitu tion is a part of the pub lic school system of the state, re ceiv ing an appro pri ation of several thou sand dol lars a year from the State Trea sury as one of the state’s edu cational in stitu-

45 tions. The writer has not been con nected with this in stitu tion for many years, to the unan i mous re gret (so they said) of the Chau tauquans, and re signed partly because he found that his name on the letter head of the blanks of this in stitu tion, and his offi cial contact with men of all kinds of re li gious convic tions from an agnos tic like John Fiske and evolu- tionists like Ly man Abbott on the one hand, to Ro man Catholic priests on the other, was so li able to be misun derstood as a re li gious en dorse- ment, and made such great demands on his time to prevent a re li gious com promise on his part, that he consid ered it safe, as a Lutheran, since the in stitu tion was no longer in a situ ation to affect the contigu o us ter- ri tory in a re li gious way to re sign his connec tion. In this he was supported by the word of his friend. Dr. Trum bull, who himself also on very differ ent grounds al ways declined to no tice any of the Chau- tauqua movements in this country . That word was that “there is a duty of re fusing to do good.” 4. There is no point of doctrine in volved in at ten dance or partic i pa tion in a com mon ser vice at sea, at a ho tel on a night too stormy to venture forth to places of wor ship, or at any point where partic i pation would not nat u rally be un derstood, or be taken advan tage of by any oth ers as an accep tance and endorse ment, and where the situ ation is a tempo rary one. Of course there may very easily be a com promise here. The writer does not believe that he could, as a Lutheran, partic i pate in such an in- stitu tion as Northfield, because it is the center of a prevail ing type of re li gion, and of many new ex pounders of new re li gious types, which as a Lutheran he would proba bly not be able to endorse. While prob ably he could not partic i pate in the move ment, it might be proper for him to at tend the meetings. 5. Lack of partic i pation does not in volve any personal dis re spect, nor neces sar ily condem nation. In partic u lar it does not in volve condem nation of any part of common faith. 6. In di vid ual at ten dance is a differ ent thing from cleri cal partic i pation, espe cially in cases where denom i nations are apt to presume a com plete unity in the broth er hood, and to assume the other’s offi cial recogni tion.

46 15. Dan gers To The Lutheran Church In Co op er at ing With Re- vival Move ments

1. The re vivalist slurs the Church as corrupt, and church members as hyp ocrites. The pi ous, hum ble-minded, devout, meek wor shipers, who are well-pleasing in Christ’s eye for their in conspic u ousness and fi- delity, are discounted, and the agi ta tor is set on a pedestal. 2. The true spir i tual method of reg u larly sow ing the seed of God’s Word in the heart, and al low ing it to grow graciously and gradu ally, is dis counted in fa vor of vol canic upheaval. 3. Not only is rever ence for sacred things destroyed, but the taste for mod esty, pu rity, and re fine ment are set in the background. The dra- matic stag ing and imagery of the saloon, brothel and the horse-mar ket are set be fore school chil dren as ve hi cles of re li gious instruc tion. 4. The Lutheran doctrines of both Sacraments are com pletely ig nored. 5. The Lutheran method of cat echet i cal in struction, and Chris tian nur- ture in gen eral, is ig nored. 6. The Lutheran doctrine of or di nation, and espe cially the Lutheran teaching of pul pit fel low ship, and the general teaching of the Church or der in the ministry , is ig nored. The sanction, guaran tee and call of a re vivalist is in his success, and not in his re la tion to pure doctri ne and the Word of God. 7. A minis ter who joins hon estly in a union move ment would have to admit the evang elist or re vivalist into his own pul pit, and al low him to partake of the Lord’s Sup per. He would thereby be elim i nat ing every- thing dis tinctive for which the Lutheran Church stands.

47 8. Lutheran people get accus tomed to hear ing the liturgy of their service and all rit ual con demned and abused. 9. Lutheran people acquire a dis taste for the regu lar preach ing of the Word of God, and for ser vices that are devout but not sensa tional. They ne glect their regu lar du ties and regu lar giv ing in fa vor of these extra or di nary efforts. By joining in these union move ments the Lutheran Church endorses and abets the preach ing of the worst er rors and even of heresies on the part of ir re sponsi ble evange lists, such as sal vation by char acter , and as confus ing the descent of the Holy Spirit with mob in stinct and emo tional craziness. Luther ans cannot have fellow ship with er ror ists. 10. The Lutheran Church has a ter ri ble exam ple behind it, which has set it back for two gener ations, which split the Lutheran Church into two, and cre ated un told woe, in the support of union move ments and re vivals given by part of the Lutheran Church in 1837 and later. The Gen eral Synod has only in these last years been re cover ing from the mistake which she then made in enter ing into union movements. 11. The Lutheran Church has never gained from such move ments. In union move ments converts to Chris tianity are made on a very slen der basis. Usu ally walking down the saw dust trail, or shaking hands, com- pletes the transac tion. Many of the people who are thus heralded as converts are excited and misin formed church members. Nearly all of the reported gains which are turned over to Lutheran pastors from such move ments are found to be com posed of people in their own church who have been caught by the re vival feeling, and who, though they may have been good Chris tians all their life, stand up to be prayed for, or go front to the al tar to be saved. 12. The Lutheran Church cannot preserve her dis tinctive doctrines and being, and yet enter heartily into re vivals in augu rated by the Re formed type of Chris tian ity. If we are imped ing the cause of Christ by not enter ing into these re vivals, the question arises whether we are not im- peding the cause of Christ by maintain ing a dis tinct denom i national exis tence. If the Lutheran way of sal vation by the pure preach ing of the Word of God, and the use of the sacra ments, is not the right way, or not effi cient, then the question is a much larger one than merely enter -

48 ing into union move ments. For us to enter into union move ments is to confess the failure of Lutheranism. 13. Union move ments of the day are re ally an in vasion of busi ness and of the lay man into the province of the ministry and the church in the belief that he has prin ci ples which are bet ter than the old-fashioned proclama tion of God’s Word. It is a part of the democratic social iza tion of the age, and rests on an in differ ence to God’s pure doctrine and a dis re gard of proper or der or author ity in the church. — (Proba bly written in 1915..

49 16. The Lutheran Church And Exter nal Re la tion ships

In 1907, when the question of union and coop era tion among Luther ans was dis cussed, the writer had requested the ses from Dr. Schmauk on the still larger question of the Church’s rela tion ship to non-Lutheran com munions, for pub li cation in The Lutheran. Eighty-three such the ses were prepar ed by him; but he later consid- ered them to be of such im porta nce as to need careful revi sion. The promised revi sion was not made. When The United Lutheran Church was formed, the writer called Dr. Knubel’s at ten tion to those the ses as being of value in help ing to shape the new body’s pol icy in its rela tion to the much-mooted questions of in terde nom i na tional union and coop era tion. Cor respon dence with Dr. Schmauk resulted in the enlar ge- ment and revi sion of the The ses. They set forth what he conceived to be a corr ect and safe at ti tude on this im portant question, the main portion of which is herewith given.

Stages Of Par tic i pa tion In The Com mon Wel- fare

1. Neighbor li ness.

This, ac cording to the Gospel in volves love; such love as the Fa ther has for all when He makes His sun to shine on the just and un just, and as Christ man i fests to all in his re la tions, even to those who were op posed to Him. It in volves the expres sion of good-will, but does not imply anything as to the approval of ei ther the prin ci ples, the char acter , or the action of our fel low-

50 men. Most partic u larly it also in volves help to our neigh bor, no matter what his faith or charac ter , in spe cial time of need.

2. In ter course. a. For mal. This in volves recog ni tion on the basis of a com mon hu man ity which we meet, even if our paths cross, and does not in- volve ei ther recog ni tion or endorse ment of any partic u lar claims advanced by our neighbor . b. In for mal. This in volves sym pathy , with out special obliga tions, (but to be felt and man i fested wherever it is pos si ble so to do. 3. Dealings.

Here there is a com mon act, usually an exchange of val ues, a transac tion which is mu tu ally sat is fac tory, which is com plete and fi nal in it self, and en- tails no conse qu ences or obliga tions for the fu ture, but which is of help to each, that is, of com mon bene fi t to both parties. It does not com mit ei ther party to any prin ci ple or transac tion out side of that in volved in the deal ing. Dealings may lead to com mon, un for mu lated un derstand ings, and to many customs of help ful ness which, however , nei ther party is in honor bound to continue to maintain, but each party is free to break off when ever he believes or finds it to be to his adv antage to do so. This is the essence of business re la tions, and is well un der stood and uni versally prac ticed by busi ness men of honor with out special diffi culty or danger of being in volved in misun derstand ings.

4. Covenants.

Covenants are a mu tual agree ment extended into a long time fu ture in virtue of which each party agrees to be and to act to wards the other as is stipu lated in the basal ar ti cles of the un derstand ing. The sanction of a covenant may be some el emen t of force, or it may rest upon the abid ing trust in the in tegrity each of the other.

5. Co op er ation.

Co op er ation is mu tu ally support ing action along lines of pol icy of which each party approves, and the goal of which both parties desir e to see at-

51 tained. The coop er ation may be along specially and mu tu ally agreed on and un derstood lines, or it may be of a more general char acter . There is some danger in a general un derstand ing of coop er ation in that one or the other party may in no cently or willfully presume on the aid, sym path y, or use of the name and good will of the other with out the full consent of the other. It is safe to exer cise care in ar riv ing at an un derstand ing and in suffi cient delim i ta tion before commit ting oneself to gen eral coop er ation.

6. Al liances.

Al liance is the lining up of the forces of each or all par ties toward specif- i cally men tioned ends. There is no in ten tion here of touch ing, al ter ing, or mod i fy ing the in di vid u al ity of any of the partic i pants, but the agree ment is to en gage in a com mon un dertak ing which, with out com promis i ng anything out side of that un dertak ing, will secure com mon action to ward the mu tu ally desired end. Al liances are fre quently offen sive and defen sive. They may be entered into for the purpose of sup press ing or destroy ing a com mon foe, or for the pur pose of build ing up and con struct ing a com mon good.

7. Union.

Union is a perma nent and general al liance on all the greater matters in any sphere of activ ity , which, however , will take suffi cient care to continue to guard the in di vid u al ity of each of the partic i pants. In the larger matters of com mon danger and some times of a com mon progress, the in di vid ual will have to yield cer tain rights to the whole; but this yielding can never be car- ried so far as to destroy the in di vid u al ity of the parts. The United States, com posed of many in di vid u als, is a rich illus tra tion of the nature of union.

8. Fel low ship.

Fel low ship in volves not only all the lower and preced ing stages just men tioned, but the propri ety and willing ness of each in di vid ual to give over his full self, prin ci ples, feelings and desires, to the other, in a close in ti macy of asso ci ation which prac ti cally iden ti fies the one with the other in the public eye, and which causes each in di vid ual to feel and say of the other “We are one.” Fel low ship, by its very nature, and if the right of self-de ter mina- tion of person al i ties of persons and peoples be granted, can never become

52 uni versal. There must be neigh bor li ness, there should be in ter course, there may be deal ings and coop er ation, there may be covenants and al liances, but fel low ship is of the in ner and the soul-life and by its very nature partakes of the more personal and pri vate rela tionships. A lim ited coop er ation is just, but fel low ship, by rea son of the extent of the iden ti fi cation of each with the other, cannot justly be regarded as neces sar ily uni versal. The basis of fel lowship rests on broth er hood, but it is dis tinguished from broth er hood in that it is a consci ous appro pri ation and exer cise of the la tent uni ties that exist in broth er hood in the joy ous knowl edge of a com plete harmony and iden tity of trust. It has po ten cies of brother hood, self-cho sen, mu- tu ally re cip ro cated, and car ried into all the walks of inner and outer life.

9. Unity.

Unity is in di vis i ble ness. It is a oneness of constituent parts running through and bind ing all (how ever di verse in qual ity) to sin gle ness of purpose, plan and activ ity . It is the sponta neous and yet neces sary coop er ation of all the members on the basis of a funda men tal and dom i nat ing prin ci ple which re sults not only in organi c harmony of exis tence, but in a sin gle ness of out ward action. Commu nion is a conscious and happy partic i pation of our in ner life in unity.

10. Commu nion.

Commu nion is more than union and more than fel low ship. It is union in- ten si fied into active fel low ship. But the fel low ship is not a mere subjec tive partic i pation of feelings, taste or convic tion in the com mon life of another . It is a fel low ship arising out of an ob jec tive ground provided by our Lord Jesus Christ in His re demp tion, consti tut ing its partic i pants into a special broth er hood, into which they are called by the Gospel. In it they are taken up into the broth er hood of the body of Christ, and in it they partic i pate in the Holy Commu nion in re ceiv ing that real body. It is a broth er hood, not of feeling, or of subjec tive in tellec tual faith, or even of a com mon convic tion, but it is a broth er hood in the life and death of Christ as shared out to us in His Word and in the com mu ni cation of His own body, which, so far as it is a vis i ble act, be comes a distin guish ing mark of broth er hood.

53 It is more than fel low ship because it is not a fel low ship on the ground of a com mon feelin g or faith, but a feeling on the ground of a com mon brother hood in Christ given to us in a com mon Word, and re newed, maintained and man i fested in a com mon par tici pation in the ac tual body of Christ. Commu nion is union in ten si fied. It is not merely an occa sional shar ing of one’s self or one’s feelings in a com mon and vol un tary as soci ation of broth er hood, but it is an iden ti fi cation of our whole life with the life of another in and through our broth er hood in Christ. It is a life fel low ship on the basis of the greatest of life re al i ties. In Commu nion we give to and re ceive our whole selves from another , viz., Christ, in and through what He gives to us, and on this ground we give and re ceive ourselves to and from each other. It is not merely a shar ing of life convic tions, not a mere life fel lowship, but it is Christ Him self, draw ing us as members of His broth er hood, into the fel low ship of that which He offers as the ground of our unity with each other. Hence a com mu nion is a body of persons united on a com mon prin ci ple, viz., Christ, and in fel low ship by rea son of com mu nity of faith, love, hope, and all other spir i tual in ter ests. A Commu nion in the Lutheran sense, is a body of believ er s bound to each other in Christ, that is in the com mon bond of the pure Word and Sacra ment, and in a fel low ship in the same. The supreme act and vis i ble proof and test of this fel low ship is a com mon par- tici pation in the fruits of Christ’s aton ing re demp tion as offered and received in the real body of Christ in the Lord’s Sup per. A Commu nion is a special type of broth er hood united in the fra ter nal bonds that is sue from their com mon ori gin and that exer cise themselves in com mon forms un der the im petus of their unity.

The Com mon Ground

1. Many devoted and sin cere Chris tians that we know are not Luther- ans; and many more have never heard of Lutheranism. There are two extremes in deal ing with these mul ti tudes. The one extreme will have noth ing whatever of any kind to do with them, will make no at tempt to rec og nize or to coop er ate even with that which is com mon; the other extreme will extend the hand of most in ti mate fel low ship and take into

54 its bosom person al i ties who are ex po nents of prin ci ples which are radi- cally di vergent from those on which their own faith and life is founded. 2. There is a com mon ground for all Chris tians in Christ. Those whom Christ rec og nizes, despite their er rors and imper fec tions, are al ready one with us in Christ. They may not be one with us in mind and faith, they may not be one with us in those partic u lar parts of our mind and faith which we feel di vinely called to stand for and exposit, and hence we may be un able to feel and say that they are in a com mon broth er- hood of faith bec ause we earnestly believe that, al though Christ can receive them as they are unto Him self with out danger to His truth we cannot do so with the same safety. Christ can do all things. We must do in ac cordance with our convic tions. 3. Nev er the less there is some actual agreement of all Chris tians. 4. There is also much dis agree ment among Chris tians. This is a neces- sary conse quence of Protes tantism. If the self-de ter mining rights of a people or a person al ity be conce ded, we are thereby and in that act set- ting up a standard of indi vid u al ity. 5. The differ ences of Chris tians, despite the self-de ter mined right of in di vid ual Chris tians, are not pleasing to God. God wants every man to have his own hon est convic tion. Yet as a matter of fact the sum of convic tions do not agree and they in tro duce schism. Just how to bring harmony of con vic tion on the one truth is the prob lem of the ages. 6. Ex ter nal union of Chris tians will not bring about that harmon y. It will simply transfer the points of di vi sive ness to a place within the com mon cir cle. These points may then, in deed, through closer asso ci a- tion be re solved into unity. This unity will be the unity of the most persis tent wear ing down of those who are more re tir ing and yielding. The Lutheran Church has suffered tremen dously from such uni ties with other Protes tants, partic u larly the more assertive and stri dent kind. Or, if they are exceed ing keen and funda men tal in the minds of those who hold them, they will lead to in ter nal dis unity and to fi nal rup ture. Hence the safe way of uni fy ing Chris tianity is to gain in ter nal union of prin ci ple which can then proper ly be expressed in an exter nal union of orga ni zation.

55 7. The real union of Chris tians is a joining of the same mind in the same faith, and a fellow ship in the life and work of the church. 8. There is now no such union, but there are some prin ci ples of Chris- tianity com mon to all Chris tians. To suppress, or to ig nore these common prin ci ples is to go beyond what our Lord has in tended in the matter of di vi sive ness. The com mon ground, if it be suffi cient, and if it can be delim ited from that which is not com mon, so as to avoid all misun derstand ings, is to be used as a basis in lim ited coop er ation. But as there is a living vi tality in faith, and it is a vi tally connected organ- ism, a com mon ground abstracted by the ory, as a partial entity , is a danger ous basis for co op er ation or fel low ship, without clear and strong safe guards.

Of Co op er a tion

1. There is a coop er ation that affects doctrine as well as prac tice, and as doctr ine or prin ci ple is precious in the sight of Luther ans, and its preser vation a matter of great im portance, the kind of coop er ation here re ferred to must be decided on the ba sis of doctrine. 2. There is a coop er ation that affects prac tice. Where such coop er a tion does not in volve the impli ca tion of a com mon doctrine, or where the com mon doctrin e in volved is held mu tu ally by all partic i pants, the problem of co op er ation can readily be solved. 3. Co op er ation must be: a. Or derly. b. Con sis tent. c. Avoid ing in ter nal weak nesses. If in a sin gle transac tion, it may be of the na ture of busi ness deal ing. If in a contin u ous line of pol icy, it may be secured by a covenant re la tionship. 4. The imp or tance, wor thiness, or good ness of an ob ject is not the sole deter mining fac tor in consid er ing the advis ability of coop er ation. The method of co op er ation also is impor tant. 5. The method of par tici pat ing in coop er ation, or of abstain ing from it, may con demn the par tici pation, or the absti nence.

56 6. A good Object with a bad Method will proba bly develop bad fea- tures, and may bring on bad re sults. 7. It is easi er to op pose coop er atio n in the bad that is all bad, than to op pose coop er at ion in the good that is mingled with some bad. Nev er- the less, because of the delu sive ness to many people who do not see the bad wrapped up in the heart of the good, to op pose a good mingled with bad may be as im portant as to oppose the to tally bad. 8. Much good may be accom plished in this world by imper fect efforts, or even efforts mingled with evil prin ci ples, in any earnest endeavor to overcome Sa tan and the power of darkness. And even where the Church be un able to asso ciate it self with oth ers “because of their er ro- neous prin ci ples” in these efforts, yet, since there is so much sin in the world, and so much to be done for Christ’s sake, the Church should not decry this good, nor waste her money and may hap ruin her spirit of love by at tack ing these method s which she cannot approve. If, however, these efforts set themselves up in her own midst, as perfec tions, and as some thing bet ter and higher than the efforts in which she trusts, in her own defe nse, in or der to preserve her own in tegrity and consis- tency, the Church’s warn ing must be clear, strong, and in no un cer tain tone. The more stern, and frank, and bold her defense of her own is, of un jus ti fi able pre sump tion, at the start, the more kind and char i ta ble will the action re ally be in the end.

Of Im proper And Proper Par tic i pa tion

1. Effec tive coop er ation is not by one part or one in di vid ual act ing in- depen dently of his Commu nion, who ig nores the church that is behind him. A funda me n tal Ameri can prin ci ple is that a repre senta tive does not repre sent un less he is appointed. In di vid ual coop er ation, even where it is right and lawful, and where the com mu nion’s fail ure to join in is wrong, is at tempt ing unity with out in tro ducing dis loy alty and dis- unity within. The com mon tie binds the in di vid ual, so long as he re- mains within, on points on which the com mu nion as a whole has taken a po si tion. Dislo y alty is a pri mal crime. The first duty of such an in di- vid ual is to get the com mu nion to see its wrong po si tion. If he cannot

57 do so, it becomes a matter of con science with him as to whether he can, with his convic tions, abide in the com mu nion. For di vi sive ness caused by genuine conscience, he is enti tled to hon or able sepa ra tion. If his cons cience contin ues to permit him to act di vi sively and dis loy ally to his broth er hood, the broth er hood must make its po si tion clear by tes ti mony or by action. 2. A church, if it has a right to exist, has a right to stand for something, and be heard on the subject of coop er ation, before being commit ted to it. It has a right to appoint its repre senta tives, and to expect them to repre sent it, rather than them selves. 3. True co op er ation begins at home, and wins the nearest to it self. 4. A part of a church has rights of its own, when in a minor ity . It also re spects the rights of others. 5. Where there is a com mu nity of broth er hood, fel low ship and rights, true coop er ation will pre cede ac tion by consul ta tion. 6. When a part of a church bears the honor of a com mon name, it will re spect the com mon charac ter for which it stands.

Prin ci ples Par tic u larly Ap pli ca ble To The Lutheran Church

1. Chris tianity is wider than Lutheranism. 2. Chris tianity is wider than in ter-denom i nation al ism. 3. Chris tianity is wider than Protes tantism. 4. Protes tantism (and in ter-denom i nation al ism) has its dangers as well as Catholicism. 5. A broad and consis tent coop er ation must be prepared to take in the good wher ever found, whenever it can be done safely. 6. There are up right men out side of the Church. 7. Chris tians must be broad enough to coop er ate (under 5) with such men whether in the Church or out of it. This point is an issue to day.

58 8. The Lutheran Church is broad enough to do this. 9. The real prin ci ple of the Lutheran Church is the broadest possi ble; and there is no more liberal prin ci ple in any church of deep and live convic tions. 10. The prin ci ple is to support and coop er ate with all good, wher ever it may be, when ever possi ble. The rule is made prac ti cal by mak ing clear to all that this is not a unity of broth er hood, not a fel low ship in brother hood, but a com mon act of two enti ties, for a purpose com mon in both; and by then defin ing the nature, prescrib ing the just lim its, making clear the pur pose, and keeping clean and true the means and methods of the coop er ation. 11. The prin ci ple is suffi cient to guide the Lutheran Church in its re la- tions to all forms of asso ci ation, civil or re li gious, among men for the up building of the good, the supp res sion of vice, the sal vation of souls, and the devel op ment of char acter . But every claim must be tested on its own mer its.

Some Broad Lim i ta tions To Co-Op er a tion

1. Pru dence, un til a test as to the right eousness and fea si bility of common ac tion has be come satis fac tory, is an ordi nary business princi ple. 2. Re fusal to coop er ate is not con dem nation. There may be rea sons why my neigh bor’s busi ness, with out any re flection on him, should be kept entirely sepa rate from my own. He re al izes that, and re spects me for at tend ing strictly to my own affairs; and Chris tian busi ness men must be made to re al ize that re li gion is at least as seri ous a thing as busi ness. 3. There is a limit of hu man abili ty some where and at some time to coop er ation to ward that with out. Neither nature nor grace confers un- lim ited en ergy on man. There is no such thing as an un lim ited stew ard- ship or trust. 4. Since coop er ation with those out side of com mu nion and fel low ship is neces sar ily selec tive, re fusal is not an in di cation of big otry or nar-

59 row ness. Dr. Trum bull has em phasized “The Duty of Re fusing to do Good.” 5. Spe cific re li gious work may be more effec tive with out coop er ation, for the fol low ing reasons: a. Con sol i dated effort, espe cially of a loosely jointed char acter , has its dis advan tages and evils. The fam ily is of ten bet ter off, as a train ing in stitu tion, un der its own vine and fig tree, than when joined with many oth ers on the flat of a mod ern apartment house. The same is true of the Church and the school. b. Large vol un tary concerns, if not com pactly orga nized, are as a rule less man ageable, and more consump tive of ener gy, than small ones. It is the duty of the Church to conserve its ener gy, and use it with the least waste, though this of ten prevent a branch ing’ out into co op er ative en deavor. c. A deci sion once in tro duced, and very largely used, through out the Church, espe cially if it be sound, is to be re spected. d. The Lutheran Church has in tro duced and estab lished a funda- men tal prece dent in coop er ation: in work ing against the coop er a- tion of its young people un der Chris tian En deavor, and for coop- er ation of its young peo ple un der Luther League. e. It a second time estab lished this prin ci ple, this time in the sphere of Sun day School work, in uniting four general bod ies (Gen eral Synod, Gen eral Coun cil, United Synod South, Joint Synod of Ohio) on com mon Lutheran pic ture charts (in place of In ter national charts exist ing). f. It has a third time estab lished this prece dent in the coop er ation of two general bod ies in the founding of a Lutheran Sun day School paper (in place of in ter-denom i national papers). The common liturgi cal work, and com mon coop er ation in mission work, between several of these bod ies, duly autho rized, are prece dents in the same line. g. On the other hand, there has never been estab lished in a vi tal and orga nic or other than in a sporadic way a duly autho rized prece dent in the oppo site direc tion.

60 6. Co op er ation is a mu tual affair; and is based on the com mon consent of both parties, not of one only. 7. Co op er ation, espe cially if it be in ter-denom i national, is of general body with general body; not of a general body on one side and a party or some in di vid u als on the other. 8. An orga ni zation of in di vid u als, each not autho rized to repre sent a denom i nation, is not inter -denom i national coop er ation. 9. In ter-denom i national coop er ation does not carry with it the right of a general orga ni zation to enter a denom i nation by cir cular , letter , or in person, with out consul ta tion or permis sion of this denom i national general orga ni zation ; nor to give said denom i nation advice, in struction, or even “di rect calls from God” which are at vari ance with the belief or prac tice of the said de nom i national general orga ni zation. 10. It is not in ter-denom i national coop er ation for a general in ter-denom i national orga ni zation to in ter mingle its activ i ties in a specific denom i national field, with that of a general denom i national orga ni zation, with out previ ous consul ta tion and com mon action with the general denom i national orga ni zation of which the con grega tion is a part. 11. It is not true co op er ation for the out side coop er ator to bring on a conflict of au thor ity in any in ter nal field. 12. It is not true co op er ation for any in di vid ual, with out autho riza tion and the consent of the Church, to repre sent a national or state movement in behalf of a church, to which move ment a large part of the church is opposed. 13. It is not true coo p er ation for an in di vid ual, to repre sent in a general eccle si asti cal field or in a deno m i national field both the general and the denom i national work, when the denom i national body through its regu lar repre senta tive with holds approval of the same. A church in its own field should have but one general pol icy, consis tent and not self- conflict ing. 14. This pol icy if it is to be car ried out by an in di vid ual, should be deter mined before it is exe cuted, and deter mined through the regu lar eccle si asti cal channels. No eccle si asti cal in stitu tion is strong enough to long endure a di vided pol icy in its man agement, with out great in jury;

61 and anyt hing that would impair its re spect before it self and oth ers, in a sin gle line of ir regu lar conflict, will gradu ally extend to all lines. A church that knows not its own mind on a question of general pol icy is like a house divided against it self. 15. It is not true coo p er ation for an in di vid ual to repre sent both the inter-denom i national and the den om i national work, the denom i national body through its regu lar repre senta tives with holds approval of the same.

Some Move ments With Which Luther ans In Amer ica Can Co-Op er ate On The Ba sis Of Civil Right eous ness

1. For the sup pres sion of vice. 2. For good laws. 3. For the further ance of pa tri o tism. 4. For the poor, weak and crimi nal classes. 5. For schools, uni versi ties and pro fes sional insti tutes. 6. For sci entific study of the truth, in clud ing eccle si asti cal top ics and the Scrip tures.

Some Move ments With Which Luther ans In Amer ica Can Co-Op er ate On The Ba sis Of A Com mon Chris tian ity

1. The mainte nance of a Chris tian spirit in busi ness, social and edu cational life. 2. The up hold ing of the prin ci ples of Chris tianity in the com mon law of our land. 3. The transla tion of the Scrip tures.

62 4. The com mon use of hymns, books of devo tion, and Lit er ature from which Lutheran prin ci ples are not bleached out; or un-Lutheran prin ci- ples printed in. 5. The proper use of unob jec tionable parts of the above. 6. Common in stitu tions like the Ameri can Bible So ci ety. But not the un condi tional support of com mon in stitu tions like the Ameri can Tract So ci ety, or the Ameri can Sun day School Union, or the Fed eral Coun cil of Churches, or the Y. M. C. A. The support of specific port ions of such work might be accom plished if it can be com bined with the most posi tive testi mony and action against un evangel i cal parts of its work. 7. In each of these cases, the move ment is to be tested by the prin ci- ples and actions laid down above.

Some Rea sons Why The Or ga nized In ter-De- nom i na tional Teach ing And Preach ing Of The Gospel In Church And School Is Not Pos si ble To Luther ans In Amer ica

1. Be cause Luther ans believe we are saved by faith alone; whereas many persons in Chris tian churches to day believe and prac ti cally teach that works have a good deal to do with sal vation. 2. Be cause the Lutheran Church, the Mother of Protes tantism, takes her stand only on differ ences of vi tal prin ci ple; whereas many Protes- tants divide from each other on grounds of cus toms, modes of ad minis- ter ing or di nances, and method of church gov ernment; while they may un dervalue the great things of in ner princi ple. 3. Be cause Luther ans believe in a square, open, broad, deep life, rather than in one which is eccle si asti cally diplomatic, which is courte- ous on the surface, and of an appro pria tive spirit be neath the surface. 4. Be cause the great and crucial Lutheran doc trine of the Word and the Sacra ments is not gener ally ac knowl edged and solely (or even par- tially) used in many Evangel i cal move ments.

63 5. Be cause Luther ans do not believ e in prayer as a means of grace, or in many other hu man “means of grace” on which many in ter-denom i- national move ments rely.

The His toric Prece dents Against The Or ga- nized In ter de nom i na tional Teach ing Of The Gospel

1. For Luther ans, Mar tin Luther is not a bad author ity on this point. 2. In Amer ica, prior to Muhlen berg, the pi ous Justus Fal ckner in New York, the Rev. Berkenmeyer , and the Rev. John Caspar Sto ever, are exam ples to the Church. The fate of the Old Swedes Church in Penn syl- vania, and its to tal absorp tion into another denom i nation, points to what would have occurred in early Ameri can Lutheranism, if an in ter- denom i national coop er ation had pre vailed. 3. Muhlen berg from the day of his ar rival in America to the day of his death, was op posed to in ter-den om i national coop er ation. [He re marks that “this point needs ex pla nation.”] 4. The period when plans for denom i national union were most strongly broached was the most crit i cal period of the Lutheran Church in the East. Had they been adopted, the Lutheran faith would have been eclipsed. 5. The his toric Ameri can Syn ods, un der great tempta tion, nei ther united with the Re formed Church, nor estab lished what might have become the first and orig i nal Northfield in this country , and have shed its in flu ences of Chris tianity through out the land, two-thirds of a century ear lier than any of its succes sors. This prin ci ple and its proper set tlement in volves the very life of the United Lutheran Church. As was said twenty years ago: “If our dear Church is to have any fu ture bef ore her, she cannot give up this prin ciple. In do ing so, she would give up herself.”

64 17. Two Great Lessons Of Prov- i dence

Prov i dence has been teaching us anew and with com pelling force the two great lessons of uni versal ity and in di vid u al ity. St. Paul in his day declared that God made of one blood all the nations of the earth. And in these latter days, when the whole world is connected up closely in air, sea, and land to such an extent that national iso la tion, with drawal, seclu sion, or re- treat. from all oth ers has become impos si ble, and when the great powers of the world have come to the sober conclu sion that a world soci ety of nations is in evitable, the lessons of prov i dence to all mankind and to the Church itself are too plain to need expli c ation. On the other hand, by the very fact that a with drawal from world activ i ties can no longer be re garded as physi- cally possi ble or morally right, it becomes all the more neces sary to erect some bar ri ers against a piti less pub licity and un war ranted in tru sion into the just pri vacy to which every in di vid ual entity is justly enti tled. The two princi ples at stake are first that man must share a com mon pub lic life with all his fel lows; and that man is en ti tled all the more because of the uni versal pub licity to cer tain rights for the devel op ment and exer cise of his own in di- vid u al ity. In national affairs these two lessons may be phrased as fol lows: First, the good will and welfare of all must be contrib uted to by each; and secondly , the pecu liar right of a people, no matter how small, if it be truly an in di vid ual na tional ity is enti tled to its own self-de ter mina tion. To put it briefly, the lessons are: a stronger and more in ti mate partic i pation by each in the affairs of all, and a guarding of the rights of even the weak est in those things in which they are en ti tled to be left alone.

1. The Lutheran Church should do all in her power to edu cate her pastors and people in the two great lessons which Prov i dence is enforc ing on us at this mo ment, viz., the uni versal ity of the Church of Christ, the Commu nion of Saints; and the strong in di vid u al ity of our own

65 Lutheran Commu nion. She should make clear the grounds, in ter nal and fun damen tal, on which the uni versal ity of Christ’s Church is founded; and make equally clear the ground on which solely the Lutheran Church is enti tled to her own in di vid ual exis tence, un der the convic tion that her prin ci ple best repre sents the uni versal ity of the Church. Lutheran pastors and people, and the whole Chris tian world out side of us, should also be edu cated to an appre ci ation of our right to in di- vid u al ity, by being caused to clearly un derstand it; and of our prin ci ple of coop er ation. 2. That prin ci ple is as fol lows: To ward the Chris tians and Chris tian com mu nions with out us, we are to show neigh borli ness, to have in ter- course and sym pathy to the ex tent of our com mon Chris tianity , provided that this in volve no special obliga tions, recog ni tion or en dorse- ment beyond what is actu ally in com mon. We may have deal ings mu- tu ally ad vanta geous of a com mon busi ness char acter . We may enter into covenants on basal ar ti cles which in no wise com promis e each other. We may enter into coop er ation on lines of com mon pol icy provided that those with whom we coop er ate for mally, offi cially and practi cally rec og nize the bounds and lim its, and that our own people are clearly taught them. We may enter into union with those with whom we are in the in ner unity of fel low ship and com mu nion. This fel low ship and com mu nion is not a matter of our own deter mina tion, or of our feelings or tastes, but is a fact in Christ. It is dete r mined Iby a com mon partic i pation in His pure Word and Sacra ments which consti tute our broth er hood in Him. We cannot unite in a supreme act of com mu nion and fel low ship which is not founded on the supreme and most real though most mys- te ri ous offer to us of Christ’s organic body and His com plete re demp- tion. Commu nion and Fel low ship are not marks of uni versal ity, or exten sion, but they are marks of the in ti mate shar ing of in ner life. They are not the broad basis but the personal and select cul mina tion of in ner fel low ship. We have many brethren in Christ, but the Sacra ment is the mark of special, com plete, organic and perfect broth er hood, and not

66 that of an exter nal or any genera l broth er hood founded on senti ment or on hu man asso ci ation. 3. It is the duty of the Lutheran Church to teach her pastors and people that fel low ship implies life loy alty, is the sacred and in ti mate act of broth er hood which only arises between those who are spir i tu ally at one, that it re quires exclu sive and life long loy alty; and that it conse- quently does not admit of other fel low ships whose prin ci ples, pur poses and prac tices are based on a differ ent view of this life, or of eternal life, or of the grace that is in Christ Jesus. Hence fel low ships that are out side of the Church of Christ, and yet re quire a life loy alty, except those specifi cally rec og nized by our Lord, viz., in the case of the family and of the state, are a partial surren der of our life loy alty to Him, and hence should not be entered into. There is only one di vine fel lowship for the Christian, and that is in Christ. Fel low ships demand ing life loy alty as offered iby hu man ass o ci ations in life member ship in hu man orga ni zations and fra ter ni ties, whatever be their good or their bad teachings, are at vari ance with our com plete and abso lute surren der , and our perfect in corpo ra tion into the body of our Lord. Min is ter and people alike should say, “I am deter mined to know noth ing but Jesus Christ and Him cruci fied.” “That I should preach among the Gen tiles the un search able riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fel low ship of the mys tery, which from the begin ning of the world hath been hid in God, Who cre ated all things by Jesus Christ” (Eph. 4:9, 10). Hence “our fel low ship is with the Fa ther, and with His Son Je sus Christ” (John 3:3). “That we may be found in Him, not having our own right eousn ess, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the right eousness which is of God by faith; that we may know Him, and the power of His res ur- rec tion, and the fellow ship of His suffer ing” (Phil. 3:9, 10). “God is faith ful by Whom we were called by fel low ship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no di vi sions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined to gether in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10, 11).

67 18. The Church And Social Problems

From a let ter dated July 16, 1915

It is excep tion ally impor tant for the Lutheran Church to stand for the true concep tion of the duty and work of the Church in the present day, when, under the in flu ence of sci entific social ideas, and the weak ening of all doctri- nal prin ci ple, in clud ing partic u larly the facts of di vine grace, the op er ation of the Holy Spirit through the Word alone, the atone ment, jus ti fi cation by faith alone, and simi lar funda men tal spir i tual truths, the ten dency is to make of the Church a social com mu nity, al most iden ti cal with a perfect civic com mu nity, and to load upon it all the moral re sponsi bili ties of civic life. The his tor i cal and social phi los o phy of our col leges in ter prets Chris tianity as valu able only when it serves the com mu nity. Its chief activ i ties are regarded as being philan thropic. Its great ob ject is the cre ation of a new and bet ter hu man race on earth, and a great hu man broth er hood, into which all the bet ter el ements of every com mu nity are to be gath ered ir re spective of denom i national faith. The real aim of the Church, acc ording to this view, degen er ates into social and po lit i cal bet ter ment, and into civic right eousness. The in di vid ual, with his immor tal life, is depressed for the bene fit of the com mon social state, and the Church’s chief use and end is found in the lo cal up lift it gives to every specific lo cal ity, and to the higher grade of state and national issues. This is an in ter pre ta tion com pletely in harmony with the new sci ence of social economy , repre sented espe cially by the two social is tic writ ers, Prof. Rauschenbusch of Rochester, and Prof. Vedder of Crozer. To them Christ is the rep re senta tive of a purely social re li gion, and Chris tianity’ s

68 chief duty to day is to help in abol ish ing red light dis tricts, elim i nat ing tu- bercu lo sis, fur ther ing eugen ics , for bid ding child la bor, in tro ducing pure drug laws, elim i nat ing corrup tio n from pol i tics, and prevent ing men from becom ing drunkards. The welfare of soci ety is the funda men tal condi tion- ing factor of the Church’s present outlook and duty. But while much can be gath ered from Scrip ture to support this teaching. Scrip ture it self, in ter preted as a whole, by no means supports it. In Scrip ture the spir i tual and not the social life is supreme. Chris tianity even as far as it is social, does not find its great mo tive in economic or exter nal moral in ter ests. There is a great differ ence between the preach ing of John the Baptis t and the preach ing of Jesus in this re spect. The Apos tle Paul’s treat ment of Onesimus, whom he sent back to Philemon, shows how social questions are to be dealt with. Paul had no social program for changing hu man soci ety by the prohi bi tion of slav ery. He overcame the evil of slavery in this case through the power of spir i tual broth er hood, and not through the law. The aboli tion of slav ery was an effect of Chris tianity , but not its aim. The social re sults of Chris tianity are the re sult of its re li gious powers, and the Church exists to mainta in, sustain, and propa gate its re li gious powers. Chris tianity does not seek to change soci ety first, and thus re move sin by the pres sure of social envi ron ment. Chris tianity seeks to elim i nate sin through jus ti fi cation and re gener ation, and thus to re form soci ety by the new and inner life of the in di vid ual. In other words, Chris tianity and the King dom of God are a new soci ety or com mu nion of a spir i tual or der. And this spir i tual or der is the main thing. To make the spir i tual or der cul mi nate in an exter nal civic or der is the mistake of our age. It leads to an em phasis on the exter nals of life, and this leads to an elim i nation of the chief mis sion of Jesus Christ.

From a let ter in reply to one from Prof. Wal ter Rauschenbusch:

We do believe in a vig or ous and thor ough treat ment of social questions (by Chris tians in the State, but we believe that this work should be done by them as citi zens, and not as Chris tians. We do not believe it to be the province of the Church to enter as a Church upon the problems of soci ety or of the body politic. We believe in the old-fashioned doctrine, which is good

69 also for America , of the com plete sepa ra tion of the functions of Church and State, and in the train ing of the people in the Church to such a point of princi ple and of conscience as that they will carry their Chris tianity into the State. We believe that the orga n i zation of the Church for the passage of soci ety mea sures bears many evils in its train, not the least of which ul ti- mately is the Ro man prin ci ple of the right of the spir i tual power to rule legally over so ci ety.

70 19. On Christmas

There is no re li gion, but one, with a fes ti val whose center is child-life. Christmas is al ways fresh. The world grows old, but Christmas never. The world weaves around it self an an nual shell of selfish ness. Christmas comes to shat ter it. Glory, peace, good-will is the song of the season.

71 20. The Tricky Con tro ver sial ist

In con tro versy, the vic tory is not al ways to the deserv ing. There are antag o nists which a no ble and fair mind can not afford to enga ge. An un- scrupu lous and mean-minded com bat ant will al ways be seeking and seizing small ad vantages, evading di rect is sues, and gliding away un der cover of person al i ties. He will be venture somely wicked in the un blush ing use of men dacious sar casm, knowing that it is impos si ble for a no ble man to stoop to simi lar re tort. He will carry the is sue away from the main question, to a very un expected and perhaps a personal quarter . The tricky con tes tant can have the truth ful-minded man com pletely at his mercy. It will be impos si ble to explain and un ravel all his in ter posed in nu endos, with out becom ing so te dious and diffuse that the pub lic will no longer be willing to listen. The more in dig nant you wax the more assid u ously will he continu e the wor ri- ment. It is the old story of the fly and the ele phant. Never argue with a mean mind.

72 21. On Possi bil i ties Of Union

If Presby te ri anism may be summed up, philosoph i cally, as consis tency of thought com bined with fix ity of gov ernment, and Epis copalian ism may be summed up as pub lic organ ism of re li gious life with author ity of wor- ship, and Lutheranism may be summed up as proclama tion of the author i ta- tive Word of God bring ing jus ti fi cation, and Method ism may be summed up as prac ti cal orga ni zation for gener at ing spir i tual expe ri ence and cul ti vat ing Chris tian fruits, these Anabap tist re actions against the his toric Ec cle sia, Protes tant as well as Ro man, may perhaps be summed up as fix ity of New Testa ment fact and or di nance, with liberty of in ter preta tion and orga ni zation. The Presby te rian idea is theo log i cal, log i cal and po lit i cal. The Epis co- pal idea is po lit i cal, in stitu tional and liturgi cal. The Lutheran idea is the o- log i cal, spir i tual and prac ti cal. The Methodist idea is expe ri ential, me thod i- cal and prac ti cal. The Anabap ti st idea is prim i tive, cer emo nial (as to or di- nances), without per spective, and practi cal.

When the Faith and Order move ment to ward union of the Epis co- pal Church requested his coop era tion as Presi dent of the Gen eral Coun cil, he wrote to its secr etary in 1910 as fol lows:

In the cor re spondence with the secre tary of the Commis sion, I said on behalf of the Gen eral Coun cil, that we agree with the Commis sion “that the begin nings of unity are to be found in the clear state ment of those things in which we differ , as well as of those things in which we are at one;” and that we are in accord with the Commis sion in the desire “to lay aside self-will, and to put on the mind which is in Christ Jesus;” that, however , we do not re gard “Faith” and “Or der” as being on the same essen tial plane; that we do not believe that a Unity of “Or der,” or the union of the Church Vis i ble, i. e., of ec cle si asti cal denom i nations, is the unity to which our Sav ior re ferred in His prayer to the Fa ther; that we do not believe that there is any unity in the Church which is not a unity in prin ci ple; that we do not believe that unity in

73 the Faith can be reached by any agree ment to agree; that we do not re gard a unity of gov ernment or of or der, or that “out ward and vis i ble re union” of Chris ten dom which is the ul ti mate ob ject of this Con fer ence, as impor tant, or as desir able, in advance of a unity of prin ci ple; that our branch of the Lutheran Church is very conser vative and will not yield on its prin ci ples of faith; that we do not look on other Protes tants as ri vals, from whose ranks we should make prose lytes; that we believe in act ing on our faith as a matter of conscience, un til such a time, if the Lord brings it about as the conscience of Chris tians be cleared to hold the same faith; and that, mean time, we do not re gard an exter nally di vided Protes tantism as a dis grace to Chris- ten dom, in so far as differ ences are a matter of faith and conscience; and that an offi cial in vi ta tion to coop er ate in this move ment would proba bly be re ferred to a com mit tee of our body to be consid ered funda men tally and report at a later stage.

74 Part 2 – A Bio graph i cal Sketch

1 - The Schmauk An tecedents

Peo ple will not look for ward to poster ity, who never look backward to their an cestry .

BURKE.

THE MORE IM ME DI ATE FORE BEARS of the Schmauk fam ily, as known in Amer ica, hailed from Wuertem burg, Ger many. In 1819, seven years af ter the Napoleonic wars, two broth ers, in com pany with a consid er- able band of em i grants from that section, sailed from Hol land on the vessel Sus quehanna and landed in Phil adel phia. They were Johann Got tfried and Ben jamin Friedrich Schmauk. The for mer, being the el der of the two, then twenty-seven years of age, was the leader of the band and the purser of the vessel. A parch ment of paper , well preserved, contains the names of sixty- five male em i grants on board the vessel, to gether with the amounts of money each had paid the purser. They are writ ten in fine, leg i ble style. The el der brother was a born teacher (as also were his fa ther and ano ther brother in Ger many) and in addi tion a high-grade mu si cian, the author of “Schmauk’s Har monic.” He had been engaged as the head of the parochial school of Zion and St. Michael’s Church, Phil adel phia, of which the elo- quent and learned Dr. Demme was then pastor . He was also the organ ist. Among his dis tinguished pupils in that school were Got tlieb F. Kro tel and Ben jamin W. Schmauk, both well-known clergy men in the Penn syl vania Min is terium. He was a man of great force of char acter and well-known in the Church.

75 Ben jamin Friedrich who was only nine teen years old when he came to this country , was of a some what differ ent type, being sturdy and thrifty but less asse rtive and aggres sive. Be sides being a barber , he was some what of a surgeon, do ing cupping and leeching, and perform ing some minor op er a- tions. He was a man of genial dis po si tion and quite do mes tic and affec tionate. A well-pres erved parch ment shows that as soon as the laws permit ted, he applied to the Phil adel phia court and became a nat u ral ized citi zen of the United States in 1825. This parch ment is his nat u ral iza tion paper , which is now one of the fam ily heirlooms. His wife, Theresa, was a very active and vi vacious woman, and a leading mem ber of Zion Church. She died in 1875, shortly af ter the cel ebra tion of their golden wedding an niver sary. When in 1844, the well-known scholar and church his to rian. Dr. Philip Schaff, came to America, he car ried a letter of in tro duction from the parents of Wm. Julius Mann in Ger many to Mr. and Mrs. Ben jamin Schmauk, to whose fire side he was most cordially welcomed. The Manns and the Schmauks in Ger many were re lated by mar riage; and when later, upon the earnest solic i ta tion of Dr. Schaff, William Julius Mann, his in ti mate and life-long friend, came to this country to serve a Ger man congre ga tion of the Re formed Church in Phil adel phia, he nat u rally bore a let ter from his parents to the Schmauks in whose home he met with a warm re cep tion. There sprang up between him and the Schmauk fam ily a last ing friend ship, made dou bly strong and in ti mate because of kin ship. To them were born two sons and a daughter — Ben jamin, Emanuel and Theresa (who beca me the wife of Mr. Robert Otto, a cousin of Dr. Mann). Be cause of Dr. Mann’s ability as a preacher, the well-known Dr. Demme, rec og nized far and wide as the most elo quent preacher in Penn syl vania, feeling his need of an assis tant in the Zion-St. Michael’s parish, saw to it that a call was exte nded to the young preacher and he thus be came the pastor of the Schmauk family . Ben jamin William, fa ther of the subject of this sketch, was born on Oc- to ber 26, 1828. Af ter at tend ing the parochial school of Zion Church, he passed through the Phil adel phia Grammar and High Schools and from his six teenth to his twenti eth year served an appren tice ship at silver -plat ing. Both Drs. Demme and Mann rec og nized in this seri ous and devout young man the prom ise of a useful career in the ministry and in duced him to prepare for the holy office. Dr. Mann at once offered his ser vices as precep tor

76 and he became his first the o log i cal stu dent. He later entered the the o log i cal sem i nary at Gettys burg, and af ter a brief course of study in that in stitu tion, he re turned to Phil adel phia and fin ished his prepara tion under Dr. Mann and was or dained in Reading in 1853. He imme di ately accepted a call to Zion Church, Lan cast er, Pa. Four years later, on the 25th day of June, 1857, he was married to Wil helmina Cather ine Hin gel, of Phil adel phia, Dr. Mann offi ci at ing. The wife’s fa ther died while she was quite young. The mother, a bright, vi vacious woman, was a very devoted member of Zion Church and an en thu si astic worker of the Frauenverein, and one of the founders of the Or phans’ Home at Ger man town. She is still re called by members of Salem Church, Lebanon, Pa., where she of ten vis ited, as a person full of wit and hu mor, of social , jovial dis po si tion and noted for her hearty laugh,— a re- minder of Dr. Theodore Schmauk’s well-known and hearty out burst of laugh ter. Ben jamin W. Schmauk was a mod est, seri ous, devout minis ter of the Gospel whose life did honor to his profes sion. Al though timid and re tir ing, he yet was courageous, and ever stood up man fully for his conv ic tions and for the defense of the faith. He was consci entious and devoted, and a veri table Nathanael in whom was no guile. He cared naught for honors, and thrice re fused the ti tle of Doc tor of Di vin ity. To please God and serve Him faith- fully was his life purpose. There was a rich vein of hu mor in this seri ous- minded ser vant of God; but it had to be called into play by oth ers, and Drs. Kro tel and Schantz found no diffi culty in giv ing it full vent. His wife, Wil helmina Cather ine, was the type of vir tu ous woman described in the last chapter of Proverbs. She proved to be an ideal wife and mother, deeply concerned in the man agement of her home. She knew well how to perform her du ties as help meet in the work of the parish. Undemon- strative and unassum ing, she moved among her people with a poise and a wisdom that easily won their re spect and confi dence. Few parents wielded a greater molding in flu ence and power upon the lives of their children than did they. As will thus be seen, the entire Schmauk fam ily, both husbands and wives, were reared in old Zion and St. Michael’s Church, at a period when the parish was in its most flour ish ing condi tion. With two such dis tinguished preach ers as Drs. Demme and Mann, this twin congre ga tion with its two church buildings in close proxim ity was rec og nized as easily the

77 lead ing parish in the “Old Mother Synod.” The impress of the ro bust spir i- tual life of “Old Zion’s,” ship, was in delibly stamped upon the whole Schmauk lineag e, and it proved to be a deci sive fac tor in fur nish ing Lan caster, Al len town, Lebanon and the whole Lutheran Church in this country with two Lutheran pastors and lead ers whose names will not soon be forgot ten.

78 2 - Birth and Boyhood (1860 to 1876)

The Child is fa ther of the Man; And I could wish my days to be Bound each to each by nat u ral piety.

WORDSWORTH.

IN THE SCHMAUK HOME STEAD at Lan caster , Pa., while serv ing the parish known as Zion Lutheran Church, there was born on May 30th, 1860, to Ben jamin William and Wil helmina Cather ine (Hingel) Schmauk a son, who at his baptism shortly thereafter was given a name expres sive of the pare nts’ grat i tude to God and prophetic of the child’s fu ture dedi cation to His ser vice. He was called Theodore Emanuel. He was a very sensi tive and high-strung child, active, alert and of an un usually ma ture and in quir ing mind. In 1864, the fa ther accepted a call to the Salem parish in Lebanon and vicinity , and about five years thereafter the son took sick with scar let fever, and his life hung on a thread for some days mak ing full re covery extremely doubt ful. At the same time, his sis ter, Theresa, about two years his ju nior, was prostrated with the same dis ease and her life, too, was despaired of. Both re cov ered, but the traces of their sick nesses were never fully wiped out in af ter life. His nerves were easily affected through out life by jars of any kind, such as noises, loud talking and conflict ing emo tions, and he would at times suffer with sink ing spells therefrom. Al ready as a child he was a veri ta ble storehouse of nervous ener gy — active and anxious to assist his mother whatever her tasks might be. His fre quent ill nesses and the kindly nursing he re ceived made him depen dent upon a mother’s love. He kept her busy answer ing questions or devis ing means whereby to keep him em ployed. He thus moved within the ra dius of her life and in flu ence so com pletely as to feel a strong sense of depen dence upon her ten der minis-

79 tra tions which clung to him in his ma turer years. It is rare that a youth is watched with more studied and solic i tous care by par ents than was he. How deeply the fa ther’s affec tion had centered around the life of his little son is re vealed by a letter to his wife, dated Nov. 16, 1861, when she had taken her seven teen months’ old boy on a visit to her mother’s home in Phil adel phia. He writes:

I am beg in ning to forget how he (lit tle Theodore) looks. It is therefore high time that he should come back. I have been dreaming about him these sever al nights and I have been thinking if he should be taken from us, how much like a dream would his whole exis tence be to us in af ter times. Fearful to think of it, and yet possi ble. The Lord spare us and spare him.

There was law and or der in the Schmauk household, but there was also love. His younger sister , Emma, writes:

My pare nts were excep tion ally strict, but at the same time most lov ing and self-sac ri fic ing. Brother and Sis ter (Theresa) were never al lowed to be on the street, or out in the evening later than eight o’clock, un til Brother went away to school. Eight o’clock was the bed hour. To me as the youngest they were a lit tle more le nient in this re- spect. However strict they were, they tried their best to make home a happy place and took the greatest in ter est in their chil dren.

The pare nts became his com panions to an excep tional degree, and yet re al- ized that he must not be clois tered and thus prevented from min gling freely with boys of his own age. Con sequently a place was fit ted up in the rear of the parso n age to which his fa vorite com panions were in vited, and thus amid health ful surround ings and proper safe guards all that was needed to give vent to youth ful ener gy and play ful ness was provided. The play ground soon became known as “Schmauk’s Park.” A fountain and wa ter-works, a rook- ery and other rustic fix tures, a car penter shop for the man u fac ture of all sorts of in geniou s devices, made the rear yard a beehive of youth ful in dustry. Play ful ness was not for eign to his nature. When his parents made vis its to memb ers in the country , he was sure to make friends with the lit tle folks

80 of the household, and in vari ably he would orga nize them into a congre gation and then preach to them. Thus early in his youth, one could read ily dis- cern what would be his life-call ing in af ter years. The young Theodore was fond of car pentry and exer cised his tastes in this di rec tion to the full. Brack ets (some of them still to be seen), wall pock- ets, sewing boxes, pic ture frames, electric bat tery, and even a phrenolog i cal appa ra tus, were the cre ation of this youth ful me chanic. He made good use of a magic lantern and also of a print ery. In the front of the par sonage, a lodg ment was fit ted up between the branches of a horse-chest nut tree, and the passersby could fre quently see the young boy, with book in hand, se- curely nestled there.

Young Schmauk At School

In a confer ence with several of his early school mates, we learned that in school and on the streets he was known as a bud ding youth quite differ ent from the usual type of school-boy at his age. While he became a leader among his school mates in such recre ations as play ing sol dier and the like, his fondness for books and knowl edge man i fested it self quite early. It is needless to say that he stood at the head of his classes and was a fa vorite among the teachers. “So much so,” one of his school mates in forms us, “that we boys were jeal ous of him.” He found it desir able at times to join them in mischievous pranks to win their good will. How ever, when taken to task, he was too consci entious to take refuge in lies or subterfuge and was prompt in acknowl edging the wrong-do ing. His fa vorite sport was to play sol dier, and his resource ful ness as orga nizer and leader made it in evitable that he should be the captain of the lit tle com pany he had orga nized. In fact, he was always a leader, for his aggres sive ness made it diffi cult for him to be a mere fol lower. Of ten there was ri valry and things did not run smoothly, as a letter to one of his mates in which he pleads for rec on cili ation shows. The older members of Salem still re member him as a timid child — so timid that it was with diffi culty that he could be in duced to at tend the in fant school. He watched with dread the sexton’ s long pole with which to keep the child ren well behaved. This timid ity clung to him through out his early school life. He was marked as a model boy, po lite and re spectful, never in-

81 clined to roughness or boorish ness. And yet he was full of life and ener gy, ever ready to take a lead ing part in any amusement that struck his fancy. He was in dustri ous, and excep tion ally eager to know things. When he vis ited in the country and saw the people churning but ter, he had to know all about it. When water was brought to Lebanon, he ascer tained all the facts and, gather ing together . He would of ten watch the girls while play ing croquet; but it was with diffi culty that they in duced him to join. When on one occa sion the ice was broken, he became quite inter ested in the group and a few days there after he dis played a lit tle gal lantry by present ing six of them with col ored mica eye- glasses which he himself had man u fac tured. How ever, he was some what em barrassed when he dis covered that there were seven girls wait ing to receive them, in stead of six. When the seventh girl snatched one of the glasses away from another , it drew from young Schmauk a frown of dis approval and he became profuse in promis ing the dis appointed girl a finer pair of glasses than the one she was deprived of. He kept his prom ise; but as for keeping up the friendly asso ci at ions, there was lit tle hope, for he soon lost himself in study or other amusements. This aver sion to social in ter course char acter ized him through out life. He could feel com fort able only in the pres ence of both women and men who impressed him as being nat u ral, sin- cere, true, gen uine. He disliked mere con vention al ity.

Con firmed At Fif teen

His confir ma tion in 1875, when he was fif teen years of age, impressed him profoundly as mark ing a dis tinct era in his life. He kept in his posses sion a clear out line of the ser mon preached on that occa sion, and letters addressed some years later to a friend who had also been confirmed in Salem Church show how clear was his concep tion of the sig nif i cance of bap tism and of what it meant to be a Christian. His diary while at Swatara In stitute con tains the fol low ing reso lu tions: "1. To give one-tenth of all my money to reli gious pur poses. "2. To try to live in ac cordance with my con fir ma tion vows.

82 "3. To use my time at school rightly and to behave properly as becomes a Chris tian. “4. To be polite to ev ery one.” Fur ther on in the di ary he is conscious that he had not lived up to these res o lu tions as he should and deter mined to make a fresh start. This di ary shows that he kept track of the texts from which his fa ther preached and took notes of the sermons. This youth was a lover of nature and delighted to make vis its to the country . To him God’s love and provi dence were every where vis i ble in it, espe cially in all His living crea tures. He had a special fondness for horses, dogs and birds. When at tach ments in partic u lar cases were formed they were pe culiarly strong. Upon re ceiv ing word, while at col lege, that the fa- vorite pet dog of the fam ily had died, he is grieved to the heart. Like Luther he would have made a poor hunter. When later in life he fell sick with ty- phoid fever and became conva les cent, a dove was sent to him prepared as his meal. When brought be fore him, he turned away from it, declin ing to eat it and saying: “I see the dove look ing at me with its ten der eyes.” He could not muster courage enough even to kill a mouse. This ten derness and sym pathy were em bedded in his very nature. They were the still wa ters that run deep. Compas sion was as native to him as was his thirst for knowl edge. When at col lege he tramped along the Dela ware River and saw a lot of children and young people whose appear ance and actions re vealed that they belonged to the submer ged and abandon ed class, his heart went out to them as sheep having no shepherd, and writ ing home to his sis ter, re minded her how thank ful she should be that she had been brought up in a Chris tian home. He was easily moved — even to tears — when the in ner heart-strings were touched by the needs and sorrows of others.

83 84 85 3 - A Stu dent at Col lege (1876 to 1880)

Wouldst thou plant for eternity? then plant into the deep in fi nite fac ul ties of man, his fantasy and heart. Wouldst thou plant for year and day? then plant into his shal low super fi cial fac ul ties, his self-love and arith meti cal un- derstand ing, what will grow there.

CAR LYLE.

WHEN THE FA THER, in 1876, felt that the demands on his strength in his large parish, which covered the greater portion of Lebanon County, were such as to com pel a change, he accepted a call to Al len town and became the first pastor of St. Michael’s Church, where he la bored seven years with marked success. This would have afforded him an op portu nity of having his son near him while re ceiv ing his col lege edu cation; for he had expected to send his son to Muhle n berg College, of which Dr. F. A. Muhlen- berg, in whom he had un bounded confi dence as an edu cator and friend, was at that time Pres i dent. When, however . Dr. Muhlen berg, un der the weight of heavy re sponsi bil i ties which he felt he must re linquish, re signed as pres i- dent of Muhlen berg College and accepted the Greek profes sorship in the Uni versity of Penn syl vania, what could be more nat u ral for the fa ther, when the pres i dency of Muhlen berg College was still un deter mined, than to send his son af ter him ? Other mag nets in the persons of Dr. Krauth, Dr. Mann, and grandfa ther Schmauk com bined to draw the younger Schmauk to the Uni versity of Penn syl vania. At that time, there were four Lutheran profes- sors in the Uni versity . Be sides Drs. Krauth and Muhlen berg, in the chemi cal and engi neer ing courses there were Dr. S. P. Sadtler (for merly at Gettys- burg) and Dr. Lewis M. Haupt.

86 It was therefore promptly decided to have the son live with his grandfa- ther Schmauk (then a wid ower) while at College and in 1876 he entered the Freshman Class. Though he more than once com plained that his prepa ra tion had not been ade quate, he took high stand ing from the start and soon passed from sixth or seventh rank to second and fi nally first. His home was with his grandfa ther for only two years, when the latter broke up housekeep ing and went to Al len town to live with his son, Rev. B. W. Schmauk. The re- maining two years of his col lege life and later the three years of his sem i- nary ca reer, he spent in the home of Mrs. G. W. Haws, an aunt on the ma ter- nal side. The corr espon dence between fa ther and son during these years was most affec tionate and confi dential, re veal ing the molding in flu ence of the fa ther upon the faith and life of the son to a marked degree. Shortly af ter his ar- rival at the Univer sity , he writes a let ter to his par ents expres sive of heartfelt grat i tude for the sacri fices they had made in his behalf and of a devout purpose to dedi cate his life to Christ’s ser vice. As 1876 marked the cel ebra tion of the Cen ten nial of the nation’ s birth he took a deep in ter est in the great Ex po si tion, wrote a detailed ac count of the mil i tary parade and the Fourth of July cel ebra tion in In depen dence Square, and a descrip tio n of the grand dis play of fire-works which closed the cel e- bration. He says, “The rain put a stop to the cel ebra tions out side, and the first day of the second century , the first 100th anniver sary of our in depen- dence, ended with a grand dis play of fireworks in the heavens amid a roar grander than the loud est of earth’s bat ter ies - mighty.” The rain had caused a post ponement of the py rotechni c dis play. This descrip tion re veals the ful- some style of rhetoric and the strik ing use of the imagi nation which char acter ized many of his sermons and addresses in after life. About the same time he writes a letter to his lit tle sis ter Emma, giv ing full play to his imagi nation. It re veals his later well known gift of deal ing with lit tle children. What would in ter est a child more than a rain bow and a fly ing machine?

My Dear Emma: — There is a bridge of pearls being built, high over a gray lake; It is building it self up in a sin gle minute, And is so high that it would

87 make you giddy to walk on it. The high est masts of the big gest ships Can sail un der its arch or bow. No one has ever walked over this bridge, And when you come near to it, it seems to run away. It is seen only when there is wa ter in the air, And dis appears as soon as the water passes away. So tell me where this bridge is found, And who has made it so skillfully?

What do you think? There is on exhi bi tion at the Cen ten nial grounds a ‘Fly ing Machine.’ I believe it has wings like a bird, and a seat for a man to sit in, and stir rups for him to put his feet in. A man went up on it the other day, and, al though he could not fly as far as he might wish to, yet he could go in any di rec tion that he pleased. How would you like to have such a fly ing ma chine? I guess the people in Al len town would he aston ished if I should come fly ing home high over the church-steeples af ter school some af ter noon. Then I could stay at home over night, and come down here early the next morn ing. We might put it in the Chron i cle that you and I were to start from the top of St. Michael’s Church Steeple at six o’clock the next morn ing for Phil adel phia."

As a stu dent, he at once plunged into his stud ies with a zeal and enthu si asm that knew no bounds. He not only faith fully prepared his lessons, but branched out far beyond what was re quired in the curricu lum. The enthu si- asm with which he entered into his stud ies is in di cated by a letter writ ten to his fa ther when he had started out as a sophomore in 1877. He says: “I feel that I am quite a differ ent person from the Theodore of last Sat ur day, A new world has been opened to me in the study of lit er ature, and of hu man nature through that lit er ature, and in the study of the his tory of civ i liza tion.” In both his tory and lit er ature, as was proved in later life, he felt thor oughly at home. The well-known Dr. Robert El lis Thomp son, a warm admirer and asso- ciate of Dr. Krauth, proved to be one of his fa vorite teachers and gave him much in spi ra tion in his stud ies. He spoke in terms of warmest admi ra tion of Dr. Thomp son and thor oughly en joyed the “open dis cussions” un der him in which many subjects were touched upon that gave the teacher the op portu- nity of mak ing last ing impres sions upon his pupils. His advice to study from mo tives of love for knowl edge and with high ideals and aims kept

88 constantly in mind, rather than for high marks or hon ors, supple mented the teachings of the fa ther and bore fruit. He writes to his fa ther: “I don’t study for marks. I beli eve in them less than ever as a test of the stu dent’s faith ful- ness.” When he at one time failed at recita tion, as he thought, and was prompted by a classmate at his side, he re fused to take advan tage of it and so wrote his fa ther. Fol low ing is the fa ther’s re ply:

Dear Theodore:

I am sorry for you, and yet re joice that you re sist the tempta tion to maintain your present po si tion in the class by any other but the most hon or able means. I would a thou sand times rather see you at the tail of the class with a good conscience (mean one keenly sensi tive to the slight est vi o la tion of high-toned Chris tian prin ci ple) than at the head in con sequence of a less scrupulous regard for honor and prin ci ple.

Your re maining silent rather than answer ing un der prompt ing es- pecially pleases me. I do not, how ever, wish to say more than is suffi- cient sim ply to encour age you in an hum ble fi delity to duty and no- ble ness of mind. Of whatever negli gence you may be guilty, let it never be of anything that is — no matter how it looks — mean.

It accou nts for Dr. Schmauk’s well-known aver sion to work for honor’s sake. His un will ing ness to be pho tographed with a view to have himself ad- vertised in the press by means of his pic ture is well-known. It called forth his in dig nation when, contrary to his wishes, his pic ture appeared in The Lutheran and other peri od i cals. He of ten gave the press no tice to re frain from tak ing such liber ties. The root of this overdone mod esty must be traced back to the in flu ence, first, of his fa ther and next, of his much-admired teacher. Knowledge must be sought and truth loved for their real worth and use ful ness and not to win ap plause. This is not saying that he was not hu man enough to appre ci ate the stim u lus of the com men dati on of oth ers which he ever highly prized. An in ter est ing il lus tra tion of his thor ough consci entious ness is an in ci- dent that occurred on the rail road train when on his way home from the Uni versity with a young cousin, then a tri fle over six years of age. The con- ductor passed by with out asking fare for the lit tle boy; but stu dent Schmauk

89 felt that the rail road was enti tled to half fare and step ping up to the conduc- tor in formed him that the boy was one month beyond the six year limit and, of course, paid the half fare. More than one in stance of a simi lar kind could be re lated. Under Dr. Thomp son his taste for lit er ature and his desire to make good use of his pen were greatly stim u lated. One day he re marked to his fa vorite classmate, A. G. Voigt, with whom he was accus tomed to take long walks, “I want to learn to write.” It was said with an earnestness which left no doubt in his friend’s mind that it was to be a fixed and enthu si astic purpose of his. He car ried out the purpos e by em brac ing every op portu nity that was offered at the Uni versity to prac tice the art. He com peted in nearly all the prize con tests. He won the Junior Philo sophi cal Prize with an essay enti tled, “True Phi los o phy the Friend of True Re li gion;” the Alumni Junior Decla- ma tion Prize; the Philo mathean So ci ety’s Se nior Prize for the best orig i nal essay; and the Henry Reed Prize at grad u ation. His pecu liar method of treat ing a subject crops out in a Junio r speech which he prepar ed to deliver to the stu dents and which Dr. Thomp son re- jected. He writes to his fa ther: “Dr. Thomp son did not like the spirit in which it was writ ten; it presente d matter in an odd and un usual light; it was in tended to make the stu dents laugh.” He then adds: “He did not see the ter- ri ble earnestness un der that laugh ing and sar castic tone.” “It was in ten tion- ally odd and un usual so as to catch the at ten tion of the stu dents, and it had a moral for them.” This pecu liar ity of approach to a subject and of giv ing it rather star tling treat ment was char acter is tic of him. His admi ra tion for Dr. Thomp son as teacher was un bounded and on more than one occa sion he gave expres sion to it. Early in the course, he writes to his fa ther: “If there is any one who can rouse up the en thu si asm of the stu dent to study, read or think, I believe it is Thomp son.” Dr. Thomp son had no less high opin ion of his stu dent and in a letter addressed to the writer, dated Feb ru ary 21, 1921, he says of him:

When he entered the Uni versity he at once com manded my at tention, not by his supe rior height, but by his in depen dence and free dom of bear ing, and his evi dent sense of a high purpose in his work. He was not a stu dent who confined himself to the subjects of the curricu- lum. He had many in tellec tual in ter ests, and he took them all seri-

90 ously. While never aggres sive in chal leng ing what was said by his teachers, he also was never merely a pupil to sit at their feet, but a brother in schol ar ship to con fer with them and learn from them.

To Dr. Krauth he was a lov ing and beloved son, and the death of that great scholar and good man affected him pro foundly.

Our com mu nity of in ter est in many matters brought us. of ten together af ter he had fin ished his Uni versity course, and it al ways was a joy to meet him. He nearly al ways had a question I could not answer , but which excited my in ter est. I shall never forget a delight ful night that I spent with him lit er ally ‘up a tree’ at Mount Gretna when I was at tend ing the Teachers’ Summer School.

I was impressed with his deepen ing Lutheranism in his ma turer years. He never had been anythi ng but a Lutheran, but he came to see more in it, and to live more com pletely for it than when he was younger. But noth ing ever cooled our mu tual affec tion, and I felt his early re moval from us as much as did the members of his own commu nion."

Phi los o phy Un der Dr. Krauth

The teacher who loomed largest in molding the in tellec tual and the o log i cal thought of young Schmauk was Dr. Krauth. Under such dis tinguished leader ship, he fairly reveled in its study, and la bored hard to mas ter its funda- men tal ideas and prin ci ples, with Hamilton, Krauth’s Berkley and Butler ’s Analogy as his text books — also Kant. He became so thor oughly absorbed in the subject that philosoph i cal concepts fil tered through his mind into his letters and essay s and conver sa tion during his stay both at col lege and sem i- nary. When he pre pared his philosoph i cal essay in his Junior year, in a letter to his fa ther, he submit ted an out line to him so as to make sure of his ground. In a re turn letter , the fa ther dis cusses at length the differ ent points with con sid er able clearness; but being man i festly dis sat is fied with the attempt, he winds up by saying he had said enough “to make the subject clear as mud.”

91 At the class-day gradu ation exe r cises, his fondness for phi los o phy was car i catured by his classmates who presented him with a vol ume about two feet long and a foot thick enti tled “Kant.” When it was placed before him, he in sisted on re ply ing and started out with the sentence: “Kant a great philosopher; Schmauk a lit tle philosopher .” Then fol lowed an em barrass ing pause; but he stuck to his task, strug gled through and came off with credit. His com mencement speech (he was the vale dic to rian) showed traces of his philosoph i cal train ing and was based on no less in tri cate subje cts than the Hindu, Persian, and Sufi philoso phies, in which he at tempted to “bring out contrasts betwee n them and western phi los o phy in a pop u lar way,” as he writes (won derful to re late). At one time, he must have given expres sion, in a letter to his fa ther, to some ideas that did not ring true, and, no doubt, the fa ther expressed fears that plung ing too deeply into the philosoph i cal wa ters might submer ge or drown his faith. How ever that may be, the son says in a letter: “What I wrote last week shows not the slight est re li gious change. I hope I can say that my faith is firm and un shaken. I derive much com fort in be lieving that Christ is the Truth. I believe as I did when I was con firmed.” Books that in flu enced him greatly during his col lege course were Todd’s “Stu dents Manu al” and Hamer ton’s “Intel lec tual Life.”…medicine and law and acqu ired a fair knowl edge of the rudi ments of both. He loved his tory. But at the clos ing period of his col lege life, he was specially in ter ested in the great thought and life proble ms and loved to dis cuss them with his in ti- mate friends, while tak ing long walks. Both A. G. Voigt and G. C. F. Haas were mem bers of Zion Church and were in fre quent touch with him, espe- cially the for mer. Haas, who was at the Sem i nary while Schmauk was at col lege, says: “The fa vorite and most fre quently treated subject was phi los- o phy and its var i ous problems. These conver sa tions very clearly showed the thoughtful and re search-lov ing qual ity of his mind. He al ways sought to go to the bot tom of things, and yet he was not a dry rea soner and would very read ily drift into all sorts of pro found spec u la tions.” This same penchant for philoso ph i cal dis cussion crops out in his corre- spondence with Voigt, when the latter stud ied in Er lan gen in 1882, before his grad u ation at the Phil adel phia Sem i nary. Both were classmates not only at col lege but also at the Sem i nary, and delighted in at tack ing pro found subjects. The corre spondence shows that Voigt of ten sought to season the seri-

92 ousness of Schmauk’s thinking with sal lies of wit, re veal ing marked differ - ences of taste and tem pera ment, and of ten of viewpoint. And yet the app re hension of truth through faith rather than by abstract rea soning was too strong in him to al low him to lose himself in the mazes of philo sophi cal. A physi cian while seated by his side on a train bound for Phil adel phia several years ago, said that he put questions on the subject of medicine at him which nine-tenths of the profes sion could not have asked and much less answered. At a court trial in Har ris burg in 1919 he was placed on the wit ness stand to give tes ti mony in a case affec t ing a congre ga tion, and made so clear and lawyer-like a presen ta tion that the Judge re marked he had never listened to an abler wit ness. …systems of thought. He strove at all times to make his phi los o phy bend to his the ol ogy and he succeeded. In his Junior year when he first delved into the subject, he writes to his fa ther: “I am get ting to be in ter ested in phi los o phy. But now I feel as if I would like to forg et, or never to have known, the mass of philosoph i cal rea soning and argu men ta tion. I have a yearn ing for a simple, pure life of faith — no deep quest ions of phi- los o phy. I cannot see that phi los o phy is the friend of true reli gion that Dr. Krauth would proba bly say it was.” His re li gion and not his phi los o phy became his real terra firma. While at col lege, as well as later in the Sem i nary, this tall, lank and youth ful stu dent was specially fa vored by being thrown in conta ct with two such lu mi naries as Drs. Mann and Kro tel, the latter being a fre quent vis i tor at the Schmauk home stead. In addi tion to the impress which Drs. Krauth and Muhlen berg left upon him, that of Drs. Mann and Kro tel upon his life and char acter was po tent. Dr. Mann was his fa ther’s the o log i cal teacher; and for seven years he was the pastor and for three years the Sem i nary profes sor of the younger Schmauk. He watched the young stu dent and saw in him the prom ise of a bril liant career . He saw to it that his phi los o phy did not run away with him and that he did not run away from a more in ti mate knowl edge of the German lan guage. He was no less un der the spell of Dr. Kro tel’s in flu ence, who watched the career of the young stu dent with keenest in ter est. How strong the at tach- ment between the two proved to be was later re vealed by a vo lu minous corre spondence when, chiefly through the younger Schmauk’s in flu ence and

93 initia tive, Dr. Kro tel was in duced to become Ed i tor-in-chief of The Lutheran in 1896. This corre spondence contin ued up to the time of Dr. Kro- tel’s death in 1907. The younger Schmauk fell heir to the warm and life long friendship that sprang up bet ween his fa ther and the golden-tongued preacher of New York City, at the time when both at tended the parochial school in Zion Church un der the tute lage of Gottfried Schmauk.

94 4 - Stu dent at Sem i nary (1880 to 1883)

Master , I am here! Go on, and I will fol low Thee, To the last gasp, with truth and loy alty. Help me be true. And not give dal liance too much the rein; The strong est oaths are straw to the fire in the blood. Wake in my breast the living fires, The holy faith that warmed my sires.

SCHMAUK

IN 1880, THIS YOUNG STU DENT, then twenty years of age, entered the Phil adel phia Sem i nary. It is doubt ful whether any other alumnus of that in stitu tion ever took up his course of study with greater zeal and more glow ing enthu si asm than did he. He plunged into the routine of sem i- nary life as one thor oughly in his el ement, deter mined to re cast that routine, if possi ble — to enlar ge it and put new life into it. The first thing he wished to know was what sort of li brary appa ra tus would be at his dis posal. He at once made the dis covery that it was prac ti cally in acces si ble and useless in its cramped quarters, and needed thor ough re orga ni zation. He conse quently denied himself a much-needed vaca tion, and before sem i nary opened, he was busy with the task of re consti tut ing it and bring ing or der out of chaos. More than once, in his di ary, occur the words, “Ex tremely busy at li brary.” Two desks speedily appeared, much painting was done, a new regis ter book secured (Leary’s where he was a fre quent vis i tor), li brary lamps bought, rules and regu la tions framed, and within a month’s time the whole aspect of things was changed and the stu dents had at their dis posal a work able li- brary, though it still demanded more at ten tion than the young orga nizer could give it. Even with two assis tants that were later granted him by the fac ulty, he found enough to do to keep him busy; for his motto all through life was never to do things by halves.

95 This work brought him into con stant touch with his revered teacher, Dr. Krauth, and proved to be fully as edu cational, if not much more so, than the pre scribed courses of study. He had hardly been in the Sem i nary more than a few weeks, when the question of how to deal with the sci entific doubter was dis cussed before the stu dent body. He nat u rally took a deep inter est in the subject and presented a method and a line of argu ment. This was attacked by several seniors as meet ing the doubter too much on his own ground. He felt the sting of their crit i cisms and in a letter submit ted an out- line of his argu ment to his fa ther, com plaining of the lack of the spirit of in- quiry among the seniors. To this the fa ther, in a letter dated Oc to ber 18, 1880, replies while he gives him wholesome advice. Part of it reads as follows:

From what you state as your line of argu ment, I do not see on what grounds any of the Se niors could rise to op pose you. It must be said, however , that even in the honest sci entific doubter there is, if not a puffed-up, yet a lurk ing false pride — the same that is in herent in every nat u ral or skepti cal heart, and which prompts him to give un- due heed to the rea sonings of his head, in stead of yielding un re- servedly to the prompt ings of God’s Spirit in his heart. But this pride of an hon est (or appar ently hon est) but un awak ened or un re newed heart should be met by sancti fied rea soning — rea soning in the spirit of the love and word of God on sci entific grounds, as far as such grounds present themselves, or are in volved in the presen ta tion of purely reli gious reasons.

Unless you keep a constant clear-sighted check upon your impul- sive ness, in a spirit of true hu mil ity and prayer, and are very care ful of your tone and man ner of speech, ever re member ing the or der of grada tion and subor di nation of classes and what is due to the mere out ward rank of senior ity, you are in danger of render ing yourself ob- nox ious to fel low-stu dents of all the three classes and of giv ing yourself in their eyes the appear ance (though you may not be such in re al- ity) of one eager to dis play a capa cious mind and edu cation, and also of one dis posed to be a fault-find ing agi ta tor. You are conscious, I know, of the purest and best of mo tives, but do not forget that oth ers,

96 most of whom have had no full op portu nity of knowing you thoroughly, are not so ready to give you credit for them.

As long as you keep within these bounds of dis cre tion and Chris- tian mod esty, I am glad to see you make yourself, as far as occ asion calls for it, prom i nent in awak ening a spirit of in quiry and earnest zeal in others.

In the sum mer of 1881, af ter an excur sion of two weeks by foot to the Wa- ter Gap by way of Bath, Pen Argyl and Ban gor, in com pany with his classmate, Voigt, and another (with G. C. Gard ner) by boat to Catasauqua, he returned to the City the latter part of August, when it was op pres sively hot, to take up work in the Li brary and to prepare the way for a stu dents’ sem i nary jour nal. “Hard at work in the Li brary,” occurs more than once in his di ary. He had to do much in running er rands and provid ing fi nancially for his proposed ven ture. His fa ther felt very un easy, knowing full well how his enthu- si asm for work might re act against his health; and not with out rea son, for more than once was he threat ened with a break-down. His note of warn ing reads as fol lows:

It is a pity you must be in Phil adel phia during these hot, dry days; upon your health, espe cially if you are obliged to run about the city in the broil ing sun and have much care on your mind in re gard to the Li- brary and your new enter prise. It will not do for you to exhaus t and work up your ner vous system, keeping it in a constant flurry al ready at the begin ning of the Sem i nary term. If you should break down now. what will be your condi tion for the next six months at least? Therefore do not risk the chance of overwork ing and overex citing yourself al ready at the start. Rather than that, let busi ness, however press ing, wait and suffer . In or der to toe true to what the fu ture will demand of you, and what God now asks of you, your first duty is to save and husband your strength. This you re al ize, but you must bat tle with yourself to keep your ar dor for work in this neces sary re straint; and I would help in this di rec tion."

Af ter consult ing with Drs. Krauth and Mann and Wei d ner, submit ting his ideas and plans to them, and fi nally his edi to ri als and other ma te rial; and after col lect ing the needed funds and mak ing the neces sary contracts, having

97 in ter ested the stu dent body and prom i nent lead ers in the Church, there appeared in neat mag azine form, in Oc to ber, 1881, the first is sue of The In di- cator , bear ing the motto: “Keep that which is com mit ted to thy trust.” It is needless to say that this jour nal is tic in no vation cre ated consid er able in ter est and met with general fa vor. The fa ther, in a letter , expressed his plea sure, but seasoned it with a char act er is tic admo ni tion to keep hum ble, as he wrote: “I am pleased with and proud of The In di cator and its Chief Ed i tor, whose work it al most exclu sively seems to be. I trust and pray he may have grace to bear with out moral in jury the praise he is likely to reap from many quarters.” The fa ther was ever dili gent in impress ing upon the son the grace of hu- mil ity, and did not like to see him un duly praised. When later the son preached a ser mon with great accept ability , a friend wrote the fa ther speaking in high est terms of the son’s ability as a preacher and in dulged in much lau dation. In his re ply the fa ther wrote, “He needs your prayers, not your praises.” Commen dations came in from all sides and the Church papers, with one excep tion, gave it most fa vorable men tion. The Lutheran of De cem ber 1, 1881, (Dr. Kro tel, ed i tor) wrote thus:

We might no tice the In di cator among our Lutheran Ex changes, but prefer to give it a special place because it comes from our Sem i nary Li brary, is so young, and has grown so rapidly. Be fore our adv ent to this chair, we saw the first two num bers, each contain ing four pages, and to day we have re ceived the third, which has eight pages. It is a monthly, devote d to the in ter ests of the The o log i cal Sem i nary of the Evan gel i cal Lutheran Church, at Phil adel phia. Sub scription price, 25 cents per year, strictly in advan ce. Address In di cator , 212 and 214 Franklin street, Phil adel phia.

It is a sprightly lit tle sheet, adm irably adapted to its purpose. The num ber before us contains short, but valu able com mu ni cations from Drs. Spaeth and C. W. Schaefer , and Prof. M. H. Richards. The rest is the work of the young Li brar ian and edi tor, whom we knew before he knew him self. Dr. Spaeth’s ar ti cle on Johann Albrecht Bengel, tells us that Gnomon means In di cator . This being the case we wish all suc-

98 cess to the young Ben gel to whom we are in debted for the Sem i nary Gnomon.

Our Church Pa per from the South gave it a hearty send-of and advised its read ers to subscribe for it. The one excep tion was Zeuge der Wahrhcit, in which Dr. Sih ler of the Mis souri Synod dis approves of the en ter prise and thinks that stu dents could de vote their time to study much bet ter than to waste it on The Indi cator .

But the work of the dou ble task of act ing as edi tor and li brar ian weighed heavily upon him and he notes in his di ary: “Indi cator , li brary, li brary reports, fi nally my lessons and my read ing! Too much is upon me!” He soon concluded that the stu dent-body, which had al lowed the adven turer to shoul der the whole fi nancial bur den while they stood by and applauded, must now assume re sponsi bility and not al low it to be contin ued as a purely personal enter prise. Hence we read these words in his di ary, early in 1882: “Dur ing the win ter term I felt that now or never was The In di cator to be turned over to the stu dents and made a Sem i nary affair .” Ac cordingly at a meet ing shortly before Easter of that year, he pre sented the proposi tion in so thor ough, able and convinc ing a man ner as to win unani mous approval and by Easter it was published un der the auspices of the stu dent body.

His Twenty-First Birth day

A sidelight, which re veals how strong were the ties between the fa ther and the son, and by what magic the for mer exerted and maintained his in flu ence over him, is a letter of the el der Schmauk on the occa sion of his son’s twenty-first birth day. It was in re sponse to an “effu sion” of the son which un for tu nately is not within reach. In it he doubt less poured out of the fullness of his heart no ble thoughts and aspi ra tions. The fa ther’s letter , however, has been preserved and is worthy of a place in this bi og ra phy. It reads:

Al len town, May 30, 1881. "My Dear Boy:

The true re la tion of a son to his parents is not to be marked by his age, or ma tu rity in years. Nor are the feelings with which I re spond to your affec tionat e and no ble birth day effu sion capa ble of being fully,

99 or even prop erly, expressed by me in words. I will not even attempt to put into set and select lan guage what you al ready know to be the language of our hearts and of our lives in our parental feeling to wards you. I will give you no fa therly ad vice and admo ni tion on this the day of your entrance into the years of man hood. You do not espe cially need it. I will not speak of our past cares and hopes and joys as centered in you our first-born, and only son. I will simply say, you have been to us a ‘Theodore,’ a gift of God in deed, more precious than all earthly gifts; weight ing our consciences with solemn re sponsi bili ties, but also re joicin g them with rich blessing. Nor will I speak of your prom ise and our fond expec ta tions for the fu ture; but will simply and fer vently pray: ‘God bless you, my son!’ and speed and sus tain you in the line of prin ci ple, duty, and call ing you have so freely chosen, and He the Lord has so graciously marked out for you! I have of ten wished I could live my youth ful years over again, and also much of my mini ste rial life — how much more faith fully would I improve my op portu ni ties 1"

An In spi ra tional Book

Early on Sun day morn ing, af ter the clos ing of the Sem i nary in 1881, he writes a char acter is tic letter which shows with what enthu si asm he could enter into the life of a book. It is hard to guess what partic u lar book he was read ing, but the fol low ing effu sion shows what a deep impres sion its contents made upon him:

My Dear Father:

Thursday af ter noon, when the recita tions at the Sem i nary were over and the stu dents were about leav ing for home, I felt in clined to fol low their exam ple. The day was so spring-like, so pleasant and warm, that my imag i nation was ever building up pic tures of awaking Na ture in the quiet country and my thoughts re fused to be con fined within a nar row, lit tle, one-win dowed room in a dusty, ugly city.

But on that very day, and on every succeed ing day, I was richly re- paid for re sist ing the tempta tion. For within a space, four inches by

100 twelve, in trav el ing between the two covers of a book, I had gone to the ut ter most parts of the earth, I had tra versed the air, and risen to the heavens. I have acquired and have in my posses sion fields peren- ni ally bloom ing and lands that can never be mortgaged or sold. A part of the thoughts, words, of the past, a faint present ment of my work in the fu ture, and above all a clear in sight into the fact that his tory is ruled by Prov i dence, a feeling of my depen dence and a trust ing in that Prov i dence, a com plete — as it seems to me — re moval of the chief diffi culty in my at tempts to harmo nize my phi los o phy and my re li gion, and fol low ing on all this a de scent of theol ogy from my head to my heart, an advance beyond the portals into the deep re al i ties of Chris tian faith and life, have — if I have not been deceived — been granted to me.

His thirst for knowl edge and his ability to cover an immense field of lit er a- ture in a short space of time with out merely skim ming over the sur face were excep tional. Dur ing the sum mer of 1881, when the two previ ously mentioned ex cursions occu pied his time from July 11th to the latter part of Au- gust, and when thereafter the Li brary and his new project absorbed all his ener gies, he yet was able to say in his di ary that he had covered the fol lowing ground: Botany and Compte (Bri tan nica), Life of Freder ick the Great (Macaulay), Life of Milton (Pat ter son), Hypa tia (Kingsley), History of Ar- chi tec ture (Fergu son), Is lam (Kramer), Mir acle in Stone (Seiss), Schul- Lieder-Schatz, and Luther and Dante. No field of knowl edge seemed for eign to him. He at one time vis ited a watch factory , and came back to the Sem i nary with a re mark ably clear and detailed account of the whole process of mak ing watches. Dur ing the Easter vaca tion of 1882, he substi tuted for a teacher in the high-school at Al len town, who had taken sick, and did so with great accept- ability from April 11th to April 28th. Dur ing the sum mer vaca tion he supplied Trin ity Church at Catasauqua and awak ened hopes among the members that upon his or di nation he might become their pastor . In the fall, he entered the Sem i nary, as he says, “deter mined to absorb my self in the o log i- cal study and let out side matter s alone.” He had hardly made a fair begin- ning in car ry ing out this purpose when on Oc to ber 28th he took sick with a severe at tack of ty phoid malaria. For many days his “mind was al most a

101 vacuum,” he says. His mother, who nursed him through many an ill ness before, was sum moned to Phil adel phia and un der her watchful care he re covered suffi ciently to be able to re turn to his home at Al len town, several weeks before Christmas, to re cuper ate. He re signed as edi tor of The In di cator and as senior li brar ian. The for mer res ig nation was accepted , but the latter not.

Dr. Krauth’s Death

Hardly had he been set tled in his home envi ronment when, on Janu ary 2, 1883, news of the death of his revered teacher and model the olo gian. Dr. Krauth, reached him. All he can say in his Di ary is, “Dur ing my stay at Al len town, Dr. Krauth, my dear profes sor, died.” Though not un expected, it proved to be a severe shock to him, and though not fully re covered, he must at tend his fu neral. Unfor tu nately, the weather proved to be most un fa vorable and to pay his last re spects to his great teacher was denied him. He, however , paid his trib ute to him in the next is sue of The In di cato r and un der much diffi culty wrote his “In Memoriam.”

We shall here al low Dr. Jacobs to re peat the words he spoke at the Schmauk memorial ser vice at the Sem i nary and as printed in the Lutheran Church Review which appeared in the sum mer of 1920:

"It is in ter est ing to read his trib ute to Dr. Krauth as ‘an ideal teacher for an ideal stu dent.’ He did not mean it so, but we all know who that ‘ideal stu dent’ was. ‘Hun dreds of times,’ he writes, ‘that, in re sponse to his teacher’s chal lenge, ob jec tions and provoked debates in the classroom , only in every case, to find every diffi culty re moved! Was it a wonder that this ’ideal teacher’ became his ideal as a teacher when he found like ‘ideal pupils’ sitting at his feet? Those who knew the em i nent teacher can read that teacher’s mind back of the ut ter ance of the pupil in his stu dent days:

‘We believe in cir cum fer ences, but we must first find and posse ss ourselves of a center; then only,’ i. e., af ter the center is once found, ‘may we say that there can be no true center with out a cir cum fer- ence.’ We can al most see the dig ni fied form of the beloved teacher

102 turn ing with totter ing steps to the li brary-room on Franklin Street, after the exhaust ing du ties of the day’s work at Uni versity and Sem i- nary were over, seeking the asso ci ation of the youth ful li brar ian, and then, again, the youth ful li brar ian hasten ing to West Phil adel phia with his many wonder ful day-dreams for the li brary and the Sem i nary, to be re vised and censored by an older head.

The In di cator , which he started to fur ther these in ter ests, bore as its motto on the cover: ‘Keep that which is com mit ted to thy trust’ It pleaded for a ‘Pro fes sorship of Sa cred Or atory:’ and that prof essor - ship came. It urged a thor ough re-ar range ment and re-clas si fi cation of the li brary; and he was promptly com missioned to un dertake it. Then the cry was raised for the re moval of the Sem i nary to the suburbs, where a group of buildings on am ple grounds might become the center of the ever-grow ing life of the Church. Not many years passed before he was dest ined to see all these vi sions of his Sem i nary Days real ized."

Early in the new year of 1883, he re turned to the Sem i nary and took up his work with re newed en thu si asm. He was soon able to sup ply pulpits and thus awaken hopes in not a few churches that they might win as their prize this promis ing youth ful preacher. He, however , became absorbed in his stud ies and gave lit tle thought about his fu ture. The two sad expe ri ences of his last year at the Sem i nary made him deeply seri ous. Dr. Mann, who sought to impress upon the hearts of every out-go ing class their need of a com pleter surren der to their Lord and of a fuller re al iza tion of the mean ing of their future call ing (and at times with tears), was at his best in one of his recita- tions, and we read in Schmauk’s Di ary these words: “At an hour in Ethics, Dr. Mann made, I hope, a last ing impres sion on us stu dents — telling us we must have a spir i tual life of our own, must not mix too much with the world but look at eve ry thing from the Chris tian point of view. He was very earnest.” He was not alone in feel ing the force of Dr. Mann’s in flu ence in quick ening the spir i tual life of his stu dents and deepen ing their conse cra- tion.

103 104 105 106 5 - His Early Pastorate as As sociate of his Fa ther (1883-1898)

The Min is ter of Christ will man i fest Christ in the strength of in di vid u al- ity. He will not fol low the stream whichever way it leads. From the cut of his coat to the for ma tion of his opin ion, from the most tri fling act to the weight i est deci sion, he will not do only as oth ers do. He will not dread being in a minor ity . He will not become a mere re flection, an echo, a shadow of those with whom he mingles. He will not imi tate ei ther preacher or thinker. Rooted firmly in the Word, he will develop and proceed in his own way, as God intended he should.

SCHMAUK.

THIS PROMIS ING LU MI NARY became widely known before his gradu ation as a valiant son of the Church who had al ready won his spurs, and seven doors for fu ture ser vice were thrown open to him which he was strongly urged to en ter. He had the choice of en ter ing the ed u cational sphere at Augus tana College, Rock Island, Ill., as pro fes sor of Eng lish and Phi los o- phy, or tak ing up jour nal is tic work as edi tor of The Lutheran in case Dr. Reuben Hill should succeed in becom ing its owner, or of ac cept ing one of five calls to congre ga tions. Al ready during his conva les cence from ill- ness in De cem ber, 1882, he was approached from several sides to com mit himself as to his fu ture field of la bor, at Al len town the questions were — prema turely and un for tu nately as fa ther and I thought — sprung upon me. Rev. Hill said he would try to buy out The Lutheran and give me half its prof its, if I would run it as edi tor. Con clu sion: I was too young, fa ther had edu cated me to preach and I had no pastoral expe ri ence; this would have made a busi ness man of me." “Profes sor Wei d ner, in from Aug ustana Col- lege on a Christmas trip, said I must by no means bind my self down in the east un til I had re ceived a call to Augus tana as profes sor of Eng lish lit er a-

107 ture and of Chris tianity . (The ti tle was changed later as above). Es b jorn (his classmate), Wei d ner and I would be to gether. The field is glo ri ous and un- lim ited in extent. Con clu sion: — proba bly nega tive, because my consti tu- tion could not stand the work, the mode of life, and because of the op po si- tion of my dear mother.” The mother well knew that owing to his del i cate health, he would be help less away from home in case of sick ness. Colonel Horn, fa ther of the late Dr. E. T. Horn, with the aid of the Rev. J. D. Schin- del, impor tuned him to have an open mind for Trin ity Church, Catasauqua, Pa., and St. John’s Church, Coplay, to be formed into one parish. As soon as he re turned to the Sem i nary in Janu ary, 1883, as he notes in his di ary, “Sandt tried to impress me with the duty of go ing to Cam den (Epiphany.)” With St. Stephen’s in mind. Dr. Mann advised: “Don’t fas ten yourself anywhe re. I have plans for you in West Phil adel phia.” Later in the year, he was approached by Dr. S. P. Sadtler, then a member of St. Stephen’s, and urged to accept the call to that congre ga tion, at one time served by Dr. Krauth.

108 When spring came, be consid ered, — one from St. Paul’s, Brook lyn, and another from Salem Church, Lebanon, the latter to both fa ther and son. On April 6th, he notes in his di ary: “I went home to decide with father . Af ter great anxi ety, Prov i dence seemed to in di cate Lebanon. I so in formed all parties.” Thus the die was cast for Lebanon, and on the morn ing of July 1, 1883, the father preached his in tro duct ory ser mon; and in the evening, the son dis- coursed on the text which he had adopted as the motto of The In di cator: “O Timo thy, keep that which is com mit ted to thy trust” — a text that was later to find rich ful fill ment in his own case as preacher, teacher, edi tor, admin is- tra tor and author in the defense of the faith. It was al most in evitable that fa ther and son should decide in fa vor of Salem Church, Lebanon. It was home to both as no other place could be.

109 Twelve years of the younger Schmauk’s boy hood were spent there. Strong ties of friendshi p had been formed. Con trary to the adage that “a prophet hath no honor in his own country ,” the whole Schmauk fam ily was welcomed with open arms. Then, too, did not “Old Salem” have an hon ored his tory? With such pastors and lead ers as John Caspar Sto ever, Freder ick Augus tus Muhlen berg (speaker of the first and third Con gresses of the United States), George Lochman and Dr. Kro tel on its roll of minis ters, there was an added draw ing power in this call to Lebanon. From the parents’ point of view, the will of Prov i dence was correctly inter preted. Not only did his del i cate consti tu tion need the watchful care of the best nurse, to him, in the world, — a wise and lov ing mother — but his absorp tion in parish work and in his stud ies became such as to render him depen dent upon a mother’s over sight. In fact, he re mained a “mother’s boy” to the end of his days, and af ter his el der sis ter and both parents had passed away, he leaned upon his younger sis ter as upon a mother. In depen dent thinker and orig i native genius that he was, he in his for ma tive years leaned upon the wisdom and counsel of his fa ther, and was in the high est sense a fa ther’s boy. Dr. Knubel spoke more truth than fic tion, when at the Schmauk memo rial ser vice held in the Sem i nary chapel he likened this man of massive mind and spir i tual power to a child, for the funda me n tal qual ity of his char acter was childlike ness.

Lebanon A Par adise

Many have won dered why this many-sided and re source ful genius could not af ter wards be enticed away from Lebanon. The very roots of his life were em bedded in its soil. It mat tered lit tle that lead ers in the Church urged him to become pro fes sor in the Chicago Sem i nary in 1894, or later its pres i- dent upon the death of Dr. Wei d ner, or pres i dent of Muhlen berg College upon the death of Dr. Seip, or profes sor of Apolo get ics in the The o log i cal Sem i nary at Mt. Airy; for he was rooted like a tree to his native soil, and he waived aside all sugges tions of what oth ers might have belie ved to be a possi ble wider useful ness which meant sepa ra tion from dear old Lebanon and espe cially from the active pas torate.

110 He would have been ready to go anywhere, ready to make any sacri fice, had he felt that it was God’s will. Mere senti ment counted lit tle with him. But what he needed to make him useful to his Church in the largest possi ble sense was home anchor age. In his un cer tain state of health, parental home. There was his workshop from which he could reach out in all di rec tions to serve in the many spheres to which he became tied. That study on the third floor, with a secre tary and a stenog ra pher at hand to do his corre spondence, read his proofs, keep the many threads of his lit er ary activ i ties to gether, and ar range and assort and preserve for use ma te rial he was constantly gath er- ing, bec ame a veri ta ble beehive of in dustry . It was his citadel or moun tain fastness from which it would have proved most painful for him to be dis- lodged. Moving would have been a most dis tressing or deal. He notes in his di ary on one oc casion his ut ter dis com fi ture when house-clean ing in vaded his sanctu ary. To set things in or der exhausted him far more than days and weeks of the intens est men tal work. Then, too, he had become deeply rooted in the his toric envi ronment of that section. He lived in its past and was anchored there as fully as in his home life. That whole sec tion became endeared to him. In an ad dress be fore the gradu at ing class of the Lebanon High School in 1913, he speaks glow ingly of it as fol lows:

Lebanon County is God’s tempo ral Paradise — not fat with to- bacco land as is Lan caster on its south, nor lean with gravels and coal mea sures as is Schuylkill on its north. Can you anywhere match this great and grand land scape of ours, a cross-section of the long est val- ley in the world, the Kit tatinny, extend ing from Ver mont in the north to Georgia in the south; and stretch ing across Penn syl vania from the Sus quehanna on the west to the Dela ware on the east, with the steady sky-line of the Blue Ridge bound ing the north, and the South Moun- tain, bro ken away at Mill bach and re placed by the new red sandstone fur nace hills of Conewago on the south? What vari ety of scenery is com pressed into this small palm of God’s hand!

The pi o neers from the castle-crowned ridges of the Palati nate, com ing into the hills and mead ows to our east, thought so, and they

111 named that eastern town ship af ter their own beloved land, Heidel- berg.

The Mora vians, friendly to the In di ans and their fastnesses, and seeking secu rity from old world perse cu tion, thought so, — and they named the great town ship to the north of us, stretch ing clear to the gaps and the pin nacles of the Blue Ridge, with its great beds of slate, Bethel — House of God — and the pasture land of the country , He- bron.

The North Ger mans, viewing the high rolling heaths and great foothills that led them to think of the approach, as to their own Harz Mountains, thought so, — and they named the town ship of the northwest Hanover.

The moun tain folk of Scot land, who had immi grated hither by way of north ern Ire land, were re minded, by the ris ing and the breaking ground and the scenes along the Swatara to ward its mouth, and the concen trat ing of the hills to ward the north west, of their own old home, and they called the town ship Lon don derry.

He then speaks of “the rich meadow re gions of the Mill bach, pasture lands wa tered by brooklets, and in the center the Tulpe hocken, the flower-land where the tur tle wooeth; and the Quit ta pahilla, the val ley’s bot tom-cut of lime stone, out of which there bub bled up into the marshes above hun dreds of tiny springs.” Then com ing nearer and nearer to Lebanon he speaks of the “miniature and agri cul tural Switzer land” of which it is the center . He re calls in ci dents in its his tory which would enti tle it to cel ebrate more than one centen nial— the Salem Church building, for in stance, being at that time more than a century old. He pic tures the Palatines, driven from the val ley of the Schoharie, on their jour ney to the head wa ters of the Tulpe hocken to the fer tile mead- ows and hill tops near Lebanon which were made “to blos som as the rose.” Who would leave a Paradise like that, so rich in sacred memo ries of a sturdy pi o neer race?

112 Early Lights And Shad ows

The first ser mon of the younger preacher struck a re sponsive chord and awak ened bright hopes and expec ta tions among the people of “Old Salem.” It made them feel that a new era was upon them. In the fa ther they rec og- nized a man to be esteemed and revered; in the son, a man to be admired and applauded. It was a happy com bi nation of progres sive cons er vatism on the one hand, and enthu si astic (yet conser vative) progres sive ness on the other. There was an at mos phere of op ti mism and expectancy cre ated from the start, and later events proved that it was there to stay. Three weeks had passed, when the hand of death was laid upon the en- fee bled Grand fa ther Schmauk, with whom the younger Schmauk had made his home for two years while a stu dent at the Uni versity , and who had become a member of the Schmauk fam ily in his declin ing years. Strong at- tach ments had been formed. “Oh, how dearly I loved him!” is on record in the diary as the outburst of love from the soul of his grandson Theodore. Another death occurred less than a year later when af ter a brief visit to Lebanon, his grandmother on the ma ter nal side, with whom and whose daughter he had sojourned five years and who was affec tion ately called “Ma,” passed away. He says of her: “She was more than an or di nary grandmother to me, taking a deep in ter est in my personal welfare, help ing me along in many ways (fi nancially also), al ways ready and anxious to listen to the story of my trou bles and my tri umphs. I see few like her — vi vacious, cheer ful, sym pathetic, pi ous. She was glad to die.” This same heart broke out in accents of deepest grief when nine years later his beloved and frail sis ter Theresa un expect edly died and was brought home from Chicago, whither she had gone to re gain her health un der special med i cal care. Let ters reached her in quick succes sion breath ing the most ten der affec tion and sym pathy . He sought to encour age and cheer her in ev ery pos si ble man ner, of which the fol low ing is a charac ter is tic sample:

My Own Dear est, Sweetest Lit tle Sis ter:

I wish you such a peace ful and restful Christmas. Do not let the fact that you are away from home in ter fere with you. For soon af ter

113 Christmas comes Easter, that bright est of all the Church Festi vals, in the beauti ful season of Spring, and long before that time you will be with us again, to cele brate it.

Then the grass will begin to grow green, and the beauti ful flow ers will reap pear, and the sunshine which you enjoy so much will be here in floods.

But Christmas is a beauti ful Festi val, too. How far away our dear Sav ior went from his Fa ther’s House on that day, to live and suffer in this world here for thirty-three years before He could re turn again. How glad we are that He has been in the world. He is more to us than lau rel, pine or holly. He not only or naments, but he saves. How we can rest in Him, and how close He seems to us in the Christ-child, as a lit tle babe. He is not so far above us that way.

It is now so long since we have heard from you, and your dear mother and the rest of us are long ing so much for a letter from our dear one. We are thinking of her all the time, espe cially at this season. We have made very few prepa ra tions for Christmas as yet.

Now Good Bye, My Dear, Dear, Dar ling Sis ter. This is not the whole of my Christmas letter , but only the first in stallment. Sick people ought not eat a whole nice cake at once, but only a lit tle at a time. So I thought I would send my Christmas letter “a lit tle at a time.” Now laugh a lit tle, and let the sun shine in your heart.

Your Very Own Most Affec tionate Brother,

Dur ing his sis ter’s stay, he prep ared a neat lit tle brochure enti tled “Heart Bro ken,” which was in tended as a gift to her. When he learned of her death, a poem was wrung from his soul, and the fol low ing in scription in the book appears: “For thy surprise and com fort this book came into being. And thou hast not seen it.” The real Schmauk lies hid den in these strong at tach ments.

An Era Of Ex pan sion

114 With char acter is tic enthu si asm and thor ough ness, the young asso ciate pastor took hold of the work of the parish, in ter est ing himself partic u larly in the young people. When the cat echet i cal class was orga nized in the fall, he had the cat echu mens come to the parson age in five small and sepa rate groups at differ ent hours to stim u late and assist them in mas ter ing the Cat e- chism. He had made a thor ough study of the best cat echet i cal lit er ature and there speedily appeared his “Outlines for Cat echet i cal In struction,” published in 1892. At that time, In gersoll had been lec tur ing and was much adver tised in the papers, and he deter mined to counter act his in flu ence. In Decem ber he made a trip to Phila del phia to avail himself of the neces sary lit er ature with which to make a thor ough study of athe ism and preached “two immensely la bo ri ous ser mons,” as he says, to crowded churches. The lo cal papers con- tained lengthy extracts of the ser mons, which made a most fa vorable impres sion. About this time, hyp no tism had become the sensa tion of the hour and a strong ser mon was preached with telling effect, which appeared in full in the daily papers. Two thou sand copies were printed in pam phlet form and the edi tion was exhausted in a very short time. He at once sprang into promi nence in the city as a man of light and lead ing and as Lebanon’s fa- vorite preacher. At pic nics of the Sun day School and the Young Peo ple’s So ci ety, he planned all the amusements in elab o rate detail. That of the for mer he pro- nounces a “grand success” and of the latter he says that “he got them all to go home in the evening with out any dancing.” He at tended in stitutes and Sun day School conven tions faith fully and became fa vorably known as a speaker and leader wher ever he went. He soon sprang into fa vor among the Lebanon people ir re spective of denom i national affil i ation, and af ter wards became their most promi nent and hon ored cit i zen.

Mis sions, Chapels, And Pas toral Work

Af ter the (two pastors had become fully anchored in their parish, it became evi dent to both that as soon as the reno vat ing of the old church building should be com pleted, plans must be laid for the expan sion of Lutheranism in Lebanon and vicinity . So in Decem ber, 1884, we read: “Presented a plan

115 for three missio ns in Lebanon and got it through Coun cil, and on second Christmas, through the congre ga tion.” Ac cordingly , steps were taken to bring to re al iza tion these plans and in 1885 Sun day Schools were started in North Lebanon (which in 1890 became Trin ity Church un der the care of Rev. Frank M. Seip, son of Pres i dent Seip of Muhlen berg College), and in Corn wall. In the latter place, the Junior pastor did much hard work look ing up members, trudg ing over the hills weary and foot sore. Those were strenu- ous days and the exhaus tion due to his labors was in large mea sure re sponsi ble for his severe ill ness in 1889. A congre ga tion at Annville was un der the care of the two pastors, and in 1889 a mission in East Lebanon (which later bec ame St. James’ Church) was orga nized. In 1891 another mission school was started at Sun ny side. By 1886, Trin ity mission and the Corn wall mission had two invit ing chapels. By Novem ber, 1890, St. James’ had a chapel, and a year later, a church building was turned over for use to the Sun ny side mission. This kept the young preacher busy, not only with the construc tion of the chapels, every detail of which he looked af ter, but also with pastoral vis its, and with three or four addresses every Sun day besides his ser mons. Af ter all this success ful work, it is not be wondered at that later he was urged by Dr. Seiss, Chair man of the Phil adel phia Mis sion Commit tee, to become a sort of general mission ary in that city. He declined, believ ing that he was not fit ted for that kind of work and that it would abridge his useful ness in the fu ture. He was both mistaken and correct. Had he un dertaken mission work, he would have em i nently succeeded, but it would have been at the cost of his much wider use ful ness. As a pastor , he was very active. In his vis i ta tions of the sick he was most consci entious and faith ful — and sym pathetic to a marked degree. One of his mem bers laid up with a seri ous dis ease re lates that he braved a ter ri ble blizzard when few people dared to venture out of doors, in or der to bring the com forts of the Gospel to the sick man. That heroic act of devo tion is gratefully and admir ingly re membered to this day. Sim i lar in stances are men tioned by the older member s of Salem. He did much pastoral work previ ous to orga niz ing his cate chet i cal classes. In later years when he was pres- i dent of the Gen eral Coun cil and, af ter an ill ness, he notes in his di ary a day’s itin er ary that covered a large part of Lebanon, look ing up cat echu-

116 mens for his class, and af ter the long and te dious tramp says, “I seemed to suffer no ill effects.” At a fair held jointly by the P. O. S. of A. and the lo cal Band, a raw silk up hol stered easy chair was offered as a prize to the minis ter of the city who should re ceive the largest vote. He proved to be the fa vored one, but promptly “declined the gift on prin ci ple,” as he notes in his Di ary. It added consid er ably to his pres tige.

117 118 119 6 - Lit erary Ac tiv i ties Be gin

Style is the gos samer on which the seeds of truth float through the world. In cul ti vat ing the form, we should not sepa rate it from the substance. True art, the most perfect form, it has been said, is noth ing less than the clearest and most trans parent ap pear ance of the sub stance.

SCHMAUK

“The Vil lage Black smith”

EARLY IN 1885, there appeared in one of the lo cal papers a brief ar ti cle enti tled “The Vil lage Black smith.” The writer pic tures himself as a re tired black smith who can no longer “make the flame roar and the sparks fly,” but in whose heart there glows a fire. “If I no longer forge the red hot iron, there is still an anvil on which I can make the sparks fly.” This black smith was none other than the youth ful preacher of Salem. He did make the sparks fly. He had come to Lebanon to make an impress not only on the life of a parish but on the life of a city and a county. On his anvil he forged many a weapon with which to deal blows at the enemy . “If the strokes of my pen are not as heavy as the blows of my ham mer, they are not as clumsy either , and I can still hit hard and quick.” One would expe ct from this a caustic, cyni cal critic of the Carlyle type; but far from it. He crit i cizes rather like an Addi son. There is plenty of good nature and pleas antry in it all. When a new mayor is elected, he expects him to “do some thing” worth cel ebra t ing a century hence; he wants the city run as “a busi ness” and not -to please the politi cians; he wants more genuine “public spirit;” he lauds Mr. Cole man for putting Lebanon’s moun tain of iron into the melt ing pot to make it ser vice able to mankind. Then he tells us all about coke; all about tallow candles and electric lights; all about the

120 planting of trees on Ar bor Day; all about the “household slave,” the “med- dle some gadabout,” — he had lit tle use for the lo quacious talker or gossip — and the “jaunty coquette,” — he had much less use for the painted but- ter fly or soci ety woman, punctil ious about cer emony but defi cient in sin cer- ity and life purp ose. He whips up Lebanon enter prise and shames citi zens for al low ing nails and horse shoes to be bought at Pitts burgh when iron is so plen ti ful near by; and clothing and other ar ti cles to be bought from John Wanamaker when some Wanam aker should be born in Lebanon. He points out eyesores in Lebanon streets and Lebanon buildings. He touches up Lebanon his tory; he wants his read ers to take pride in the city and in its past. When sick and in dis posed for a time, he reap pears and in forms his read ers that some thing has happened to him akin to what happens to a. black smith when he shoes a horse and gets kicked. In all these papers, we see the bud ding citi zen who later took so prom i nent a part in shaping the life and poli cies of the city.

“Heart Glow”

Hardly had the fires of the “Vil lage Black smith” died out, when a new and differ ent fire was kin dled in June, 1887, and the sparks on the anvil made to fly through the col umns of The Lutheran. Under the ti tle of “Heart Glow Pa pers,” there appeared the first enti tled, “O Press, Art Thou So Great?” In it he com plains that “the news paper is usurping the functions of the Bench, the Pul pit and the School.” Then fol lows, for two and a half years, on a vari ety of subjects. Here the vein is more seri ous than in “Vil lage Black- smith.” It is of ten idyllic and ide al is tic, and re veals a stud ied effort to cul ti- vate lit er ary style. But in the main these effu sions, while full of the play of the imagi nation, are most stim u lating and suL’ges tive. Oth ers again are highly in form ing and re veal a knowl edge of facts and his tory above the ordi nary. Still oth ers show a deep and in telli gent appre ci ation of Church events and problems. In a lengthy ar ti cle on “Why Mu sic Moves Us,” his mind al ready runs in a channel that prepares us for his “Voice in Speech and Song,” which appeared in 1890, passed through five edi tions, and re ceived un qual i fied commen dation in dozens of pe ri od i cals from Boston to San Fran cisco.

121 The Graphic of Chicago conden sed the thought of most of them when it said: “A man who is able to write a treatise convey ing accu rate sci entific knowl edge to an aver age un sci en tific reader, in a man ner which clothes the dry bones of fact with flesh and color, is pos sessed of an admirable fac ulty.” In an other ar ti cle, suggested by an expe ri ence he had had on a train with a charm ing conver sa tion al ist, he fore casts what appeared in a pub li cation of his in 1889 enti tled, “Charms and Se crets of Good Con versa tion .” Dr. Kro- tel said of it: “I am ready to pronounce it one of the most charm ing, fresh and orig i nal essays I have read in a long time.” Look ing over the list of many re views out side of the Lutheran Church, one finds that Dr. Kro tel spoke for nearly all of them. Dr. Trum bull of the Sun day School Times praised it highly. This book speedily passed through its ninth thou sand. Readers of the Heart Glow Pa pers were al ways sure to be treated with the un ex pected. Now they read of “The Much Re sounding Sea;” now of “Bad Breeding in Church”; now of a “Bunch of Syn od i cal Roses;” now of “Star Gazers;” now of “Boom ing the Muhlen berg Cen ten nial;” now of “Sensi tive Peo ple;” now of the “Devil’s Lawyers;” now of “Vel vets and Plushes;” now of an “Un sat is fac tory Pastorate.” Ev ery now and then he plunges into his tory. Be fore the Synod met in Lan caster that year more than three pages of The Lutheran tell the story of the City’s birth and youth and man hood. He tells first of all about its royal preten sions; how “its very streets are blooded” — for does it not have a King’s, a Queen’s, a Duke’s, a Prince’s street? — how the Fa thers failed “to in duce Con gress to lo cate the Cap i tal of the United States at Lancas ter;” and fi nally how Old Trin ity fig- ured in the his tory of the Old Mother Synod, through its dis tinguished pastors. Later seven teen long ar ti cles on Japan ap pear. One reading them would not guess that the writer had never seen Japan. But he did see it through the eyes of several friends who wrote descrip tive letters from the Sun rise King- dom. There is some thing about these Heart Glow Pa pers — a nov elty, an odd- ness, a fresh ness, a warmth and a charm — that makes the heart of the reader glow. You are in touch with a soul that burns with the fire of youth ful ener gy and enthu si asm.

Crit i cal And Anx ious Days

122 “So many worlds, so much to do, So lit tle done.” In Oc to ber, 1889, the Heart Glow Pa pers suddenly ceased. The last one is dated Oc to ber 24, 1889. On read ing it one seems to feel that it suggests a premo ni tion of some impend ing phys i cal break down…quo ta tion is its theme. He then speaks of the many worlds in which in this life it is possi ble to live — the world of busi ness, of custom and fash ion, of art, of sci ence, of me chanics, of phi los- o phy, of amusements; “the more impor tant worlds” of his tory, of law, of love, of fam ily life, of citi zenship and the bound less world of books. Taking a glance at the last-named world, show ing how he kept track of the lit er a- ture of the day, he speaks of the Sep tember list of books, (as announced in “Dial” by Ameri can pub lishers ) as in clud ing 28 books of bi og ra phy and memoirs, 20 of his tory, 9 of po lit i cal and social stud ies, 4 of econom ics and fi nance, 10 of lit er ary miscel lany, 5 of ref er ence, 26 of fic tion, 11 of po etry, 10 of travel and ob ser vation, 5 of mu sic and art, 6 of sci ence and phi los o- phy and hy giene, 14 of the ol ogy and re li gion, 3 of sporting, 5 miscel la- neous, 43 hol i day books, and 45 of ju venile liter ature. Look ing into this world of many worlds, in none of which he was a stranger, he says: “All these possi bili ties and demands and claims, in all these many worlds of thought and action, press themselves upon every edu- cated or thoughtful young man of our age. Some times they press so hard as to crush.” Then of the soul who yearns to enter them, he says: “The in ter- ruptions un fore seen, possi bly provi dential, which will hold him back, may affect the earnest strug gling soul with cumu la tive force, and break the man in mind, in heart, in hopes, in health.” In ter ruptions that broke into his routine of study or other work al ways proved most ann oy ing to him. This explains why he never cared for vaca- tions. Even while a stu dent at the Sem i nary, he tries to explain why, when he is at home in the sum mer, he is dis sat is fied. He then writes: “I have been very much perp lexed to find the rea son but never could expla in un til just now it struck me that my work and my duty are here.” “When away from his work, a man is not in a normal state.” When later, in much-impaired health, his physi cian urged the neces sity of tak ing a vaca tion, he replied: “Why, I do take vaca tions when I travel to and from Phila del phia.” It was at this time that he becam e prostrated with ty phoid fever. His life hung in the bal ance for six weeks and was despaired of. Those were anxious days, not only for the fam ily but for many of his friends in the synod

123 and beyond. Prayers went up in his behalf when the confer ence to which he belonged met. Anxious in quiries came in from all sides. He later noted in his diary: “I was very sick; for 45 days without any thing to eat.” He recov ered, but from that time on he ceased to be a well man. For three and a half years af ter this sick ness, he suffered in tensely from an open wound in his leg which was subject to swellings when not kept in a hori- zontal po si tion. He used all sorts of bandages and appli ances to find re lief. This ill ness proved to be the begin ning of a long series. He became extremely sensi tive to colds and later in his ministry had one at tack of grippe af ter an other. These at tacks came through expo sure to the weather and through overwork, but chiefly from over-worry. He was subject also to severe at tacks of in di gestion. He was taken seri ously sick with it when he acted as Chan cel lor at Mt. Gretna, some time in 1895 or 1896, and doubts as to his re covery were enter tained. In 1902, he was so seri ously sick that lit tle hope for his life was cherished. In 1905, when act ing as pres i dent of the Gen eral Coun cil at Mil wau kee he had to take refuge in the Passa vant Hos pi tal where, he says, “Dr. Waters saved my life.” In 1909, he suffered from a seri ous case of ob struction of the bow els and barely escaped with his life. In 1913 he was most seri ously ill from the 9th of Janu ary to the middle of Feb ru ary with a simi lar at tack of acute in di gestio n. In the years fol low ing…the rule rather than the excep- tion. The colos sal amount of work done by him in the last decade of his life was done by an in valid of whom it could not be predicted from one day to another whether he would be in the land of the liv ing. What sustained him in all his sick nesses was his in domitable will. It kept his mind so com pletely riv eted to his work as to make him more or less oblivi ous to sick ness. He lived al most more out of the body than in the body. His mind re fused to be bound to its physi cal envi ronment and lost itself in his work. It was wed ded more closely to his call ing than to his body.

Dr. Trum bull And The Sun day School Times

In this period there grew up an in ti macy between the young Lebanon preacher and the well-known Bible scholar and edi tor of the Sun day School Times, Dr. H. Clay Trum bull. This is well wor thy of men tion. That in ti macy

124 contin ued through out Dr. Trum bull’s life and had more than a lit tle to do with Dr. Schmauk’s later in ter est and devel op ment along lines of Sun day School work. He doubt less made the acquain tance of Dr. Trum bull while a stu dent at the Uni versity where the latter at times deliv ered courses of lec- tures on Bible sub jects. He wrote for the Sun day School Times as early as Sep tember 24, 1887, when a clear-cut dis cussion on “the dan gers of il lus tra- tion in teaching and preach ing” appears. About a year later another il lu minat ing ar ti cle on “The Teacher as a Stu dent of Motives” is found in his scrap-book. A long corre spondence between the two shows that the young lit er ary adven turer was regu larly contribut ing edi to ri als for a series of years, proba- bly up to the time of his fa ther’s death. A letter , dated March 29, 1889, reads thus: “Your edi to rial on ‘Dealings with Dear Ones’ has won golden opin ions from every side. A lady in this city, whose judg ment I value, wrote and asked my permis sion to re print it in tract form for pri vate dis tri bu tion. She deems it timely, admirable and strong. Mrs. Margaret Sang ster, who is the new edi tor of Harper’s Bazaar, and whom you proba bly know as a poet and general writer, sent her spe cial thanks to the writer of this edi to rial. I congrat u late you.” Less than a week later, Dr. Trum bull writes: “Did it ever occur to you that your life-work might be in this edi to rial field? Do you see no possi bility of such a thing, I have wondered over it. I wonder whether you have.” The in flu ence which Dr. Trum bull wielded over him may be judged by many expres sions of admi ra tion that fell from his lips, and from fre quent quo ta tions of Dr. Tru mibuU’s sayings that had made a deep impres sion on him. Among these were two that we of ten heard him ut ter: “I al ways keep a big slice of in fal li bility on my edi to rial ta ble;” “There are times when a Chris tian must refuse to do good.” By the for mer he simply meant to say that an edi tor should be so sure of his ground that he never need take anything back. By the latter he meant, that there are of ten move ments set on foot and methods adopted to acc om plish cer tain wor thy ends which for bid a Chris tian from taking part. There was proba bly no one out side of the Lutheran Church whose in flu- ence upon his char acter was more po tent than that of Dr. Trum bull, with perhaps the sin gle excep tion of Dr. Thomp son, his fa vorite teacher. He received from him much in spi ra tion…the crit i cal problems connec ted with its

125 text and his tory. Dr. Trum bull seems to have been stim u lated in re turn, for more than once he craved personal in ter views in or der to dis cuss with him vi tal questions concern ing the Bible which were then much aired in peri od i- cals and books. Fol low ing is Dr. Schmauk’s trib ute to Dr. Trum bull as it appeared in The Lutheran un der “Sunday School Notes,” upon the latter ’s death.

Mem o ries Of Dr. Trum bull

Dr. Trum bull was Sun day-school Notes warmest, dear est, and no- blest lit er ary friend. The friendship was of Dr. Trum bull’s seek ing. When Sun day-school Notes first began to write, as a young man, and his ar ti cles were re jected by papers to whom he would not now think of offer ing them, it was Dr. Trum bull, then an entire stranger, who dis covered, accepted, paid for and pub lished them, who asked for more of them and who encour a ged the writer in his high est aspi ra- tions.

Whenever the writer, a youth, called on the busy man, he was asked up in the in ner office, all work was dropped and several hours were spent in heart to heart commu nion of the most in spir ing kind.

The friend ship of Dr. Trum bull was of the char acter which finds its happ i ness in giv ing, no less than in re ceiv ing. His ideals of love and friendship were the lofti est. The truth that it was no bler to love than to be loved found in him its loveli est living ex po nent.

To give com fort and in spi ra tion was of more impor tance to him than to re ceive it. And yet his heart yearned for sym pathy and commu nion. Of ten would he say, ‘Your vis its are like oxy gen to me.’ Or write, ‘Your love in the words by the writ ten and printed page help me to go on my way re joicing, even though I do not see you in the flesh, and I am more and more your lov ing friend.’ Or again, ‘How of ten I think of you. I opened a drawer in my office ta ble to day and came upon a letter from you, kept there for years.’ Or again, ‘Your letter gladdened my heart.’ Or again, ‘You are very of ten in my thoughts, and I of ten wish I could see you and speak with you.’ Or

126 again, ‘I wish I could see you of tener, it would do me good.’ Or again, ‘If I could see you of tener, I believe I could do more.’ Or again, ‘Your letter re freshes me and gives me a good start for the week.’ Or again, ‘You have shown in many ways, in ear lier and later days, a warmer appre ci ation of that side of my nature, as shown in my writ ings, that I wanted to have felt, than any person I know.’ "

There is scarcely a doubt that in these in ter views was born the purpose of counter act ing the specu la tions of the nega tive crit i cal school as repre sented by Cheyne and oth ers, which in 1894 re sulted in the pub li cation of his “Neg ative Criti cism and the Old Testa ment.” He entered into the prepa ration of this his first impor tant theo log i cal work with a zeal and thor ough- ness that knew no bounds. He made himself fa mil iar with all the lead ing higher crit ics in Ger many, Eng land and America, and mas tered their lit er a- ture on the subject. Though only a lit tle over thirty years of age when he began his stud ies, he dis played a ma tu rity of thought and a range of knowledge that was re mark able. At that time, the cir cle of or tho dox schol ars who were abreast of the times on the subject was lim ited and the book did not reach the wide cir cula tion it deserved. Had he waited ten years, it would have been oth er wise. Those who were prepared to appre ci ate its argu ment spoke most highly of it. The fol low ing esti mate of the book by Dr. Jacobs appeared in The Lutheran Church Re view:

If this book had been pub lished at Leipzig, or in Lon don, or in Ed- in burgh, it would be conceded the place of one of the first books of the year, if not of the decade. Ev ery page shows not only care ful thought, but also thor oughly trained sci entific methods. The assump- tions of the neg ative crit ics are correctly stated, re lentless as that which these crit ics glory in apply ing to Holy Scrip ture. It is all the more sev ere and the argu ment is all the more overwhelm ing, because of the entire candor with which the strength of the crit ics in cer tain di rec tions is conceded. It seems as though noth ing can be said in their fa vor, that is not to be found here, as the prelude to a com plete expo- sure of their real weak ness in the sphere where they claim, above all things, to speak with au thor ity.

127 The case made by Mr. Schmauk is so strong, that one cannot imagine how it could in any way be strengthened. The Neg ative Crit i- cism needs no one to re fute it, since this book has appeared; and if it were only exten sively cir culated, we would say that the ’bat tle, on the line thus far fol lowed, is over. This opin ion may seem extrav agant; but we believe it to be en tirely just."

These begin nings of his lit er ary efforts were but the fore shadow ings of the later floods of lit er ature that kept pouring down upon the press and kept it constantly busy. He could drink in more and pour out more in a given time than al most any writer of promi nence known to the Church since the days of Luther. In this period, his pam phlet on The Lutheran Church and another on Hyp no tism — both char acter ized by fresh ness, vi vacity and force — deserve to be mentioned.

128 129 130 7 - As Edu ca tor - The Penn syl- va nia Chau tauqua

Gen er ations, like in di vid u als, have debts. To edu cate is to pay what we owe those ahead of us to those coming af ter us.

SCHMAUK.

ON THE NORTH ERN SLOPE of the South Mountain, ten miles from Lebanon, with the well-known health re sorts of Wernersville at one end of the range and those of Pen Mar at the other, there stretches “along the green slopes of the hill sides by a brook in a lovely glade and above the low-bo- somed lake,” what since 1892 has come to be known as the Chau tauqua Grounds of Mt. Gretna. Since easy access to Mt. Gretna has been provided by the Corn wall and Lebanon Railroad, it has become Lebanon’s great park and plea sure ground. “It possesses the quiet, ma jes tic beauty of the primeval for est. It forms the arc of a vast am phitheater , with dark, shel ter ing hills ris ing in the rear and grand open plateaus un rolling in front. In this plea sure ground of un lim ited ex panse, the mas sive oak and broad-spread ing chestnut are abundant. The maple and dog wood are seen every where. Groves of great sigh ing pines slumber in stately pres ence.” “A noted botanist has said that he knows of no section in the Mid dle States where a greater vari ety and rarer speci mens of plants and flowers can be found.” “The wa ter gushing di rectly from subter ranean cham bers, deep down in the prim i tive geo logic rock stratum of which the South Mountain is com posed, is whole some, and, as all vis i tors of the park declare, the best wa ter they have ever tasted.” The reader will at once rec og nize the above descrip tion as that of the young Lebanon preacher who became the orig i nator and in spi ra tion and mainstay of what proved to be, espe cially during the sum mers between

131 1892 and 1896, a highly success ful Chau tauqua, one that took rank with the best in the country and had edu cational fea tures of great value which oth ers less seri ous and more bent on provid ing enter tainment and recre ation did not offer . While the sugge stion first came from the Penn syl vania Ger man his to rian and poet, L. L. Grumbine, and the initia tive from the Gen eral Passen ger Agent of the Cornwall and Lebanon Rail road, R. B. Gor don, the real creator of the Chau tauqua and its mas ter mind was Theodore E. Schmauk. When Messrs. Grumbine and Gor don first talked the matter over, the for mer at once di rected Mr. Gor don to the progres sive young Lebanon preacher. The re sult of the in ter view was the is sue of a call, signed by Mr. Gor don, on Sep tember 12, 1891, for a meeting on Sep tember 24th “to form a per ma nent orga ni zation of a State Chau tauqua So ci ety.” A plan of orga ni zation, out- lined, of course, by Schmauk, was presented and later adopted in essen tials, a stock com pany formed, a char ter secured, and the fol low ing sum mer, July 12, 1892, the Chautauqua opened, with Dr. Warfield of Lafayette College as the first lec turer of an elab o rate program and Dr. Max Hark as Chan cel lor. As chairman on “orga ni zation, consti tu tion and fi nance,” young Schmauk took the entire man agement of the affair in hand, with the hearty coop er a- tion of the Rev. Dr. George B. Stew art, a Presby te rian preacher of note at Har ris burg (and later Presi dent of the The o log i cal Sem i nary at Auburn, N. Y.), whom he advo cated and secured to act as pres i dent of the Chau tauqua. A warm and last ing friendship sprang up between the two, and they la bored to gether for four years in clos est harmony , and brought the Sum mer School to a high state of effi ciency and pop u lar ity, when both re signed for rea sons that will presently ap pear. Dr. Stew art writes concern ing his friend and co-worker as follows:

My memo ries of Theodore are among the most agree able of my life. His re mark able straightfor ward ness in thinking and speaking, his prac ti cal com mon sense coupled with his exact and wide schol ar ship, his earnest piety and keen in tellec tual in ter ests, his un com promis ing consci entious ness and gentle ness of spirit, his marked physi cal lim i- ta tions due to ill health and his prodi gious produc tive ness of un remit- ting ac tivity made him a unique char acter .

132 I soon came to trust, to admire and to love him. Dur ing the five years we were asso ci ated to gether in the Chau tauqua work we became as broth ers, and worked and planned for the in ter ests there involved as one man.

I regarded him as one of the great souls that I have met. There was noth ing petty, low, un wor thy about his thought, his conduct, his char- acter . No one could come into his pres ence with out re al iz ing at once that he was in the pres ence of a most excep tional and excep tion ally able man. He was one of God’s no ble men, and the dis ci ple of the Lord and Mas ter of us all."

It was essen tially Schmauk’s Chautauqua from the start. He deter mined what should be both its name and its char acter — though not without a bat- tle, being op posed by two clergy men. He in sisted on secur ing from Mr. Coleman its present lo cation south of the lake af ter the lat ter had offered an un suitable site. The first program was made out in his office and was his cre ation. He wrote over fif teen hun dred letters the first year, and over two thou sand, the second…suc cess. He in spired the hold ing of pub lic meet ings in Lan caster , Har ris burg, Mid dle town, Reading and Phila del phia to enlar ge the mem bership of the Stock Company and to ad vertise the school. An immense amount of la bor fell upon his shoul ders, for no one could be found who could guide and direct affairs as did he. Af ter three succ essful seasons, it was felt that the real power be hind the throne must now be given the seat upon it and handed the scepter, and so it happened that he acted as chancel lor in 1895. So in spir ing was his lead er- ship and so dis tinguished and in ter est ing his gal axy of teachers, lec tur ers and enter tainers that the fame of the School was every where noised about, and the at ten dance most grat i fy ingly large. His brief, in ci sive in tro ductory talks on vari ous subjects every morn ing proved to be most pop u lar and he became rec og nized as a chancel lor with out a peer. When Bishop Vin cent, the orig i nator of the Chau tauqua idea, vis ited the school and made addresses, it was whis pered about that the old expe ri enced chanc el lor had to be content to dwell in the shadow of an other. In 1895 strained re la tions between the Corn wall and Lebanon R. R. and the Chau tauqua re sulted from the un willing ness of the for mer to forego run-

133 ning Sun day trains and to give promised fi nancial support to the project. So both the chancel lor and Dr. Stew art, the pres i dent, decided that un less the Board in sisted that the Railroad must come up to its pledge or prom ise, and would secure the needed coop er ation, they would re sign. Young Schmauk appeared before the Board, some of whom were ready to make conces sions to the Rail road, and made such an elo quent and mas terly presen ta tion of his case as to call forth high est com men dation. He prepared a state ment to be presented to the Railroad as an ul ti ma tum, and with lawyer-like preci sion and force; but with out the desired effect. It was then decided that both would re sign, though not un til af ter they had done all to make the 1896 Chau tauqua a great success. The res ig nation of the chancel lor was re ceived with uni versal re gret and with earnest peti tions that it be recalled; for he had won an envi able repu ta- tion as a most re source ful and effi cient leader in this sphere of pop u lar edu- cation, and it was rec og nized that with his with drawal a promis ing fu ture of the Chautauqua must needs be rendered very doubt ful. Dr. Gerd son was his succes sor; but enthu si asm had very much waned and in a few years it resolved it self into a sum mer re sort even though it re tained the Chau tauqua name. One fea ture had char acter ized it which was lack ing in other Chau- tauquas. It was the academic edu cational program which made it a real Sum mer School rather than a recre ational out ing. There were lecture courses on ar chaeol ogy, his tory, sci ence, phi los o phy, lit er ature, peda gogy , soci- ol ogy, ethics, Bible lit er ature and re li gion. Any one look ing through the hand some prospec tus for 1895 will at once be struck with the high char acter of the School. We no tice among the lec tur- ers and teachers for that year such Lutheran names as Dr. A. T. Clay, the well-known ar chaeol o gist; Dr. El son, author of several pop u lar books on his tory; Dr. Et tinger of Muhlen berg College who acted as dean of the faculty; Dr. Richards of the same in stitu tion whose “post-pran dial1 talks” proved to be a most pop u lar fea ture; Pro fes sor Marks of Al len town, who acted as mu si cal di rec tor; George Hayes, the chemist; and Rev. John Richards, son of the well-known Pro fes sor Dr. Richards. Drs. Knight and Dunbar were members of the Board. In the fol low ing year Dr. Wei d ner of Chicago also lec tured. This Chau tauqua expe ri ence proved to be but the un- fold ing of Dr. Schmauk’s genius as a Chris tian edu cator . The germs of it lay in his in nate passion for the spread of useful knowl edge when he orga nized

134 a Lit er ary Cir cle in Lebanon in his early pastorate. He di vided this Cir cle into groups for the study of spec ial subjects. Later came the Uni versity Ex- ten sion courses which he in tro duced with the help and encour age ment of Pro fes sor Pen ni man of his Alma Mater. The impulse that drove him into the edu cational sphere was his am bi tion to affix the Chris tian stamp to all knowl edge and surround it with a Chris tian at mos phere. When at the Sem i- nary, he writes to his father:

Did you read that ar ti cle in the Ameri can, concern ing Free Schools? Prof. Thomp son evi dently thinks our pub lic school system is after all not such a glori ous in stitu tion. There is no attempt at molding a char acter , at train ing the will, sweeten ing the dis po si tion, ennobling the affec tions. ‘The whole course of study is narrowed to a dry in tellec tu al ism, and the only am bi tion is to turn out a set of smart, alert grad u ates, who have had no moral bene fit from their school stud ies.’ They are enveloped by a perfumed at mos phere, are not taught to see things in life as they re ally are, and are not even taught to think or exer cise judg ment. A child’s edu cation ought to teach it how to live — even if it cannot rat tle off the dis tinctions between the Cameli dae and Camelopardse, or the vari ous bones that com pose the hu man skele ton. I do not un der value an accu rate knowl edge of Na- ture; but I do not believe it will do a child much good — it is useless un til one has a knowl edge of one’s self and of God. And worst of all, most of the knowl edge they get is not true knowl edge. ‘They deceive themselves and the truth is not in them.’ ‘They possess the form of knowl edge, but deny the power thereof.’ "

135 136 1. Af ter a meal. [Ed.]↩

137 8 - As His to rian - No Traitor To His Blood

“People who will take no pride in the no ble achievements of re mote an- cestors, will never achieve anything wor thy to be re membered with pride by re mote de scendants.”

MACAULAY.

HE WHO IS WILL ING to forge t the rock whence he was hewn is a traitor to his blood. Dr. Schmauk has given abundant evi dence in his career that he was no such traitor. In an ad dress to Lebanon High School grad u ates, he says:

We, the succes sive gener ations of Lebanon’s youth, who have passed through its schools, are sprung from a sin gu lar stock. We are all of one race, for even our Scotch townsmen and those in whose veins cour ses the fresh blood of the Emer ald Isle, are Penn syl vania- Ger mans, as one of their esteem ed repre senta tives pointed out to the Lebanon County His tor i cal So ci ety.

‘The silent race’ — ‘the dumb Dutch’ — un justly re viled by Fran- cis Parkman, John Fiske, and the author of Tillie the Menn on ite Maid, He len Riemenss chnei der Mar tin, herself out of the heart of Lan caster county, and willing to sell her birthright for a whiff of fame; the race of whom the his to rian Ban croft more justly declares, ‘Neither they nor their descen d ants have laid claim to what is due them.’

The man who is ashamed of his own town, and with holds from his own nour ish ing mother her meed of well-earned praise, is ei ther a

138 recre ant or a vagabond."

None could have been more con scious of the defects and short com ings, from a cul tural point of view, of many Penn syl vania Ger mans than was he. He knew wherein they lacked, and his endeavor to in spire in them a thirst for knowl edge and to open to them a larger world than the lit tle self -centered one in which many were con tent to live, is di rectly re sponsi ble for his activ ity as an ed u cator among them. He rec og nized the sturdy el ements of char acter that made them staunch and true and re li able, and knew that when their dormant ener gies were once awak ened, they would stand second to no racial el ement in this country in in telli gence and progres sive ness. The history of the Rev o lu tion proves it. When at the Sem i nary, he com plained to his father that many Luther ans of Ger man descent “who think, act and live in a man ner quite differ ent from the grand old Ger mans of the six teenth century ,” fail “to express their true aesthet i cal spirit and geniu s” in a way that commends itself to the best Amer i cans. He lamented a ten dency, on the other hand, of many who, in stead of seeking to develop a cul ture among them out of the roots of what was best in their dis tinctive char acter , assumed an air of supe ri or ity over their very kith and kin, at times, and sought to conceal their racial ori gin. He re garded such as traitors to their blood — moral weak lings who ape a sort of Yankee imported cul ture and are sat is fied chiefly with its shams and preten sions. He was not that type of Penn syl vania Ger man. He saw the la tent possi bili- ties in them, iden ti fied himself with them, and like a true son of a sturdy race, he took a most prom i nent part in putting the good Penn syl vania Ger- man iron ore in their char acter , that lay crude and un formed in its raw state, through a Chris tian cultural process and turn ing it into steel. It was not an acci dent, therefore , that in the same year when, as the nat u- ral out come of his lit er ary-cir cle and uni versity-ex ten sion activ i ties, the Chau tauqua idea was being worked out and was tak ing form, he should have become one of the most prom i nent fac tors in the orga ni zation of a So- ci ety that should awaken, not a pride of ances try merely but a cul tural con- sciousness born of what was truest and best in the Penn syl vania Ger man char acter . While he was not the orig i nator of the idea, he became its lead ing light and spirit as events proved. His connec tion with that So ci ety had much to do to give him that wonder ful fa mil iar ity with Penn syl vania, and even

139 national, his tory which re sulted in the is suing of his “History of the Lutheran Church in Penn syl vania.” This mon u men tal work, in volv ing a colossal amount of re search, appeared in 1903; but in its initial stages, it in part app eared as a pub li cation of the Penn syl vania Ger man So ci ety in 1901, and in part also in his “Early Churches of the Lebanon Val ley” which appeared a year later — both show ing the prelim i nary prepa ra tion for the most thorough treat ment of this subject ex tant. It is al most the last word that re mained to be said of the pi o neer his tory of Lutheranism in this country . The in spi ra tion and in centive for its prepa ra tion are to be traced to his con- nection with this So ci ety. It is meet, therefore, that some thing should be said about the ori gin of that So ci ety and of the prom i nent part he played in its history and achievements. When on De cem ber 17, 1890, Lebanon and Reading cel ebrated the eighty-third birth day of the poet Whittier , there appeared, the next day, in the Lebanon Daily Re port, Lee L. Grumbine, Esq., edi tor, the fol low ing com ment:

We love Whittier for his jus tice to the Penn syl vania Ger mans. Peo ple who sneer at the Penn syl vania Ger mans do not know that a soci ety of Penn syl vania Dutch ‘Friends’ or Dunkards was the first reli gious body in Amer ica to express their out raged feelings and in dig- nation in words of stem denun ci ation of that national in famy — African slav ery. When ig no rance and prej u dice are dead and truth gets a hear ing, it will he esteem ed an honor to be called the son of a Penn syl vania Dutch man."

When three days later, De cem ber 31st, “Forefa thers’ Day,” in memory of the land ing of the Pil grim Fa thers, was cel ebrated in cer tain parts of the country , there appeared an edi to rial in the Re port on De cem ber 26th, part of which reads thus:

The Penn syl vania Dutchman not only occu pies one-half of the State, but his de scendants have migrated north, east, south, and west, so that it is al most impos si ble to go to any state or ter ri tory in the Union with out find ing a son of a Penn syl vania Dutchman. It is a re- mark able fact that his tory scarcely men tions this impor tant fac tor of the pop u la tion of our country . If we read the his tory of our land, we

140 hardly learn that a Ger man imm i gration to America and the founda- tion of a Ger man set tlement in Penn syl vania ever took place. There may be a rea son for this, but there can be no ex cuse."

A day later, he “urges the orga ni zation of a soci ety of the descen dants of the Ger man Palatines” as follows:

We pointed out yester day the in accu racy and the in jus tice of the his to rian in not giv ing credit in the his tory of national and state develop ment to so im portant a fac tor as the Penn syl vania Ger man. It is our purpose, if possi ble, to call pub lic at ten tion to this stud ied omission, and to arouse an in ter est in the pub lic mind that will com mand our right ful place in his tory. . . We would urge the need of foster ing a feeling of an ances tral pride and a spirit of loy alty to the blood of the Ger man-born pilgrims from whom so many of our people have descended. How? By orga niz ing soci eties — general and lo cal — for the pur pose of bring ing out and preserv ing facts of his tor i cal in ter est and of em phasiz ing the achievements of our fore fa thers and their sons; by hold ing great pub lic cel ebra tions to re hearse the story of their sor rows, their suffer ings, their sacri fices, and their success, in speech and song, in po etry and his tory."

Later, on Janu ary 21, 1891, he re news the agi ta tion for the orga ni zation of the sons of the Penn syl vania Ger mans. The Phil adel phia In quirer caught up the idea with fa vor; then on Janu ary 31st the Lan caster New Era, F. R. Diff- ender fer, Litt.D., edi tor, “sec onds the mo tion;” then the Beth le hem Times “falls in line” and calls for a “Penn syl vania Ger man So ci ety.” Then appears an enthu si astic ar ti cle in the Har ris burg Tele graph by the State Li brar ian, Dr. W. H. Egle advo cat ing speedy orga ni zation. Next we read of a meet ing of Dr. Diff ender fer, Dr. Egle, Dr. Stahr of Franklin and Mar shall College, Dr. Buehrle, super in ten dent of the PubHc Schools of Lan caster , Dr. Hark of the Mora vian Church and Dr. Lyte of the Millersville State Nor mal School in the edi to rial rooms of the New Era on Feb ru ary 14, 1891, and the follow ing let ter reaches the younger Schmauk:

Lan caster , Pa., Feb ru ary 14, 1891. "The Rev. Theo. Schmauk: —

141 My Dear Sir: —

Dr. W. H. Egle, of Har ris burg, State Li brar ian, Presi dent John F. Stahr, D.D., of Franklin and Mar shall College, Prof. E. O. Lyte, of Millersville State Nor mal School, and two or three oth ers, came together this af ter noon, and af ter consul ta tion decided to in vite a few repre senta tives of the Penn syl vania Ger man el ement in the several counties of our State, in which that el ement is preva lent, to at tend a prelim i nary meet ing at 36 West Or ange Street, Lan caster , on Thurs- day, Feb ru ary 26, 1891, at 10 A. M., for the purpose of dis cussing the advis ability , ways and means of orga niz ing a ‘Pennsyl vania Ger man Histor i cal So ci ety’ You are therefore most earnestly in vited to at tend: this prelim i nary meet ing It is very impor tant that your county should be repre sented among the orga niz ers of this move ment. I sin cerely hope you will make it pos si ble to be with us.

Yours, "Very sincerely ,

J. Max Hark.

At this meet ing, sugges tions were made that the name of the pro posed organi zation be the “Pennsyl vania Dutch So ci ety” and that the proceed ings be conducted in the Penn syl vania Ger man di alect. Here is where young Schmauk stepped to the fore, and in force ful and convinc ing man ner, as- sisted by Dr. Hark and oth ers, stood for the name “Pennsyl vania Ger man” and for the more schol arly and his tor i cal ideal of the best minds, that “the So ci ety should repre sent that which is lofti est in the char acter and achievement of the fa thers rather than that which was merely odd and quaint.” That idea prevailed. At that meet ing, it was decided to is sue a call for the orga ni zation of such a So ci ety on April 15th, 1891, in the Court House at Lan caster , and there was born what is known as “The Penn syl vania Ger man So ci ety.” The call, with Schmauk as chairman to give it its fi nal form, reads in part as follows:

It is em i nently proper that the descen dants of these Ger man-Swiss people should asso ciate themse lves in memory of those who ‘made

142 the wilder ness blos som as the rose,’ to show to the off spring of other nation al i ties that they are not behind them in any of the at tributes which go to make up the best citi zens of the best State in the best Govern ment of the world. In the art of print ing, in the realm of science and letters, in re li gious fer vor, in pure states man ship, in war and in peace, the Penn syl vania-Ger man-Swiss el ement has equaled any other race.

It has long been every where rec og nized by the descen dants of the early Ameri can colonists as a matter of great impor tance to effect organi zations of the char acter we propose, for the purpose of searching out and preserv ing all ances tral records; for the purpose of bring ing their forefa thers into such recog ni tion in the eyes of the world, and espe cially of their own children, as they deserve; for the purpose of devel op ing the friendly and fra ter nal spirit that should exist between those in whose veins the same blood flows; for the purpose of lift ing his tory, now un no ticed or un known, into honor; and, very partic u- larly, for the pur pose of preserv ing to poster ity the old pub lic records, land marks and memori als, which in another gener ation will have entirely dis appeared."

It would take us too far afield to go into details as to the work of this his tor- i cal soci ety; but Dr. Schmauk’s connec tion with it and his lead er ship in it, espe cially when crises arose that threat ened to impair its useful ness, proved to be of such value both to himself and to the So ci ety that some knowl edge of the ori gin and aims of this orga ni zation seems neces sary in or der to furnish a proper perspec tive on which to set in re lief his in flu ence and useful- ness during this period. He ever strove to keep the So ci ety true to its professed aims and ideals, and nat u rally took less in ter est in the so cial fea tures at the an nual ban quets.

143 The seri ousness with which he en tered into this work is il lus trated by an in ci dent that occurred at the meet ing of the So ci ety in Lebanon on Oc to ber 12th, 1892. When the election of members to the Ex ecu tive Commit tee was proceed ing, and lit tle at ten tion paid to what was go ing on. He happened to be elected a member of that Com mit tee but was so dis sat is fied with the ap- parent lack of in ter est taken in the election that he declined to accept the office. This neces si tated a second election un der a more or derly and seri ous mode of proce dure, and he then accepted. He at once became a lead ing factor in deter mining the pol icy and activ ity of the So ci ety, and in 1895, upon the resig nation of Dr. Hark, was elected chairman of the Ex ecu tive Com mit- tee. He served in this capac ity up to the time of his death, save in the year 1896 when he was elected Presi dent of the So ci ety. He proved to be the

144 man at the helm, mas ter of all the details of the So ci ety’s work ings, keeping it true to its course. Dr. Schmauk al ways in spired confi dence by his wonder ful mas tery of details and his wide range of knowl edge when presid ing at the meet ings of the Ex ecu tive Commit tee. When by means of a proposed amend ment to the Con stitu tion an at tempt was made to dis place useful members of the Com- mit tee to grat ify the personal am bi tions of oth ers, he stood like a rock against it and in a power ful and convinc ing speech maintain ed that the amend ment stood not for “a. ju di cious but a forcible in tro duction of new blood;” that “not fresh ness but tried effi ciency” should be the re quire ment demanded; that there “should be as lit tle fluc tu ation as possi ble where faithful service is be ing ren dered. Conti nu ity of ser vice is what is wanted.” A let ter we re ceived from a lay member of the Ex ecu tive Commit tee of more than or di nary in telli gence, af ter he had learned of his death, while nat- u rally a lit tle exces sive in its admi ra tion, shows the great con fi dence that was reposed in his lead er ship. It reads in part:

In my work as a member of the Ex ecu tive Commit tee of the Penn- syl vania Ger man So ci ety, I learned to know and admire Dr. Schmauk, and his death means to me a dis tinct personal loss. To the Church it is noth ing less than the fall ing of a mighty pillar . I al ways thought he was too big even for the Church. The chair of Presi dent of the United States would not have been too big a place for him and he could have worthily repre sented his country as Am bassador to Eng land or Ger- many." We have heard other lay men of in telli gence talk af ter this fash ion, though it should be evi dent that no man is ever half big enough for the Church.

The Lebanon County His tor i cal So ci ety

145 When the work of the Penn syl vania Ger man So ci ety was well un der way, it was in evitable that a lo cal his tor i cal soci ety should come into exis- tence, and un der the in spi ra tion and lead er ship of the younger Schmauk, who had al ready become fa mil iar with every inch of his toric ground in and around Lebanon, there was orga nized on Janu ary 14th, 1898, the “Lebanon County Histor i cal So ci ety.” Its aims and ob jects are set forth in great detail in its consti tu tion. Among the Lutheran cleri cal members besides Dr. Schmauk that proved to be espe cially active were the Revs. F. J. F. Schantz and P. C. Croll.

146 There was no lack of effort to show forth the mer its of Lebanon County and the part its citi zens played in the war of the Rev o lu tion…this So ci ety in ter ested and active, and to cre ate a sense of pride in Lebanon County history, proclaims its mer its in words like these:

The agri cul tural skill of the county has all the Ger man in dustry Penn syl vani ans can give it, and there is no higher encomium. Nowhere else in the United States are the farms in such condi tion. Barns al most like castles in their mag ni tude, and mag nif i cent in their beauty and adornment, and out buildings all show the same dis re gard of expense, and on many the barn alone will far exceed, in expense and at tractions, the entire estab lishment of a well-to-do New Eng land or New York farmer.

147 At Cornwall is found what used to be known as the most re mark- able and valu able body of iron ore in the world. It has been constantly work ing for a period ante dat ing the Rev o lu tion. In the days of 1776 cannon and am mu ni tions of war were fur nished the colonists by the propri etors of Cornwall.

Limestone finest in the world for the flux ing of iron and for making of cement.

In the War of In depen dence many of the citi zens of Lebanon County were in the ranks of the patriot army. Im mense supplies were sent from this lo cal ity for the brave men at Val ley Forge and White Marsh.

Af ter the Bat tle of Trenton a large num ber of Hes sians were confined in Salem Lutheran Church here and in the Mora vian Church at He bron. Colonel Green wald, Colonel Philip De Haas, and Philipp Marsteller were the great mil i tary men of the day. The latter served as a com missary of pur chases almost dur ing the en tire war."

The thor ough ness with which he entered into the work of the So ci ety, and the keen in sight and his toric in stinct with which he was endowed, were clearly man i fested when the adopt ing of a seal was un der dis cussion, A sketch had been sub mit ted with the God dess of His tory as the central fig ure. Of this he says: “It is an el egan t, artis tic and very happy concep tion. The Goddess looks back into all the no ble deeds of the past and pro claims their praises in trum pet tones to the present gener ation.” Then fol low nine reasons why it is not suitable. They re veal fine taste and an artis tic sense of the di vine fitness of things that make them worthy of pub li cation.

1. Not suffi ciently patri otic, but a for eign concep tion. There is noth ing of the Greek spirit of learn ing in our his tory or tra di tion. Penn syl vania Ger man Lebanon County runs back elsewhere in its tra di tions and is too plain and matter of fact for the el egance, not to say the volup tuous ness, of Greek art.

2. Not suffi ciently demo cratic, but aristo cratic. The classi cal con- ception of the Goddess is for col lege gradu ates, far away from

148 the at mos phere of com mon peop le, and is the very re verse of the at mos phere and surround ings in which Lebanon County Was cra dled.

3. An engraft ing of heathen mythol ogy upon the plain piety of our fore fa thers. I do not advo cate the typ i fy ing of re li gion in our seal, but if it is to be typ i fied, the re li gion of the old Bible and Prayer Books which gave our fa thers courage and strength in their jour neys across the seas and through the wilder ness should be the one sym bol ized.

4. Clio, the Muse of History , was repre sented with a roll or wax tablets in one hand, but also with trum pets in the other and with a wreath of lau rel around her brow.

5. She mas upon the moun tains, and not in the val ley. The mountains were ei ther her orig i nal home on snow-capped Mt. Olym- pus (the seal is not snow-capped), or on the temple-crowned grove of Mt. He li con. She would be lost and starved upon this bare mount.

6. The con nection in thought between Mt. Lebanon, with its ever green cedars, and our val ley af ter which it was named, is a very beauti ful one, if there were only some point in actual re al ity to which it corre sponded. But we are a val ley, moun tain-fringed, and not a moun tain; and our peo ple and deeds are those of the val ley and not those of the moun taineer.

7. The com bi nation of the Greek fig ure and the Mountain of Lebanon is a mixed fig ure or hy brid, which might provoke some crit i cism, if not amusement, fire. To transfer a He brew prophet to Greek soil, as Paul went to Athens, would perhaps be le giti - mate; but to transfer a Greek Muse to the soil of the Old Testa - ment is un usual, and with out some un derly ing cause, would be diffi cult to explain.

8. At most, the whole of the his tor i cal substance repre sented by a seal such as this would be a com bi nation of the general subjec t

149 History with the name Lebanon. The specific essence, the substance as contras ted with the form would be missed; and our So- ci ety would become iden ti fied more with those general Histor i- cal So ci eties which are found in col leges and towns, and which dis cuss his tor i cal questions of all countries and of all ages un der the name ‘Qio nian.’

9. The seal has the two mer its of at tractive ness and simplic ity; but it lacks in man li ness on the hu man side, and in the sunny cheer of the val ley on the side of na ture.

10. I tried to work my self into the concep tion of the seal, but every time the pic ture of our sturdy, sensi ble, pi ous, matter -of-fact fore fa thers, who were transform ing the earth, and not ro manc ing in the re gions of art, came up before my mind. I was not sat is- fied, but at sea, un til, get ting at the matter in a log i cal and heraldic way, I began in vesti gat ing the exec u tive seals of Lebanon County and of the State, to ascer tain whether they would afford us any precedent.

The orig i nal seal of Penn syl vania, used in the provin cial perio d, had as its chief device the Penn coat of arms found on the seal of the Penn syl vania Ger man So ci ety.

The Penn syl vania coat of arms appeared first in 1777 printed on an is sue of pa per money, com pose mainly of a shield.

In 1778 Caleb Lowens pre pared a de sign which served as the ba sis of all sub sequent modi fi cations.

The first engraved coat of arms in 1777 is now the seal of the Penn syl vania So ci ety of New York, and is, in my judg ment, very beauti ful.

I found our County using the State seal and the County name in all its ex ecu tive de part ments.

150 Here then was the nat u ral, his tor i cal and heraldic base, from which to pro ceed to ex press Lebanon County and that for which we stand in Lebanon County.

There was no get ting away from the force of this presen ta tion, and the above seal, with the Penn syl vania coat of arms and the Ameri can eagle on top of the vol ume of his tory to be writ ten, with Lebanon County’s iron in- dustry repre sented on one side of the page and its farming in dustry on the other, while less classi cal but more true to nature and fact than the one submit ted, be came the insignia of the Soci ety.

151 9 - Ed i tor and Sunday School Leader

The Lutheran Church in America has an open door before it. The pub lic schools in many places will not re ceive children un der six years of age; and in many other places are very glad if children are edu cated pri vately up to the age of seven years. This affords the Church her great op por tu nity for lay ing the founda tions of a sound Chris tian and evangel i cal faith in the hearts of the little ones.

— CHRIS TIAN KINDER GARTEN.

WHEN IN THE FALL OF 1895, the Gen eral Coun cil met at Eas- ton, Pa., four new re sponsi bili ties devolved upon him. His well-known inter est in Sunday School work and his in telli gent grasp of its needs and problems nat u rally in clined the Coun cil to look to him as leader in this impor - tant field, and he was elected a member of the Sun day School Commit tee. As the devel op ment of this work proved to be of great impor tance in the years that fol lowed, more will be said later. Another task of great im portance was assigned to him by the Alumni As- soci ation when he was made edi tor of The Lutheran Church Re view, with the faculty of the Phil adel phia Sem i nary as his asso ciates. This started him more fully than ever on the way of grappling with the o log i cal and other questions of deep concern to the Church. For more than twenty four years he kept fully abreast of the re li gious lit er ature of the day and constantly aimed to touch upon a great var i ety of subjects of the o log i cal and prac ti cal in ter est. He started on his career as edi tor, by at once assign ing tasks to a large num ber of writ ers. He nat u rally asked Dr. Kro tel for some ar ti cle on a subject of his own choosing. The fol low ing is the latter ’s char acte r is tic re ply:

152 “What shall I write? Hi were like you, and could play on a harp of a thou- sand strings, or had an organ like your own, with three man u als and I know not how many stops, I would not be at a loss.” In the four is sues of 1896, there appear sym po siums on “Ed u ca tion,” on “The Lutheran Church’s Re la tion to the De nom i nations,” on “Preva lent Er- rors in the Pul pit,” and, as was to be expected, on “The Sun day School.” His “Ed i to rial Points of View,” which appeared in every is sue for some years, proved to be espe cially stim u lating and in ter est ing and were the chief at traction for most of the read ers of the Re view. They could al ways be counted on to pay their re spects to the liberal the ol ogy of the day — and to good ac count. When in 1897, the Church’s mind re verted to the birth of Melanchthon four hun dred years ago, one was not surprised to be treated with a sym po sium on “Melanchthon and the Church Fa thers.” When Hast- ing’s Bible Dictio nary appeared in 1901, it was to be expected that Dr. Schmauk should expose its ra tional ism and condemn the choice of scholars of the lib eral school by its edi tors, to deal with vi tal sub jects, while they exc luded writ ers of conser vative ten dencies. All through the fol low ing years, the reader was sure to have surprises sprung upon him by the in tro- duction of some new fea ture. In the Janu ary is sue of 1902, for in stance, there appeared a most in ter est ing “Ed i to rial Sur vey of the Year 1901.” Sim- i lar surv eys app eared for the next three years, and much re gret was expressed when the edi tor failed to continue to in ter pret lead ing events in like fash ion in the years that followed. When in 1903 he was elected Presi dent of the Gen eral Coun cil, as Dr. Jaco bs correctly says, “We can trace a differ ence between the pol icy pursued when the re sponsi bility for his ut ter ances was lim ited chiefly by his in di vid ual obliga tions and that which guided him from 1903.” “He writes from that time more with the conscious ness and author ity of offi cial po si- tion, and that the Journal which he edits is re garded as an organ of the body over which he presides.” A third im portant place he was asked to fill at the meet ing of the Coun cil in 1895 was that of member sh ip in the Church Book Comm it tee, which later also made him a member of the Joint Commit tee which pro duced the “Com mon Service Book and Hym nal.” In this sphere, he proved to be deeply in ter ested and active. He kept in touch with the progress of the work

153 down to its minut est details, though the burden of the work was placed upon other shoul ders. As it was at the sugges tion of Dr. H. E. Jacobs that he was appointed a member , and as both were closely asso ci ated to gether from that time on to the day of his death, we have asked Dr. Jacobs to fur nish us with an esti- mate of the services he ren dered. It is as follows:

Not with stand ing his nu mer ous other engage ments, his at ten dance at the meet ings was very regu lar. Making no claim to schol ar ship in Liturgies or Hym nol ogy, and plead ing his in ability to give more atten tion to details than at the sessions of the com mit tee, he did no con- structive work; but was an in valu able critic and adviser , where oth ers took the initia tive. To such crit i cism he brought strong, posi tive and clear con vic tions on the doctrines in volved, and the constant de mand for their expres sion in pre cise and vig or ous Eng lish.

While not in differ ent to the value of his tor i cal prece dents, he claimed that all the free dom of the Gospel must be exer cised in adapt ing what is rooted in the past to present is sues. The accu mu la- tion of author i ties weighed lit tle, except as it was fruit ful in sug ges- tions that could be utilized. The consen sus of the pure Lutheran liturgies of the Six teenth Cen tury, was to him a guide, but not a matter of abso lute law. It was no un usual thing to hear him chal lenge a com mit- tee which submit ted a for mula, approved by abundant lit er ary support, to break through the traces, and to do for to day what Luther and his asso ciates did for their day and land.

While the effect of his coop er ation has left its trace through out every part of the book, his most impor tant contri bu tion was in the scheme for the ar range ment of the hymns, where, in stead of the out- line of Dogmat i cs fol lowed in the most of our previ ous books, he in- sisted upon, and car ried af ter a very stub born strug gle, the or der of the Church Year, as exhibit ing the Life of our Lord as re produc ed in the life of the believer , and of the entire Church. The conse quence of this was that his Es chatol ogy was anything but pessimistic. To him it meant the clearness and cer tainty of the Chris tian’s faith with re spect to his fu ture. It is life, eternal life begun in re gener ation, pressing

154 through death, res ur rec tion, judg ment, etc., to its consum ma tion in its com plete glo ri fi cation. Hence the hymns of this section are char acter - ized by few of the minor notes that are heard in many of the classi cal hymns both of the Medieval and the Re formed Church, as well as in some of Pietistic Lutheranism.

The fourth re sponsi bility with which he was entrusted at that meet ing was to act as a memb er of the “Com mit tee of Ways and Means” appo inted to secure funds and make possi ble the pub li cation of an offi cial organ of the Gen eral Coun cil, of which Dr. H. E. Jacobs was elected the Ed i tor-in-Chief and Rev. George W. Sandt the Manag ing Ed i tor. He at once became the chief adviser of the latter , who was charged with the duty of raising a guar- antee fund of $10,000, and was made the chief promoter of the new enter - prise. When Dr… was being un willing to assume the re sponsi bility of act- ing as Ed i tor-in-Chief, Schmauk, Jr., suggested to the Manag ing Ed i tor the advis ability of grace fully re tir ing from the project. Upon being in formed by the latter that in re sign ing as pastor of St. John’s Church, Wilkes-Barre, to take effect Janu ary 1, 1896, he had “al ready burned the bridges behind him,” the for mer promptly changed front and with the entire Commit tee of Ways and Means behind him deter mined that the offi cial orga n must become a fact. He at once got into com mu ni cation with Dr. Kro tel and, upon secur ing his consent and the end orse ment of the Commit tee, the Manag ing Ed i tor was instructed to se cure, if pos si ble, the votes of the Staff Corre spon- dents for Dr. Kro tel’s election. Thus chiefly through his efforts a new head was secured, and by Oc to ber of 1896 the offi cial organ of the Gen eral Coun cil be came a fact. The Ed i tor of the Re view became not only the Lit er ary Ed i tor of The Lutheran, but contrib uted many ar ti cles, from time to time, to its col umns. Upon the death of Dr. Kro tel in 1907, Dr. Schmauk, then pres i dent of the Gen eral Coun cil, became, at the re quest of the Manag ing Ed i tor, who was made Ed i tor-in-Chief, the latter ’s staunchest supporter and helper. At in ter- vals, when sick ness or absence made it neces sary for the Ed i tor to find a substi tute, Dr. Schmauk, in spite of his multi ply ing du ties, was al ways at hand to give the needed assis tance. He was given all the liberty of action he might desire and in no sin gle in stance did he abuse it. He was in vited to be the critic of The Lutheran, and of this priv i lege he took the fullest advan- tage. Long letters at times reached the edi to rial office, re veal ing a wonder -

155 fully keen and com prehen sive grasp of problems and situ ations, and more than once came a letter with electric flashes of light ning when he and the Ed i tor did not happen to agree — and the latter were of ten far more in ter- est ing than the for mer. They quite fre quently were a ther mometer to in di- cate that ei ther grippe, (his chronic ailment, of ten in duced by over-worry rather than by overwork) or some other physi cal dis ability was knocking at his door. These light ning flashes, and in vari ably the cool ing showers that fol lowed them, are prized to day as the finest evi dence of a great lov ing heart in tra vail for the safety and welfare of the Church he so dearly loved and so unselfishly served.

Pi o neer In Graded Sun day School In struc tion

It was at the Easton Con vent ion of the Gen eral Coun cil in 1895 that Dr. Schmauk be came in ter ested in and iden ti fied with the work of provid ing a lit er ature for the Sun day Schools of the Church. At this conven t ion, the plans for mu lated in 1888 at Min neap o lis, in which the previ ous prac tice of the Church in the ob ser vance of the Church Year and the rec om men dation of a Graded Course of in struction based on the his toric prin ci ples and prac tices of the Church, came up for discus sion. Dr. Schmauk had been a close stu dent of child psychol ogy and was keenly in ter ested in the children of the Church and their proper train ing. He took an active and impor tant part in the dis cussion, and man i fested a grasp of the subject and an in ter est in the work which in sured for him member - ship in the com mit tee. At a very early day he became the edi tor, and by 1899 both ed i tor and chairman of the Commit tee. …its Rela tion to the Child. He be came the incar nation of the his toric and funda men tal prin ci ples of re li gious edu cation and from the day of his entrance upon the work to the last mo ments of his life, the subject was upon his heart and mind and was given the largest share of his time, thought, and ener gy. Within the first bi ennium the Scrip ture Lesson Quar ter lies for senior classes, fol low ing a strict church year plan, were devel oped and had been

156 most cor dially re ceived by the Church. A general plan for graded text books and quarter lies had also been mapped out. This in cluded a pri mary appa ra- tus in grades with large pic ture charts for the up per class in the pri mary. It also took into con sid er ation the cat echism as an essen tial part of in struction. That the edi tor had a vi sion for the fu ture is seen in the fact that at this early stage provi sion was not only made for fur nish ing the lit er ature in other lan guages, espe cially Ger man and Swedish, but also with a view to secur ing a com mon and purely Lutheran graded lit er ature for the entire Lutheran Church. In 1897 confer ences with other Lutheran bod ies were autho rized on the recom men dation of the com mit tee, with a view to substi tut- ing a purely Lutheran lit er ature for other systems in use if this were deemed desir able. In 1899 Dr. Schmauk as chairman made a vo lu minous re port. In this report we see the ev i dence of how with his charac ter is tic thorough ness he was go ing to the sources and to the bot tom of things. He brings out the fact that the Gen eral Coun cil first took up the problem of provid ing Sun day School lit er ature offi cially in 1869 and that work antic i patory had been done in 1868 or one year af ter the for mation of the Coun cil. The appea r ance of the “Inter national Lessons” in 1873, which marked an epoch in Sun day School work, proved an in centive to the com mit tee which began a series of “Church Lesson Leaves” in 1877. He quotes the fol low ing as the action then taken: “All our Sun day Schools ought to be dis tinctively Church schools. Our own doctrines ought to be exclu sively taught in them. No other than our own Sun day School books, les son leaves and pa pers should be used in them.”

Op poses The In ter na tional Sys tem

From the start he clearly grasped the sound idea, that knowl edge of the Bible should be formed in the mind and built up like a cathedral, with all parts prop erly re lated to its cen tral substance, and not like a shapeless pile of stones lack ing cohe sion and unity. He accord ingly felt that the Church Year should become the framew ork around which that knowl edge should be constructed. He nat u rally op posed the In ter national Sys tem of lessons, which sacri ficed the Chris to cen tric prin ci ple of in struction to the uni form

157 the ory. In a letter to an assis tant super in ten dent of a Lutheran Sun day School in New York City, who desired to know the “basic diff er ences between our sys tem and the In ter national,” he gives the fol low ing il lu minat ing answer:

1. We make the living and the saving Word of God our center , rather than teaching the Bible as a book. Hence we put the Gospel first. We study the New Testa ment in that part of the year in which the schools are full. We lay stress on the New Testa ment. The In ter national system deals with the Bible as a book, rather than with God’s Word that is within it. The Blakesly system em phasi zes the Acts of the Apostles and the Epis tles, and what to our mind is the eccle si asti cal side of Chris tianity . 2. We conf orm our teaching, in a general man ner…Church Year, and to its fes ti vals. This is the Lutheran way. So far as possi ble, we begin the study of the life of Christ with Advent and Christmas and we continue with the life and teachings of Christ, and with His suffer ing, death and res ur rection through the seasons devoted to a com mem o ration of those great saving facts. The In ter national system does not rec og nize that the Church Year is a medium for the Chris tian living over again the life of his Lord, and, al though of late years it has ac com mo dated it self to pop u lar demand by giv ing Christmas lessons on Christmas and Easter lessons on Easter, it only touches the outer hem of the devout life of a churchly Chris tian in so doing. 3. The two great el ements for in struct ing Chris tian youth are first the doctrine of the Scrip ture, which we have in Luther’s Cat echis m, and the ex am ples or life of the Scrip ture, which we have in Bible his tory. In our sys tem we regu late things largely accord ing to these two leading points. 4. Our system believes that there ought to be a regu lar or der of progress, with a defi nite goal, to Sun day-school work, begin ning with the simplest and most concrete truth for the child and advanc ing, with the men tal and spir i tual ad vance of the child, to that which is more ma- ture.

158 The In ter national system is a wilder ness of Bible verses, begin ning nowhere, and ending nowhere. It is treading contin u ously through the wilder ness. The Blakesly system has an or der, and makes progress, but its progress is in a cir cle, re curring every three years, and not progress accord ing to the nat u ral un fold ing of the child’s mind. 5. Our funda men tal prin ci ple is a grada tion of matter and an adapta- tion of method to the vari ous stages of the devel op ing child-mind. We believe in giv ing milk to the babes and meat to the strong. This can not be done on the uni form les son plan of the In ter national system. Ei ther the meat or the milk will then be lack ing. There is some thing in Scrip ture for every age and condi tion of man. We take the story ma te rial that is suitabl e for the very lit tle ones and present it to them. Then comes the story mate rial for the older ones. Then comes the his tory which is sto ries wo ven to gether. Then comes the biog ra phy which is an analy sis of char acter . Then comes the teaching or doctrines of Scrip ture. Fi nally there comes an out line of the contents of each book of Scrip ture, so that the scholar gets an idea of the book of the Bible as a whole, and from the point of view from which its writer orig i nally intended it to be read and used, before he goes into a detailed study of the text.

Our system was begun in the year 1895. It is the pi o neer of all graded systems, though no pains have been taken to announce it out side of the Lutheran Church. It was devel oped af ter an in ti mate exam i nation of the In- ter national syste m. It has been perfected more and more every year, but is not per fect now, nor will it ever be perfect. Im provement will be made continu ously, as strength and re sources and in sight ac cumu late.

De vel op ment Of The Sys tem

With em phasis laid in the begin ning on the Se nior and the Pri mary work, and a gradual de vel op ment of the In ter me di ate Grade Text Books, the entire graded appa ra tus was devel oped as a com prehen sive whole, every grade

159 and the special lessons in the vari ous grades all being part of a general and com prehen sive plan of present ing the whole Bible in a system a tic way and graded and adapted to the child mind in its nor mal de vel op ment. In the construc t ion of the Graded Sys tem Dr. Schmauk drew upon his extended study and expe ri ence and success fully enlisted vari ous trained minds and experts in re li gious peda gogy; but through the enti re work the real ar chi tect was Dr. Schmauk him self. The books appea red in regu lar or der, their very ti tles in di cat ing the unity of the series and the harmo nious devel op ment. The in ter me di ate grades were is sued in the or der of their use in the schools which thus progressed through the Graded Sys tem as it was devel oped, as fol lows: Bible Story, (1897); Bible History , (1898); Bible Ge og ra phy, (1899); Bible Biog ra phy, (1901); Bible Teachings, (1902); Bible Lit er ature, (1903); Bible Readings, a supple men tary Grade in serted between Story and History , appeared in 1905; Bible Facts and Scenes, a simpli fied Bible Ge og ra phy, appeared in 1906. The latter book is still very pop u lar and is used in insti tu tions and as a teacher’s book. In 1912 a simpli fi cation of Bible Lit er ature appeared un der the ti tle of Bible Out lines. Meanwhile a Ger man transla tion of Bible Story and of Bible Readings had app eared, also a Swedish Bible Story, and the lit er ature in some of its grades was asked for in Ice landic, also in Tel ugu, Japa nese and Span ish. The Pri mary work begun si multa neously with the in ter me di ate Grades very soon took form in the Three Grade Pri mary De part ment. These three grades are known re spectively as Won derland, Workland, Pic ture land, having their corre sponding lit er ature for the children in Sun beams, Sun shine and Sun- rays. Sun rays cor re sponds to the large Pic ture Charts in the devel op ment of which Dr. Schmauk dis played not only his knowl edge of the Bible and the Bible sto ries, but his fa mil iar ity with the great and the beauti ful in art il lus- tra tive of the Scrip tures. Many extended trips were made to find and exam- ine pic tures, as well as to the plant of the lithog ra phers many miles dis tant. It was thus that he kept his hand on every detail of the work. While many writ ers were used and gave ma ture thought to the contents of the books which bear their names as the authors, these were like skilled work men la- boring un der the super vi sion of the gen eral ar chi tect and su perin ten dent.

160 In the com plete plan, pro vi sion was made for the child at the ear li est moment of its exis tence. Hence in 1910 there appeared the founda tion book, “In Mother’s Arms,” a book which is for the mothers of babes from birth to two years of age. It em phasize s the content of baptism and begins in the true Lutheran way with the new birth. “At Mother’s Knee,” the second book deal ing with the child from two to four years of age, was vividly and completely thought out in the mind of this great peda gogue; but un for tu nately his mul ti tudinou s and impor tant du ties and in creas ing burdens in the later impor tant devel op ments in the Church wherein he fig ured as a ma jor fac tor, prevented the actual writ ing of the book. Much ma te rial has been gath ered and the hope is that one of those for merly asso ci ated with him may be able to work out this vol ume and at least find and give to the Church the salient fea tures of that which Dr. Schmauk had in mind. A most in ter est ing and il lu mi nat ing side light on the versa til ity of Dr. Schmauk is to be noted in connec tion with the prepa ra tion of the lit tle treatise “In Mother’s Arms,” a book deal ing with youngest in fancy in the most ten der and affec tionate way and in which the bache lor author with perfect un derstand ing throws him self in o the situ ation of the mother and with the ten derest man ner and in the most sym pathetic way deals with mother and babe. This gentle book, sweet in its simplic ity and beauty, appeared in 1910. Si multa neously with the writ ing of this simple book for the mother and the babe, was prepared that schol arly work on the Con fes sional Prin ci ple, a dis cussion for the his to rian and the olo gian. When “In Mother’s Arms” appeared. Dr. Shimer, assis tant super in ten- dent of the New York City schools, wrote him: “There is a good homely streak of old fash ioned virtue in your peda gogy that makes one feel that the train ing of the young may safely be guided by you.” An Epis copalian rec tor paid a simi lar trib ute. As he traveled about from place to place to explain and demon strate the Sys tem, he aston ished Sun day School work ers in all parts of the Church with the re mark able ease with which he could translate himself into the realm of childhood and meet it on its own level. Not a few still re call these demon strations and speak of them in glow ing terms. A docto r of di vin ity of the for mer Gen eral Synod, who later in tro duced the Graded Sys tem in his Sun day School, writes of what he heard and saw

161 when Dr. Schmauk vis ited Chicago. He says:

One was al ways impressed with the tow er ing physique of Dr. Schmauk. His was a com manding pres ence. I shall never forget one fine il lus tra tion of his big ness of heart and in tellect, on the occa- sion of my first meet ing Dr. Schmauk. He had come to Chicago to lec ture on Sun day School work. At one of the sessions of the conven- tion, he demon strated the work of the Kindergarten Grade. He had told us how it should be done. A teacher in Won derland should have four, five or six children, never more than six, gath ered about him, all sitting on the lit tle chairs, and then tell them the Bible Story in plain lan guage, and with each les son, a short verse of a simple hymn, with tune, should be taught.

To see Dr. Schmauk seat himself upon a kindergarten chair, with six children un der six years of age simi larly seated, grouped about him, was re ally a priv i lege. He lost himself to his audi ence, as he gave himself to the precious task before him. It was impres sive. It was in spir ing, to see and hear this big man, big in stature, yes,— now, more espe cially big in heart,— as he became ut terly obliv i ous of all else, and devoted those splen did tal ents of his to telling a wonder story from the Word of God, to that lit tle band of little folks, at ten tive, absorbed as they were in the story-teller and his message. Oth ers have expressed themselv es simi larly and have spoken of the inspi ra tion they received from these demon strations of the System. This System had been rec og nized at Washing ton by the Comm is sioner of Ed u cation as the pi o neer in this field and, for com plete ness and peda- gogic ex cel lence, with out a peer. His in ti mate knowl edge of the child mind and child nature — his wonder ful adapt ability which enabled him to meet its needs — his thor ough acqua in tance with the whole range of lit er ature that had any bear ing, however re mote, on the subject of the reli gious in- struction of the young — ^and above all his un shaken faith in the Rev ela- tion of which the Scrip tures are the unerring record — made him a leader and a prince in this field of endeavor . As the books of the Graded Series were pub lished, he saw how they might be improv ed, and in the ear lier years made many re vi sions — even

162 entirely rewriting in some in stances. With the new situ ation which devel- oped in the merg ing of the Gen eral Bod ies, his part was so great that much that he had in mind for the fur ther improve ment of the graded system had to be deferred. Yet he looked for ward with keen in ter est and great expec ta tion to the re al iza tion of his ear lier dreams when in the begin ning of the work he approached oth ers for the devel op ment of a Common Lutheran Se ries of Graded Sun day School Lessons. His last work was for the children of the Church, and in his fi nal ill ness his mind was on that work which through all his busy career and in the midst of his varied and multi ply ing du ties was always nearest to his heart. Re li gious edu cation in the Lutheran Church will al ways owe a great debt to the “Lebanon Master in Lutheran Bible Schools.” The need of trained teachers led in 1914, with the aid of oth ers, to the founding of a Teacher Train ing Quarterly , in which the princi ples of the var- i ous grade text books were fully presented and the general prin ci ples of teaching for mu lated and dis cussed. In these quarter lies there appeared a vast amount of ma te rial, ul ti mately designed for perma nent books. Out of these pages came the basis of the book which appeared just a few days prior to his death, namely, “How to Teach in Sun day School.” This book is a fit- ting clim ax to his great and un fin ished work for the Sun day Schools of the Church, a work which will ex ert an in flu ence to com ing gen er ations.

163 164 10 - Cit i zen, Pa triot and Pub lic Speaker

Thou, Lord, hast made our nation free. I’ll die for her in serv ing Thee.

SCHMAUK

THERE HAVE BEEN FEW LEAD ERS in the Lutheran Church, who, with out confus in g the functions of the State and the Church, have so thoroughly and heartily iden ti fied them selves with in ter ests in civic life as did this Lebanon pastor . His fa ther knew the full mean ing of patri o tism. When the Civil War began, the fa ther found it neces sary to show his col ors (for feeling ran high in those days at Lan caster) and he preached loy alty to his people at the risk of his life. The mother had deco rated the baby coach with the Amer i can flag. An advance guard of the rebel army had burned the bridge at Co lumbia, ten miles from Lan caster , at the time of the bat tle of Gettys burg, and patri o tism in Salem congre ga tion as at Zion’s, Lan caster , rose to fever heat. Later when Rich mond was taken, the fa ther, who had then bec ome pastor at Lebanon, announced the tidings to the people of Lebanon by ring ing the bell of Old Salem. The son was four years of age when the fa ther moved to Lebanon. Salem Church had had its full quota of men who had been at the front. Mili tary and other patri otic demon strations were in high fa vor, and it was nat u ral that the boy of four should take to play ing sol dier in his youth as a fish takes to wa ter. Add to this his pecu liar bent of heart and mind which al- lowed noth ing of hu man in ter est to seem for eign to him, and it is this in ter- est, as we have seen, blos somed forth when in the lo cal press he played the part of the “Vil lage Black smith.” It re vealed it self in his early pop u lar lec- tures. He sym pathized keenly with the hon est and faith ful toiler who found

165 it diffi cult to live from hand to mouth. This crops out in his lec ture on “The Blue Side of a Dol lar a Day.” An other lec ture of his that touched the hu man side of life was on the theme “What Makes Men Happy”? In his addresses to the gradu at ing classes (and he was fre quently pressed into ser vice), he was sure to stir up lo cal civic pride ei ther by laud ing some pub lic-spir ited man like Robert H. Cole man, who did so much for Lebanon’s greater ex- pansion, or by re count ing past his tory and pointing to the no ble deeds of the fa thers whose ideals and sacri fices made the city and the county what it was, or to the large part which its citi zens had taken in the Rev o lu tionary and Civil Wars. As a loyal citi zen, he keeps his eye on the pub lic schools to see that high stan dards are maintained. He keeps in touch with teachers’ in stitutes; he at- tends the Board of Health meet ings; goes to the li cense court to op pose the is suing of new li censes; in ter ests himself in the sew er age question, in street paving, in opening new play grounds; and by his supe rior knowl edge in all these matters vir tu ally com pels men to seek his advice or bend to his views. When the new play ground is fin ished, he is in vited to make the address at its open ing to the pub lic; when the Chem i cal Fire Company’ s building is dedi cated, Schmauk must, of course, be there to make the speech. Cit i zens still re late how, af ter many hu mor ous com parisons and al lu sions, he switched into a more seri ous train of thought and told his audi ence how the fires of evil were being constantly kept burning in Lebanon and how great the need of watchful ness and zeal to fight the flames. When the question of street-paving was being consid ered and the town council had prac ti cally decided upon ei ther asphalt or brick, the preacher of Salem appeared before these gentle men and presented such a com pelling ar ray of facts and argu- ments as to win the ma jor ity over to wooden blocks. There was enough noise on the streets of Lebanon to make it un neces sary to add to it. Why not use mate rial to di minish it? His devo tion to the high est welfare of the com mu nity was rec og nized as being so sin cere and whole-souled that he could be permit ted to say things which no other cit i zen dared to ut ter. When the great strike at the Ameri can Iron and Steel Com pany was on in 1901, the mob spirit ran high. It cul mi- nated in a bat tle and blood shed on the nights of Sep tember 22nd and 23rd. One of Salem’s members, Cap tain H. M. M. Richards, a descen dant of Muhlen berg, be ing one of the com pany’s trusted offi cials, was shot and

166 wounded. Leading citi zens who had large in ter ests at stake, quailed before this mob spirit and none dared to open his mouth. At this junc ture appeared the man of the hour, and in the pres ence of an audi ence which more than filled Salem Church, Dr. Schmauk boldly preached a power ful ser mon condemn ing the reign of ter ror and call ing upon the citi zens of Lebanon to come to the defe nse of law and or der. From that mo ment, the courage of the or derly citi zens re vived, pub lic senti ment re gained its speech and the tide speedily turned.

His Love Of Coun try

In ti mate knowl edge of lo cal and national his tory, partic u larly that which pertained to the sturdy Lutheran pi o neers in Colonial and Rev o lu tionary days, in spired him with a love of country that was in many re spects excep- tional. When in vited to make addresses on special occa sions of his toric inter est, he lit er ally poured out facts — and of ten on very short no tice — as from a peren nial fountain. When called upon to make addresses before the P. O. S. of A. vet er ans, he could be counted on to awaken in the breasts of oth ers the same patri otic fer vor that throbbed in his own bo som. He on more than one occa sion re minded other audi ences of how Freder ick Augus- tus Muh len berg (once a pastor of Salem Church) proclaimed at the risk of his life, from his pul pit in New York City, his contempt of the To ries who stood ready to sell the lib erty of the Colonies to Eng land and his de vo tion to the cause of Ameri can in depen dence. He was proud to re mind them of another Lutheran clergy man who in the church at Wood stock, Virginia, laid aside his cleri cal robes while in the pul pit, called for vol un teers to fol low him, and became one of the most trusted gener als of Washing ton in the trying days of the Rev o lu tion. These patri otic out bursts brought him into the lime light as a pub lic speaker, and no cel ebra tion of ei ther civic or his toric import was consid ered com plete with out the pres ence of Dr. Schmauk ei ther as the speaker or the presid ing offi cer. Later, when Presi dent McKinley was shot. Dr. Schmauk preached a ser mon to a crowded church that made a deep impres sion. It was a strong ar raign ment of the spirit of anar chy and warned against in flu ences and ten dencies subver sive of every thing Ameri cans should hold dear. Later upon the death of the mar tyr Pres i dent, another ser mon was preached of

167 such elo quence and power as to call forth the high est praise. Peo ple in Lebanon re call it to this day. Both ser mons appeared in full in the lo cal papers.

As Pub lic Speaker

His conn ection with the Chau tauqua and with the two his tor i cal soci eties, and his ear lier lec tures on pop u lar subjects, proved to be a great train ing school to fit him for impromptu speech on pub lic occa sions. He rapidly devel oped a gift for the pop u lar pre senta tion of even abstruse themes. He in- jected plenty of spice by his fre quent sal lies of wit and hu mor, and by draw- ing copi ously on his imagi nation. His com mand ing form and res o nant voice stood him in good stead at all times. But it was his ready command of flu ent and forceful Eng lish, and his abil ity to get into whole-souled touch not only with the subjects he dealt with but also with his audi ence that were the real source of his power as an in spi ra tional speaker. You were impressed that there stood before you not only a big mind, laden with rich stores of knowledge, but a great big soul — a soul as play ful as that of a boy and yet as deeply seri ous as that of a sage and a prophet. It is well that, at this point, something should be said of the large use he made of hu mor in his addresses on pub lic occa sions. He re garded it as almost essen tial that the audi ence should be put into good hu mor so as to have an ex pectant, open and recep tive state of mind. First atten tion; then action, was his motto. When at ten tion was secured, he knew that he was in a po si tion to carry his audi ence with him whith er soever he would. Hence he made free use of what would be star tling and Cit i zen, of ten ex tremely fan ci- ful. There was a deep-seated earnestness and purpose in it all, as he says, which many who of ten heard him have failed to take into account. In his ser mons, he would not per mit his hu mor to speak; but he was always sure to start out with some fresh and striking de scription to capture the at ten tion of the hearer. And yet he never became sensa tional in the cheap and pop u lar sense in which that word is un derstood. He deplore d sensa tional ism as prac ticed by many preachers. In his ser mon skeletons pre pared under Dr. Mann at the Sem i nary, this pecu liar ity crept out in his in tro ductions, and any one who has ever passed through the or deal of submit ting such

168 skeletons to Dr. Mann might easily guess what must have happened. “Away with your flights of fancy. Right into the heart of your text!” was Dr. Mann’s demand. Even he could not rightly appre ci ate the purpose his fa vorite student had in view. When he presided at meet ings, that play ful spirit, of ten delig ht ing in strik ing fancies and hy perboles, made the speakers he in tro duced feel some- what em barrassed and un com fort able; but both he and the audi ence usually enjoyed it. These in tro ductions were al ways looked for, except when the oc- casion demanded seri ousness. He took delight, at times, to char acter ize the speaker in flowery lan guage and in hu mor ous style. On one occa sion at least this mode of in tro ducing speakers re acted against him. It was when he was in vited by Pres i dent Haas of Muhlen berg College, whom he had more than once in tro duced as speaker, to address the stu dents at col lege. Dr. Haas re membered how he himself had been presented to audi ences where Dr. Schmauk presided, and dete r mined he would copy his method. He ac- cordingly in dulged in flights of fancy and ful some rhetoric and made a very success ful imi ta tion of the latter ’s man ner of speech; throwing up his arms and raising his voice, then suddenly letting it fall. Af ter Dr. Haas had spoken seri ously about Dr. Schmauk’s work and place in the Church, he grew elo quent as fol lows:

There has come to us to day a great man, in the sunshine among the hills, among the bud ding trees, amid the blos soms and the flowers of spring. He has descended upon us like a mighty nightin gale, with out spread wings, and alight ing upon this hill, is now ready to sing his sweet song. Though large in size, he can sing the charming lay of the lit tle bird. He can pass swiftly and smoothly from hu mor to se ri ousness; he can amuse you while he in spires you, passing from the sublime to the ridicu lous, changing from mood to mood as he cir cles about you and in flowing sentences rises to ethe real heights, then de- scends again with a sudden swoop to awaken within you a thrill of laugh ter as he alights and subsides into silence.

It was a success ful parody . No one can fail to rec og nize it as a true copy of Schmaukian speech.

169 The stu dents did not fully re al ize that it was not Dr. Haas’s nat u ral man- ner of speaking un til Dr. Schmauk had launched out pretty fairly into his address. Then the close simi lar ity of man ner struck them so forcibly that the boys saw the joke and could not re sist giv ing expres sion to their feelings. There arose a sponta neous roar of laugh ter and for once in his life Dr. Schmauk was profoundly em barrassed. He was so much taken by surprise that he did not fire back then, but had his fun with Dr. Haas later. No portrai ture of Dr. Schmauk would be com plete were the part he played at pub lic functions in Lebanon to be left out of account. On one oc- casion, when the Hon. W. U. Hensel of Lan caster was in vited to deliver the his tor i cal address before the Lebanon County Histor i cal So ci ety, he had failed to touch on many things of vi tal in ter est connected with the subject, and Dr. Schmauk un dertook to supply the defi ciency. He prese nted such a bewil dering ar ray of facts and fig ures that when he was through, Dr. Hensel re marked to a friend: “If I could have found a hole in the floor big enough, I would have been glad to creep through it.” It was risky to delve into his toric lore in the pres ence of Dr. Schmauk. The peo ple of Lebanon had be come so thor oughly depen dent on his lead er ship when ever cel ebra tions of civic or his toric sig nif i cance took place that a mass meet ing seemed in com plete or un sat is fac tory with out him. The Grand Army men on great natio nal hol i day occa sions gener ally made sure that he would be present to partic i pate. When the Cen ten nial of Lin coln’s birth was cel ebr ated in 1908, it was a fore gone conclu sion that he should make the address. The Sons of Amer ica Hall was packed, and in a trib ute of re mark able warmth and power, he exalted the funda men tal prin ci ples upon which our Re pub lic is founded, and drew wholesome lessons that were fully wor thy of the oc casion.

Schmauk And Taft

Dr. Schmauk’s greatest achievem ent at in tro ducing speakers, as the people of Lebanon unite in saying, was when ex-Pres i dent Taft was in vited on Jan- u ary 19, 1918, to a mass meet ing in behalf of the Lib erty Loan. The Acad- emy of Music was packed to the doors, and no man in Lebanon but Dr. Schmauk looked big enough to preside at the meet ing. He was in vited at

170 a late hour to perform that duty. He accepted, and in an in tro duc tory speech, sparkling with wit and hu mor, thrilled the great audi ence with his elo- quence. Af ter the Presi dent of the Lebanon Cham ber of Commerce, who was also man ager of the gas plant, had turned the meet ing over to Dr. Schmauk as chairman, the latter rose, and turn ing to Mr. Taft said: “That is our gas man. It is his duty to fur nish light and power. I am not here to fur nish the gas. That is his busi ness. I am here simply to send out a few electric sparks.” He then spoke of the re sem blance between himself and Mr. Taft as to lat eral physi cal out line rather than as to height, and before in tro ducing the speaker called upon the audi ence to make the rafters ring by singing the national anthem. This done, he proceeded to acquaint Mr. Taft with some Lebanon history . He spoke of him as “The man of national and in ter national fame,” and of Lebanon as “the most patri otic city of its size in Penn syl vania.” He then re- minded the audi ence that five other pres i dents of the country , before they became candi dates for the office, had vis ited Lebanon. Washing ton had been there; so had Van Bu ren, Har ri son, Buchanan, Grant and Hayes. “But this is the first time,” he added, “that we have had a real ex-Presi dent to speak here.” Then fol lowed a descrip tion in his char acter is tic style of the fer tile limestone val ley, rich in mineral re sources, where “barns like castl es rise” and which the Ger mans and Huguenots had turned into a fruit ful garden. He recalled how in Colonial days Con rad Weiser, then living only seven teen miles from Lebanon, saved Ohio, In di ana and Illi nois during the French and In dian war; how Lebanon County had re sponded to the call of the Na tion in the Rev o lu tionary War, in the war of 1812 and in Cit i zen, the Civil War, fur nish ing more than its quota in all three. Then turn ing smil ingly to Mr. Taft, he spoke of four types of Ameri can States men with whom the hon ored guest was doubt less well acquainted. There was first the philan- thropic type, William Jennings Bryan, whose fondness for peace treaties and prohi bi tion were hu mor ously al luded to. Then came the bel liger ent type, Theodore Roo sevelt, who un like Bryan, believed more in hot coals than in cold wa ter, as the guest, no doubt, was fully aware. Next came the ide al is tic or peda gogic type. Presi dent Wil son, who assayed to be the teacher of the world and who was giv ing lessons on democ racy. The fourth

171 type was the construc tive states man, Mr. Taft himself, who brought or der out of chaos in Cuba and the Philip pines. While Presi dent Wil son opened wide the lid of govern ment, Mr. Taft sat firmly on it. Then clos ing he said to the audi ence: ’I in tro duce to you our first and fullest-orbed Ameri can citi- zen." When the ex-Pres i dent rose to speak, he seemed to show signs that he had un ex pect edly stepped into the shadow of a man of genius and power. Dr. Schmauk had said: “I do not know how it happened that I a preacher should have been called upon to in tro duce a lawyer,” and al most the first sentence Mr. Taft ut tered was, “I now know why you were called upon to in tro duce me.” He laugh ingly com mented on the physi cal likeness between the two, and re marked that while minis ters of ten dare much, he had never known any one who would have had the temer ity to make the com parisons ventured by Dr. Schmauk. He declared that he was in a trem ble while the com parisons were being made. He af ter wards said, in substance, to several men in pri vate conver sa tion: “I never had an in tro duction like that. I felt like a boy in his pres ence. It is un usual to find so great a man in so small a city. You can be proud of him. No other man could have trod den on such danger ous polit i cal ground as he has done without giving offense.” Was it strange that many in that audi ence should have placed the lawyer and the preacher side by side and concluded that there was pres i dential tim- ber in the Lebanon min istry?

Schmauk Dur ing The [Great] War [WWI]

He was much in demand during the try ing days of the war. Lebanon made heroic efforts to do its full share in go ing over the top not only in fur nish ing men for the army and navy, but also in subscrib ing for bonds. As the young men went forth from time to time at the call of the nation, he was in vited to speak the part ing words. When they re turned, he stood ready in pub lic meet ing to welcome them back. He took a special in ter est in the boys of Salem who had gone to war and wrote many letters to them. Some of his patri otic ser mons are still re membered by the sol diers of the Lebanon County com panies that survived and re turned. The one deliv ered

172 in the Chapel be fore the vet er ans of Salem Church will never be forgot ten by the great throng that heard it. When in ter est in the Lib erty Loan seemed to be lag ging, he was called upon to cre ate the needed enthu si asm, and he al ways did it with marked success. On one occa sion he ad dressed a great crowd from the steps of the Post Office Build ing. He there kin dled a fire that made the sparks of patri o- tism fly high, and the re sult was that the quota was oversub scribed. On another oc casion, he addressed a large assem bly at a base ball game, and draw ing his il lus tra tions from the great national sport, he placed the Kaiser at the bat, the Ger man submarines and armies on the bases, the Al lies behind the bat ter and the United States as pitcher in front of him, with the result that the bat ter fanned, and the game was lost to the Kaiser. It took the base ball fans by storm, and they speak of that “great speech” to this day. On still another occa sion, the Fourth of July was turned to good account for an other Loan Drive. Mar ket Square was crowded with a throng of ex- pectant people, and Protes tant and Catholic joined hands, as citi zens, to cel- ebrate. Fa ther Christ and Pasto r Schmauk were present as the speakers. Though far re moved from each other as the poles in matters of faith, both were on terms of cordial friend ship and enjoyed each other’s re spect and confi dence. This was pub licly declared by the priest when he rose, af ter what was termed a “great speech” by Dr. Schmauk, and re marked that he had “a warm spot in his heart” for his neigh bor, and was “sure that Dr. Schmauk had a warm spot in his heart for him.” Both beli eved that it was one thing to fel low ship as citi zens and quite another to fel low ship as eccle si astics. (Father Christ gave evi dence of the warm friendship he cher ished for Dr. Schmauk a few days before the latter ’s death. The fam ily were badly in need of a night nurse, for the one who served as day nurse was engaged at night for ser vice in a Ro man Catholic fam ily. When the priest was apprised of that fact, he at once went to his sick parishioner and pleaded for the re- lease of the nurse that the greater need in the Schmauk home stead might be supplied. He succeeded and won golden opin ions for his no ble act from the fam ily and mem bers of Old Salem which will long be cherished.) Af ter Dr. Schmauk had writ ten an edi to rial in The Lutheran Church Re- view, soon af ter the war broke out, to counter act British propa g anda in the

173 Ameri can press, which was cal culated to in volve the United States in the great con flict, and had in thor ough and convinc ing man ner laid bare the causes that led up to the war (for it ranks among the clearest and best expo- si tions that were writ ten) many have wondered that he should have seemed to re verse himself when the United States declared war. While he condemned the mil i taris tic phi los o phy of Ger many, he did not in re al ity re verse himself. He was far from believ ing that the guilt of the war rested on Ger- many alone and that Eng land, France and Rus sia could wash their hands in in no cency. But he deplored the brutal war methods adopted by the Ger man mil i tarists, and when his country had spoken, for it alone among the nations could lift up un stained hands and declare a right eous war, he in true Lutheran spirit submit ted to the deci sion of the Govern ment and left the re- sponsi bility rest where it belong ed. His in tense patri o tism would not permit him to whisper a word against his Govern ment, though he deplored the fa- naticism which led it at first to refuse enlist ment to those whose names in di- cated Ger man descent. He was wounded to the heart to think that, in spite of what Luther ans had done to save their country in the days of the Rev o lu- tion and later in the Civil War, their descen dants should now be treated as hy phenates. This right eous in dig nation found expres sion in a re mark able impromptu speech deliv ered in New York City at the orga ni zation of the United Lutheran Church in 1918. When the Hon. Ed mund Rommel (whose name in di cates his Ger man ances try) repre sent ing the United States Bu reau of Ed u cation had addressed that body on the question of Ameri caniz ing foreign ers, Dr. Schmauk imme di ately rose to his feet and proceeded to correct what he believed to be an impres sion at Washing ton, that the Lutheran Church in this coun try is not a thor oughly Ameri can Church. His state ment struck a re spons ive chord and called forth fre quent applause. It is wor thy of a place in this bi og ra phy.

The Lutheran Church Not A For eign Church

I am heartily in accord with all that has been said by this wor thy repre senta tive of the Govern ment, but I also feel, however , that while we are most heartily in ter ested in the for eign work, we are not a foreign-born Church. It is diffi cult to avoid the impres sion that some of

174 our offi cials at Washing ton:believe that to be a Lutheran is to be a for eigner.

I want to say here, in view of re cent state ments in print, that the Lutheran Church was in North America three years before the Pil- grim Fa thers ever set their foot upon New Eng land soil. I want to say here that there were Luther ans on these rocky shores of Manhat tan two years af ter the Mayflower landed at Ply mouth Rock. I want to say fur ther that there was an orga nized Lutheran Church here in Man- hat tan 130 years before the Amer i can Rev o lu tion ever took place. I want to say that had it not been for Ben jamin Franklin and the Ger- man Luther ans in Penn syl vania the com bi nation of the United Colonies into the United States would have been impos si ble. It was the Ger mans of Penn syl vania who stood behind Franklin as against the Quakers that enabled the Rev o lu tionary War to succeed.

I want to say still fur ther that in my deal ings with Washing ton my congre ga tion has been char acter ized as a for eign-born congre ga tion. My con grega tion, as I al ready said in this conven tion, had a pastor who became the first speaker of the first House of Rep re senta tives of the United States. With their townsmen, my congre ga tion sent flour and money in 1774 to Bos ton af ter the fa mous tea party there and the clos ing of the port of Bos ton, in or der to help to preserve Ameri can liberty . In the high est tower of my steeple there hangs a silve r bell that was cast in 1770 in Lon don, and from its height began to ring out into all the re gion round about me the in scription that is found on its face, and that in scription is, ‘Proclaim liberty aloud to all the nations of the earth.’

The people of my congre ga tion fur nished one general, one colonel, and perhaps from one-third to one-fourth of every mem ber in it to the Rev o lu tionary War. And then, to day, in writ ing to the pastor of that congre ga tion, Washing ton hints ‘A for eign-born cong re gation.’

On the 24th of this month of No vem ber it will be 215 years since, in 1703, the Lutheran Church in Phil adel phia, with solemn cer emo- nial, set apart Justus Fal ckner , in proba bly what was the first regu lar

175 or di nation of a Protes tant clergy man in America, for the holy ministry, and to become the pastor of the Dutch Luther ans in New York, where he offi ci ated faith fully un til his death in 1723. New York still preserves his Church Record, and we still possess a copy of his or di- nation cer tifi cate signed by the three Lutheran minis ters that laid hands on his head.

This impromptu speech was af ter wards cir culated in pam phlet form, and was most cordially welcomed by thou sands of Luther ans, who had felt the sting of the cruelly un just asper sions cast upon a Church that had sent a larger pro portion of sons to the front than any other re li gious or secu lar body in the coun try.

176 177 178 11 - Death of his Fa ther (1898- 1903)

My Father , my Fa ther, the chariot of Is rael, and the horse men thereof

2 KINGS 2:12.

THE YEAR 1898 proved to be memo rable in the life of the younger Schmauk, and marks a dis tinct era. The one great event to ward which fa ther and son were look ing with joy ful antic i pation was the cel ebr ation of the hun dredth anniver sary of the Church building in which three gener ations had wor shiped. It had dis placed a log church erected ten years before the Dec la ra tion of In depen dence was signed. It was dedi cated on June 3, 1798. It still stands as a mon u ment of solid and substan tial ar chi tec ture so char acter is tic of the buildings of those times. Its stone walls will doubt less be standing a century hence when other later structures will have fallen to de- cay. George Lochman was the pastor who planned for its erec tion and who car ried the project through. The fa ther had taken a deep in ter est in the forth com ing cel ebra tion and was seeking to make it the occ asion for a new era of expan sion. He had hoped to see the erec tion of a new church building which was to be used for Eng lish ser vices only. In the early nineties al ready much had been said in church coun cil about building an exten sion to the old church structure, so as not to place too heavy a fi nanci al burden on the congre ga tion; to this both pastors were op posed. The shadow of a great sorrow was soon to fall upon these fond antic i pa- tions. On March 5th the fa ther, who had been in fail ing health for some time, be came seri ously sick — and in the midst of the busy Lenten season prepara tory to confir ma tion and the cel ebra tion of Easter. He gradu ally became worse and on April 1st a special ist from Phil adel phia was sum moned.

179 Two days later was Palm Sun day and we read in the Di ary that af ter the confir ma tion ser vices, the son spent “the rest of the day with fa ther, who was very sick.” Early on the fol lowing day at 1:45 A. M., in the pres ence of the fam ily, the pillar upon whom the younger Schmauk had leaned many years was broken. A note in his Di ary of April 4th reads: “Father died. My Fa ther! My Fa ther! Oh Lord, have mercy upon us!” It was the out burst of a soul who now re al ized that he stood alone. Shortly before this Salem had lost one of its pillars in the death of George H. Rei noehl, “an author ity on church and town his tory,” as Schmauk says, and one of his in ti mate friends and counselors. The well-known friend of his fa ther. Rev. Dr. Kohler, was also called to his heavenly home seven days later. On July 4th fol lowed the death of his asso ciate, Rev. F. M. Seip, pastor of Trin ity mis sion. This added greatly to the sense of lone li ness he felt and the weeks that fol lowed, with the Re view, the Sun day School work, and nu mer ous pastoral du ties on his hands, are a record of ar du ous tasks performed un der the handi cap of much depres sion of spirit and nu mer ous ill nesses, the most seri ous of which was an at tack of quinsy with a conse quent nervous break down. In addi tion to all this, there loomed up before him the task of prepar ing for the centen nial cel ebra tion of the dedi cation of Old Salem Church. A his tory must be written, — and in a few weeks’ time, if the fes tivi ties were to take place on June 3rd. Much of this his tory — an octavo vol ume of 200 pages — was writ ten in bed. As the time for the meet ing of synod was at hand, it was decided to post pone the cel ebra tion to Sun day, June 17th, so as to permit of the com ple tion of the his tory, which at the same time was to em body much of the story of Lebanon’s past. The week preced ing, as may well be imag- ined, was an intensely busy one. We read in his Diary:

Working all week on Salem Church History , read ing proof, etc., un til one, two, three and four o’clock in the morn ing. Fin ished writ- ing Thurs day noon.

The high esteem in which the father was held, and the strong affec tion the congre ga tion cher ished to ward him made it easy to enlist a hitherto hesi tating peop le in the project of build ing a new church in stead of ru in ing the old structure by enlar g ing it. What could now be more nat u ral than to sig nal ize the centen nial ser vices by erecti ng a chapel to the memory of a sainted pastor? Nine days af ter his death, the church council met and unani mously

180 agreed to propose to the congre g ation at its meet ing on May 1st the erec tion of a suitable memorial. A note in the Di ary states briefly, “It was decided to build a chapel.” Then fol lowed in creas ingly busy days, in ter spersed with fre quent at tacks of ill ness. Though an asso ciate pastor in the person of Rev. Ernest P. Pfat te- icher was speedily secured, du ties multi plied. The Re view made heavy demands upon his time, and as its fi nances were not then in good shape, he ten dered his res ig nation that same year, which was not accepted. He was in the midst of the ar du ous task of devel op ing the Graded Lesson Se ries. He became more and more the in spi ra tion and mainstay of the two his toric soci eties he had helped to orga nize, and in addi tion took an in ter est as a life member in the His tor i cal So ci ety of Penn syl vania. He was not only lit er ary edi tor of The Lutheran, but kept in constant touch with all its in ter ests. In view of his ever-widening activ i ties and the high rank he had taken as a scholar and a leader, he had been hon ored the year before (1897) by Muh- len berg College with the ti tle of Doctor of Di vin ity. With the year 1899, a new era dawned upon the life of Dr. Schmauk. The death of his beloved and wise coun selor now threw him com pletely upon his own re sources, and he began in this period a many-sided career whose demands upon his ener gies were destined sooner or later to consume him. With the added re sponsi bility of plan ning for a church building and look ing af ter the details of its erec tion, the type writer which had been in stalled even before his activ i ties at the Mt. Gretna Chau tauqua, was kept busy, his sis ter and a num ber of boys and young men giv ing him much-needed assis tance un til in 1900 he engaged a regu lar stenog ra pher, and in addi tion a secre tary and proof reader. As he had launched deeply into the work of prepar ing a Graded Se ries of text books for the Sun day Schools, the Memo rial Chapel took the form of a com bi nation of a churchly house of wor ship and a Sun day School building. It is a Tu dor Gothic structure and cruci form in style. Ground was broken on Sep tember 12th, the corner stone laid Sep tember 30th in the same year, and on May 19, 1901, a mas sive building, the pride of the city, cost ing over $70,000, was ded i cated to the service of the Tri une God. An in ter est ing in ci dent connected with the conse cra tion of the Chapel was the planting of a sprig of ivy taken from the vine that climbed the walls

181 of the Wart burg Castle in Ger many, the gift of a life-long friend and school- mate of his fa ther, Mr. John B. Zim mele, who was then trav el ing through Ger many. What is specially in ter est ing in connec tion with the erec tion of this Chapel is the amount of detail work and study that was devoted to it by Dr. Schmauk. He had fa mil iar ized himself with the his tory of church ar chi- tec ture and mas tered its funda men tal concepts and prin ci ples. The ma te ri als that went into the building from founda tion to roof were selected by him, and it is doubt ful whether any church building of its size and cost can boast of bet ter, high-grade ma te rial. An in stance of his expert knowl edge and minute at ten tion to details is re lated by one of the church memb ers who accom panied him to Phil adel phia to select stained glass for win dows to be placed near the eaves of the roof. He re vealed such an in ti mate knowl edge of the man u fac ture of glass that the head man in the depart ment turned to the church member and said: “Who is this man? He knows more of the man u fac ture of glass than I do.” This same penchant for details was man i- fested later when the pipe organ, then cost ing over $6,000, was to be purchased. Long before, he had made a study of the organ and there is now on hand a man u script al most com pleted for a book of consid er able size on “The Church Organ and Its History .” His expe rt knowl edge of the organ was soon noised abroad and his advice was sought by pastors con templat ing the purchase of simi lar in stru- ments. Two letters seeking such advice, and replies to them by Dr. Schmauk, are wor thy of men tion as show ing how thor oughly he had entered into the study of the sub ject. An in quiry from the Rev. Robert L. Pat ter son, of Som er set, Pa., re ceives an answ er of more than three large type writ ten sheets dis cussing the mer its and def ects of organs man u fac tured by six lead ing firms. Even Ro man Catholic priests sought his advic e. A priest from Carlisle, Pa., is “anxious to have re li able data to place at the dis posal of the Bishop” for the selec tion of an organ to be built in the new cathedral in Har ris burg, Pa., and writes for in for ma tion in a letter dated March 17, 1906. The re ply re veals his mas tery of the subject and sets forth the mer its and demer its of the Austin organ, which, with impor tant mod i fi ca tions, was the in stru ment in stalled in the Chapel and was designed by Robert Hope Jones. He sums up its tonal qual- ity thus:

182 If I had full means at com mand and were about to build a new organ, I would try to get on their stan dard of tone addi tions in the di rection of diffused rather than def ined power, golden mellow ness and soft rich ness in larger abundance in small stops, and greater rich ness in a few large stops."

He then describes in detail the “Mate ri als and Ac tion” he would in sist upon having. He says that the organ at Salem Church is:

…no table for a full, living, clear-cut ut ter ance of great power and of per fect smoothness or fin ish. The tone, to my ear, consid ered as to qual ity, com bines the un ob tru sive perfec tion of artis tic form with a full flowing ener gy. The majesty of the vol umes is not rude and bar- baric; nor, on the other hand, is their sweetness in any wise ro mantic. I have never found the soft and Ital ian golden sunshine in these tones. The power is self-con tained and defi nite rather than vaguely sug ges- tive and diffused.

More of a simi lar char acter fol lows.

Del e gate To The Gen eral Synod

Dur ing this period. Dr. Schmauk became deeply in ter ested in the larger questions and is sues that concer ned the Gen eral Coun cil, and as del egate to the Gen eral Synod in 1901 pre sented overtures of the Gen eral Coun cil to that body look ing to ward a pol icy of coop er ation between the two bod ies along practi cal lines. A re port of part of his address was thus sum ma rized in one of the lo cal papers:

Dr. Schmauk came before the General Synod not for the mar riage of the two bod ies, but only askin g that the Synod al ways be a sis ter to the Gen eral Coun cil. He said he merely came to suggest coop er ation where such would be mu tu ally advan ta geous, and was prepared to consult with any com mit tee the Synod might be pleased to appoint. If his sug gestion should not meet with fa vor, he asked that his pres ence should be re garded merely as a fra ter nal knock at the door. If the

183 knock were not heard, he would be content, like the mission ar ies in In dia, to leave his card and go away.

It is needless to add that a com mit tee was appointed, with Dr. Dunbar at its head, and upon its rec om men dation the fol low ing ac tion was taken:

Re solved, that we approve of a pol icy of coop er ation between the two gen eral bod ies on lines that may be found to be prac ti cable, af ter due in vesti gation of the vari ous points in volved, and with out in any way com mit ting ei ther body to any entan gling al liances, sacri fice of prin ci ple, or in ter fer ence with synod i cal iden tity.

Re solved, that a com mission be appointed consist ing of five to meet with and confer with a simi lar com mit tee, that may be appointed by the Gen eral Coun cil, to consider and in quire into such matters as may come within the scope of the first res o lu tion and report at the next meet ing.

Thus the door to real coop er at ion was first opened. Fa vorable action resulted, and at the meet ing of the Coun cil in the same year at Lima, Ohio, he became the author of a res o lu tion which re sulted in the appoint ment of a com mission of five to meet with a simi lar com mission of the Gen eral Synod for the in vesti gation and consid er ation of a pol icy of coop er ation, which later proved to be the begin ning of new re la tionships lead ing up fi- nally to the orga ni zation of the United Lutheran Church. He al ready became rec og nized as a lead ing force on the floor of the Gen eral Coun cil, enter ing into the dis cuss ions of great questions at is sue with in telli gence and convinc ing power. At this Lima meet ing he could announce to the Gen eral Coun cil the com ple tion of the Graded Se ries of text books, though few re al ized the tremen dous amount of la bor and ener gy expended, not only in prepar ing and pub lishing the series, but in giv ing nu mer ous expo si tions of the system in vari ous centers. So in ter est ing and in form ing were his presen ta tions of the subject that he could hold the rapt at ten tion of his audi ences for more than an hour. “A Fly ing Trip Through Twen ti eth Cen tury Sun day Schools with a Few Moments’ Stop at Grade Sta tions,” was the novel and strik ing way in which he an nounced the theme to be dis cussed dur ing his itiner ary.

184 185 186 187 188 189 12 - Pres i dent of the General Coun cil (1903 to 1905)

In the Church of our Lord and Christ, we do not want a steam roller unity. What we want is a growth into unity. What we want is, not com mer- cial but spir i tual, effi ciency — not a com mer cial headship such as Rome has, but spir i tual liberty un der the headship of Christ. The finest trees grow with plenty of airspace above them.

SCHMAUK

WHEN AT THE MEET ING of the Gen eral Coun cil in Nor ris town, Pa., in 1903, this pastor , preacher, edu cator , his to rian, lec turer, edi tor, author, pat riot and pub lic speaker was elected pres i dent, it was in evitable that he would not be sat is fied to serve merely as presid ing offi cer, at tending during the two years of his in cum bency only to such matters of gen eral in ter est as might be thrust upon him in the in terim. He at once took his re sponsi bility most seri ously, acquainted himself with the in ner work ings of the boards, com mit tees and synods so far as he was able, and planted himself firmly on the doctrines and prin ci ples of the Gen eral Coun cil as laid down by the fathers, deter mined to keep true to their aims and ideals. This be came appar ent when, two years later, at the Coun cil meet ing in Milwau kee, he presented his first re port. It covered twenty pages of that year’s minutes and was the most exhaus tive presen ta tion that had yet been made before the Gen eral Coun cil. He was set ting a new prece dent and enlar g ing greatly the scope of the duties and services pertain ing to the office. What is sig nif i cant in this first re port is that it fore casts his later undy ing loy alty to the Gen eral Coun cil and what it stood for. He is conscious that he has set before himself a larger task than his prede ces sors seemed willing to

190 assume; for af ter defin ing what he conceives to be the high call ing and mission of the General Coun cil, he says:

Your Pres i dent, be lieving that it is far more pos si ble in this gen er a- tion than it was at the begin ning, to rely on a united and loyal Lutheran conscious ness in the Gen eral Coun cil; and believ ing also that it will beco me in creas ingly more neces sary as the years pass to keep the body in living touch with its funda men tal prin ci ples; and be- lieving that this is the main work of the Presi dent apart from guid ing busi ness delib er ations; has taken this po si tion in the present re port. If the po si tion is a mistaken one, he trusts and knows that the Gen eral Coun cil will de clare its judgment.

In this re port there were twenty dis tinct items, several of consid er able im- portance, to which the at ten tion of the Coun cil was di rected. Among them were diffi cul ties that had arisen in the For eign Mis sion field, the question of marriage and di vorce, mod ern evange lism and the Coun cil’s at ti tude to ward it, and the subje ct of Ameri can Civic Right eousness, concern ing which he quotes what Presi dent Roo sevelt said in praise of the Ameri can Lutheran Church as the conser vator of a sturdy and vir tu ous type of Amer i canism.

A Procla ma tion

This re port was in re al ity Dr. Schmauk’s proclama tion of what he in tended to stand for. It was his in ter preta tion of the Gen eral Coun cil’s mis sion as a leaven of genuine Lutheranism in its truest Ameri can essence and char acter . He wrote as one deeply conscious of “the rapid passing away” of the Coun- cil’s founders, tak ing account of “the rapid change in person al ity which is com ing over our body,” by call ing to mind the deaths of three ex-pres i dents during the bi enn ium (Mold enke, Swenson, Seiss). Of the orig i nal del ega- tion that went to Fort Wayne to orga nize the Gen eral Coun cil in 1867, only three or four re mained in the land of the living. “To await the com ing of the half century before tak ing any festal ret ro spect into the past, might deprive us of those vene r able founders whom God has spared unto this day,” and it fol lowed nat u rally that the com mit tee on Presi dent’s Re port should rec om- mend the cel ebra tion of the for ti eth anniver sary in 1907. The se ri ous ill ness

191 of Drs. Wei d ner and Geissinger and the absence of Drs. Krotel and Haas because of ill ness, as well as the death of Dr. Seip of Muhlen berg College, weighed heavily on his mind. Then af ter stat ing that, while men die, the Gen eral Coun cil it self does not die, he quotes what for mer pres i dents — Schaef fer , Kro tel, Krauth and Spaeth— have in ter preted the mission of the Coun cil to be. With this as his in tro duction, he sets forth what he himself believes is its true char acter and mission. As it explains his at ti tude to ward the General Coun cil, and the great questions and is sues with which it was confronted during the seven teen years of his admin is tra tion as pres i dent, his decla ra tion must find a place in this bi og ra phy. It is the gauge by which his whole later life and ac tivity must be mea sured.

“The One Con ser va tive Lutheran Body”

The fu ture work of the Gen eral Coun cil will devolve more and more upon the second gener ation, and by them and by all Luther ans in this land, two facts should not be forgot ten:

The first is this, that the Gen eral Coun cil is the one conser vati ve Lutheran body in this country , accept ing un re servedly both the Con- fes sions and the his tory of the Church. As over against any rad i cal- ism, which would cut away the Con fes sional full ness of our Lutheran Church, or which would make a syncretis tic com bi nation between parts of our her itage and other doctri nal el ements in America which are not our own, the Gen eral Coun cil stands firmly for the com plete and con cordant sum of Lutheran truth. With equal firm ness does it accept and build upon the his tor i cal past, both in Eu rope and in this country , and avoid that other rad i cal ism which, in stead of purg ing the hay, straw and stub ble from the old founda tions, would begin, without just recog ni tion of the good that is in the past, to erect, by means of an exclu sive eccle si asti cal orga ni zation, a new Lutheranism, without re gard to any pre vi ous or con tempo rary work of Prov i dence in the land.

The Gen eral Coun cil is not chiefly constrained to preserve its own orga ni zation, or to subserve the devel op ment or preser vation of any

192 school of the ol ogy, of any body of em i grants, or of any strain of blood. Its professed purpose from the begin ning has been to build upon the founda tion of pure doctrine a true and Catholic Lutheran Church, with no desire for the rule of any school of the ol ogy, or any eccle si asti cal party.

This gives the Gen eral Coun cil its ecu menical char acter and outlook, and its safe and central hold upon the fu ture. It accepts the one founda tion solely and un re servedly, and upon this it devotes it self to the up building of our Church in this land. It recog nizes all the good in the his tor i cal devel op ment of the past; and rec og nizes the evil also; but it re fuses to destroy the good in or der that it may thereby be enabled to burn out the evil.

The at ti tude of Luther to ward the Catholic Church in the Six teenth Cen tury is the at ti tude of the General Coun cil to ward all forms of Lutheranism to day. It would conserve the past and up build the fu ture on the basis of a sound faith. Its depth is the depth of sal vation which is in Jesus Christ. Its length is the length of his tory, and its breadth is the breadth of our own land and our own time.

Then fol low rea sons why the General Coun cil “is here to stay.” While he real izes that its orga ni zation is neces sar ily lack ing in com pact ness and sol i- darity be cause of the several racial el ements com posing the body, because of “appar ently contra dic tory in ter ests” repre sented in it, he believes the Gen eral Coun cil to be the one Lutheran body that is best adapted to weld to gether the vari ous Lutheran synods and prevent them from drift ing into a type of partic u lar is tic and sectar ian life which is for eign to the true genius of Lutheranism. He says:

The weak ness of in depen dent and di vided Lutheran congre ga tions and Syn ods in this country is a warn ing in the his tory of the past. The in effec tiveness of In ter synod i cal Con fer ences, conducted out side of any di rec tion or re sponsi bility — which in deed were proposed as a substi tute for the orga ni zation of the Gen eral Coun cil in 1866, and which the Gen eral Coun cil then op posed as such — has been demon- strated from the ear li est his tory of these dis pu ta tions in the Lutheran Church down to the very latest.

193 The gen eral body, on the basis of the pure Con fes sions, such as we have in the Gen eral Coun cil it self, meets the case of the Lutheran Church in this land. Few of us can re al ize the great loss that would come to ourselves, to the whole Lutheran Church and to the Protes- tant Church through out the world, if this fabric of our fa thers were to perish.

The Gen eral Coun cil’s At ti tude To ward Mod- ern Evan ge lism

A letter had been addressed to him re quest ing a state ment from him as to the Gen eral Coun cil’s po si tion on the question of evange lism, and the answer is em bod ied in the re port. It fore casts the at ti tude he later took to ward re vivalis tic movements and emo tional evange lism in general, and his stren- u ous efforts to off set this ten dency in Ameri can Protes tantism by stressing the need of an edu cational evang elism. It presents the Lutheran view on this question which reads as follows:

We Luther ans believe that every pastor is an Evan gelist, and that in ev ery ser mon the Law and the Gospel is to be proclaimed for the awak ening and sal vation of lost sin ners. It is within the scope of our Church to make provi sion for daily and special ser vices for the effec- tive preaching of the Gospel to the lost. There is no Church in all Chris ten dom that so faith fully and contin u ously and regu larly warns sin ners and sets forth the grace of God and the sal vation that is in Christ Je sus.

But it is true Gospel, as we teach it, that is to be preached in our parishes. It is those who hold ‘the office of teaching the Gospel and admin is ter ing the Sacra ments’ (Augs burg Con fes sion V) on whom this work is to fall. The duty of evange liz ing the world at home and abroad is not a special, in ter mit tent, and spasmodic function of the Church, arising sponta neously and ir regu larly in peri ods of pub lic excite ment, with agencies of minis tra tion cre ated out side of the reg u lar bounds of the Church, and sub sid ing again when the wave of emo- tional excite ment has passed over the country and spent it self. On the

194 other hand, it is a constant part of the regu lar work of the Church to be at tended to, like all other work of the Church, in an or derly way, and by those duly called to the ‘office.’

To Luther ans, then. Evan gelism , or saving the sin ner and the world by the power of the Gospel, is not a series of mixed meet ings conducted un der the auspices of a union of tempo rar ily united but perma nently di vergent sects, by one who proclaims the Word of God with no regu lar call, and who fol lows up the proclama tion with the use of agencies and systems of reach ing the in di vid ual which our Church cannot approve; but Evan gelism is the regu lar pub lic proclama tion ‘by the fool ish ness of preach ing,’ of the saving Word of God, the Law and the Gospel, at daily and fes ti val ser vices, and on all suitable occa sions, by the Lutheran pastor or Mis sion ary properly called to this work; and the fol low ing up of the pub lic proclama tion with faith ful and contin u ous pastoral effort.

The Lutheran Church does not find it neces sary to in augu rate special and ir regu lar evange lis tic meet ings in a congre ga tion or parish in or der to stimu late the flag ging in ter est of church members luke warm and about to fall away. While such members abound with us, yet the faith ful use of our regu lar means, and hon est la bor un der our nor mal concep tion of jus ti fi cation, re gener ation, conver sion and sanc ti fi cation, which is so much more true, and so far supe rior , in its bear ings on the in ner life, to the loose, current views of Chris tianity , are our most effec tive means of bring ing the fall ing member back into a state of grace.

I am re fer ring to the Lutheran doctrine that the Chris tian life is a daily re pentance and daily faith. Whereas ‘Modern’ Evan gelism, like old-time re vivalism, is in clined to make the turn ing point from the world to be an ir regu lar and so to say chance mo ment, occur ring once or at rare in ter vals in the life of the in di vid ual; the Lutheran doctrine of the daily turn ing from sin, and the daily turn ing to Christ, is im- mea surably supe rior as a true power in the appli ca tion of the saving Gospel both to the un awak ened sin ner with out the Church and also to the gradu ally de caying soul within.

195 If the Lutheran Church is not doing her duty in the mat ter of Evan- gelism, it is because she is not properly using the most po tent means, regu larly in heren t in her nature and her consti tu tional mode of op er a- tion, ever given to any Church for this pur pose.

With the in crease of extra-ec cle si asti cal agencies and orga ni zations, not regu larly connected with the Chris tian Church; and with no lawful power of the keys com mit ted to them; with no author ity of ar- range ment for the exer cise of dis ci pline over speakers, or peo ple; with no method of bring ing home to the converts, not only the comfort but also the re sponsi bili ties of the Chris tian life; with no reg u lar provi sion for the confes sion of sins and for the admin is tra tion of the Sacra ments; with no organic method for appor tion ing and bring ing the awak ened to the regu lar minis tra tions of the Word and Sacra- ments; ‘mod ern’ Evan gelis tic work as an extra-ec cle si asti cal in stitu- tion will, in the long run, prove to be of question able value to Chris- tianity for ‘adding to the Church daily such as should be saved’ (Acts 2:47).

That the new Pres i dent had not overstepped the lim its in break ing prece- dents and present ing so com plete and com prehen sive a re port was in di cated by his re election as pres i dent. The Commit tee on Presi dent’s Re port gave expres sion to the same high opin ion of the Presi dent as a trusted and capa- ble offi cer in the fol low ing para graph of its re port: “In answer to the question of the Presi dent concern ing the functions of his office, espe cially in the matter of his offi cial re port, your com mit tee rec om mends as answer , that the present re port, in the wideness of its scope and the full ness of its detail, in re fer ring to the matters of vi tal in ter est to the doctrine and life of the Church and to civic right eousness, gives to this body the demon stration of a sat is fac tory in ter preta tion of the consti tu tional functions of his office in bring ing to the Coun cil’s no tice top ics for most timely and prof itable consid er ation.”

What Was Be hind The Procla ma tion

196 There was a rea son why the new Presi dent’s first re port partook of the char- acter of a confes sion of his faith in the para graphs quoted. His corre spondence af ter the meet ing of the Gen eral Con fer ence of Luther ans in Pitts- burgh, April 5-7, 1904, as well as an edi to rial in the July Re view, show that he was appre hen sive of a ten dency among cer tain schol ars within the Gen- eral Coun cil to yield some what to the ra tional is tic at ti tude of the nega tive crit ics to ward the Scrip tures. When at that meet ing the question of in spi ration was dis cussed, cer tain state ments were made which leaned in the di rection of the well-known dic tum, that the Scrip tures contain the Word of God but may not be spoken of as being the Word of God. A letter to Dr. Kro tel re veals a deep feeling of depres sion. In it he speaks of being “over powered by a sense of loneli ness and help lessness” as he believed himself to be standing al most alone in counter act ing with schol arly methods and argu- ments the leaven of the Higher Crit i cism that seemed to be work ing its way into the Gen eral Coun cil, as he and oth ers feared. He at the same time re al ized that in the Lutheran Church in this country , there was a dis po si tion on the part of most of its the olo gians and pastors to rest sat is fied with the po si tion of the teachers and dog mati cians of past gener ations and a dis in clina tion to keep abreast of the newer schol ar ship of the day so as to be able to counter act its ten dencies and dangers. He felt that few or none were capa ble of support ing him in stand ing for the defense of the for mal prin ci ple of the Refor ma tion with out in curring the charge of being ig no rant of the problems in volved in the crit i cal study of the Bible. He deplored the in differ ence of many bright minds in the Lutheran Church who rested sat is fied with being simply or tho dox and who did not re al ize the dangers of un prepared ness to meet the rad i cal ism of the neg ative crit ics. As much crit i cism of cer tain loose state ments during the dis cussion on in spi ra tion had come to his ears (for he himself was not present at the time), he felt that the Gen eral Coun cil must em brace the ear li est op portu nity to place it self on record as still stand ing by the decla ra tion of its founders, that the Scrip tures are “in errant in let ter, fact and doctrine,” as the consti tu tion states. What could be more cond ucive to a re asser tion of the Coun cil’s faith as re lated to this and other imp or tant questions than the cel ebra tion of its For ti eth Anniver sary? He was thus look ing for ward two years for a clear and unequiv o cal reaffir ma tion of that faith.

197 Soon af ter the Pitts burgh Con fer ence, he prepared a series of nine ar ti- cles for The Lutheran on “Inspi ra tion at Pitts burgh,” but as he and the Ed i- tor agreed, that they might cre ate the impres sion that the men who had made the un guarded state ments at Pitts burgh were al ready dwelling in the tents of the nega tive crit ics, they were not pub lished. It was deemed best to dis cuss the matter in the July Re view, in which appeared an ar ti cle by Dr. Lean der Keyser and an edi to rial by Dr. Schmauk. The crucial point was the decla ra tion which had been made, that “Christ is pri mary, and the doctrine of in spi ra tion secondary .” In a letter to Dr. Keyser he com mends him for his answer to that state ment, which reads: “Do men who speak and write in that way re al ize that the Christ they exalt is only an ideal Christ, and not the his tor i cal Christ?” The point made was simply , where but in the Scrip- tures do we know of Christ? If the Scriptures, in spite of many tex tual er rors that have been and are being corrected, but which do not aff ect its substance, are not in fal li ble, even to its very words, — if we must be un cer tain there — what guaran tee have we that we know a real, his toric Christ? To quote Luther and place him among the subjec tive nega tive crit ics of mod ern times, when both he and the later dog mati cians merely rested on the Scrip- tures and were not wor ried by any me chani cal or any equiv o cal defi ni tion of in spi ration, was to read six teenth century thought through twenti eth century glasses. But for that Pitts burgh Con fer ence, the re port of the Presi dent at the Mil- wau kee Coun cil would have read differ ently. Yea more, the Buff alo Coun cil that fol lowed would not have struck the high note of confes sion al ism it did, had not the soul of its Presi dent been stirred to the depth for fear of a drift away from the faith into the shoals and quick sands of ratio nal ism.

198 13 - The Confes sional High-Wa- ter Mark (1907)

"It is not to us to re set the course of his tory by our fee ble fiat. Union in spirit and in truth is not re ally promoted by clever me chani cal contrivance, or by bal anced doctri nal com promise. Union ists are not tak ing the truly ru- inous ram by the horns, in proposing to elim i nate doctri nal dis tinc tiveness. The ol ogy is not the horrid scape goat that men make her out to be. The trou- ble is not in the bones of doctrine, but in the blood of life. You need to breed a bet ter stock in the fold, sir. A few centuries of gentle breed ing will bring more union than an eternity of blow ing. It is the moral blemishes that keep the bones of doctrine sore. It is the quantity of blemish, not the quantity of bone, that needs to be re duced.

SCHMAUK

IF THE PRE LUDE of Dr. Schmauk’s admin is tra tion as Presi dent was played at Milwau kee, the grand sym phony was made to peal forth at the For ti eth Annive r sary of the Gen eral Coun cil in 1907 at Buffalo. An elab o- rate program, “with al most as many speakers as there were years in the Gen eral Coun cil’s History ,” as Dr. Horn re marked, had to be prepared; and in addi tion to Dr. C. T. Benze’s elab o rate the ses on the Scrip tures, the Coun cil was asked by its pres i dent to put it self on record on the question of coop er ation and fel low ship with non-Luther ans; on the re la tions between the Gen eral Coun cil and the General Synod, for which Dr. Jacobs was asked to prepare the ses; on the question of reaffirm ing in no un cer tain tones the doctri nal ba sis on which the Coun cil was founded. This con vention was designed to reach the high-water mark of confes- sion al ism in the Coun cil’s his tory af ter the event ful meet ing at Fort Wayne in 1867. To cel ebrate such an anniver sary with out re produc ing in clear and

199 dis tinct tones the confes sional mu sic of the fa thers not only at Fort Wayne, but as far back as 1530 at Augsbur g and later in 1580, at Bergen, would have been like render ing Bach’s Passion with the Cross left out. And so it happened that un der the lead er ship of its Presi dent, the Buffalo Coun cil was asked to walk about its Zion, to consider well her bul warks and tore-explore her foun dations. “Christ All and In All” was the theme of his ser mon. He found Christ in the Scrip tures, Christ in the Con fes sions, Christ in the Gen- eral Coun cil, and Christ in the heart of the Be liever.

“Christ In The Gen eral Coun cil”

“Christ is our all in the Gen eral Coun cil. We rec og nize no vis i ble head but Christ, and demand the in vis i bility of the vi tal unity of the Church un til Christ Himself shall again appear to be our vis i ble Lord. His own living Head ship and Person is the supreme control ling unity of our rich di vin ity. As a Gen eral Coun cil we are but a vol un tary vis i ble broth er hood in the unity of the one faith in Him; who places general orga ni zation at the dis- posal of the congre ga tions, and the Word. We are not a Di vine In stitu tion, except as Prov i dence has brought us into being. That there are mul ti tudes of sound Luther ans who have built upon the first of the Lutheran Con fes sions only, and who have not come to a conscious ness of the neces sit y of plac ing the com plete Lutheran Con fes sion at their base; and that there have been many such Luther ans from the start, from the Six teenth Cen tury down, the Gen eral Coun cil does not deny. But it believes, in the spirit of a conser vative dev el op ment as guided by the Holy Spirit, that where, in all ages of the Chris tian Church, God has raised up good men to enrich, enlar ge and ful fill confes sional truth and churchly praxis, there it behooves us their heirs and succes sors, to accept the full ness of the Spirit’s devel op ment, and not merely the first rudi ments, however deter mina tive these rudi ments may be, and that it is our duty to re ject only that in a full confes sional heritage which will not stand the test of the Holy Scrip tures, the only rule of faith and life. And again: the Gen eral Coun cil does not deny, but posi tively believes, that there are good Chris tians scattered through out the whole world, from the ris ing to the set ting of the sun, and in all churches and denom i nations, who are God’s children, and who are truly believ ing and right eous men. And its guarded pu rity of teaching, and strictness of dis ci plinary orga-

200 ni zation is not in tended to dis in herit these saints who are in the true Church of Christ, but is in tended as a wit ness against here sies and schisms; against er rors of teaching and praxis in the preach ing of God’s pure Word and the pure adm in is tra tion of Christ’s own Sacra ments in the earthly orga ni zations in which these saints (for consci entious, hered i tary or worse rea sons) move and live; in or der that the Word of Christ may be ful filled, that the Church of Christ as the Body of Christ, and the bride of Christ, and the pillar of Christ’s truth, that the Gospel of Christ, which is able to bring confes sion and offer abso lu tion to the lost soul, be conserved and used. This it is which renders Christ to be all and in all in the Gen eral Coun cil.” The keynote of the Con vention, giv ing expres sion to ’ his faith in the Gen eral Coun cil and its mission was struck in that part of his re port where he speaks of the Coun cil as stand ing for a

Catholic Lutheranism

With the orig i nal “Call” as his text he proceeds to in ter pret it for the Coun- cil of to day. “We are not mov ing in this matter on doubt ful grounds,” says the Call.

With our com mu nion of mil lions scattered over a vast ter ri tory, with the cease less tide of immi g ra tion, with the di versity of surround- ing usag es and re li gious life, with our need of minis ters, our im perfect prov i sion for the urgent wants of the Church, there is danger that the genu inely Lutheran el ements may become alien ated, that the narrow and lo cal may overcome the broad and general, that the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace may be lost, and that our Church, which alone in the his tory of Protes tantism has maintained a gen uine catholicity and unity, should drift into the sectar i anism and sepa- ratism which charac ter ize and curse our land.

Dr. Schmauk then gives his in ter preta tion of the “Call” in the fol low ing words:

Now af ter a whole gener ation has sped away, can we not see the counter part in fact, in this body which is meet ing here, and of which we are repre senta tives to day, and which is scattered over the whole of

201 North America, to that pic ture drawn by the pen of those God-given men who felt impelled by rea sons of the gravest kind to assume the seri ous re sponsi bility of first orga niz ing this body?

We cann ot be suffi ciently thank ful for what God put in their minds to do, and for the devel op ment that fol lowed upon their effort. Their success has been beyond what a sober view of the situ ation would have deemed proba ble. The nature of the case re ally hinted at failure in this bold at tempt. The mar vel is, that among Ger mans, Scan di navians and Eng lish, such a body, beauti fully wrought to gether, magnif- i cent in strength and propor tion s, should have been possi ble at all. The mar vel is that the Gen eral Coun cil did not go to pieces befo re the first ten years had fled — and that it did not, is not of our effort; it is the Lord’s doing.

Whether the sound doctrine will suffi ciently prevail, and his tor i- cal, racial, and other in di vid ual consid er ations will suffi ciently decline, to enable the true Lutheran Church of our land, stand ing completely on its great confes sional founda tions, ever to em brace all Luther ans in America is a question which no hu man being can answer. God has not led Chris tianity it self in any such uni versal path as yet. There has al ways been the Church of the East and the Church of the West. Since the days of the Refor ma tion, Protes tantism it self, es- pecially , has been di vided. It has not been able to solve the question of uni versal ity, and the char acte r of the means with which it has been tak ing hold of that problem re cently will ul ti mately re tard rather than fur ther the solu tion. But so far as Lutheranism it self is concerned, contrary to the pre vailing Amer i can view of it, as di vided into many sects, all our gen eral orga ni zations have done wonders within the last gener ation to bring or der out of chaos, strength out of weak ness, and the effec tive appli ca tion of power out of a pri mal and in di vid u al is tic confu sion.

We cannot be suffi ciently thank ful to the founders of the Gen eral Coun cil for the nature of the taber nacle which they bequeathed to us and in which they provided for liberty and union, now and for ever, one and in sepa ra ble. Ours is a Lutheranism too broad to be em braced

202 in any lan guage. Ours is a Lutheranism which is not nationa l, but conti nental and inter national.

The Lutheran Church is as broad as the world. It is not a national Church, but is like the roll of the British drum-beat. Histor y has shown that it fur nishes the best and most patri otic citi zens and the bravest defend ers of the flag for any nation; but, as a Church, we are foster ing not nation al ism, but an in ter national spirit. Our Sav ior said, ‘Go ye out into dill the world.’ He said, ‘Ye shall be wit nesses both in Jerusalem and unto the ut ter most parts of the earth.’ That is the spirit of the Coun cil.

This spirit is em bedded in its very ti tle, ‘The Church in North America.’ We are a broader stream than the stream of any race, and are ready to greet hand in hand the children of the pure faith from the ris ing of the sun to the go ing down thereof. Let us then make our many nation al i ties and our nu mer ous sectional feelings and activ i ties which, by nature, are a source of weak ness, to be, by grace, an in stru- men tality of power. If our in ter national char acter be a cause of slow- ness and diffi cul ties, let it also become unto us a great source of strength, our joy and our pride.

The Gen eral Coun cil And The Scrip tures

Since doubts had been raised as to the soundness of the Gen eral Coun cil’s po si tion with re spect to the “neg ative crit i cism” in its at ti tude to ward the Holy Scrip tures, the Buffalo Con vention must declare it self in no equiv o cal terms, and the fol low ing decla ra tion appears in Pres i dent Schmauk’s re port:

Since it has been asserted that the Gen eral Coun cil is weak ening in the doctrine of the Scrip tures, un der the in flu ence of the Higher Criti cism; and since these prin ci ples are do ing so much in the Amer i- can churches to dis in te grate faith in the letter and the spirit of the Scrip tures, I rec om mend that we reaffirm our po si tion, and declare that the Gen eral Coun cil holds now as ever to the old teaching of the fa thers, that the Holy Scrip tures are in errant in letter , fact and doctrine; as our Con stitu tion and Prin ci ples of Faith maintain: ‘The abso-

203 lute di rectory of the will of Christ is the Word of God, the Canon i cal Scrip tures, by which Scrip tures the Church is to be guided in every deci sion. She may set forth no ar ti cle of faith which is not taught by the very letter of God’s Word, or derived by just and neces sary in fer- ence from it, and her liberty con cerns those things only which are left free by the let ter and spirit of God’s Word.’

We affirm that we have not given way by a hair’s breadth to the ra tional ism, or the ra tional iz ing spirit, of the Higher Criti cism; nor will we al low er rant hu man reason to be the judge of what is and what is not God’s Word in the Scrip tures. Not only the reve la tion and its record, but the his tory and its record, the whole Scrip ture, in spirit and let ter, is inspired.

To us the Scrip tures are God’s writ ten Word, as preach ing is the spoken Word; and this writ ten Word, though it was, and must and should be thor oughly tested by our poor hu man rea son, is grasped and accepted by our faith as it is, and as above us, even where not com prehended by rea son; or where appar ently imper iled by the mo- men tary consen sus of a mod ern sci entific or his tor i cal schol ar ship. The Scrip tures are our only and in fal li ble rule; and our rule is so trust wor thy, and our faith in it so abso lute and supreme that, while sci ence and his tory are contin u ously passing away, we know by faith that one jot or one tit tle shall in no wise pass from the Scrip tures till all be fulfilled."

On Co op er a tion With The Gen eral Synod

Long before the Buffalo Con vention, Dr. Schmauk sought to estab lish closer re la tions with the Gen eral Synod. He and Dr. Dunbar , neigh boring pastors in Lebanon, strove to ar range for a com mon Graded Se ries of Sun- day School Lessons for both bod ies. Plans were defi nitely laid by them for such a possi ble out come at the meet ing of the Gen eral Synod in 1901 at Dubuque, Iowa. But when an effort was made by the Pa cific Synod to estab lish a union Theo log i cal Sem i nary on the Pa cific Coast and the Gen eral Synod later at Sun bury had autho rized its Board of Ed u cation to give it sup-

204 port “provided the confes sional basis of the proposed sem i nary conforms to that of the Gen eral Synod,” he felt that the time had come to get clear on the question of confes sional subscrip tion, and a clear state ment appears in his re port bearing on this point. Dr. Jaco bs was accord ingly asked to prepare the ses, com paring the bases of faith of the two bod ies. Dr. Schmauk believed that the only sure way of get ting closer to gether was frankly to face confes sional differ ences. Calmly but firmly, with char ity to ward all and malice to ward none, the po si tion of the General Coun cil as over against that of the Gen eral Synod, with whose his tory its own had been much in ter linked, was stated in so thor ough and admirable a man ner by Dr. Jacobs as to rank among the finest expo si tions of its kind ever made. The dis cussions on them were noted both for their candor and their irenic spirit. It was a try ing hour for Dr. Keyser, the fra ter nal vis i tor of the Gen eral Synod, and a del i cate mission for him to ful fill. But the Presi dent saw to it that he should be given every op portu nity to ful fill it, and he did it with great credit. With so much confe ssional electric ity in the air, it was diffi cult to dis cover just what wires it was safe to touch; but Dr. Keyser knew the com bi nations well and won to himself a host of friends and admir ers. In the Lutheran World of Sep tember 26, 1907, Dr. Keyser writes as follows:

Presi dent Schmauk knows how to rush busi ness. While he is uni- formly courte ous and fair, so far as we could see, he knows how to ‘rail road’ (this word is used in the good sense) a mea sure through when it would be useless to spend time in debat ing. He has quite a fac ulty for get ting rid of the ‘adi aphora’ both in busi ness and in doctrine. Some times he cuts off a member a lit tle shortly, but we suppose the mem bers of the Gen eral Coun cil know him to be so large-hearted and gener ous that they do not seem to take offense.

He then contin ues:

No doubt Gen eral Synod read ers will be chiefly concerned to know what kind of a re ception was accorded to the fra ter nal vis i tor from that body. We can truly say that we were treated with much

205 courtesy . As soon as there was a lit tle breathing spell in the busi ness af ter our ar rival, we were in tro duced with the kindli est expres sions possi ble by the pastor loci. Dr. Kaehler, and the Pres i dent, Dr. Schmauk, and by a hearty vote were accorded the priv i lege of the floor in the sessions. Be fore the time for our fra ter nal greetin gs ar- rived, a stir ring question in volv ing the Gen eral Synod arose, when Dr. Schmauk courte ously called upon us to speak, not wait ing for us to re quest the priv i lege of giv ing the Gen eral Synod’s side of the case. Af ter wards, when ever a matter pertain ing to the Gen eral Synod arose, the Presi dent called upon us to give our tes ti mony. Once on Tuesday , when we had stepped out of the audi to rium into the church parlors for a few minutes, the question of the re la tion of the Gen eral Synod and the Gen eral Coun cil came up. Dr. Schmauk sent an urgent mes sage for us to come at once into the main room to hear and take part in the dis cussion. All our speeches were listened to with the ut- most re spect, even when we would see signs of dis agree ment. In his re sponse to our greetings the pres i dent paid us a personal trib ute that we mod estly felt was quite un mer ited. In deed, we were so fa vor ably impressed with the spir i tu al ity, earnestness, schol ar ship and cour tesy of the mem bers of the Gen eral Coun cil that we could not help feeling the in tens est long ing that there might be the ut most friendli ness, confi dence and co op er ation between that body and the General Synod.

You may rely upon it, brethren, that this was one of the main causes, perhaps the main cause, of the diffi culty. It was those crit i- cisms on the For mula of Con cord that cre ated, in the main, the du bi- ous feeling, and that among the lead ers of the Gen eral Coun cil. We cite this in ci dent as proof: In our address we expressed strong personal appre ci atio n of all the Sym bols of the Church, though we care- fully re frained from saying that we thought all of them ought to be subscribed to confes sion ally. In his brief and apt re ply to our ad dress. Dr. Schmauk, the Presi dent of the Gen eral Coun cil, declared that if we could assure them that all our minis ters and the olo gians occu pied the same friendly at ti tude to ward the Church Sym bols, ‘there would be no trou ble.’ That one sentence, spoken impromptu, threw a flood of light on the situ ation. The fact is, it told the whole story.

206 The dis tance from that scene to another at Washing ton, D. C, in 1911, when the Gen eral Synod brought its confes sional basis into harmony with that of the General Coun cil and thus prepared the way for the union in 1918, was not great — even if a lit tle tor tu ous. Thus did Buffalo, un der the lead er ship of Dr. Schmauk, become the start ing point for the jour ney that led to New York. The candor that faces differ ences in stead of conceaHng them is the only true friend of unity and con cord. More than once in his letters did Dr. Schmauk ex press him self to that effect.

On Co-Op er a tion With Other Chris tians

As the subject of coop er ation with the Fed eral Coun cil of Churches was sprung upon him during the bi ennium, he believed it wise to define the at ti- tude of the Gen eral Coun cil upon this question, and the fol low ing state ment appears in his report:

The Gen eral Coun cil bears an open and lov ing and help ful, not a closed, at ti tude to ward those with out, i. e., to ward those seeking the truth, or who up hold hon est convic tions in the fear of God and with un corrupt will. It is the nature of our body to be patient, bear ing all things, having plea sure in approval rather than in condem nation; in concord rather than in dis cord. The first of our Con fes sions— that of Augs burg — and the last, the Form of Con cord, in substanc e and tone, and our own his tory, are set in evi dence on that point. We are willing and anxious to coop er ate for the saving of souls and the up- building of Christ’s king dom with all of God’s children where so ever they be found.

Yet we are preve nted from coop er at ing if thereby an in jury is done to our con science; or if we thereby com promise one iota of our most precious treasure, for which we have been called into exis tence; a treasure which is blood-bought, and above all price; and for which thou sands of confes sors have laid down home, friends, worldly success and life.

This treasure is the pure doctrine of sal vation. With those to whom the pu rity of the faith, the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, means much,

207 will we walk up to the point where both conclude we must part. But with those to whom the pu rity of the faith means lit tle, or less than all — less than friendship, blood, prac ti cal success, the spirit of the age, and sim i lar consid er ations — we are always in danger . Our chief treasure they do not so highly re gard, and we cannot entrust it to them with the feeling that it is safe. They place other things on a par with this treasure, or above it, and this is a case where no man can have two mas ters: for ei ther he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and de spise the other.

Since we exist solely for the sake of the pure Gospel princi ple, and all other things are subor di nate, even our best friends with out (and still less our ene mies) cannot ask us to com mit ourselves to as soci a- tion with any people, plan, teachings, or temper a ment which would derogate from our doctrine; or which would convey the impres sion to the wayfar ing man that we have loos ened our hold and re laxed our stan dard of the truth.

Wher ever we can work with a com mon Chris tianity , or with a com mon Lutheranism, with the assur ance that no harm, imme di ate or re mote, will come to our one great purpose of tes ti mony to the truth, or to our in tegrity of conscience , we are ready to do so with joy; but wher ever we are in doubt as to such a happy is sue— and we must be our own judges— it is right and rea sonable for us to decline to run any risk of expo sing our high est good to danger , for the sake of at- taining a lower and less impor t ant good; and no one in his fair and hon est heart can blame us for fail ing to join in such a com mon movement.

We do at tach the greatest impor tance to every Word of God; but we do not at tach the greatest impor tance, except as a matter of high ideal, effec tive work, and wise expe di ency, to unity of exter nal eccle- si asti cal orga ni zation. Our un willing ness to coop er ate with oth ers, if it be an hon est and consci entiou s thing, is not to be taken as a sign of dead or tho doxy, but as a sign of a living faith; it is not to be re garded as an evi dence of a narrow out look, but as a willing ness to stand by one’s con vic tions; it is not to be branded as a love of denom i nation or

208 of Church above Christ; but is to be re spected as an unswerv ing loy- alty to Christ and His truth as we see it.

If this be true, we are in a po si tion to lay down a safe and impreg- nable rule for co op er ation on the part of the Gen eral Coun cil, viz., ‘The Gen eral Coun cil can coop er ate in all matters in which it can openly ap ply its Fun damen tal Prin ci ples of Faith and Polity as a basis; and only in these.’

That this qual ity of a pa tient and open mind on the one hand, and a firm grasp on truth on the other, re ally char acter izes the Gen eral Coun cil may be seen in its his tory.

This nat u rally led to a fur ther question as to what was in volved in the much-talked-of fel low ship among Chris tians of differ ent shades of belief and a fur ther state ment is made on “The Prin ci ple Of Fel low ship”

Fel low ship is a far more in ti mate thing than coop er ation. Co op er a- tion is a com bined support in prose cu tion of a busi ness plan; but fellow ship is a life to gether. Co op er ation is a lim ited asso ci ation for def- i nite ends; but fel low ship is an un lim ited asso ci ation in spir i tual life. Fel low ship throws open all the doors, un locks all the strong boxes, and bids the other one abide in our soul and heart.

Modern Chris tianity greatly abuses the prin ci ple of fel low ship; and in so far destroys both its value and its sacred ness. On the grounds of a broad hu man ity it would admit even those to the heart of the Church who despise the pre cious mer its of the Head of the Church.

Within recent years it has becom e custom ary in sectar ian America for Christians to wor ship God on cer tain great and pub lic oc casions in com mon with those who deny the name of Christ.

It will thus be seen that large and far-reach ing questions were brought to the fore by this ene rgetic and broad-visioned pres i dent — question s that gave him much thought and concern and that later absorbed his strength and en-

209 ergies to such an extent as ul ti mately to lead him to a prema ture death. He opened the flood gates at the Buffalo Con vention and was car ried far afield in the on rush of the wa ters in his endeavor to stem the tide and hold the Coun cil true to its faith and prin ci ples.

Se ri ous Losses By Death

Previ ous to the meet ing of the Buffalo Coun cil, he was called upon to mourn the loss by death of his mother, who had passed away May 5, 1906. This left a void that was keenly felt. It is doubt ful whether any son at his age could have leaned more con fid ingly and depen dently upon a mother than did he. What she was to him, he gave expres sion to un der “Sun day School Notes” in The Lutheran in the follow ing words:

Sun day School Notes

In memo ry of a mother, who re ceived with meek ness the Word of God, not as the word of men, but as it is in truth the Word of God, which is able to save our souls; who taught and trained as only a mother can train and teach out of the love of her own heart and in the contin u ous sacr i fice of her own life; and on whom her children leaned heavily to the end, for strength in fi delity to the old Gospel and to duty, for fear lessness in danger , caution in diffi cul ties, pa tience in trial, com fort in weak ness, and for counsel and welcome in every hour. Good mother, who hast listened and loved and clung with all thy soul to them whom God gave unto thee, thou art more than books to the preacher, more than col leges to the stu dent, more than teacher and systems of edu cation to the child. Thy love is the shel ter and covert for the most precious blossoms and the most ten der grow ing vines of a godly life. Thou art more than all the world, with its vain am bi tion and idle hon ors, to the memory and heart that looks up into the sun shine of thy Christly counte nance.

T. E. S.

Se ri ous losses to the Gen eral Coun cil had also occurred. Among them was the death of his fa ther’s most in ti mate friend. Dr. Kro tel, on whom he had

210 counted to fur nish rem i nis cences at Buffalo of the events lead ing up to the orga ni zation of the Gen eral Coun cil. The prom i nent part he took as head of the Penn syl vania del ega tion and as a conspic u ous leader in the later his tory of the Gen eral Coun cil is noted appre ci at ingly in Dr. Schmauk’s re port. A second loss was that of his genial friend and neigh bor, Dr. Schantz, of My- er stown; a third, that of the re spected and revered Dr. Repass; a fourth, that of the widely known Dr. Geissinger, whose charming, sunny dis po si tion had won for him a host of adm ir ing friends; a fifth, that of Dr. Wm. Ash- mead Schaef fer , “a true scion of an illus tri ous ances try .” It is needless to say that these losses weighed heavily on his mind. All of them were props he had leaned upon.

211 14 - Ad minis tra tive Problems

“Our cen tury is the age of orga nized move ments. There is a so ci ety to ‘pro mote’ nearly every cause un der the sun. But it is still a question whether in the ag gregate our great ‘sys tems’ of activ ity do not ab sorb more precious vi tality than they emit. The words of the sage of Con cord are worth pon dering : ‘We shall one day see that the most pri vate is the most pub lic en ergy, that qual ity atones for quantity , and grandeur of char acter acts in the dark and succors them who never saw it.’”

SCHMAUK

DR. SCHMAUK WAS NOT LONG in dis cover ing that if the Gen eral Coun cil were to be more than a loose and in effi cient confed er ation, it must function as a strong admin is tra tive unit. From the Swedish point of view, who desired it to be a feder ation with advi sory powers only, this would have con tinued to be impos si ble. The field of com mon in ter ests would have been so very much con tracted as to rob the Coun cil of all admin is tra tive and uni fy ing power. This spirit and ten dency within the body had the effect of ar raying the in ter ests of the Coun cil against those of synods and boards and to make the for mer a sort of fifth wheel in the wagon. It was by no means confined to the Swedes, but was fostered and encour aged by prom i nent lead ers in other sections of the general body. Through their in flu ence, the boards and other agencies functioned more or less in depen dently and became a law unto themselves. This caused the Presi dent an endless amount of anx i ety and thrust upon him much un re quited la bor. He was far from be- lieving in central ized power. The ma nia for mere orga ni zation never appealed to him. But he felt the need of a deeper sense of Gen eral Coun cil catholicity and sol i darity . He did not want this body, with an hon or able history beh ind it, to be re garded as a tempo rary makeshift un til it should be ready to lose its iden tity in a new alignment of Lutheran forces in the country.

212 In a letter addressed in 1911 to a lay man, who fa vored greater sol i darity , he quotes a leading mem ber of the Pennsyl vania Min is terium who wrote:

Our people must not be so drawn to Coun cil work as to neglect our Min is terium’s present obliga tions. That is the danger in cer tain centers. We must fight for our own edu cational claims in such centers as Phila del phia and Lan caster . Our Home Mis sion work, neces sary as it is, is al ways press ing oth ers to the wall. We need a larger bal ance and a bet ter adju st ment of all our work. In addi tion, let us be care ful lest our enthu si astic brethren bring about the elim i nation of the Scan- di navians from the Coun cil.

He then comments on it in the fol low ing vein:

This prin ci ple to my mind will para lyze the progress of a whole gener ation. If we are to work in any large way through the Gen eral Coun cil, we must value and build up its orga ni zation. To cher ish it merely as an idea, to be dropped by and by, is to go back into prim i- tive help lessness. There need be no fears, if the time should come for a united Lutheran Church in Amer ica, that a strong orga ni zation of the Gen eral Coun cil would pre vent that. It would not preven t, but would fur ther such a con sum ma tion, when the time is ripe.

A spirit such as this opens the door to destruc tive work by selfi sh in ter ests, in very great crises. We cannot com mand the loy alty of our own best follow ers in a crisis. That is what worries me.

It did worry him beyond mea sure; for he felt that what made other Lutheran bod ies so strong and effi cient was the sense of unity and the spirit of loy alty — the very thing that was lack ing in the Gen eral Coun cil, shot through as it was with sec tional ism and indi vid u al ism. What did much to encour age the sectional and di vi sional spirit in the Gen eral Coun cil was the low-church, or congre ga tional, concep tion of Church polity which was advo cated by lead ing teachers in the Coun cil. To him it seemed as if they left lit tle room for “the general conce p tion of the Lutheran Church as a church; and that we are re duced to the two extremes of a lo cal in di vid ual body called the congre ga tion, and the gener al assem bly

213 of all believ ers, or in vis i ble Church, called the Church.” He so writes to Dr. Kro tel in 1905, before the meet ing of the Milwau kee Coun cil. He further says:

The in depen dence, and in depen dent rights, and in depen dent liber - ties of a sin gle lo cal vis i ble Chris tian congre ga tion, as over against the com mon consent of the churches of the same faith, duly and law- fully ob tained, do not seem to me to have a just exis tence."

While admit ting that the Chris tian congre ga tion is the pri mal and abid ing unity, he in sists that the larger gov ernmen tal unity of a general orga ni zation, which repre sents the lo cal congre ga tions, also has a place in the di vine economy which of ten re ceives scant recog ni tion. In this same letter , which is of con sid er able length, he proceeds to show that the Con fes sions use the word “Church,” not only to des ig nate “the in vis i ble body of Christ” on the one hand and the lo cal congre ga tion on the other, but also as a term apply- ing to a vis i ble body of saints united in the same confes sion for the ful fill- ment of a com mon mission. He quotes from the Con fes sions lan guage which hardly leaves any doubt as to the correct ness of his contention, and then con cludes with these words:

Now, my dear Doc tor, I feel that the fu ture of the Gen eral Coun cil Lutheran Church in this country , in view of the close asso ci ation of so many differ ent nation al i ties, each of whom is in clined to lo cal in di- vid u al ism and in depen dence, not for the sake of preserv ing the Gospel, but from racial prej u dice, depends much more on a proper up hold ing of our right to the use of the general term than it does upon our at tempt ing to guard against the concen tra tion into exter nal eccle- si asti cal power at the top, or the mag ni fy ing of a general exter nal organi zation.

This is suffi cient to explain why Dr. Schmauk all through his pres i dential career fa vored more power for the Gen eral Coun cil as such and less for its boards, com mit tees, and vol un tary agencies not un der the di rect control of the general body. He in sisted that the latter must do obei sance to the for mer and not the for mer to the lat ter.

214 On Men’s And Women’s Or ga ni za tions

As is well known. Dr. Schmauk was not keen for men’s or women’s orga ni- zations that functioned more or less in depen dently , and were li able to with- draw in ter est and ener gy away from the consti tuted and autho rized agencies of the Church. He was op posed to move ments that were not properly adjusted to the org anized Church’s ma chin ery and believed them to be para- sitic in char acter , dis si pat ing and di vert ing much ener gy that could be used to good purpose were it applied to exist ing agencies un der the di rec tion of Synod or Coun cil. When before the meet ing of the Min neap o lis Con vention in 1909 several active and trusted lay men suggested the orga n i zation of a Lay men’s Union, he pointed out the diffi cul ties that must be encoun tered and met if it were to function to advan tage. 1. Some minis ters and synods would hardly be prepared for it. 2. The laity might thus become di vided and it would become a party move ment. 3. For the sake of mak ing the movement more general, the more volatile el ement of the laity would proba bly have to be drawn in, but could not be depended on for solid work, and “after an initial flare up it might fall away into de cline and disso lu tion.” He then suggests that a canvas might be made of the whole situ ation to ascer tain where the most re li able lay ma te rial is, but believes it to be best to “go half way ill the matter at Min neap o lis,” to dis cuss the situ ation at a lay- men’s meet ing and ask the Coun cil to appoint a “standing com mit tee on lay men’s work, with author ity to secure in for ma tion on the subj ect from all synods in the Coun cil.” Then he concludes with a state ment which shows how clear was his in sight with re gard to orga ni zations loosely formed in their re la tion to the orga nized Church itself. The Lutheran Church is a Church which makes each congre ga tion the center of author ity, and by our general orga ni zations, such as the Women’s Home and For eign Mis sion ary So ci ety, or the Luther League who at tempt to orga n ize lo cal centers in con grega tions, which are not in living touch with the congre ga tion it self and its Church Coun cil, are in tro ducing a species of general ma chin ery which in time is al most sure to come into clash with the ma chin ery which the genius and spirit of our Church rec og- nizes. Here is still an un solved problem in the Church, how to secure an easy diffu sion of the general move ment with a com plete recog ni tion of the auton omy of the in di vid ual congre ga tion. It is a question in Church polity,

215 and one which will ul ti mately bring much blessedness or much woe to the Lutheran Church. His re port at the Minne ap o lis Conven tion shows that he was not opposed to a Lay men’s orga ni zation but fa vored it, only he wanted it to be rightly lodged or rooted into the orga n ized Church it self. As he writes to another lay man, “What we need to do is to make it the organ of the actual work of the Coun cil, and not to let it fly away on the wings of senti ment.” Be cause of his fear that move ments born of mere enthu si asm and senti ment might prove to be out of joint with the properly consti tuted agencies of the Church, he was of ten misun ders tood and spoken of as op posed to Lay men’s orga ni zations. But the lay men who consulted with him al ways found him ready to fa vor any move ment that gave prom ise of being or derly and service able because rightly con nected with the Church’s ma chin ery.

Dr. Schmauk And The Woman’s Mis sion ary So ci ety

This fear of orga ni zations not properly corre lated with the work of the orga- nized Church caused Dr. Schmauk to be re garded as op posed to the Woman’s Mis sion ary So ci ety. It is well known that he was by no means hostile to the So ci ety as such, but of ten felt that some of its lead ers were not in clined to adjust their work ings and methods to the consti tuted or der of the Church. The enthu si asm for a great, all-inclu sive national body, with many am bi tious and far-reach ing schemes that could never be re al ized as a goal to strive af ter, made him re gard the So ci ety as not a function ing part of the Church, but in depen dent, one that would prevent real cohe sion and mil i tate against regu lar ity. A spirit of dis loy alty to the Gen eral Coun cil seemed to him to be fostered by some, and he dis trusted the So ci ety not knowing whether it might be led in its zeal to import ideas and methods for eign to the spirit and life of Lutheranism. As later events proved, the mis un derstand ings that arose were due chiefly to a fail ure to confer and coop er ate. When contact was once estab- lished be tween the Presi dent of the Gen eral Coun cil and offi cials in the So- ci ety, it was found that the for mer re sponded more cheer fully and took a deep in ter est in the work of the So ci ety. Con fi dence was re stored, because it

216 became evi dent that the So ci ety was not dis posed to be a law unto it self but was ready to co op er ate with the offi cials of the Church. The tide turned in 1916, when the situ ation was re viewed by the two offi cials of the Coun cil and of the So ci ety of the Penn syl vania Min is terium and a proper coop er a- tive re la tionship estab lished. Un der the lead er ship of Dr. W. D. C. Keiter this re la tion of co-or di nation is now a set tled pol icy in The United Lutheran Church, whose consti tu tion has been made to express what shall be the lim- i ta tions and functions of soci eties and agencies connected with that body. Not the slight est friction or misu n derstand ing occurred when once the princi ple was set tled, that any soci ety profess ing to do ser vice in the Church must place it self in a po si tion where it can function as a part of the Church if its use ful ness is not to be impaired. When once proper co-or di nation was estab lished Dr. Schmauk advo cated the pres ence of women at the meet ings of the Mis sion Boards and thus paved the way for hearty coop er ation and the re moval of misun derstand ings. That achievement has been handed down as a legacy to The United Lutheran Church as its consti t u tion am ply at tests.

Dr. Schmauk And The Ger mans

As Pres i dent of the Gen eral Coun cil, Dr. Schmauk re al ized from the very begin ning that there was a Ger man problem of consid er able mag ni tude press ing for solu tion. The Ger man com mu ni cant member ship of the Coun- cil formed about one-fifth of the entire body. The New York Min is terium, the Canada and Mani toba Syn ods, the Phil adel phia Ger man Con fer ence, together with several groups in the Pitts burgh Synod, repre sented a consid er- able Ger man con stituency whose varied needs had to be taken into seri ous account. Unlike the Augus tana, Iowa and other West ern Syn ods, there was no com mon col lege or sem i nary from which an ade quate mini stry for the preach ing of the Word to many thou sands of Ger man Luther ans who were as sheep with out a shepherd could be re cruited. The only col lege was Wag- ner College, supported by the New York Min is terium and draw ing its students al most exclu sively from that body. The Phil adel phia Sem i nary, while it al ways had one or two Ger man profes sors, and oth ers who were fa mil iar with the Ger man lan guage, fell far short of at tract ing a suffi cient num ber of Ger man stu dents to meet even the most imper a tive needs of the mission sit-

217 u ation. Hence mission work on any scale com men surate with the op portu ni- ties and re spons i bili ties of the Coun cil was out of the question; and but for the aggres sive mission work of other Lutheran bod ies, the story of the Lutheran Church’s mar velous growth re sulting from the in gath er ing of hun- dreds of thousands of German immi grants in the eight ies and nineties would have read far differ ently. Sep arated as the Ger man Syn ods and Ger man groups within the other synods were, and with out a com mon church paper as a bond and medium of com mu ni cation, there was a lack of cohe sion among them which made the un dertak ing of any big task for mission ary expan sion impos si ble. Be cause of in evitable differ ences of tastes and ten dencies, which re flected the pecu- liar i ties of Lutheran thought and life in the vari ous sections of Ger many from which the large immi gra tions in the latter half of the nine teenth century came, and which themselves were differ enti ated from the older Ger- man pop u la tions in America, unity and sol i darity of action among them was rendered exceed ingly diffi cult. The parochial and provin cial spirit was quite pronounced among them, and the witty re mark of Dr. Mann that “where there are five Ger mans you can expect six differ ent opin ions” was not al together without jus ti fi cation, though it would have applied with al most equal truth to some more native Ameri can el ements within the Gen eral Coun cil where in di vid u al ism was much in evi dence. The four or more differ ent Ger- man church papers abun dantly ev i denced this lack of unity and sol i darity . Dr. Schmauk soon acquired an in telli gent grasp of the situ ation and entered into sym pathetic re la tions with the Ger man brethren, study ing with them their problems and work ing with them to ward their solu tion. His confer ences with such men as Dr. Spaeth, Dr. Berkemeier (Ger man Secre tary of the Gen eral Coun cil), Revs. Dr. Hoff mann of the Canada Synod, Rein- hold Tappert of the New York Min is terium, Adolph Hell wege of the Penn- syl vania Min is terium, and many oth ers became so nu mer ous as to make heavy drains upon his time and ener gy. Like Dr. Kro tel, he un derstood the Ger man nature, appre ci ated its sturdy in ner strength, and knew how to weld to gether el ements which at times seemed hope lessly sepa rated. It was in the decade begin ning with 1880, that Luther ans from the vari- ous sections of Ger many kept pouring into the United States by the hun dred thou sand, many of them re pop u lat ing New Eng land. The need of mission aries to gather them into the Church became acute. As the Phil ade l phia Sem i-

218 nary could not begin to fur nish a suffi cient num ber of Ger man pastors to mission ate in New Eng land and Canada, most promis ing fields were left un touched or were taken in charge by Mis souri and other Lutheran bod ies. Under these cir cum stances, it was nat u ral that parts of the Church in Ger- many should fol low the Lutheran em i gration to America and endeavor to supply a ministry for them. Then arose the vexed question as to the advis- ability of import ing Ger man pastors who did not take at least a part of their Sem i nary course in the Phil adel phia Sem i nary so as to becom e more in ti- mately acquainted with Ameri can Church life and condi tions, and to acquire a knowledge of the English language. As the Kropp Sem i nary had, un der the lead er ship of its head, Pastor Paulsen, fur nished from year to year a consid er able num ber of pastors and mission ar ies, many of them quite able and self-sac ri fic ing, there arose consid er able misun derstand ing and soon the Coun cil had on its hands a del i cate and perp lex ing Kropp question . As they were not made to feel at home among their Ger man brethren, due to the differ ence of opin ion as to the ne- cessity of pastors spending at least one year at the Phil adel phia Sem i nary, much ill-feeling was engen dered and not a few of them drifted into the Iowa, Ohio and Mis souri Syn ods. Much ground was lost to the Gen eral Coun cil in West ern Canada on the ter ri tory of the Mani toba Synod, and rich mission fields in New Eng land that would have added much to the strength of the Coun cil were neglected in conse quence. Here was a question which at once en gaged all the wis dom and resource- ful ness of the Presi dent of the Coun cil and at much expense of thought and ener gy he set to work a pol icy that would tend to harmo nize exist ing differ - ences. Swedes were able to accom plish in their united strength. The same ability to put himsel f in the place of the Swedes and see things from their point of view was shown in Dr. Schmauk’s deal ings with the Ger mans in the Gen eral Coun cil. He could grasp situ ations and condi tions re mote from his imme di ate envi ronment with re mark able good sense and in telli gence. His open mind and genuine sym path y enabled him to get at the heart of a problem or diffi culty, and to view things from all sides with out prej u dice and with the sin gle purpose to rec on cile differ ences on the basis of truth and jus tice. He acquainted himself with re la tions and condi tions so thor oughly as to aston ish many who should have been in a po si tion to know more and

219 bet ter than he. He was patient and concil ia tory, and when he ar rived at a conclu sion, he could present it in so convinc ing a man ner as to win fullest confi dence and assent. In 1907 Pastor Paulsen, the lead ing spirit of Kropp Sem i nary, came to America in behalf of the in stitu tion and paid the Presi dent of the Gen eral Coun cil a visit. He was deeply impressed with Dr. Schmauk’s person al ity, and in his descrip tion of his visit in the Sem i nary’s Anzeiger speaks of him as a “re markably gifted and well-in formed clergy man and the olo gian.” He says:

Two hours did I spend with the Presi dent of the Gen eral Coun cil dis cussing with him a great vari ety of subjects. The highly in ter est ing views he expressed accorded with my own in every re spect. He is gifted with a won derful memor y. He re called a ser mon he heard me preach in Dr. Spaeth’s pul pit, but of which I could not re mem ber a sin gle word. When he re produc ed it in substance, I said to my self, “Yes, that’s my sermon.”

It was when Pastor Paulsen was welcomed to Dr. Spaeth’s pul pit (for Dr. Spaeth was one among not a few who contended that stu dents for the Ger man ministry should have at least part of their train ing in the Phil adel- phia Sem i nary) and when later he paid a visit to Dr. Schmauk, that the way was prepared for the so lu tion of a vexed problem. The need of greater sol i darity among the Ger mans grew upon him, and he, in coop er ation with the Ger man Secre tary, Dr. Berkemeier , and Dr. Spaeth, arranged to have the Buffalo Con vention appoint a commit tee to is sue a call for a Ger man Con fer ence to be held at Rochester, N. Y., the follow ing year, 1908. Previ ous to this, Dr. Berkemeier had spent a night with Rev. Rein hold Tappert, then pastor in Meriden, Con necti cut, and the entire Kropp sit u ation was thor oughly re viewed. Dr. Schmauk was made fully acquainted with the facts and the diffi cul ties, and at once mar shalled the Ger- man brethren in line for the hold ing of the confer ence. It proved to be the begin ning of a new era in the his tory of the Ger man work of the Gen eral Coun cil. Old things passed rapidly away and all things bore the prom ise of becom ing new. Dur ing the years that fol lowed, an enormous corre spondence was car ried on by the Presi dent with many of the Ger man brethren

220 which re veals how com plete was his mas tery of the situ ation and how unbounded the confi dence these brethren re posed in their counselor and friend. At the Min neap o lis Conven tion in 1909, he reports as follows:

I draw at ten tion to the el emen t of hopeful ness and the spirit of unity which have entered into the Ger man work of the Gen eral Coun- cil, and to the period of construc tive devel op ment with which the Ger man Church may be able to enter , for the ul ti mate bene fit of the whole Gen eral Coun cil Church, if the Coun cil will support and strengthen their hands.

For the first time in a gener ation, our Ger mans are thor oughly united in senti ment, purpose and plan, and this in harmony with the work that ob tains in the Eng lish and Scandi navian parts of the Coun- cil. This situ ation is largely the re sult of the Ger man Con fer ence held last fall at Rochester and opened with a ser mon by Dr. Spaeth on I Cor. 1:10.

The Con fer ence asks Coun cil to found a Ger man offi cial orga n, which they will support, com mends the work of Wagner Colleg e and rec om mends that the Gen eral Coun cil enter into offi cial re la tion with the The o log i cal Sem i nary in Kropp, Ger many. In addi tion to this, the New York Min is terium has elected Dr. Offer mann, a gradu ate of Kropp, and a member of the Penn syl vania Min is terium, as its pro fessor in its The o log i cal Sem i nary. The Coun cil has a rare op por tu nity before it of set ting for ward a work which oth er wise may never be accom plished.

Thus a happy so lu tion to a vexed problem was effected that re sulted later in the sending of Prof. Dr. C. T. Benze to the Kropp Sem i nary to repre sent the Gen eral Coun cil as its Ameri can teacher. When The United Lutheran Church was formed, through the efforts of Dr. E. F. Bachman, who went to Ger many as com missioner , the union of the Kropp and Breklum Sem i naries was consum mated, which was designed to fur nish Ger man pastors for greatly enlar ged needs should the expected em i gration from Ger many take place as a result of the late war.

221 The argu ment of the Ger man forces in the Gen eral Coun cil had put new life into the Ger man synods connected with the Coun cil, of which the pro- jected Sem i nary at Saskatoon, Canada, is a hopeful augury and evi dence. When the fruits of this union of forces shall ’have be come more fully ap parent, no name will be held in more grateful re membrance among the Ger man brethren of the for mer Coun cil than that of the trusted and beloved Dr. Schmauk. He was their great cham pion in the Coun cil and in The United Lutheran Church, and his loss was most keenly felt by them when they looked in vain for another like cham pion at the Washing ton Con vention in 1920.

Wa ter loo Sem i nary

For some years, the Ger man Canada Synod felt the need of a sem i nary for the train ing of a ministry within its own bounds. The young men who were edu cated at Wagner College and Mt. Airy Sem i nary, as a rule, failed to re- turn to do ser vice in Canada, and in 1910 the deci sion was reached by this synod, in coop er ation with the Eng lish Synod of Cen tral Canada, to estab- lish such a school. The in ten tion at first was to lo cate it in Toronto and connect it with Toronto Uni versity , so that its stu dents might have the bene fit of a thor ough col le giate course. No sooner had Dr. Schmauk learned of this pur pose than he began to feel a sense of un easi ness concern ing the project, and on two grounds. First, the mode of proce dure was not or derly. The matter had not been brought to the at ten tion of the Gen eral Coun cil which must needs be vi tally in ter ested in the estab lishmen t of a sem i nary within its ju ris dic tion. Second, was it wise to connect a Lutheran Sem i nary with a non-Lutheran uni versity? Af ter some cor re spondence with Dr. Hoff mann, one of the prime movers and support ers of the project (and now pres i dent of the Sem i nary that was then in prospect), a confer ence was ar ranged to be held at Buffalo, where it was agreed that its estab lishment should be delayed un til the Gen eral Coun cil should have given it sanction. His clear fore sight and his in stinct for or derly proce dure are fully appar - ent in two paper s addressed to the brethren in ter ested in the pro posed sem i- nary. In the one, he calls at ten tion to the need of co-or di nation so as to con-

222 serve all the Ger man in ter ests in the Coun cil and bring them into unity. He states that but re cently cer tain re la tions with Kropp Sem i nary had been entered into and pleads that for unity’s sake the two in ter ests be properly harmo nized. “You can read ily imag ine the worry that the offi cers of the Gen- eral Coun cil have had, when they have re ceived no word of tidings of any kind as to this move ment excep t what is re ported in the papers.” Then follow a num ber of perti nent questions which go to the heart of the matter and call for a clear an swer. The other paper is addressed to the Canada Synod, af ter he has become convinced that a Sem i nary is needed. But he gives cogent rea sons why it should not be located in Toronto and connected with the Univer sity . — “Your Synod has al ways been one of the bul warks of sound Con fession al ism in the General Coun cil.” — “You have been op posed to secret soci eties. You have stood against union ism, union evangel i cal work, and all in ter denom i national forms of a com mon Ameri can Chris tianity in which our Lutheran doctrine was washed away or blunted.” — “My fear is not for this gener ation, but for your own sons on your own soil, whom you are about to train up in connec tion with a large uni versity, where the union is tic forms of a com mon Chris tianity are al most sure to be recog nized, and where the hearts of the young men will be al most sure to soften down fa vor ably to wards them. The Y. M. C. A., the com mon In ter denom i national Mis sion ary So ci eties, the com mon forms of Chris tian En- deavor, in our mod ern uni versity life, have their use as over against un belief and immoral ity in uni versity cir cles, but our Lutheran stu dents cannot enter into al liances or re la tionships with this com mon Chris tian life in the uni versi ties without the great est danger of weaken ing their Lutheran prin ci ples.” He ad vises the Ger man and Eng lish brethren to weigh well this impor - tant matter before decid ing upon a lo cation and warns them against the danger of the ra tional ism of such men as MacFay den in the Uni versity . He concludes with these words:

The Eng lish Church is un der a greater strain than the Ger man in stand ing out for a sound Lutheranism. It is more tempted to imi tate and fol low the lead of the other Protes tant denom i nations. Its young

223 men and its students are under the greatest tempta tion to get ideas and convic tions during their col lege and uni versity career which weaken their hold on a genuine Lutheran prac tice. If our Ger man and Eng lish brethren in Canada can unite in train ing up a gener ation of Ger man and Eng lish pastors in which both the Eng lish and the Ger mans shall be sound on the Four Points of the Gen eral Coun cil, and shall stand faith fully against the denom i nations around them, they will be accom plishing a most glo ri ous work, and one in which the Gen eral Coun cil should ever take the greatest pride. Be cer tain before you start that your safe guards are such that your young men will not grav- i tate downward to ward the level of the com mon Ameri can Protes- tantism.

A let ter to him from Dr. Hoff mann, dated April 10, 1911, shows that the latter, though a res i dent of Toronto, was in com plete accord with him and advo cated strongly the pop u lous Lutheran center of Berlin and Water loo as the proper lo cation. The Gen eral Coun cil at Lan caster in the same year endorsed the movement and the Sem i nary be came a fact.

Re la tions With The Iowa Synod

The two sainted Doc tors Fritchel, Sig mund and Got tlieb, who were broth- ers, were widely known and recog nized as the pillars of strength in the Iowa Synod. This was partic u larly the case with re gard to Sig mund, who was one of the lead ing Lutheran lights in the country , a devout and gifted son of the Church of whom it could be truly said, “Cor the o logum facit.” Through his lead er ship chiefly, and through his in ti mate friendship with Drs. Spaeth and Krauth, the Iowa Synod took a deep in ter est in the orga ni zation of the Gen- eral Coun cil, and while k did not feel prepared to connect it self organ i cally with the Coun cil because of its dis tinctively Ger man in ter ests, it maintained the most friendly re la tions with it for many years. Af ter both had passed away, and partic u larly af ter the death in 1910 of Dr. Spaeth, who was a strong con nect ing link between the two bod ies, the bonds becam e less firm and fi nally snapped asunder in 1917. It was at Nor ris town, in 1903, when Dr. Schmauk was elected Presi dent of the Gen eral Coun cil, that he became deeply in ter ested in the question of

224 cement ing the ties between the two bod ies and exerted himself to that end with ar dent devo tion and zeal. The spirit of Iowa, as over against that of Mis souri and Ohio, appealed to him strongly. Its piety, alert ness and activ- ity; its evangel i cal frank ness and openness of mind, coupl ed with its unswerving fi delity to the faith— re minded him of the Halle and Muhlen- berg spirit of ear lier days and made him feel a near ness to that body which he could not feel to ward any other. It had re volted against the le gal is tic hardness and rigid ity of other Lutheran bod ies, and he felt that as a leav ening in flu ence in the Gen eral Coun cil it would prove to be a most steadying and wholesome factor . When Pro fes sor Proehl of the Dubuque Sem i nary repre sented the Iowa Synod as fra ter nal vis i tor at the Nor ris town Coun cil, its newly-elected pres- i dent was deeply impressed with his address. He later quotes a part of it as fol lows:

There never has been a time when the Synod of Iowa has not sustained in ti mate and cordial re la tions with the Gen eral Coun cil. I may re mind you that the warmest friendship existed between the founders and fa thers of your body and the now sainted fa thers and founders of our Synod. In great mag nanim ity the Gen eral Coun cil has not only taken an in ter est in the work of our Synod, but has also extended to us much help and assis tance. But what is of the greatest impor ta nce is the fact that we are conscious that we are in full unity in faith as well as in our confes sions. We consider the doctri nal po si tion of the Gen- eral Coun cil the true and sound basis for the uni fi cation of all true Luther ans in our country . We thank God that our dear Lutheran Church has found in the Gen eral Coun cil a faith ful defender and promoter of its best tra di tions and a success ful cham pion of the Gospel truth. Great things have al ready been accom plished in the up building of true and sound Lutheranism, and in the fu ture of the Gen eral Coun cil and along the lines it has laid down, we see the glo ri ous future of our Church. It is the best repre senta tio no minis Lutherani, — as conse r vative as it is progres sive, as much bound as it is free, it unites fi delity to God’s Word, and the Con fes sions of our Church, with an open eye and in telli gent grasp of the du ties of the present hour, seeking to preserve and in crease the rich heritage of the Church

225 of the Refor ma tion, and avoid ing extremes both to the right and the left.

At the present time there is a strong agi ta tion for union, espe cially among the West ern Syn ods, but I fear that the at tempt will be made to bring the free dom of our Church un der an un bear able yoke and to convert the Church of Luther into a school. Over against such en- deavors we see in the work of the Gen eral Coun cil our only hope for true union, and in her doctrines the banner around which all the faithful Luther ans of our coun try may rally.

A speech like that nat u rally awak ened the high est hopes in the new Presi- dent that the day of actual union would not be far dis tant. His first re port at Milwau kee, with its wide out look for the fu ture of the Gen eral Coun cil and its uni fy ing mission among Luther ans in America, gave abundant evi dence of these high hopes. When Dr. Richter, Presi dent of the Iowa Synod, who could hardly fail to be impresse d with the conser vative strength and sta bility of the Coun cil as its mission was given so prophetic a fore cast in Presi- dent Schmauk’s re port, re-echoed the senti ments of Pro fes sor Proehl, hope was added to hope. At the Buffalo Con vention in 1907, when a high confes- sional note was sounded, which called forth from the fra ter nal vis i tor, Rev. Carl Proehl, son of Pro fes sor Proehl, strong senti ments of kin ship and fel low ship, and when at the same meet ing, the Iowa Synod was given most liberal consid er ation in the pub li cation rights of the Kirchen buch and Church Book, the door of hope was swung still wider open.

Fifty Years Of Fruit less Woo ing

But in the in ter ims between the meet ings of the Coun cil lit tle straws showed that the winds were not blow ing any too fa vorably in the di rec tion of union, and the Presi dent’s hopes were seasoned with misgiv ings. In flu- ences were at work to wean the affec tions and confi dence of Iowa away from the Coun cil. The Joint Synod of Ohio proved to be a ri val suitor and its leaders did all in their power to in still doubts in the minds of the Iowa brethren as to whether the Coun cil could be safely entrusted with the guardianship of the faith because of much loose ness of prac tice within its

226 bounds. This put Dr. Schmauk on the defen sive; for he re al ized most keenly that on the question of safe-guarding the faith by a consis tent practice spots in the Gen eral Coun cil were vul nera ble. Pul pits and al tars were here and there thrown wide open; member ship in secret soci eties and orga ni zations where, in the wor ship, Christ’s name was stu diously excluded, was not dis- counte nanced as was meet, — and union is tic and le gal is tic ten dencies were in many quarters only too appar ent. In many letters, he contends that by the Coun cil’s edu cational rather than le gal is tic methods of counter act ing this loose ness of prac tice, great progress to ward true conser vatism had been made. On the other hand, he in sists that the rigid le gal is tic spirit which would suppress liber al is tic ten dencies by dis ci pline rather than by persua- sion and edu cation would some day cre ate and foster a re bel lion and conse- quent break in those bodies themselves. A cru cial test of Iowa’s loy alty to the Coun cil was the meet ing of Ohio and Iowa repre senta tives at Toledo in Feb ru ary, 1907, to dis cuss The ses prepared by a Joint Commit tee of the two bod ies. In an ar ti cle in tended for pub li cation in The Lutheran (but with held) Dr. Schmauk writes as follows:

These The ses were in tended to prepare such points as had previ- ously caused a lack of harmony between the two bod ies. The Iowa Synod accepted the The ses unani mously at its meet ing in June, 1907; and now the Joint Synod of Ohio has taken the fol low ing action upon them:

1 We bring it to at ten tion that the vari ous dis tricts have accept ed the Toledo The ses by a ma jor ity, with the excep tion of one dis trict which could not agree to one point.

2 On account of the po si tion in which the Synod of Iowa stands to the General Coun cil, we are not in a situ ation to estab lish Church fellow ship with the same un til we learn offi cially from the Iowa Synod in what rela tion it stands to the Gen eral Coun cil.

3 So far as the erec tion of op posing al tars and friction on mission ter ri tory are concerned, it has al ways been our at tempt to avoid the same, and we shall also continue in this prac tice in the future.

227 In ex pla nation, it may be stated that the orig i nal Joint Commit tee from both synods had re solved that in case the re sult of their action were approved by both Syn ods, pul pit and al tar fel low ship should forth with exist between the Syn ods; no op posing al tars should be erected, but church members mov ing to any partic u lar place should be rec om mended to the congre ga tion al ready there; and un broth erly frictions should be avoided on the mission field. These res o lu tions had been adopted by the Iowa Synod. He then proceeds to re late how it happened that the Joint Synod failed to adopt them. Though nearly all its dis trict synods, and even Presi dent Schuette himself, approved them, the latter made fel low ship with Iowa de- pendent upon the breaking of fel low ship ties between Iowa and the Coun cil. This Iowa re fused to do, partic u larly since it later felt much encour aged with the strong confes sional note struck at Buffalo in the fall of the same year. How ever, not long thereafter , as the Presi dent’s corre spondence shows, there was a cool ing off of the fel low ship enthu si asm which had been cre ated at Buffa lo. There had been some in sis tence in Iowa that the Coun cil should cease all fra ter nal re la tions with the Gen eral Synod. The stronger these re la tions grew, the weaker the other re la tions seemed to become. Dr. Schmauk was fully conscio us of this, but maintained that the Gen eral Coun cil was called into exis tence to cement bonds rather than to weaken or break them, and not a few men in the Iowa and Ohio Syn ods agreed that he was right in tak ing that po si tion provided it could be done with out sacri fice of prin ci ple. When the Augus tana Synod advo cated re orga ni zation of the Gen eral Coun cil in fa vor of a larger Fed er ation at the Min neap o lis and Lan caster Con ventions of 1909 and 1911, and when Dr. Richter a/t the fiftieth anniver sary of the Augus tana Synod in 1910 was very cordially welcomed by the latte r, which made the impres sion upon Dr. Schmauk that the in ter ests of these two bod ies were being consid ered as more in harmony than those of the Au gustana Synod and the Coun cil, it flashed upon his mind that a possi ble coali tion between Iowa and Augus tana to weaken the sol i darity of the Coun cil and substi tute a feder ation that would be power less as a welding in flu ence might re sult. How ever un founded his fears may have been, he from that time on re al ized, as oth ers also did, that the re la tions of both bodies with the Gen eral Coun cil hung upon a slen der thread. He could have become fully rec on ciled to a sepa ra tion with both, could he have seen a hope-

228 ful fu ture for a union of the Lutheran forces on a basis that would actu ally unite and not encour age the perpet u ation of partic u lar is tic brands of Lutheranism. Suc ceeding events and ten dencies were but the initial steps that led to the sepa ra tion of the Augus tana Synod from the Coun cil and the decla ra tion of Iowa’s repre senta tive at the Coun cil’s meet ing in Phil adel- phia (when it was de cided to en ter the Merger), “Here our ways do part.” He felt the full force of that state ment. It had a sting which pierced him to the quick; for he loved Iowa, had wooed her four teen years, and was loathe to see an in ti mate fel low ship of fifty years brought to an end. That was not mak ing Lutheran his tory to meet the press ing needs of the fu ture; it was un mak ing it.

229 15 - A Trying Con ven tion (1909) Dr. Schmauk and the Swedes

When it comes to the question of di recting the affairs of the Coun cil, it will be acknowl edged that Dr. Schmauk possesses special qual i fi cations that make him an ideal leader. His force ful and mag netic person al ity are on a par with his good nature and adapt ability , and his readiness to meet try ing situ ations. Also there can be no question as to his impar tial ity and straightfor ward ness in conduct ing the proceed ings. His capac ity for work is phenom enal. Be sides being Presi dent of the Coun cil, he is pastor of a large congre ga tion, profes sor at Mt. Airy, edi tor of the Church Re view, the ablest of its kind in the country . He has brought out a mar velously com plete system of Sun day School in struction, and pub lished impor tant his toric and re li- gious works, one af ter the other. In speech and writ ing he plants himself firmly upon his toric Lutheran ground. May he be spared to serve the Church many years.

AU GUS TANA (AF TER THE ROCK IS LAND COUN CIL IN 1915.)

"AM WELL, BUT VERY TIRED. My worst work is over, and I believe I shall get through all right." Thus reads a postal card contain ing a pho to graph of the Presi dent of the Gen eral Coun cil seated in an auto mo bile. The snapshot of him was taken on a ride with a friend at the meet ing of the Coun cil in Min neap o lis in 1909. That conven tion proved to be a very stren- u ous one— and fully as try ing on the nerves of its pres i dent as it was stren- u ous. The Coun cil had met on the ter ri tory of the Min nesota Con fer ence of the Au gustana Synod— a confe r ence more or less out of sym pathy with the Gen eral Coun cil. Its nestor, Dr. Nore lius, though himself friendly to the Coun cil, was not wide of the mark when, some time before, in an ar ti cle in the Synod’s Quar terly, he said: “In our Augus tana Synod, I must admit, the

230 union with the Gen eral Coun cil is not appre ci ated as much as it deserves, and not a few perhaps look upon that union as some thing unfor tu nate.” This same ar ti cle had given the Presi dent deep concern. In it cer tain prac ti cal diffi cul ties were pointed out which made the union with the Gen- eral Coun cil seem un desir able to many, chiefly in the Min nesota Con fer- ence. Among those men tioned were in ter ests which did not appeal to the Augus tana Synod, such as a Gen eral Coun cil Sem i nary at Chicago, or a Pub li cation House in Phil adel phia, or the Im migrant House at New York; or the Church Book Commit tee’s work, which drew its treasures from Ger man and not from Swedish sources; or the Eng lish Home Mis sion work, which was bein g car ried on so vig or ously in the Northwest right un der the shadow of Au gustana Synod con grega tions. This ar ti cle had done much to dis turb the Presi dent’s peace of mind, and when the Coun cil met in un friendly ter ri tory, he feared for the worst. What added to his anxi ety were long-drawn-out dis cussions of subjects in which few of the Augu stana brethren could have an in ter est. Added to this was a dis po si tion of some of the eastern members of the Coun cil to wel come the with drawal of the Augus tana Synod should it continue to man i fest dis sat is- fac tion. When, therefore. Dr. Nore lius, in or der to sat isfy the dis affected el- ement in the Min nesota Con fer ence, offered a res o lu tion call ing upon the Gen eral Coun cil “to be true to its ecu menical char acter and not seek to assume the functio ns of a District Synod,” thus in spir ing the fear that synods connected with it might lose their iden tity, the Presi dent felt that a cri sis in the his tory of the Coun cil had been reached. It here became mani fest that the Swedish brethren looked with suspi cion upon any move ment that tended to ob scure what they believed to be the dis- tinctive work and mission of their synod. They had their own edu cational and mer ci ful in stitu tions; their own pub li cation house, and their own dis- tinctive lit er ature; they had a dis tinctive home mission field co-exten sive with the United States and Canada; as their confer ences were vir tu ally synods, they consid ered themselves to be wor thy of a higher sta tus than that of other syn ods within the Gen eral Coun cil and to have the char acter of a general body within a larger general body. The only field in which they felt free to co op er ate was that of Porto Rico and For eign Mis sions. That, to gether with par tici pation in the set tling of doctri nal and other general questions, was the only real connect ing link between the Augus tana and the other syn-

231 ods. To them, the Gen eral Coun cil from a gov ernmen tal point of view could be lit tle more than a rope of sand. Oth ers in the East, with strongly synod i- cal and in di vid u al is tic sym pathies, joined them in dis courag ing what seemed to them to be a ten dency to ward central iza tion. At Min neap o lis a burning and trou ble some question was thus sprung upon the Gen eral Coun cil, and its Presi dent from that time on was placed between two fires — between those who wanted the Coun cil to function simply as an advi sory body and those who wanted its power enhanced as a uni fy ing leg isla tive body, but in a way that would alien ate Augus tana. The marvel is that he won the confi dence of both parties in his effort to adjust differ ences and keep alive the spirit of harmony . But it was a hard and thorny path way he had to travel. He wisely turned the Nore lius Reso lu tion over to a com petent com mit tee to consider it and give answer to it at the Lan caster , Pa., Con vention in 1911. In a long letter to Dr. Horn, a member of this com mit tee, he makes clear the bear ings of the whole situ ation in order to guide the Commit tee’s delib er ations and lead it to a cor rect conclu- sion. He op posed any abridg ment of the Coun cil’s functions as an exec u tive body, but believed the Commit tee should make clear that no synod’s liberty or au ton omy is in any wise abridged because other synods feel free to unite in common work. This was done by the Commit tee.

A Tem po rary Ray Of Hope

It had seemed as if the at mos phere had been cleared at Lan caster and the Augus tana del egates went away evi dently pleased; but the Presi dent soon dis covered that the un rest had not ceased, and writes that he very much feared that the Augus tana del ega tes would fo ment a split at the Toledo Con- vention in 1913. He was led to this conclu sion because of lett ers re ceived stat ing that there would be no peace un til a sepa ra tion took place. Dr. Frick, the Secr etary of the Gen eral Coun cil, had re ceived a letter from the trea- surer of the Augus tana Synod in which the latter advo cated a friendly sepa- ra tion and said: “The signs in our Synod at present point to a sepa ra tion.” This caused the Presi dent fresh pain and he writes to Dr. Frick:

The eccl esi asti cal effect would be ter ri ble. It would be the confes- sion of the Lutheran Church of its fail ure and in ability to re main

232 united. The Gen eral Coun cil is the only body that has made the attempt to unite the Lutheran nat ion al i ties in America. If this at tempt fails, the situ ation is hopeless for a long while. It makes me sick to think of the way some of our Eng lish people advo cate the Lutheran Church’s go ing into a general Protestant unity or feder ation, and yet neglect the patient and whole-souled effort that is neces sary to bring our own house hold into unity and order .

When at the Toledo Con vention no move ment was made by the Augus tana del ega tion to advo cate sepa ra tion and an in vi ta tion was extended by it to meet at Rock Is land in 1915, the Presi dent spoke in glow ing terms of the harmo nious meet ing and re garded the cri sis as having passed. But he was doomed to sore dis appoint ment; for in the year fol low ing, Lutheran Com- panion advo cated sepa ra tion of the For eign Mis sion field and spoke of the anoma lous situ ation of having a general body like the Augus tana Synod within an other general body. The smolder ing fires of dis affec tion were thus being fanned into a fresh flame, and as the next conven tion was to be held in Rock Is land, the Presi dent looked for ward to it with seri ous misgiv ing. He writes to a pas tor in Toledo:

The con vul sion that is now threat ening in the Augus tana Synod on the question as to whether it shall or shall not sepa rate from the Gen- eral Coun cil, with possi ble re quests for the re-orga ni zation of the Coun cil, or with a possi ble great cri sis at Rock Is land, may render the problems and re sponsi bili ties so heavy that I may be un able to shoul- der them, and may be obliged to re sign. I hope this will not be the case, as I am not one of the kind that is built to desert a ship at the crit i cal mo ment. But this question is a matter which the Lord only knows.

What in duced this state of mind was a res o lu tion, passed at the meet ing of the Augus tana Synod in 1915. It had been offered by Dr. Johnson, the pres i- dent of Gus tavus Adol phus College, as a substi tute for a more dras tic one advo cat ing sepa ra tion and the re union as part of a feder ation, and read as fol lows: “That the Augus tana Synod re spectfully re quests the Gen eral Coun cil to so al ter the consti tu tion of said body that the Augus tana Synod no longer be placed in the re la tion of a District Synod, but be rec og nized as

233 a General Body in or der that the Gen eral Coun cil may become both in princi ple and prac tice a delib er ative and advi sory body only, so as to fa cili tate a feder ation of all the Lutheran bod ies in our land.” Later Lutheran Compan ion had this to say:

The Gen eral Coun cil should be re orga nized. At present it is com- posed of lo cal syn ods and one general body, the Augus tana Synod, and the rela tion is anoma lous.

Origi nally it was a delib er ative body only. But the smaller bod ies were not in a po si tion to take care of their own pub li cations, edu cation, mis sions, and char ity work. Hence they re ferred it to the General Coun cil, which took it up and became to that extent a leg isla tive body. And as the ter ri to ries in ter sect and are covered by the Au gustana Synod, the re sult is partly hitherto friendly friction and partly lack of in ter est on our part in matters out side of (or in side of) our ju- ris dic tion. Where we are not di rectly concerned we have the feeling that we do not wish to in trude, as our only part in these sessions is the un pleasant duty of safeguard ing our own in ter ests. A good deal of our non-at ten dance may also be as cribed to this feeling.

The lo cal synods ought therefore to be orga nized into a general body, this body to gether with the Augus tana Synod to consti tute the Gen eral Coun cil. The Gen eral Coun cil, the Synod of the South, and other gen eral bod ies might then see their way clear to unite with us in a delib e r ative body with a view to approach ing a united Lutheran Church in America.

Thus the old question of re orga ni zation, which the Presi dent hoped had been set tled at Lancas ter , loomed up before him afresh, and in a letter in which he com plains that the Eng lish Home Mis sion Board had not acted wisely in the North west and was re sponsi ble for much dis trust and ill-feeling, he says:

This res o lu tion says “so that the Gen eral Coun cil may become a delib er ative and advi sory body only” in or der to fur ther the unity of the Lutheran Church. Now if it were only the matter of guaran t eeing

234 the rights of the Augus tana Synod, as to liturgy, mission work, etc., with out any at tempt on the part of Augus tana to re move the Coun cil’s exec u tive and practi cal functions, it would be all right.

But they com plain of the Chicago Sem i nary. They com plain of our Home Mis sion work. The lan guage of their res o lu tion is so sweep ing that, if adopted, it would at least legally wipe the activ i ties of the Gen eral Coun cil off the slate.

Later he shows a dis po si tion to accede in some mea sure to the wishes of the Swedes and writes:

So far as I can see, the only way to do is for some of our great men to appear at their meet ings, to apol o gize for in juries done by lit tle rasp ing men, and then to fire the imagi nations and the feelings of the Swedes with the idea of unity; and also proba bly propose a looser unity for them in the Gen eral Coun cil, that is, let them partic i pate in the things they want to partic i pate in, and, say, hold one day’s session on these general affairs and then let them go home and let the Council transact its specially Ger man and Eng lish busi ness with out them, and not look to them to support this specially Ger man and Eng lish business.

Wants No At lantic Coast Lutheranism

When some of the lead ers in the East suggested the advis ability of letting the Aug ustana Synod drop out of the Gen eral Coun cil and of draw ing together into some Gen eral Con fer ence the Gen eral Synod and the United Synod South, he promptly declares himself against the idea and says that he wants no “Atlantic Coast Lutheranism uniting by it self and leaving the West out in the cold.” As one letter to Dr. Schmauk shows, there was some cool ing off of affec tion in the East among even warm friends of the Augus tana Synod who were loathe to see a sep ara tion. It reads in part as fol lows:

235 We must show the Swedes that the free dom of action of the Au- gustana Synod has never been questioned or in vaded, but what this res o lu tion calls for is a decided abridg ment of the liberty of joint action on the part of the other syn ods.

We do not want the farce of the Lan caster method of deal ing with the question re peated. Let them blow off their steam and in vite them to do so. Then if they cannot be shown the prepos ter ousness of their po si tion, let a peace able sepa ra tion take place. We do not want any Synod in the Gen eral Coun cil whose heart is out side of it.

But the thought of sepa ra tion was re pel lent to him. In a letter to Dr. Jacobs, dated June 19, 1915, he in clines to ward the for ma tion of a larger unity in which the Augus tana Synod might feel at home, though far from sure that it can come to real iza tion. He says:

We cannot re orga nize into a merely delib er ate body, espe cially not while the Gen eral Synod, the Mis souri Synod, and the Joint Synod of Ohio are becom ing more in ten sively prac ti cal bod ies, nor would such re orga ni zation be conducive to unity, but it would fur ther com pli cate matters. There are other things that can perhaps be done. If we can get the Gen eral Synod and the Nor we gian Syn ods into a gener al de- liber ative body, this will be a real step to ward unity. But the Augus- tana way is not the way to begin such an effort.

He went even so far as to sug gest the fol low ing addi tion to the Gen eral Coun cil’s Con stitu tion, which, however , was not submit ted for consid er a- tion:

Ar ti cle I. Section 5. Gen eral Bod ies within the Gen eral Coun cil shall themselves have the full powers and du ties enumer ated in the preced ing four sections, and shall not on these points be amenable to the Gen eral Coun cil, except in depart ments where they in fact or by res o lu tion have estab lished coop er ation with the Gen eral Coun cil. The Gen eral Coun cil shall di vide its busi ness into two parts, namely, one part in which Gen eral Bod ies coop er ate with the District Syn ods, in which part all bod ies have a voice and vote as prescribed by this consti tu tion; another part in which the Gen eral Bod ies do not desire

236 to co op er ate and in which only the District Syn ods coop er ate with their voice and vote. Gen eral Bod ies may at any time become members of the Gen eral Coun cil in the regu lar way, and with their auton- omy duly preserved, and in ac cordance with the provi sions of this Section.

The Fed er a tion Move ment

When a “Feder ation of Lutheran Syn ods” at the sugges tion of the Joint Synod of Ohio, was proposed in 1915, he at first fa vored it as fur nish ing a possi ble solu tion to the Augus tana Synod diffi culty. But when it appeared that pres i dents of synods within the Gen eral Coun cil were in vited and the Gen eral Coun cil as a sin gle unity was not rec og nized, he imme di ately re- fused to coop er ate. He, however , drew up a series of proposi tions which would broaden the scope of the Gen eral Coun cil and enable it to function as a larger unity, with the Swedes, the Ger mans, and the Eng lish-’Ger mans as three con stituent parts of the gen eral body, each with its dis tincti ve work in- depen dently car ried on and with only such activ i ties in com mon as they should mu tu ally agree to enter into. Then other Lutheran bod ies should be in vited un der simi lar condi tions, thus form ing a new and enlar ged feder ated al liance, look ing to ward ul ti mate union. As later events proved, he re garded such feder ation as a tempo rary makeshift and fi nally came to the convic tion that it would do more to perpet u ate nation al is tic and other pecu liar i ties than to elim i nate them.

The Be gin ning Of The End

This agi ta tion from 1909 to 1915 proved to be but the begin ning of the end. Had not the love and confi dence of the Augus tana brethren in the Presi dent of the General Coun cil been so strong, a sepa ra tion would have taken place ere the year 1917. He was fre quently in vited to partic i pate in im portant cel- ebra tions in the Augus tana Synod, but his fre quent ill nesses and his aver- sion to travel, for bade him to make more than very few engage m ents. At its Golden Jubilee in 1910, he deliv ered an address on “An cient Ideals of Ed u- cation from a Modern Point of View” at the col lege in Rock Is land, and

237 made a profound impres sion. It was there that he was hon ored with the ti tle of Ll.D. by the in stitu tion. This mu tual at tach ment did much to prevent the break, and the Augus tana del egates could al ways be counted on to vote for his con tinu ance in the presi dential office. When in 1917, the lay men of the Quadricen ten nial Commit tee, of which Dr. Schmauk was chairman, proposed sig nal iz ing the four-hundredth birth- day of the Refor ma tion by unitin g the Lutheran forces in this country , as far as would be pos si ble, it soon be came appar ent that the begin ning of the end had come. Dissenters in the Augus tana Synod felt that now the op portune mo ment had ar rived to re vive the feder ation idea, and at a meet ing in Min- neap o lis made a proposi tion look ing to ward the at tainment of that end. But the Presi dent’s long expe ri ence with a loosely orga nized body made him more and more op posed to a fed er ation. He saw in it the em bod i ment of all the el ements of weak ness with which he was forced to contend during his long admin is tra tion and believed it would re tard rather than ac cel er ate the process of a real inner “life to gether.” It would be in ter est ing to give the full in ner story of his effort s to prevent the impend ing breach, but it would lead us too far afield. When in 1918, af ter re peated assur ances to the Presi dent of the Gen eral Coun cil from lead ers in the Augus tana Synod that there would be no sep ara tion, action was taken by that body to sever its connec tion with the Gen eral Coun- cil, the expected at last took place. Dr. Schmauk had suffered much during the try ing years since the Min neap o lis Coun cil. He felt that a bond formed in 1867, with such lead ers as Es b jorn, Has selquist, Er land Carlsson and Nore lius to conjure with, could not be broken with out seri ous loss to the cause of unity in the Ameri can Lutheran Church. His hopes for a greater and more thor oughly united Gen eral Coun cil, of which the Buffa lo Con vention in 1907 was to be the prophecy, were thus rudely shat tered, and the first exp er i ment to bring to unity several racial Lutheran strands in America was brought to an un timely end. His faith in the Gen eral Coun cil’s mission had been unbounded and his heart’s devo tion to it made the sacri fice of time and ener gy and health in its behalf seem triv ial. Af ter fif teen years of un- spar ing ser vice as its pres i dent, a rent in the Gen eral Coun cil in flicted a wound upon him which even the new and larger union into which the Coun- cil enter ed in 1918 could not heal. In a letter dated June 18, 1918, to

238 Dr. Abraham son of the Augus tana Synod, a strong supporter of the union, he writes what may be con sid ered his valedic tory, as follows:

We shall in deed greatly miss our Augus tana brethren whom we have learned to la bor with and to love. Certain seats will al ways look empty at every conven tion. I be lieve it is a com bi nation of differ ent feelings and forces that pro duced this result in your Synod.

The lack of corre la tion between Augus tana as a national body and the Gen eral Coun cil as a nation al body seems to me to be the un nec- essary em phasis of a the ory. Of course there are diffi cul ties, but with patience they could have been adjusted.

There are many il log i cal re al i ties in life that go on and succe ed very well in deed. And the worst of it is that these men will not get rid of their diffi cul ties by the rem edy they propose, viz., a Fed er ation. There would be the same national bod ies paral leling and overla p ping each other. And in a Fed er ation we only get close enough to gether to learn to stand on our own rights and dis like each other; and not close enough to gether to learn to love each other and la bor to gether.

So far as the mission frictions are concerned, the op po nents of the Gen eral Coun cil have surely not improved the Augus tana situ ation. To me, from an eccle si asti cal point of view, the chief dis appoin t ment is that the Lutheran faith here in America, where it has had its largest op portu nity, has not proven it self large enough to be uni versal; but other consid er ations, whatever they may be, have proven themselves supe rior , and have risen once again to sepa rate and di vide.

This is the great les son, viz., the fail ure of our Ameri can Church to demon strate the uni versal ism, the catholicity , and the in herent power of our faith, when, for the first time in centuries, it had op portu nity to do so. This is the submer g ing fea ture in the fail ure of the un- derly ing prin ci ple that moved the fa thers to form the Gen eral Coun- cil. They would shed tears to day at this re sult.

And it is this which fills my heart with sorrow . I have had no personal desires to accom plish in the pres i dency of the Gen eral Coun cil,

239 but it has been my deep and steady wish to prove the proposi tion of our fa thers, viz., that the Lutheran faith is a catholic faith, and that if given proper op portu nity, it will show its in herent unity in its outer works, will show that faith is capa ble of uniting hu man hearts in a bet ter way than does the exter nal eccle si asti cism of Rome; and that di vi sions and sepa ratism are not an in evitable conse quence of the Protes tant Ref or ma tion.

I am not one of those who have pressed for imme di ate union for the United Lutheran Church. I would rather have had it grow a lit tle more slowly. But when the situ ation was forced upon us to decide, and we had to choose the one or the other, in view of the great events in which we are living, I felt that Prov i dence wanted us to act now. I am con fi dent that you took the same broad view.

Co-Op er a tion With The Gen eral Synod

The course of Lutheran eccle si asti cal love never did run smooth. As Presi- dent of the Gen eral Coun cil, Dr. Schmauk was in a po si tion to re al ize the full force of this truth. Ever since his en deavor at the meet ing of the General Synod in Dubuque, la., in 1901, where as del egate he secured fa vorable action for the app ointment of a joint “Com mit tee on Practi cal Co op er ation,” he became deeply in ter ested in estab lishing friendly re la tions between the two bod ies. He never al lowed himself to believe that it was for the best inter ests of the Lutheran Church in America to adopt a pol icy of aloof ness toward the Gen eral Synod. On the other hand, he was just as dete r mined that coop er ation should not be purchased at the expense of the Gen eral Coun- cil’s po si tion on questions in volv ing the confes sional prin ci ple and a practice ac cordant there with. His letters to such friends in the Gen eral Synod as Drs. Bauslin, Keyser, Dunbar , Hamma and oth ers were of a most cordial and in ti mate char acter . He was frank in pointing out to them the hin drances in the way of a closer affil i ation between the two bod ies, partic u larly when the question of adjust- ing the well-known mission diffi culty which trou bled both bod ies from 1907 to 1915 was thrust upon him. Now that the two bod ies have been united, it is not neces sary to go into detail; but through this whole period,

240 when coop er atio n in missions and Sun day School lit er ature was car ried on with more or less diffi culty, he never lost faith in an ul ti mate harmo nious solu tion, and bent all his en ergies to ward that end. But the main is sue he was striv ing to meet was the doctri nal one. In an in ter est ing letter to Dr. Keyser, af ter the Buffalo Con vention in 1907, he speaks of the mischief Profs. Richard and Ev gen are do ing in fo menting trou ble between the bod ies on the Con fes sional question, while he also laments the un wise ut ter ances of Dr. Nicum on the Gen eral Coun cil side. He then proceeds to show in quite graphic fash ion how it happens that Luther ans do not get to gether as they should. He finds the seat of the diffi- culty in two extr eme ten dencies — a rigid, strait-laced Lutheranism out side of both Gen eral Coun cil and Gen eral Synod, and a radi cal and liberal Lutheranism within the General Synod. Two in ci dents occurred which make it neces sary to men tion the name of Prof. Dr. Richard, whose at ti tude toward the Gen eral Coun cil was known to be un friendly. He was a scholar of no mean at tainments, but his native in clina tion to be polemi cal made the path way to ward unity between the two bod ies diffi cult. At a meet ing of Phil adel phia pastors of both bod ies to dis cuss the confes sional question, he man aged to be present and made the state ment that “rather than subscribe to the For mula of Con cord, he would have his arm burned off at the stake.” Another was an at tempt of his to sow dis cord between the Gen eral Coun cil and the “Gen eral Lutheran Con fer ence” (Alge meine Konferenz). Dr. Schmauk therefore puts the situ ation in the Lutheran Church to Dr. Keyser as follows:

As to Lutheranism in this land, I believe it di vides about as follows:

1 A self-complete eccle si asti cal Lutheranism — with large for eign admix ture. [Luther ans who keep aloof from both Coun cil and Synod.]

2 A com plete Con fes sional Lutheranism — with el ements Ameri- can and for eign. [Luther ans of the Gen eral Coun cil.]

3 A Lutheranism of funda men tal prin ci ple — Ameri can. [Con ser- vatives in the General Synod.]

241 4 A nom i nal and accom moda tive and liberal Lutheranism — Ameri can and unsta ble. [Rad i cals in the General Synod.]

It is 1 and 4 that make the trou ble. It is 2 and 3 that suffer . 2 and 3 do not overlap any more than do 3 and 4. But 2 and 3 very of ten agree on square and hearty prin ci ple. There are seri ous points of differ ence of prin ci ple, espe cially on in fer ence; but they are capa ble of being fair to each other and of re specting differ ences of prin ci ple. 3 and 4 do not belong to gether any more than 2 and 3, if as much. Yet they are tied to gether. This, with the re ally deeper uni ties between 2 and 3, which are so exas per at ing to 4, keeps 4 contin u ally worked up into fury and lash ing the wa ters.

Neither 2 nor 3 are by nature the aggres sor; but ei ther 1 or 4 man- ages to keep 2 and 3 al most contin u ously in hot wa ter. 2 has been in hot wa ter, boiled on the hot stove of 1, ever since she was a lit tle babe, and accepts peri odic scalding from it. She has also been re ceiv- ing many a scalding from 4, but since 4 has of late years been set ting up to be the essence of real Lutheranism, and has been assum ing that she is 3 and 4, 2 has turned to 3, and has said, "What are you, my dear one? Tell us now. Are you 4? If so, you are cer tainly not 3, and still less are you 2. If you are re ally 3, then be so, even if it be neces- sary to loosen your self from 4. We do not ask you to be 2, though we should in deed be very glad to have you, but we re spect your prin ciple. But we do ask you to be yourself, — else how can we deal with you? When we supposed that we were em brac ing you, lo and behold, our arm has got ten around 4, and the re sult was not conso la tion, but casti gation. Now no maiden can expect to win a friend if, being 3, her suitor does not know whether it re ally is 3 or whether it is 4. Though the voice be the voice of Jacob, the hand af ter all turns out to be the hand of Esau.

It seems to me that this is the situ ation in a nut shell, that it is the nature of the case, and that along side of it, the For mula of Con cord is sue, while it touches to the root in a way, is not the real sum and substance of the thing. But the For mula of Con cord is sue, being raised by 4, (please note it was raised by 4, and not by 2), and raised

242 so sneer ingly and offen sively , that 4 declared she would rather have her arm burnt off at the stake than ever accept the For mula as a test of Lutheranism, 2 could not do oth er wise than take the is sue as 4 taunt- ingly pressed it upon her.

Why is it, that a man like Dr. Jacobs, mild-man nered, gentle man ly, forgiv ing and concil ia tory, one who has al ways worked for peace, and one who has led in the effort to draw 2 and 3 to gether, would draw up such The ses as you heard at Buffalo? Those The ses did not come from the Ger mans. Neither were they a matter of aggrieved personal ity, but a matter of convic tion. There is a situ ation here, which has simp ly been forced upon 2, one might say, in a most brutal way. I doubt whether conser vative men out side of East ern Penn syl vania real ize what that situ ation has been, and how much some of us have done to try to avert it. It has been impos si ble. We have been obliged to meet 4. For years 3 has told us that 4 was noth ing, and should not be consid ered, and we believe they believe it. But we have found by most sad ex peri ence that it is other wise. 4 in sists on be ing met. Hence Buffalo. We cannot ask 3 to man age 4, for 4 does not want to be man- aged and will not be man aged. Neither can we ask 3 to sepa rate from 4, for 3 loves 4; — and that is none of our busi ness. Therefore we (by we, I mean 2, and not a few men of whom I am one person ally; for I am giv ing my ex pla nation of a general situ ation) did the only thing that was left.

The best solu tion that I see, is the one that the Lord has evi dently not yet given His consent to, that is, for 2 and 3 to bind 4 hand and foot. 3 is now en gaged in an effort to sew the mouth of 4 shut, for which I am exceed ingly thank ful; but I believe that the nature of 4’s jaw is of such a char acter that even the most approved and thor ough wire-stitch ing will not be able to keep its roar from be ing heard.

This letter makes clear the diffi cul ties that lay in the path way of the union that was later consum mated at New York. It is a frank and true state ment of a sit u ation that for years stood in the way of a closer affil i ation and union among Luther ans, and its spirit will not be misin ter preted.

243 16 - “The Confes sional Prin ciple” (1907-1911)

Dr. Schmauk as Sem i nary Pro fes sor Doc trine is in tellec tual and spir i tual bone. It is prin ci ple. Bet ter have a dozen di verse living species, each sepa rately ribbed and tempered, than amal gamate them all by re mov ing the bones and boiling them down together into one great cake of sheep meat jelly. A church with out dis tinctive doctri nal prin ci ple is a verte brate with out ver te brae.

SCHMAUK

THE MANY-TIMES PRES I DENT OF THE GEN ERAL COUN- CIL had pitched his confes sional song at Buffalo in a high key. Could he keep the Coun cil true to that pitch? There fol lowed much re joicing because of the strong confes sional note that had been struck. Let ters of approval came from the Iowa Synod and cre ated fresh hope that union with the Gen- eral Coun cil might re sult. Dr. Stell horn, of the Joint Synod of Ohio, who had been in cor re spondence with Dr. Schmauk several years before and who ent er tained high hopes of the lead ing part the latter was destined to take to keep the Gen eral Coun cil true to its confes sional po si tion, now expressed his joy at what had tran spired at Buffalo. Oth ers from out side the Gen eral Coun cil wrote to him in a simi lar vein. But af ter the enthu si asm had more or less subsided, Dr. Schmauk felt that the in flu ence of that conven tion would be tran sient if it were not followed up with a more thor ough dis cussion of the confes sional prin ci ples that had there found expres sion. With the passing away of so many pillars who were in fullest sym pathy with those prin ci ples, he feared a weak ening of the confes sional conscious ne ss if some thing were not done to strengthen it and keep it alive. There were in di cations on many sides that his fears

244 were well founded. Hence, in the fol low ing year, as early as May 7th, we read in his di ary, “Worked on Book.” Later this item appears again and again. On Sep tember 9, 1910, we read, “Proofs of Con fes sional Prin ci ple,” and on March 21, 1911, the words, “Confes sional In dex,” appear . On June 25, 1911, Dr. Jacobs wrote him the fol low ing brief letter:

I have just fin ished a rapid exam i nation of your book. I wanted to form an impres sion of it as a whole, before enter ing into the closer exam i nation of details. It has held me fast all day, except when in church, and for two brief breathing spells. I have read enough to lead me with out wait ing longer to ex press my in tense delight and most sin cere grat i tude. You have produced an epoch-making book. Not only will it live, but its in flu ence may be more far-reach ing than anything that has as yet appeared in the Eng lish lan guage within our Church. You have not left the least shred of an argu ment against the Con fes sional po si tion unanswered. I am aston ished at your patience in pursu ing your op po nent with the consid er ation of the most minute details on side questions, when you might have been content with your tri umphant over throw of the main argu ment.

This vol ume of 962 pages had been com pleted some time ear lier, when the book of Dr. Richard of Gettys burg enti tled “The Confes sional His tory of the Lutheran Church” appeared. He found so many mislead ing and harm ful state ments in this book that, af ter an immense amount of painstak ing re- search, he prepa red an “Histor i cal In tro duction” in which the real facts connected with the his tory of the Augsbur g Con fes sion are brought out in such re mark ably com plete detail and accu racy as to be al most the last word on the subject. It was a convinc ing refu ta tion of the po si tions taken in the “Confes sional History” of Pro fessor Dr. Richard. The theme of the Book may be stated in his own words in the pref ace: “Ab solute dep endence on the Word, that is, on the Holy Spirit in the Word, in the Church, has re sulted in the Evan gel i cal Lutheran Con fes sion.” In the prepa ra tion of this work, he was assi sted by Dr. C. T. Benze, who spent many days at Lebanon translat- ing from Kolde and other imp or tant authors that proved ser vice able. It called forth com men dations from many quarters. On June 25, 1911, Dr. Ja- cobs wrote him the fol low ing brief letter:

245 I have just fin ished a rapid exam i nation of your book. I wanted to form an impres sion of it as a whole, before enter ing into the closer exam i nation of details. It has held me fast all day, except when in church, and for two brief breathing spells. I have read enough to lead me with out wait ing longer to ex press my in tense delight and most sin cere grat i tude. You have produced an epoch-making book. Not only will it live, but its in flu ence may be more far-reach ing than anything that has as yet appeared in the Eng lish lan guage within our Church. You have not left the least shred of an argu ment against the Con fes sional po si tion unanswered. I am aston ished at your patience in pursu ing your op po nent with the consid er ation of the most minute details on side questions, when you might have been content with your tri umphant over throw of the main argu ment.

Dr. Jacobs was in spired to write a series of nine long ar ti cles for The Lutheran touch ing on many questions suggested by this book. Oth ers felt that a great defender of the faith had arisen. A Phil adel phia lawyer (G. E. Schlegelmilch) wrote him a long letter in which he stated that he had never known what it was to be a Lutheran un til he had read this book, and he hoped that many other lay men would also read it. More than one, in clud ing Dr. Jacobs, at once linked the author with Dr. Krauth. One lette r that came to him ex presses the general senti ment of all, a part of which reads thus:

Dr. Jacobs voices my convic tion when he vir tu ally says that you have taken a long step in advance of Krauth and given us a message that goes to the heart of things even more than did his. You have brought Krauth up to date. Your book has given me fresh hope and in spi ra tion. You have brought your great argu ment home to the Twen- ti eth Cen tury.

Dr. Schmauk As Sem i nary Pro fes sor

“Apologet ics is on a lower plane than Dogmat ics, inas much as the in tellect is below faith in the Chris tian’s life.” — "Science is our hold on nature; re li gion our hold on God. The ob ject of sci ence is to per- ceive the laws un derly ing the com plex i ties of nat u ral phenom ena; the

246 ob ject of re li gion is to supply the long ing of the soul for com mu nion and kin ship with the Fi nal Source of life, love, good ness and truth — God.

Since ethics deals with the right conduct of life, its stan dard must neces sar ily be the perfec tion of life; and to us Chris tians it has been set forth in the living person al ity of our Sav ior. Life can only be mea- sured and in ter preted by life. Hence even if the Scrip tures were a Book of Laws, which they are not, they could not be expected to contain an ul ti mate stan dard of ethics. Our abso lute stan dard of perfect life is found in the life and char acter of God, and He has been revealed to us in His Only Be got ten Son, full of grace and truth." — Schmauk.

When, in 1910, Dr. Jacobs had urged Dr. Schmauk to consent to being nom- i nated as profes sor, the latter in a lengthy letter gave rea sons why he felt that he could be of greater ser vice to the Sem i nary if he re mained pres i dent of the Board. A few quota tions will make his po si tion clear:

I re ally be lieve, and this is a mat ter of judg ment as well as of in cli- nation, that I can be of more ser vice construc tively to the Sem i nary and to the Church by re maining on the Board of Di rec tors, and by stand ing in the broader fields of church activ ity , than by concen trat- ing all my ener gy as a special ist in a partic u lar depart ment of in vesti- gation and teaching.

I love lit er ary work and teaching, and I do not care for admin is tra- tive work or for busi ness; but I do not believe it to be possi ble, if I should become a teacher, for me to continue bear ing the more general construc tive bur dens of the Church; and if I feel anxi ety, it is re ally more re specting these, than re specting any one depart ment in the Sem i nary.

As I look at it the up building work in our Board has just begun, and there is much hill climb ing to be done qui etly and conser vat ively, but steadily, still be fore us.

247 Fur ther, we are stand ing on the very brink of a change from the old to the new, and from the young to the old; and I believe that I can proba bly be of more ser vice to the in stitu tion in encour ag ing growth and prevent ing revo lu tion, on the Board, than if I were pinned down to a de part ment in the Fac ulty.

Still fur ther, it would be a very diffi cult thing for me to give up the preach ing office and pastoral work. I have my fa ther’s life as a minis- ter before me, and it is a source of com fort and safety to me where I can fol low in his foot steps. There are many specific rea sons that would enter into the state ments made above, and which it is not nec- essary to al lude to now, as I do not in my heart believe that I shall be re quired to meet this crisis.

I might proba bly be willing, if the Church thought so, to enter into some special tech ni cal course on a lec ture ship and teaching basis, with lim ited hours, and which would be un derstood to be of a tempo- rary natu re, un til the Church were more able to fill its needs. But I am not look ing to this, or even consid er ing it. And, so far as I can see now, it would only be to prevent another from enter ing the in stit u tion, whom I would regard as a great mistake, or if the Church would in- sist, and would convince me that I am do ing wrong, which I do not believe it will be able to do, that I would think of becom ing a pro fessor.

In his di ary of date May 19, 1911, are writ ten the words: “Ac cepted call to profes sorship — to serve one year gratu itously — expenses to be paid by the Board.” Dr. Schmauk was elected Pro fes sor at the Sem i nary at a Spe cial Session of the Min is terium, held in St. Mark’s Church, Phila del phia, Feb. 14, 1911. The chair to which he was elected was that of “The Con fession and Defense of the Christian Faith,” a new chair, provided for in the report presented to the Minis terium at this Special Ses sion by the Board. This added one more heavy re sponsi bility to the many oth ers he was al- ready assum ing. It had been hoped that he would re sign as pastor at Lebanon and lay aside nu mer ous other offices and du ties he was dis charg- ing, and devote himself more or less exclu sively to this new task. At this time he was serv ing as Presi dent of the Gen eral Coun cil, Presi dent of the

248 Board of Di rec tors of the Sem i nary, Trustee of Muhlen berg College and Chair man of its Commit tee on De grees, Ed i tor of the Re view, Lit er ary Ed i- tor of The Lutheran, Ed i tor of Lutheran Graded Sun day School Lesson Se- ries, Chair man of Ex ecu tive Commit tee of the Penn syl vania Ger man So ci- ety, Mem ber of Church Book Com mit tee, and several other regu lar appoint- ments that made drains upon his time and en ergy. But the friends who had urged him to limit himself were mistaken. When once he had firmly taken hold of a task, acquainted himself with its problems, and planned for the fur ther ance of the in ter ests that were in volved in it, he was not the man to let go. What he began must be consu m mated before he would be willing to re linquish any re sponsi bility he had assumed, and as he never saw the end of the task to which he was com mit ted, he held on. Be ing deeply con cerned in the car ry ing out of the Sem i nary’s plans for progress and expan sion, he re mained its Presi dent and declined a full profes sorship. He was not content to be a mere fig urehead in any office he assumed, and he kept his hand on the Sem i nary’s affairs down to the minut est details. He had an in telli gent grasp of the busi ness end of the admin is tra tion and always came to the Board meet ings well prepared with a com plete out line of matters to be dis cussed and fi nally set tled. He had well-ma tured ideas as to the cond uct of the Li brary and took a hand in re vis ing and re orga niz ing methods that proved to be no longer ade quate. He was equally in ter ested in a re vi sion of the courses offered at the Sem i nary and of improv ed methods of teaching, partic u larly af ter the Schieren Pro fes sorship had been estab- lished.

So then, as Dr. Jacobs says (Lutheran Church Re view, July, 1920), for nine years, at great sacri fice of time and la bor, and at immi nent risk to health and life, the two-fold Sem i nary burden of Presi dent of the Board of Direc tors and tem po rary incum bent of what amounted to a full profes sorship devolved upon him, in addi tion to his pastorate and his du ties as chief admin is tra tor of al most num berless impor tant Church re sponsi bili ties. So heavy and constant was the strain that no one man could be expected to bear it long. For he car ried no duty lightly; not only were all detai ls of each of his several avo cations

249 mas tered, but this was done also with great expense of feeling. Ev ery problem to be solved brought its pecu liar anxi eties. He was no tran- sient vis i tor to these grounds, per form ing a cer tain round of du ties perfunc to rily, scarcely learning the names of stu dents, and then hasten ing away to forget the Sem i nary amidst other occu pa tions un til the next week ar rived. Much that was on his mind he would not wait to dis cuss un til his next visit, but would com mu ni cate in fre quent and of ten long letters. Absence from fac ulty meet ings was very rare. He claimed his share and took his turn in al most all the extra du ties his asso ciates vol un tar ily assumed. Stu dents he learned to know not only in the class room, but in close personal contact, in which he dealt with them as an el der brother, sym pathiz ing with their perple x i ties and shar ing even in their merri ment. For their in struction, he was ever project ing what was fresh and new and could be of the most prac ti cal use. He was al ways col lect ing new ma te rial and mak ing new stud ies of the stu dents to whom he was to im part what he gathered.

Dr. Schmauk knew full well that the custom ary method of teaching Apolo- get ics failed in large mea sure to lead to posi tive, construc tive re sults, and he preferred to desig nate the po si tion he was to occupy as teacher, as the “Chair of the Chris tian Faith.” Dealing with mere negations and skepti cal argu men ta tions had lit tle at traction for him. He believed in planting himself firmly on the solid vantage ground of faith and mak ing that the start ing point from which to venture forth to meet the foe. How he in ter preted his task is set forth in the Sem i nary Cat alog of 1916 as fol lows:

Apolo get ics has usually been re garded as the sci entific defense of Chris tianity against any and all at tacks. Its aim, too of ten, has not been in vesti gation, but vin di cation. In stead of seeking patiently af ter the truth, and set ting forth the re sults impar tially , it has sought to overturn antag o nists. This has been done by a pri ori argu ments and a sum ma tion of facts that are now a relic of a by gone age. A broader and more constr uctive view of the work of this depart ment is to set forth the ul ti mate prin ci ples of Chris tianity in their in ner re la tions to each other and to the problems of the hu man mind, as these have been dev el oped his tor i cally, and thus afford the stu dent an ade quate basis and the ma te ri als for mak ing up his mind and ar riv ing at con-

250 vic tion on points of doubt and diffi culty. The in tellec tual side of Chris tianity becomes sci entific rather than mil i tant. Chris tianit y un- folds its own in ner strength, and begets its own convic tion in the mind. A posi tive and structural at ti tude, confi dent of the in herent rea- sonable ness of Chris tianity , so far as the in tellect is able to com pre- hend it, takes the place of a mere defense. The need of the age is an in sight into the in herent nature of Chris tianity , a search for, and an organic mainte nance of its own in ner value, a building up of its own in- tellec tual founda tion, in their re la tion to mod ern is sues. Hence the De part ment is re garded posi tively, as one of construc tion and mainte- nance.

As was to be expected, piles of ma te rial in the form of lec tures on this subject cover ing an immense field of thought and fact, were gath ered which with some re vi sion could easily be transformed into books. When, upon the death of Dr. Horn, the subject of Ethics was assigned to him, he launched into another bound less field of study and in vesti gation, and soon had enough ma te rial as sorted and ar ranged for several more books. The writer re quested Prof. Emil E, Fis cher, D.D., his succes so r, to furnish an out line of the subjects Dr. Schmauk felt called upon to teach. The reader will be struck with the richness and vastness of the field he at tempted to cover, and with the pecu liar ity of his method, which was in tended to en- large the stu dent’s vi sion, to strengthen convic tion, to broaden the scope of in ter est and to make last ing impres sions rather than to impart mere knowledge on the basis of which the stu dent could be ex am ined. The fol lowing courses, in clud ing elective and degree courses, were offered by Dr. Schmauk dur ing the years that he spent at the Semi nary:

The Chris tian Prin ci ple in Mod ern His tory. History of Thought, Ancient and Modem, in Its Re la tion to Chris tianity. Modern Criti cism and its Appli ca tion to Var i ous Parts of the Old Tes- ta ment Field. Prin ci ples of the Gen eral Coun cil and Their Appli ca tion to the Lo cal Con grega tion and to Var i ous Con tempo rary Tenden cies and Move- ments.

251 The Criti cal History of Unbe lief in Modern Think ing, with Spe cial Refer ence to the 19th Cen tury De vel op ments in Phi los o phy, and Sci- ence, and to 20th Century Prob lems. Grounds for Belief in Chris tianity . Philo sophi cal Argu ments for a Divine Be ing. The Psy chol ogy of Our Lord’s Life. The Sig nif i cance of the Phi los o phy of the Clos ing Part of Our Lord’s Life for Apologet ics. Chris tianity and Current Schools of Non-Chris tian Thought. The ory of Christian Edu cation. The Prob lems of the Church in Ed u cation and Christian Train ing. The Art of Teaching and of Chris tian Train ing. The Gen eral Coun cil Graded Sun day School Sys tem, Sun day School Teaching and Manage ment. The Train ing of Chil dren, A Com para tive Study of Bio log i cal, Moral, Le gal and Chris tian Prin ci ples. Source Col lec tions of Lutheran History in Amer ica. The Origin, Faith and Orga ni zation of Lutheranism in America The Con stitu tion of the United Lutheran Church in Amer ica. Present Problems in the Lutheran Church. Ethics of the In di vid ual Chris tian Life. Ethics of Govern ment, Ethics of Na tions, of War, of Diplo macy and So cial Ethics. The Eth i cal Teachings of Jesus. Analy sis of the Grow ing Group. Con sciousness in So cial Life: What Will be Its Influ ence on the Church? Prob lems in So cial Ethics: Poverty, Its Prob lems and Causes; Wealth and Its Distri bu tion. The Ethics of the Sermon on the Mount. Eth i cal Ele ments in Luther’s Early Trac tates.

Meth ods Of Teach ing

As in every thing else, Dr. Schmauk was unique in his method of teaching. His method is very fully described by one of his stu dents, now the Rev. Arthur H. Getz, who for some time acted as his secre tary and stenog ra-

252 pher. He express es at length what other stu dents have more briefly said and writ ten. We quote from him as follows:

No phase of Doc tor Schmauk’s multi far i ous activ i ties was closer to his heart than that of in struct ing his stu dents at the Phil ade l phia The o log i cal Sem i nary. He care fully and consci entiously prepared for every hour with his classes. Though some times tired af ter weari some com mit tee meet ings, and fa tigued from trav el ing and lack of sleep, his buoy ant spirit was re vived the mo ment he entered the classroom and came into contact with his stu dents. Who among his stu dents can ever forg et his hearty, cheery, sin cere greeting as he entered his class- room and said: “Good morn ing, boys. How are you this morn ing?” Ev ery word of that greeting spoke of in ter est in every in di vid ual member of the class. A few ad di tional re marks, perhaps upon the weather, perhaps upon some event in the life of the stu dent body, perhaps upon some event recorded in the morn ing news paper , served to arouse the at ten tion of all present, and in every case served to lead di- rectly to the Sub ject un der consid er ation. A mo ment or two was spent in re call ing to mind the subject last dis cussed and in connect ing it with the subject next to be dis cussed, and then the work of the hour had begun.

No one method of in struction was used to the exclu sion of all others. Some times he em ployed the question and answer method; then he encou r aged a free dis cussion; and of ten he lec tured. Frequent refer ence was made to the nat u ral phenom ena, to the things fa mil iar to the men in their every day life, to the tri als and expe ri ences with which all were fa mil iar, and to the bonds which were dear to all. The in tellect and mind, the heart and emo tions, the fears, the doubts, the hopes, the misgiv ings, the joys, the sorrows were all appealed to as occa sion war ranted, in im press ing upon students eternal truths.

For the thoughtful stu dent Doc tor Schmauk was the ideal teacher, and every hour seemed like a model class in peda gogy . He was always dig ni fied in the class-room, and yet ever willing to come down to the level of the most hum ble stu dent. Form for form’s sake was an- noy ing to him, but form for the sake of decency and or der was an ab-

253 solute req ui site in his class-room. He never sought to impress the dig- nity of his po si tion as a member of the fac ulty and as Presi dent of the Board of Direc tors of the Sem i nary upon his stu dents, but loved to assume the role of “Older brother.” Noth ing pleased him more than to see the whole class gather close to him, un der his very eyes, so that he could speak to them out of the full ness of his heart. No in ter est of the class or of any member of the class was for eign to him, and the most triv ial question was answe red with an earnestness wor thy of the most weighty philosoph i cal problem.

The most diffi cult subjects to teach in a Sem i nary curricu lum are perhaps Ethics and Apolo get ics. For not only must cer tain funda men- tal truths be dis covered, and cer tain immutable laws adhered to, but these truths and laws must then be il lus trated from life so that the prin ci ples may be in delibly stamped upon the minds of the stu dents. And fre quently, due to the in tensely prac ti cal nature of these subjects, there is room for di versity of opin ion when the rules are to be ap plied to in di vid ual cases. Hence there is a dou ble danger which the profes- sor of these subjects must avoid: the danger of merely lec tur ing without al low ing a dis cussion by the class, which would both clarify and deepen the impres sion; and the danger of al low ing the dis cussion to over-em phasize minute points at the expense of the larger is sues, and thus lead into by-paths. In or der to avoid this dou ble diffi culty Doctor Schmauk closely fol lowed a care fully prepared man u script. At times he would read word for word what he had writ ten, but his read ing was so elo quent that it never became weari some to the class. At other times he used a very full out line as the basis of his lec tures. But whether the lec ture was deliv ered from out line or from man u script, the style was brilliant, sparkling, scin til lating, fasci nat ing, and he who had an ear for rhyth mical sentences, an appre ci ation for fig u ra tive lan guage, a mind for philosop h i cal thought, could not help being thrilled by the words which fell from the lips of this mas ter teacher.

The person who is not in ti mately acquainted with the method which Doc tor Schmauk used will wonder if his lec tures were al ways appro pri ate, for lec tures read from man u script, espe cially if years have passed since the man u script was pre pared, do not al ways present

254 the most timely il lus tra tions. How ever, in this case, the il lus trations and the time li ness of every part of the lec ture was one of the great sources of power. And this was due to the man ner of prepa ra tion for lec tures which the Doc tor em ployed. At the begin ning of the year a care ful out line was prepared of the subjects to be treated in the course, with headings, di vi sions, sub-di vi sions, and sub-sub-di vi- sions. This out line might be di gressed from in the course of the year, due to questions brought up by the class; but it was never forg ot ten, and sooner or later there was a re turn to it. The out line was prepared at the begin ning of the course, af ter an immense amount of reading which had been thor oughly di gested, but the man u script it self was writ ten within a very short time before the lec ture was deliv ered, of- ten the very night before. This assured timely il lus tra tions, har mony of thought and plan, and such brevity and concise ness that every word of the lec ture counted. It is this care ful prepa ra tion, al most imme di ately preced ing the lec ture, that accounts for the wonder ful epi- gram matic style used in the class-room.

The stu dent was at liberty to in ter rupt at any point of the lec ture in or der to ask a question. Such questions were al ways answered with a full ness of thought and knowl edge that was astound ing, with a suavity that was admirable, and with an earnestness of purpose that was truly in spir ing. If a question re quired such detailed or minute in- for ma tion that on the spur of the mo ment he could not be cer tain of the answer , he frankly stated so, giv ing what he thought was the solu- tion, and promis ing to verify it before the next class, and in no case did he forget to give fuller in for ma tion at the next meet ing. He also made a men tal note of all ques tions asked, and af ter class ana lyzed them, try ing to find out what in the previ ous train ing or expe ri ence of the man led him to ask the question. And if he dis covered the least trace of anything that might prove danger ous to the man’s thought, such as the in flu ence of radi cal ism, he would again re fer to the question at the begin ning of the next meet ing and clear up all diffi cul ties. In or der that he might do this the bet ter he tried to learn what books the men were read ing, and if there were any he was un fa mil iar with, no matte r what their char acter , he would secure them and give them his care ful at ten tion. Thus he main tained a firm hold upon stu dents,

255 and by his broad-minded dis cussion of the problems they were thinking about, held their love and won their ad mira tion.

The in for ma tion imparted to stu dents in the class-room was valu- able, and yet if all this in for ma tion were forgot ten, if every last fact re lated were blotted from the mem ory of those who sat at the feet of this este emed teacher, the hours spent with him would yet be of last- ing value, for his un shakable convic tion of the truth of Chris tianity of very neces sity strength ened the faith of all who knew him. His lec- tures were full of personal tes ti mony, and which of his stu dents will ever forget the im pres sion made by the il lus tra tion of the blind man in John and the quot ing of the words: “This I know; whereas before I was blind, now I see”? By the in spi ra tion of Doc tor Schmauk’s faith, doubts were re moved, new strength imparted, fresh courage imbibed; for to him the Gospel of the Scrip tures were in very deed “the power of God unto salva tion.”

256 257 17 - The Quadri Cen ten nial Cel e- bra tion of the Ref or ma tion (1917-1920)

“Faithful com mon action and com mon ser vice come out from a com mon faith. Union is re ally a matter of vi tal growth from within out wards, and cannot be hurried by casting away convic tions. God brought men to Amer- ica to unite. But, sir, it is to be by growth and breed ing. It is to be by pu ri fy- ing the blood, not by re mov ing the bone. Meanwhile, there are things worse than Di vi sion, in differ ence is worse. World li ness is worse. Hypocrisy is worse. Prose lyti sm is worse. Love of grand effect is worse. Waver ing in faith is worse.”

SCHMAUK

AL READY IN 1909 at the Min neap o lis Con vention of the Gen eral Coun cil, its Presi dent was look ing for ward to a wor thy cel ebr ation of the four hun dredth an niver sary of the birth of the Refor ma tion. In his re port, he re calls the “profound in flu ence exerted upon the early part of the Nine- teenth Century , and felt through out the whole century , and even to day, by the cel ebra tion of the Three Hundredth Anniver sary of the founding of Protes tantism,” when Claus Harms in 1817 by his ninety-five the ses “sounded the trum pet and awoke the hosts of the Lord against the prevail- ing ra tional ism and union ism into which Protes tantism had been fall ing.” He urges the im portance of mak ing “a mighty effort to do some thing hand- some for our edu cational and mission ary work during the next eight years” in appre ci ation of God’s blessings through the Refor ma tion. He hopes to awaken an in ter est among Ameri cans in “the funda men tal prin ci ples of liberty and law, of progress and con ser vatism which un derlie the best life in

258 this nation and which are found in the his tory and doctrines of the Church of the Con ser vative Ref or ma tion.” Again at the Lan caster Con ven tion two years later, he em bod ies in his re port the fol low ing:

There re main but six years for the Lutheran Church to prepare a proper World Cel ebra tion of the Quadricen ten nial of the Refor mation. The cel ebra tion this year of the Three Hundredth Anniver sary of the Auth o rized ver sion of the Eng lish Bible has shown that al most no Eng lish or Ameri can writ ers have taken cognizance of the part Luther’s Ger man Ver sion played in the mak ing of the Eng lish Ver- sion, and the les son taught is, that, un less we take time by the fore- lock, as a Church, the begin nings of Protes tantism will be cel eb rated here in America by Ameri cans with Luther as a great and heroic histor i cal char acter , but with the Lutheran Church re garded as some ob- scure sect which has barely heard of the Great Re former. To the Ju- bilee Com mit tee of our Coun cil has been com mit ted the extr aor di- nary fi nancial task of raising two mil lion dol lars for the Church in honor of the Jubilee, and also of submit ting plans at this session for the worthy cel ebra tion of the com ing event.

His enthu si asm for the forth com ing cel ebra tion was all the more strengthened because he hoped thereby to see an awak ening of the confes sional conscious ness in his own and other branches of the Lutheran Church and a tidal wave of evangel i cal Chris tianity set in mo tion among Protes tants to counter act the ra tional ism and liber al ism of the day. At the Toledo Con vention in 1913, he re ports that in vi ta tions had been extended to the Gen eral Synod and the United Synod South to unite with the Coun cil in a joint plan of cel ebra tion. There re sulted in the fol low ing year, on Sep tem ber 1st, a joint meet ing of the com mit tees of the three bod ies at At lantic City, and on Janu ary 29th and 30th of 1915 another meet ing at Pitts burgh with repre senta tives of the Iowa and Ohio Syn ods also present. Thus was ushered in a united move ment, with Dr. Schmauk as Chair man of the Quadricen ten nial Commit tee, which was destined to re sult in a new epoch in Ameri can Lutheran his tory.

259 This placed upon the shoul ders of the Coun cil’s pres i dent an added burden of re sponsi bility . The break ing out of the War, which had shaken the world with the force of an earth quake from center to cir cum fer ence, made the task of cre at ing Refor ma tion enthu si asm exceed ingly diffi cult and seri- ously disturbed his peace of mind. He had much to contend with to estab- lish or derly and effec tive modes of proce dure because of loose and ir re- sponsi ble activ i ties and in ter fer ence on the part of oth ers. Be cause of the divided con di tion of the Church, there seemed to him to be too much overlap- ping of effort, and he com plains: “These free lance methods are the bane of our Church, and makes those of us who believe in or der of ten feel that it is not worth while to try for any higher union.” He was speaking of an active com mit tee op er at ing in New York with out co-or di nation with his own commit tee. He writes to one of the brethren in New York late in 1916:

The root diffi culty in the case is a loose ness of general orga ni zation of the Lutheran Church, which, then, in concen tra tion upon any specific ob ject such as this leads to multi plica tion of ma chin ery and overlap ping.

Ten days later he com plains to the same brother of the confu sion cre ated by not rightly cor re lating the machin ery, in these words:

The multi tude of details pouring al most daily into my office is so far be yond my strength that it at times al most fills me with despair .

Nor were his diffi cul ties lessened even when in the fol low ing year some sem blance of or der was estab lished; for when the United States entered the war, there were those who felt the sting of the re proach that was so un justly heaped upon the Lutheran Church by an in sid i ous propa ganda and at once urged that the cel ebra tion be abandoned. The very men tion of the name Luther, who at times was spoken of as re sponsi ble for the war, and the cou- pling of the name of William Ii with the Lutheran Church as if his mil i taris- tic phi los o phy and his mistak enly supposed Lutheranism were synony mous, were not conducive to much Ref or ma tion enthu si asm, and the anoma lous situ ation wor ried the di recting genius of the Quadricen ten nial Commit tee more than a lit tle. But while this chilled the move ment, it did not chill Dr. Schmauk’s re solve to proceed with the cel ebra tion, however un to ward the cir cum stances might be.

260 The Lutheran War Com mis sion

Then came the Lutheran War Commis sion. As Dr. Schmauk had a lead ing hand in the orga ni zation of this Commis sion, a few words must be said as to its in ception. Steps to care for our sol diers and sailors had been taken by the Penn syl- vania Min is terium and later by other eastern synods. As re sults were not sat is fac tory because the neces sary co-or di nation of activ i ties on a larger scale was lack ing, the Presi dent of the Min is terium of Penn syl vania (Dr. H. A. Weller) called a meet ing of the com mit tees of the several synods. Dr. Knubel was present as one of the repre senta tives, and when Dr. Weller suggested the for ma tion of a National Lutheran Commis sion and that the Presi dent of the Gen eral Coun cil be asked to call a meet ing of all the pres i- dents of Lutheran bod ies or synods look ing to that end, it was so agreed, and the same night, in the month of Sep tember , 1917, tele grams were sent by Dr. Schmauk to the vari ous pres i dents, and not long therea fter the Na- tional Lutheran War Commis sio n, with Dr. Knubel as its head, came into exis tence. As Pres i dent of the Gen eral Coun cil, he felt obliged to keep in close touch with its work and was in constant corre spondence, giv ing counsel and di rec tion, in or der that the church body he repre sented might be sure to do its part in fur nish ing chaplains, camp pastors, Red Cross work ers and funds to meet the needs of the crisis. His letters here again reveal his deep concern for or derly proce dure and for the proper co-or di nation of the agencies and the church bod ies in this work. This soon became an accom plished fact, and with an able and effi cient War Commis sion function ing for the whole Lutheran Church (except ing Mis souri), in or derly man ner, the ma chin ery moved along smoothly and with out any seri ous hitches. While Dr. Schmauk was not an active member of the Commis sion, he did much by way of advice and di rec tion to add to its effi ciency.

The Event ful Meet ing Of April 18, 1917

When the Quadricen ten nial Com mit tee met at the City Club, Phil adel phia, on April 18, 1917, a surprise was sprung upon its chairman and the other

261 cleri cal member s. The question to be dis cussed was “Feder ation or Uni fi cation of the Lutheran Church.” Dr. Schmauk opened the dis cussion by stating that he “was op posed to feder ation.” There was “too much states rights idea” about it. “This would only post pone real unity and even op pose it.” He “was prepared to offer a sliding scale from a general to as much involved a union as the Lutheran Church will stand. In a word, what we want is an org anic uni fi cation of the whole, and not a strength ening of in di vid ual units by a mu tual league which will encour age perma nent mainte nance of smaller bod ies in their in di vid ual spheres.” Then came the surprise. The Hon. J. L. Zim mer man imme di ately arose and said: ’The lay men have a plan of uni fi cation which will merge the bodies that enter it," and proceeded to read a res o lu tion that had been adopted by the lay men in sepa rate session the evening before: “Resolved, That this meet ing re quest the Joint Lutheran Commit tee to ar range a gene ral meet ing of the Luther ans to for mu late plans for the uni fi cation of the Lutheran Church in America.” With his clear in sight for or derly proce dure, Chair man Schmauk, some- what surprised and non plussed, re marked: “This must be presented to and acted upon by the offi cial author i ties of the Church in a meet ing of the men from all bod ies partic i pat ing. There must be proper author ity to propose plans.” “This plan will in clude all bod ies willing to unite,” replied Mr. Zim mer- man. “It is essen tial to agree upon method before mak ing the offi cial proposal to any body if there is to be hope of its success,” remarked Dr. Schmauk. Then Mr. E. Clarence Miller rose and said: “There is no com mit tee in my opin ion which has as much author ity to dis cuss the union of the three bod ies as this one. We are appo inted with author ity to ar range for a proper cel ebra tion of the Four Hun dredth Anniver sary of the Ref or ma tion. Nothing we can do can bet ter mark this cel ebra tion than the union of the Lutheran Church, or at least our three bod ies. At the first meet ing of the Joint Com- mit tee at At lantic City, I presented a res o lu tion that the cel ebra tion should be marked by the union of the three bod ies in the year 1917, but such a mo- tion was then consid ered prema ture. The time has now come for us to un- dertake this great move for our Church. This is the psycho log i cal mo ment,

262 and I move that when we conve ne af ter lunch we dis cuss the basis of unity look ing toward the union of the three bod ies.” The lay men had taken the meet ing by storm and the mo tion car ried without fur ther debate. At the af ter noon session, a defi nite plan for union was presented by Mr. Miller advo cat ing the merg ing of the three bod ies; the extend ing of an in vi ta tion to other Lutheran bod ies af ter the plan should be approved by the three; the merg ing of all the boards except the Swedish and the Ger man; and the appoint m ent of a com mit tee to prepare a consti tu tion. Af ter fur ther dis cussion by the lay men, there was no dis po si tion on the part of the clergy to op pose the plan, though the question of di vergence in prac tice was raised as a pos si ble ob sta cle in the way. The Chair man was then re quested to present a plan which he deemed to be feasi ble. His plan provided for a gradual grow ing to gether un til the time was ripe for com plete merg ing when the orig i nal bod ies should cease to exist. He stated: “The essen tial differ ence between my plan and that proposed by Mr. Miller is that the latter contem plates an imme di ate merger of uni ties and mine contem plates an organic absorp tion of uni ties. My plan would go into grad ual op er ation; that of the lay men into imme di ate op er ation.” When asked for the differ ence between a Fed er ation and a Unity of uni- ties, he replied that

A Fed er ation, while more substa n tial than a league, is less so than a Union or a Unity. A League is a bun dle of in depen dent uni ties, tied to gether by bind ing com pact or by treaty. The bond is exter nal and does not imply per ma nent control. A Fed er ation is a series of sep arate sover eign states bound to gether by a com pact or act of union which is not re construc ti ve of the uni ties, and which re tains the in ter nal sovereignty of each mem ber unim paired. The bond is in ter nal, but not re construc tive. A Unity of Uni ties is a fi nal and substan tial entity , in essence, in which the units perm anently give over general powers to the central unity and in which the central unity, to the extent to which it has pow ers, gov erns the whole organ ism.

In the case of our Church, the Gen eral Bod ies would go into the higher unity, not un der pres sure of an imme di ate or hasty merger, but

263 would give up succes sively such functions as were ready to be merged. This leaves provi sion for the Gen eral Bod ies to exist un til they find themselves able to transfer all powers to the general unity and thus become absorbed in it.

As will thus be seen, there was in Dr. Schmauk that sound Lutheran in stinct which dis counts union for union’s sake but wants it to be rooted in an organic in ner life. Church bod ies should grow to gether and not be merely tied to gether. The in stinct was true to the faith and spirit and char acter of the man. When it became known that the Quadricen ten nial Commit tee had taken steps look ing to an imme di ate union, the question was raised as to its author ity to project such a move ment. An edi to rial appeared in The Lutheran question ing its author ity. Both Drs. Jacobs and Schmauk, as their corre- spondence re veals, were op posed to so sudden a welding to gether of the bod ies before the bod ies themselves could have an op portu nity to move in the mat ter. The for mer had offered a mo tion look ing to ward a more delib er - ate and gradual method of uni fi cation and had ex pressed himself as opposed to precip i tate action. But the die was cast. Union in some way and in some form was now to be wrought out, and at the Chair’s sugges tion a com mit tee was appointed to prepare a mode of proce dure. (Dr. Singmaste r later presented an admirable plan that was adopted). When af ter wards a mo tion was made that the pres i dents of the three bod ies appoint a com mit tee to draft a consti tu tion, and that this com mit tee re ceive from the boards plans as to their merg ing, the fi nal re sult to be presented to the Gen eral Bod ies the same year, the path way was cleared for the union which took place at New York on No vem ber 11, 1918. A second sober thought on the part of not a few, endorsed the con vic tion of the Presi dent of the Gen eral Coun cil, that haste could have been made to good advan tage a lit tle more slowly. There were impor tant is sues in volved, and fears were expressed that the Augus tana Synod, and several Ger man synods, might not be willing to enter so hard-and-fast a merger. Be sides, such a union of the more Angl i cized bod ies would tend to alien ate other Lutheran bod ies that fa vored a Fed er ation and thus post pone the day of ul ti- mate union. Dr. Schmauk feared this and it re mains to be seen whether or not his fears were well founded. As before noted, he wanted no “Atlantic

264 Coast Lutheranism” that would tend to foster an East ern Lutheranism as over against a still narrower and more constricted type of West ern Lutheranism. The fu ture of the Lutheran Church in this country demanded a welding process that would give promise of linking both to gether so soon as nation al is tic pe culiar i ties should cease to control the sit u ation. Three days previ ous to the event ful meet ing of the Joint Commit tee on Con stitu tion on May 31, 1917, at Har ris burg, there appears in his di ary the brief no ta tion: “Con stitu tion Mat ters, etc.” The fol low ing day it appears again with the addi tion, “All work ing.” (Dr. Schmauk had called to his assis tance two men of large expe ri ence in such matters — Drs. Weller and Keiter — and assigned them special tasks to work out and for mu late.) The third day it appears again, with the words, “All work ing till 11.00 P. M.” added. Thus an elab o rate form of Con stitu tion, em body ing the essen tial el e- ments that found expres sion in the Con stitu tion of the United Lutheran Church, was ready for that meet ing. It occu pied thirty-two type writ ten pages and many parts of it were writ ten out in theti cal rather than consti tu- tional form so as to form the ba sis for fruit ful dis cussion. At a pre lim i nary meet ing of the pres i dents of the three bod ies about to merge, the vari ous ar ti cles of their consti tu tions were placed side by side, only to demon strate that nei ther of them, nor all com bined, could fur nish a sat is fac tory basi s for the proposed union. When the entire Com mit tee assem bled. Dr. Schmauk offered to present his out line of fif teen “Points to be Con sid ered in Prepar ing a Con stitu tion.” This, to gether with an exhaus tive state ment of the Prin ci ples of Faith prepared by Dr. Jacobs, Sr., then became the basis for dis cussion. It is enough to say, that what was gained by a rich exp eri ence in Dr. Schmauk’s four teen years’ in cum bency as Presi dent of the Gen eral Coun cil has found its way into the Con stitu tion of The United Lutheran Church, which is acknowl edged on all sides to be chiefly his creation and his mon u ment.

“A Far-Reach ing Ques tion”

His conc ern for a union that would em brace more than the three bod ies led him to put the question to the members of the Commit tee at this Har ris burg

265 meet ing: “Will the uniting of the Three Gen eral Bod ies fur ther or hin der the uniting of the Whole Lutheran Church in America?” To this he gives the fol low ing an swer:

It will fur ther it only if:

1 The contem plated step brings about no splits of minori ties and the forma tion of one or more new bod ies;

2 If the re spect which each of the Bod ies now enjoys in the eyes of bod ies out side be not weakened and de stroyed;

3 If the new body show it self to be fair and open to a still larger unity;

4 Inas much as the new United Church will contain, at best, only one-third of all the Luther ans in North America, and proba bly much less, and as it may still be overto pped in num bers by another Gen eral Body, should not this meet ing give some consid er ation to an off er for a pro posed feder ation of all Luther ans, based to some extent on the exist ing Ohio Con stitu tion, into which the Augus tana Synod could come?

He then out lines a “Proposed Con stitu tion of Fed er ation” and sug gests as a name “The Fed er ated Al liance of the Lutheran Church in Amer ica.” Of this general body which was to meet every five years, the United Lutheran Church should then become a part. Later, however , he became convinced that such a loose feder ation would re tard rather than promote unity, and it was not fur ther consid ered. As the first Pres i dent of The United Lutheran Church, Dr. Knubel, enthu si asti cally told the writer: “It is a mas ter piece of its kind, and the more I study it, the more I feel that I would not change a sin gle sentenc e or phrase in it.” The Dec la ra tion on Catholic ity, which in essence is Dr. Knubel’s creation, and which was adopted at Washing ton, is a clear-cut supple ment and appli ca tion of the prin ci ple of co op er ation and is rooted in this match less consti tu tion. The merit of Dr. Schmauk’s cre ation lies in the fact that it steers clear of the partic u lar ism which feder ation would foster on the one

266 hand and of the central iza tion of power in the hands of an Ex ecu tive, or of a Board, on the other.

Fac ing Dif fer ences And Dif fi cul ties

In his frank and open way, Dr. Schmauk from the very begin ning in sisted that diffe r ences in spirit and prac tice should not be ig nored, and he prepared a “state ment of a prelim i nary un derstand ing as to exist ing differ ences of prac tice and pos si bly of prin ci ple” which reads as fol lows:

We who are charged with provid ing a harmo nious plan of uni fi cation, of putting it into work able or der, should not ig nore diffi cul ties, but ought to consider and exam ine them where they exist and see what, if anything , can be done to prevent their fu ture appear ance as a dis ruptive fac tor.

We must rec og nize that there are great differ ences of prac tice in the bod ies at tempt ing to unite, and in some cases be tween the bodies.

Our hope is that time, patience, hon est work ing out of Lutheran prin ci ple, will tend, as al ways does the power of the truth, to clarify and unify these things. Meantim e, so as not to give offense to consciences, or to pro duce a more hope less dis in te gration than that which we are at tempt ing to heal, we must al low in di vid ual expres sion to both parties in any case of diff er ences, and must seek an hon or able modus vivendi un der such diffi cul ties. Our Con stitu tion, in or der to keep the main track of action clear and un encum bered, and to fi nally secure a just sol u tion of these perplex ing problems, has provided that they be re ferred to our Commis sion of Adju di cation, which shall give it self to search for a just funda men tal view cover ing the case and a modus vivendi that will be Lutheran in prin ci ple, and fair in all questions of practice.

The fol low ing are among the questions of differ ing prac tice: Open Pul pits, Open Al tars. Re vivals, Great Movements of the Day Fed eral Coun cil, Y. M. C. A.; Chris tian Unity, Mem bership in Secret Frater ni- ties which have a Re li gion or a Wor ship and Rit ual of their own, Co-

267 op er ation with other De nom i nations. There is a differ ence between coop er ation and fel low ship. The latter is a far more in ti mate thing. Co op er ation is a work ing to gether in the support and exe cu tion of a com mon plan of action. Fel low ship is a life to gether. Co op er ation is a lim ited asso ci ati on for defi nite ends; but fel low ship is un lim ited asso- ci ation in spir i tual life.

Modern Chris tianity greatly abuses the prin ci ple of fel low ship, and in so far de stroys its value and its sa cred ness. On the grounds of a broad hu man ity it would admit even those to the heart of the Church who des pise the precious mer its of the Head of the Church. This is not broad-mind ed ness, but lati tu di nari anism. As an offi cial act, to be dis tinguished from any kindly spirit which may ani mate it, it does in- jury, and is prac ti cally dis re spect to the name of our Lord, which is the only name under Heaven whereby we are saved.

We should ever bear an open, lov ing and help ful, not a closed at ti- tude to ward those out side of us who hold hon est convic tions differ ent from our own, in the fear of God and with un corrupt will. We should be patient, bear ing all things, having plea sure in approval rather than condem nation; in concord rather than in dis cord. We should be willing and anxious to coop er ate for the saving of souls and the up building of Christ’s King dom with all of God’s children where soever they may be found. Yet we are prevented from coop er at ing if thereby an in jury is done to the blood-bought treasure, the pure doctrine of sal- vation, the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, for which thou sands of our fathers have laid down home, friends, worldly suc cess and life.

With those to whom the pu rity of the faith means lit tle, or means less than friendship, blood, prac ti cal success, the spirit of the age, we are in dan ger. A Church which exists solely for the sake of the pure Gospel prin ci ple cannot be asked to com mit it self to asso ci ation with any people, plan, teachings, or temper a ment, which derogates from the truth, or con veys the impres sion that we have loos ened our hold and re laxed our standard of the truth.

Wher ever we can work with a com mon Chris tianity , with the as- surance that no harm, imme di ate or ul ti mate, will come to our own

268 great purpose of wit ness to the truth, we are ready to do so with joy. On the other hand, un willing ness to coop er ate with oth ers, if it grow out of hon est convic tion, is not to be taken as sign of big otry, or as evi dence of a nar row out look, but as a willing ness to stand by one’s convic tions, and to be loyal to Christ and His truth as we see it.

Wher ever we can coop er ate on the founda tion of unity in doctrine and faith and in the Sacra ments, which is the cri te rion set up by the Augs burg Con fession, we ought to do so; and in all cases we are to possess the temper of a sym pathetic mind, the strong grasp of an honest heart, the sterling dis po si tion which is true at once to faith and to char ity, and which, in the long run, is the only one of ser vice in dealing with the problem of a com mon Chris tianity , a problem which we did not our selves cre ate and which God Him self will have a hand in solv ing.

This leads to the fol low ing po si tions:

1 We will coop er ate with all com mon move ments with which we are on com mon ground, or which show such re spect and un derstand- ing for our ground as not to mini mize it or in volve it in peril, or which will not lead to the appear ance of fel low ship and unity where in re al ity it does not ex ist.

2 That in any such move ment we are al ways repre sent ing our own prin ci ples and prac tice and are assum ing re sponsi bility only in those matters in which we are in com plete harmony with the prin ci ples and prac tice of the movement.

3 That in di vid ual liberty of coop er ation is to be deter mined by the offi cial decla ra tions of the Church on the subject, and that com mit- tees and fra ter nal del egates are to go only so far as they repre sent the prin ci ples and decla ra tions of the Church.

Dr. Schmauk’s Ideal Of The Merger

269 When once his convic tion was formed that in the Prov i dence of God the time for this union had come, he poured the whole ener gy of heart and soul into it and became the very in car nation of the project. What may be termed a sort of salu ta tory and prophecy of the Merger finds expres sion in these words of his which appeared in The Lutheran previ ous to the New York Con vention:

My ideal of the Merger is to get to gether what belongs to gether in Christ. It is to make supreme, over all in ci dental is sues of ter ri to ri al- ism, cul ture, lan guage, or other in ci dentals. Our com mon convic tion, trust, faith in the Gospel as we see it in its world-con quering power. It is to knit to gether into a com mon organ ism and active life all those who are in the unity of the faith. In stead of an aggre ga tion or string of tiny jan gling bells, whose confused notes of ten neutral ize each other, it is to fuse our pre cious metal into one great and deep-throated cathedral bell of tes ti mony, whose tones, ring ing true to the precious metal of which it is com posed, shall vi brate its mu sic of tes ti mony to the ends of the earth.

But this is not to be a me chani cal consol i dation, in spired by mere economic or other secondary mo tives. The fer vor of our orig i nal in di- vid ual life is not to be asphyx i ated, crushed, or evapo rated out of us. The most del i cate flower of in di vid u al ity, as God has cre ated it in us, and as Christ has nourished it by His Holy Spirit, is not to be destroyed by the mech anism of uni for mity. We are deal ing with organic life, the life of the Spirit, and not with in ert masses. Our problem is to grow into liberty and unity, one and in sepa ra ble. No one is forc ing this movement of growth by a hot-house process.

We are living to day in a world fer ment such as has not occurr ed for many ages. Prov i dence has fur nished us an op portu nity in this period of the rise of world move ments among nations, which will not come to us again for gener ations. The nations of the earth, ori ent and Oc ci dent, are act ing to gether in great and com mon vol ume such as has never been known before. The mind of the country is being edu- cated to look to essen tial move ments, and to drop that which is sec-

270 ondary. Ev eryth ing is being orga nized along the line of its greatest strength and for the at tainment of its supreme pur pose.

The Amer i can nation has been roused to enter the war for the purpose of up hold ing its own high est ideals, and of mak ing them perma- nently effec tive in the his tory of the world. Such days as we are living in, big with issues of the fu ture, have never dawned on any Amer- i can gener ation. Shall the secu lar forces of hu man ity com bine into a mighty broth er hood, un der the in flu ence of com mon ideals and for the exe c u tion of ul ti mate purposes, while the broth er hood of the Lord lags far in the rear in frag men tary confes sion of its faith? Our faith is the sub limest of all ideals, and if men of the world, into which it has been brought to day, are willing to offer life and treasure for the common cause, the Church of our Lord, with an ideal higher, more glo ri- ous, and more im perish able than them all, must assert her loy alty to her cause, must re veal her in ner unity of faith in her actual broth er- hood of life, and must step forth in the confi dence of her strength in her vic to ri ous Lord to do things, to convince hearts, and to mea sure up to her op portu ni ties, far more fully than she has at tempted in the past.

Work ing For The Merger

The years 1917 and 1918 proved to be extremely busy and event ful and made heavy demands upon his strength and ener gy. As Chair man of the Ways and Means Commit tee to prepare for the merg ing of the three bod ies, and as Presi dent of the Gen eral Coun cil to keep the Swedes and Ger mans in sym pathy with the move ment, an enormous amount of la bor and re sponsi- bility fell to his lot which, added to his pastoral, profes sorial, lit er ary and other activ i ties, of ten made him feel like an At las car ry ing the world on his shoul ders. Not with stand ing many seri ous physi cal break downs, he did an amount of work which it would have been fool ish for even three gifted men to attempt. Protests on the part of physicians and friends seemed useless; for the zeal of the Lord’s House had eaten him up. A cri sis was upon the Church and, whatever might happen to his body, his spirit must toil on in spite of the frail ten ement in which it was encased. That in domitable will of

271 his kept the spirit function ing, and it of ten seemed as if he lived more out of the body than in the body. How ever far afield his spirit might roam, it bore on its wings the motto, “I must work the works of Him that sent me while it is day, for the night cometh when no man can work.” When friends in several synods wrote to him express ing misgiv ings as to the wisdom of the Merger, he poured forth long letters giv ing rea sons why the Merger could no longer be delayed. To those who feared that the Lutheran Church’s po si tion against secretism and union ism would be jeop- ar dized, he writes that these dangers cannot be warded off by leg is la tion and dis ci pline, but by an earnest and consci entious edu cational process. He com plains that if the Ohio, Iowa, Wis consin, Michi gan and other synods had united with the Gen eral Coun cil in 1867 and adopted its edu cational method of deal ing with these is sues, the out look for fu ture his toric Lutheranism in this country would to day be very much brighter. He maintained that while Se cretism was not specifi cally prohib ited in the Scrip tures, it was beyond a doubt a valid deduc tion from the Scrip tures that it was an evil which Chris tians must avoid. “Should we with draw from this Merger, or should we enter it and cast the weight of our teaching and in flu ence against the evil?” is his question. “If the Lord desires this movement, we should not stand against it. If He does not desire it, we should op pose it” — such are his con clud ing words. The affe ction and confi dence he had won from brethren in the New York Min is terium, and the Canada and Mani toba Syn ods, enabled him af ter much effort to win their support for the Merger. When the Gen eral Coun cil met in Phil adel phia and cel ebrated its Golden Jubilee in the fall of 1917, the way had been so well prepared by its Presi dent (with the aid of Drs. Weller, Keiter and Frank Fry) for union with the other two Bod ies that not a dis- sent ing voice was raised against it. The meet ing in Wither spoon Hall, with com mit tees from the sis ter bod ies, will not soon be forgot ten. It proved to be a sort of tri umphal proces sio n into the “delight ful Canaan” of a re united Lutheranism that was to be given its fi nal seal a year later. Iowa was present in the person of a repre senta tive to declare that a fifty years’ wooing was now to be ended, and Dr. Schmauk replied that if Iowa had been won, she would now be in a po si tion to help decide whether the Gen eral Coun cil should en ter the Merger — oth er wise not. No one could have been more loathe to surren der the Coun cil’s iden tity and speak the vale dic tory than

272 was its Presi dent; but his eye was on the Lutheran Church’s fu ture and not on a partic u lar orga nized part of it, and he made the sacri fice man fully and hopefully . The one thorn in the flesh of his high hopes was the defec tion of the Au gustana Synod at its meet ing in Min neap o lis on June 13, 1918. Af ter hours of debate and in spite of strong pleas on the part of such lead ers as Drs. Abra ham son, Brandelle and Lind berg, warm friends of the Gen eral Coun cil, the vote against the Merger car ried and the del ega tion from the East, headed by Dr. Jacobs, flashed the tele gram over the wires to Lebanon: “Au gustana will not en ter the Merger.”

Against Coali tions In The Church

In a new body, such as that which was to be formed by a union of the Gen- eral Coun cil, the Gen eral Synod and the United Synod South, it was in- evitable that much concern as to who should be its exec u tive head should be felt by lead ing men in the Church. It was quite nat u ral that some should be appre hen sive as to what the fu ture of the merged Church would be were it to fall into the hands of an un safe lead er ship. It was that fear which in duced him to al low the conven tion in New York to express it self by vote ei ther for or against his election, though it was contrary to his personal in clina tion, as expressed by him to many of his friends, to assume the re spon si bility of lead er ship in the new body which they believed him em i nently qual i fied for. When he learned that coali tions were being ar ranged in behalf of cer tain men, him self in cluded, and when he and cer tain oth ers re ceived letters with a view to form ing some such com bi nations, he became consciou s of a grave danger that was threat ening the peace and welfare of the proposed union at the very start and set himself like a flint against it. While thor oughly sym- pathiz ing with these friends, not of his own body, in their anxi ety as to the fu ture leader ship, he left no doubt as to where he stood on this very impor - tant question. It alarmed him to think that church pol i tics, so much in evi- dence in other eccle si asti cal bod ies, might find its way into the United Lutheran Church also. These let ters re flect the true char acter of the man, and parts are well worth quot ing.

As I seem to be in volved in this matter , I must in self-de fense say that I am no politi cian. I believe in the control of move ments, and my

273 whole strength has been exerted in that di rec tion, and I feel that the new Church would never have been what it is, if a num ber of the men of the Ways and Means Commit tee had not worked day and night to secure the present results. But I draw the line at men.

I have al ways felt that the sacred cause of liberty , and espe cially of Chris tian liberty , re quires that a man vote in accor dance with the dic- tates of his own conscience, and that the Church of the Lord ought set an exam ple in this matter . Therefore I am no politi cian. I have never been a candi date for any office, and any honor that the Church be- stowed on me would be bought too dearly if I had to ma neuver or ma nip u late for it.

I have never, to my knowl edge, expressed the desire or a willin g- ness to hold any office, with a solitary excep tion, and that was in con- nection with the di rec torate of the Phil adel phia Sem i nary. [He then gives his deep concern for the wel fare of the in stitu tion as a rea son.] I have been Presi dent of the Gen eral Coun cil for quite a long period of years, but I never would have accepted this office or any other on a mere ma jor ity vote, on any vote less than one which would make me feel that the Lord had called me to that partic u lar duty, and that I had the con fi dence of practi cally the whole con structive part of the body.

Like other men, I see what I think I can do in orga niz ing work, but I do not believe it to be right to engage in it in the Church un less there is a di vine call com ing from those duly autho rized to speak. The hon ors of pub lic office do not appeal to me in taste, and while I do feel deeply hurt and cut to the quick when I am ig nored or pressed to the wall by the selfish ness of oth ers, I do not re sent or re sist, but my impulse is to at once step down and out.

With this feeling, and my solic i tude re specting the United Lutheran Church, you can see that I could not delib er ately become active in ma neuver ing for the candi dacy of any one, in clud ing my- self, for office in The United Lutheran Church. If it is once demon- strated that meth ods such as these have prevailed, I might feel the call to antag o nize them with all my heart, or to drop entirely out of the ranks.

274 That this is my real in nermost po si tion, so far as my own pub lic life is concerned , should be evi dent to any one who knows me. I have re mained pastor of the only congre ga tion that I ever served now for thirty-five years, in spite of temp ta tions that have come to take me into higher fields.

I feel that the United Church should seek to do the right thing, ir- re spective of old parties, and past conflicts, and should rise above them, and act in the fear and love of God.

This reg is ters his convic tion that conscience should enter into a del egate’ s vote and that no Chris tian can feel that he is di vinely called to an office in the Church when elected by worldly po lit i cal methods. He did not stand alone in the fear that such methods might find their way into The United Lutheran Church.

The Con ven tion In New York

Dr. Schmauk came to the Merger Con vention in New York on Novem ber 11th, just af ter the bells had rung out their glad notes that the World War had ended and that peace had come, in buoy ant spir its, seemingly more vig- or ous than usual. As Chair man of the Ways and Means Commit tee, it fell to his lot to preside at the meet ing while the details neces sary for the consum- ma tion of the Union were being at tended to in busi ness session. These had been so thoroughly pre pared and were so ably presented by the Chair man as to require lit tle more than per functory mo tions to make The United Lutheran Church an estab lished fact. When the neces sary work on Nov. 15th was done, the tempo rary Presi dent turned to the three del ega- tions, greeted each with the word “United”, and declared that now The United Lutheran Church in America had become a re al ity. The ju bi la tion of the assem bly found fit ting expres sion in the singing of the grand old hymn, “Now Thank We All Our God.” The tow er ing person al ity and the lead ing and in spir ing genius of that Con vention was by com mon consent admit ted to be Dr. Schmauk. Had the question of ser vice and lead er ship been deci sive in the election for the pres- i dency that fol lowed, he would un doubt edly have become the first Presi dent

275 of The United Lutheran Church. He deserved the honor if ever man did. But he lacked the neces sary votes. The Gen eral Synod del ega tion was consid er- ably larger than that of the Gen eral Coun cil, and while he led in the first two bal lots, it be came evi dent that a man from the Gen eral Synod would be accorded that honor, and Dr. Schmauk more than once stated that he re- joiced that so safe and con ser vative a man as Dr. Knubel had been cho sen to that high po si tion. With char acter is tic sin cer ity and no ble ness of spirit Dr. Knubel soon af ter the Con vention asked for the hearty support and coop er ation of Dr. Schmauk in the fol low ing earnest words:

Dear Dr. Schmauk:

It is diffi cult for me to express to you all that is in my heart. Please try, however , to un derstand to the limit what I mean when I say that I should feel it impos si ble to do any thing of this new work un less I had your heart’s sym pathy and prayer, and your great wise help. All of this I am convin ced that I have from you. The evi dence is plain to me both from your words and from your constant actions through out the sessions. You can scarcely know how this up held me. I felt like a child in tak ing hold of the work. I was and am confi dent of Christ’s un fail ing grace, yet it seemed to me that a large mea sure of that grace must come to me through you. The passing hours and days of the Con vention in creas ingly man i fested the no bility of your spirit and of your readiness to stand by.

What is ahead of us none of us can know. We are sure, howev er, that even larger and truer things for our Church are being held before us by our Lord. We must un fail ingly trust His constant provi sion for our need. Your own expe ri ence and knowl edge and wisdom are a great as set. Thus it is that I feel so grateful because of what these mean for the Church and of what they mean for me in my po si tion.

Thank ing you then once more and asking you to know the full ness of what I have writ ten, I am Very sincerely ,

F. H. Knubel.

276 With equal sin cer ity and frank ness Dr. Schmauk replies as fol lows on No- vem ber 25, 1918:

My dear Dr. Knubel:

Yours of the 20th is before me and I deeply appre ci ate its devout and spir i tual tone. I feel that you and I are surely at one on the oneness of the Gospel, and on the neces sity of the preem i nence of the Spirit in the work ings of the Church.

My heart re joices to have found a man who desires to draw his strength from things spir i tual and to know that it is such an one who is at the head of our beloved Zion.

When you made your persis tent argu ment for the word “Evangel i- cal” in the Joint Ways and Means Commit tee, I felt the same way, and though I may possi bly have taken the op po site po si tion — I do not re call— I re ally was most heartily at one with you in all that un- derlay your words. I do not see the use of organ ism, orga ni zation, fi- nance, and earthly re sults, if the Gospel and the spir i tual re construc- tion of man by the Spirit through the Word be not kept central.

As to my coop er ation, it is most genuine and hearty on this basis, as well as along many lines of prin ci ple that are com mon between us. And since you have now spoken several times concern ing it, it is proba bly right that I speak to you frankly and confi dentially on the subject. I will put down my thoughts in the or der in which they came to me during this eccle si asti cal evolu tion, and with out any designed log i cal connec tion.

As the letter is very long, it is possi ble only to give the gist of it. He states that to coop er ate in the high est sense, it will be neces sary for him to be placed in the in ner cir cle of con fi dence where he can have “the op portu nity of help ing const ructively to form the orig i nal judg ment while the matter is still in plas tic stage.” He is willing, however , to coop er ate in the outer cir cle in the support of any enter prise or plan, even if it does not come before him in its initial plas tic stage, provided he can be “heartily in fa vor of it.” He then adds: “But if I believe it to be the wrong thing, or the right thing with a

277 poor method, I must re serve to my self the liberty of op posing it.” As life is short, he feels the need of “select ing such things as seem to demand orig i- native ac tivity .” There are so many spheres in which he feels “called to act cre atively” that he has great re luc tance “to stand by that which,” as he says, “I have not compre hended from the start in its length and breadth.” Should Dr. Knubel prefer to have his coop er ation “in the outer cir cle,” he will most heartily and read ily give it, but would like the assur ance that no offen se will be taken should he be obliged to op pose any plan or project, or should he fail to partic i pate where he does not fully un derst and for lack of an in ner knowl edge. In such partial coop er ation, he asks “the full right to make orig i nal contri bu tion” in matters he believes he un derstands with out re gard to what may have been planned with out his par tici pation. Should Dr. Knubel desire more close and in ti mate coop er ation, he will cheer fully give it. He believes himself to be in full in ner accord with the spirit, prin ci ples and aims of the Presi dent of The United Lutheran Church, but re al izes that “there are cer tain prin ci ples, views and persons whose influ ence on the Church if it be al lowed to go perma nently into their control will bec ome subver sive of a great part of what you and I stand for,” and he expects to op pose whatever he re gards as likely to threaten the fu ture welfare of the Church. He is ready to pour out his whole heart in con fi dence in this in ti mate coop er ation with the un derstand ing that the confi dence be re- cip ro cated. Nor should this confi dential deal ing abridge the Presi dent’s free dom of action in any wise, just as lit tle as his own free dom would be abridged.

I am will ing to trust you to the ut ter most [he says] and want to feel that in consult in g me you are simply help ing to form your own judgment as the fi nal ar biter and not get ting in for ma tion of which oth ers shall be the judge. Nor do I mean to cut you off from any other source which you may desire to have, whether exter nal or confi dential, whether op posed to me or not, provid ing that the faith between you and me be kept.

So then two ways of coop er ation are possi ble, first, one in which I take no initia tive, or if I take it do so at my own risk, and in which you ask for my help af ter the plan has been prepared. The other is co-

278 op er ation in which you and I dis cuss condi tions cre atively and in ti- mately and in which I put you on the in side and you put me on the in- side, so far as our own com mon com prehen sion is concerned, and in which you agree to keep my treasures safe in the degree to which I am frank with you, with out how ever depriv ing yourself of the freedom to consult and be guided by any oth ers, except the handing over of that which I would not want to have betrayed.

My rea son for being so exceed ingly frank is because we are standing at the begin ning of a long period of work, and because in my judg ment it is ab solutely essen tial — for we are both high strung and keenly sensi tive as to hon or able deal ings — to provide a way which will be well un der stood by both of us, and in which we both can work com fort ably and feel mu tu ally assured of the perfect square ness and the affec tion of the other, and can avoid any em barrass ment of appar - ent com plicity which despite our best efforts may arise on the sur face of things.

If we can find a funda men tal basis of com mon trust as between each other, we can get along finely and helpfully , whether our co op er- ation be only in the outer cir cle, or in any one of the concen tri c cir- cles conver g ing toward the cen ter.

This was simply a plea for coo p er ation on the basis of full mu tual un der- standing and con fi dence, without which no real coop er ation is possi ble.

Dr. Knubel’s Christ mas Greet ing (1919)

Fol low ing is a greet ing from Dr. Knubel to his chief helper:

It is impos si ble to send greetings to all to whom I should like to send them, but I cannot re frain from a word of fer vent thanks to the Ex ecu tive Board at this Christmas, one year af ter the United Church’s life. Next to the Lord of Christm as, you have been my support — and you have been wonder ful. May that Lord give you richly real Christ- mas joy. Grate fully,

279 F. H. Knubel.

The Na tional Lutheran Coun cil

The work of the Lutheran War Commis sion had brought the vari ous Lutheran bod ies coop er at ing to rec og nize the need of some orga nized form of affil i ation in the fu ture, af ter the war should be ended. Some thought of mak ing the War Commis sion the basis of such an affil i ation by giv ing it new functions for coop er ation in exter nal matters. Dr. Schmauk at once recog nized the fu til ity of estab lishi ng a coop er ative unity on such a basis, and to gether with Dr. H. A. Weller, then pres i dent of the Min is terium of Penn- syl vania, prepare d a form of orga ni zation for what was at that time termed a “Lutheran Fed eral Coun cil.” The orig i nator of the idea was not Dr. Schmauk but Dr. Weller; but when once it took root in his own mind, he became its ad vo cate and construc tive ge nius. At a meet ing of the pres i dents in Har ris burg in the sum mer of 1918, an out line for orga n i zation was presented by him, and when later at a gath er ing of rep re senta tives from the vari ous bod ies held in Pitts burgh on August 1, 1918 (at which meet ing Dr. Weller acted as his repre senta tive), the War Commis sion-ba sis idea was again pressed, it was decided, af ter consid er- able dis cussion, that a freshly-con stituted meet ing of repre senta tives should be called, to assem ble in Chicago on Sep tember 6th. At this meet ing Dr. Schmauk was present, accom panied by Drs. Weller, Keiter, C. M. Ja- cobs, Krauss, Stump and Rev. G. K. Rubrecht to repre sent the Gen eral Coun cil. When it was learned that a meet ing of repre senta tives from other Lutheran bod ies had met the day previ ous in Min neap o lis and agreed to urge upon this assem bly the orga ni zation of a “Lutheran Fed er a tion for coop er ation in exter nal matters,” and when the pres i dents in preli m i nary session sprang this idea upon him, he protested against it with all the vigor at his com mand and was prepared to leave Chicago with his del ega tion forth- with. How ever, the latter prevailed upon him to re main and when all the repre senta tives assem bled, he was asked to present his paper , “as a possi ble form of orga ni zation of a Na tional Lutheran Coun cil.” He did so, and it passed item by item with out change or amend ment and “The Na tional Lutheran Coun cil” became a fact. It was he who nom i nated Dr. H. G. Stub as its first pres i dent. While he counseled much with Dr. Knubel and oth ers

280 and did much to help shape the pol icy of the Coun cil, he was glad to place on other shoul ders the re sponsi bil ity for the di rec tion of its affairs. His inter est was most deeply man i fested in the cre ative period; that having passed, he asked to be re lieved from partic i pation as a member of the Ex ec- u tive Com mit tee, though he was by no means in differ ent to its work ings and desi red to be kept in formed. While Dr. Schmauk was not present at the Chicago Con fer ence on Faith and Practice, it goes with out saying that no one present was more deeply con cerned or more alive to the is sues at stake than was he.

281 18 - The Closing of a Stren u ous Life

I have fought a good fight, I have fin ished my course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of right eousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day.

2 TIM. 4:7-8.

DR. SCHMAUK, as has al ready been in di cated, conducted a mar- velously vo lu minous corre spondence. He would some times dash off letters of great length that were com prehen sive and bril liant in thought. He of ten answered letters un der a spell of real in spi ra tion, letters that would bear pub li cation as telling ar ti cles on timely subjects. He worked method i cally and un der fixed routine, and would be much dis turbed when his routine was broken into. He never opened letters from oth ers un til he was ready to answer them, so as to have the advan tage of a first impres sion. In the morn- ings, when prepar ing to take the train for the Sem i nary, he would hurriedly eat his break fast, and, with a stenog ra pher at hand, dic tate letters while eat- ing. He worked till late in the night, and some times al lowed himself but five or six hours of sleep. Nor did he lose his hold on his pastoral work in the congre g ation. In spite of the assis tance rend ered by his asso ciate pastor , A. W. Liebensperger, dur ing his busiest years, he kept in close touch with his people and did a large share of the pastoral work. His di ary shows that he kept up a system atic vis i ta tion of the sick and needy, and of ten un der great phys- i cal dis ability . To him, the call to preach and teach the Gospel and to minis- ter to souls was the supreme obliga tion of the or dained minis ter. It was the very cap stone in the arch of his many-sided activ i ties for the up building of the king dom of God. Ir re sistible as was his impulse to plunge into the larger

282 work of the Church, had he been forced to choose between the two spheres of activ ity , he would, as he more than once expressed himself, have la bored as a preacher and a pastor rather than as an admin is tra tor or profes sor, much as he loved the work of the lat ter. Not with stand ing that he had been re lieved of offi cial re sponsi bility when the Gen eral Coun cil ceased to function, the year 1919 was filled with is sues and engage ments of great impor tance. It was the test ing per iod of The United Lutheran Church. To him it was perhaps the most try ing year of his life. Would this newly formed body stand firm as over against the vagaries in faith and life and prac tice which the un set tled state of affairs in the world had washed as so much rubbish on the shores of the Church? This was his great con cern. The in ter ests of the faith — rather than those of any partic u- lar Lutheran Church body — were dear to his heart and caused him much anxious thought, and at in ter vals grave appre hen sion. The spirit of the times, with its su perfi cial and spectac u lar move ments in Church and State, made him feel deeply the cri sis of the hour. Be sides, much pro jected and un fin ished work — partic u larly the proposed re vi sion and simpli fi cation of the Graded Sun day School Sys tem — weighed heavily on his mind and heart. In 1920 a vo lu minous corre spondence (in addi tion to the two latest books he is sued) was conducted concern ing impor tant is sues connected with the United Lutheran Church, Eu ro pean Re lief, Sun day School Work, the In ter church Move ment, and the like. The amount of thought and en ergy he expended during the last two months of his life on vi tal matters that lay next to his heart goes far to explain why the end came so soon af ter wards. Cares and concern s multi plied and his soul was much in tra vail. He lost much of his wonted buoy ancy of spirit. That buoy ancy was al ways nature’ s best re storer in his case. Ab- sorbed as he was in the many in ter ests and problems of the Church, it was useless for friends to expos tu late with him and seek to in duce him to take a needed rest. He re turned from a strenu ous meet ing of the Sun day School Board of The United Lutheran Church at Har ris burg show ing signs of weari ness. He seemed much depressed.

283 Dr. Schmauk’s Last Ser mon

His last ser mon, preached with much la bor on Feb. 29, 1920, was on the text found in the sixty-third chap ter of Isa iah and the third verse: “I have trod den the wine-press alone.” Accord ing to his notes, it began thus:

This is the cry of a soul out of the far past. It has the pathos of a great sorrow and strikes the deepest chord of the hu man heart. The appeal of a no ble grief is prof ound and uni versal. It is one of the strange things of life that sorrow , which we treat as an enemy , from which we shrink and which we seek to banish, count ing ourselves happy only when sorrow is absent — that un welcome sorrow is the angel that opens the heart to life’s most precious treasures. The memory of a great sor row is never forgot ten, but becomes richer and more ennobling as the years go on. David’s grief over the loss of Jonathan and his lament for Absa lom; Riz pah’s lonely watch on the rock of Gilboa; Job’s soul cry in his un cer tainty as to the good ness of God, — never lose their power of app eal to the hu man heart. Deep cal leth into deep in them.

The words of our text come from the book of Isa iah, and from a time when Is rael was in captiv it y. The He brew nation was hu mil i ated before the world and left crushed and bleed ing in the dust. But it should not perish for ever. It should become the suffer ing ser vant of Jeho vah. There should arise in its midst out of the bruised nation One whose face in deed was marred more than the face of any man — One who was stricken, smit ten of God and afflicted — One who was de- spised and re jected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. The piteous be comes glo ri ous in beauty and power.

This silent Sufferer , who as a sheep before his shear ers is dumb, has saving power. It pleases the Lord to bruise Him and to put Him to grief. Out of this deep hu mil i a tion shall spring an immor tal power that shall make the na tions of the earth look up to Him in awe.

And this ter ri ble burden He bears alone! We see Him com ing up out of the deep val ley of conflict with garments dyed with blood, not

284 with an army, but alone! It is not the burst of sin gle-handed vic tory, but the cry of a great and no ble sorrow .

He then pic tures Him as the In no cent one. “The greatest sufferer is not the man who com mits sin, but some in no cent and blame less one that is tied to him by bonds of re la tionship and affec tion.” “Sin is never so dread ful as when we see the Sav ior with that blood upon His garments. His love is never so dear as when we see what it has cost Him to save us.” “It is the Cross of Je sus that is the cure for the mystery of sor row.” Af ter the morn ing ser vice, he was brought home in a state of col lapse. This proved to be the begin ning of the end. Bad nights and days of agony and pain com pelled him to suspe nd all work. But no sooner did he feel a little bet ter than he essayed to pick up a few threads of his many-sided lit er ary tasks by an in ner neces sity re gardless of conse quences. Efforts to dic tate letters were fol lowed by col lapse. A let ter, dated March 10, 1920, from Dr. Sailer, of Phil adel phia, a friend and consult ing physi cian, af ter min is ter ing to him in his last ill ness, admon- ishes him to lay aside all work and worry and take an abso lute rest. It reads in part as fol lows:

I wish I could tell you some way of get ting well that would not inter fere with your work. You will proba bly re member that Tasso dis- missed his physi cian because he wanted him to live a more temper ate life. I am risk ing the same advice to you. I am in clined to think that you have al ways been extremel y in temper ate in work and if there is any form of excess in work that you could prac tice, you have al ways prac ticed it. For a while you must rest body and mind — the body in bed and the mind by re fusing to consider any problems, and this can only be accom plished by keeping problems away from you. Rest first, then some remedies to re in force the rest."

But it proved to be too late to be of ser vice. A change for the worse set in on March 14th, when he suffered excru ci- at ing pain; but while he was growing weaker steadily, his mind was clear and his voice strong for the next two days. Know ing that the end was draw- ing near, he spoke his part ing words to his sis ter and friends with calm ness,

285 seren ity and un fail ing faith, and passed into life at 10.45 on the morn ing of March 23rd, with out a strug gle. Thus was brought to a close the fi nal chapter of a won derfully re source ful, fer tile, fruit ful and many-sided life. The este em in which he was held within and beyond the bounds of the Church he served, and the conscious ness that a great leader had fallen, were evi denced by an un usually large gath er ing of repre senta tive leaders and pastors from far and near at his fu neral on March 29th, when his body was con- signed to its resting place in Mt. Lebanon Ceme tery. Dr. Jacobs, Sr., preached the lead ing ser mon on that occa sion, being followed by Prof. Dr. Benze, who addressed himself to the older members of Salem in Ger man.

Dr. Ja cobs’ Fu neral Ser mon

John 2:17. — “And his dis ci ples re membered that it is writ ten, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.”

As it is God’s gra cious will that believ ers should be conformed to the image of His Son, it would be strange if the words of the Psalmist (Ps. 69:9), which the dis ci ples recog nized as pecu liarly appli ca ble to the earthly life of their Master , could not be applied — al beit in a lower degree — to cer tain of his fol low ers. The flame enkin dled by God’s Spirit cannot be confined; it must find an out let. It goes forth by all the avenu es through which the heart has contact with the outer world. All the en ergies of life are consumed in concen tra tion upon one thing; viz., the ser vice of God in the up building of his king dom. So joy ful this la bor, so absorb ing the in ter est it cul ti vates, so ever ex- panding the op portu ni ties offere d, that life and health and strength are counted noth ing, provided one can only dis charge to the fullest degree the ministry which he has re ceived of the Lord Jesus (Acts 20:24).

The multi tude that has come hither to day from near and from far, many ut ter strangers to one another , to unite with this congre ga tion in grief for the loss of their beloved pastor , and with this com mu nity in esteem for one of its lead ing citi zens; the many thou sands all over the

286 land whose hearts are at this hour turned to ward this spot in fel lowship of sorrow , and in recog ni tion of the bond exist ing between us all, through our com mon love and ad mira tion for this rarely gifted child of God, knowing him from so many differ ent stand points, must tes- tify that what gave unity to a life adorned by so many di versi fied gifts and graces, was his zeal for the Sav ior whom he preached and the faith which he professed.

What an al most un prece dented record for a child to grow up to man hood in a congre ga tion, and then re turn ing to it, to serve it as its pastor for over a gener ation! How closely in ter twined was his life with that of his people! It was a union which only death could sever. Liv ing and mov ing among you, from day to day, year to year, he was verily “a living epis tle, known and read of all men” (2 Cor. 3:2), a tower of strength, an ener getic, ever alert and active force for truth and right eousness in Church and in State, a wit ness who al ways had the courage of his convic tions, a care ful and dis crim i nat ing stu dent and judge of men and ten dencies at home and abroad. With the very tones of his earnest voice in efface ably impressed on the heart, the Word which he preached, many of the very phrases which he used, will, through out all their re maining years, continue to sound in the memory of many here present.

His peo ple he knew not simply col lec tively, but person ally . No widening of his hori zon, no multi plicity of engage ments, no ab sorp- tion in his stud ies, no endeavor to keep abreast of every thing tran spir- ing, prev ented him from being the gentle, ten der, sym pathiz ing friend of every in di vid ual, however hum ble his sta tion, com mit ted to his care. No fa mil iar ity with scenes of sorrow , where he was called upon to min is ter the con sola tions of the Gospel, ever deadened his sen si bil- i ties to the pain that was wringi ng other hearts. “Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?” he could say as well as Paul. Some of us at the sem i nary will re member how deeply depressed he was at times, because of the suffer ing of this congre ga tion during the ago nies and suspense of the late war, where so many of your young men were at the front, and un der the scourge of the fa tal epi demic that deso lated so many homes. The cheer ful ness and vi vac-

287 ity with which he rose above his griefs, came from no supe r fi cial view of the sig nif i cance of suffer ing in a world of sin, but from his firm convic tion of the truth of the Gospel mes sage which he preached.

The very fact that he was not un acquainted with the vari ous forms of skep ti cal assaults, but was a patient reader— though it of ten caused him great pain — of all that might affect the spir i tual life of those near and dear to him enabled him with the greater force to tes- tify to the precious ness of the Chris tian faith. While if need arose, he could argue with the skill and train ing of a special ist in phi los o phy, his high est am bi tion, as a teacher, was to make God’s Word plain to lit tle chil dren.

From this city, in which five-sixths of his life was spent, no calls, however urgent, could with draw him. The or di nary perma nency of the office of a pastor was a doct rine that had for him much at traction. Nev er the less his sym pathies and in ter est could not be lim ited by the bound aries of city, or county, or com mon wealth, or nation. They were world-wide. For in this parish, so long his spir i tual home, he saw not simply a group of Chris tian people, detached from all oth ers, but re al- ized that at this spot, the One, Holy Church, through out all the world, with all the tes ti mony and re sources of the Holy Spirit, is present, impart ing all the gifts and graces, com mon to believ ers of every age and land. His zeal was enkin dled in the parson age, where, un der an earnest and de vout fa ther, respon sive to the calls of the awak ening ac- tivi ties of the Church, the child caught the spirit of the home, in which he was reared, and of the in flu ences enter ing and sent forth from that center . It could not be oth er wise than that go ing into the world, with prin ci ples al ready firmly estab lished, his zeal became conta gious, and that in every cir cle into which he came, the re sponsi- bility of lead er ship was thrown upon him. Bur den af ter burden was assumed, some times as a trust, which he felt himself di vinely sum- moned to bear, and some times it was eagerly seized because of the far-reach ing re sults which his fore sight dis cerned as possi ble. His sole aim was to crowd within his life, which he thought might be brief, all that could be done for the cause to which it had been con se-

288 crated. What though he could not com plete a task? He could begin it; and if it were of God, oth ers would rise up to com plete it. He had a construc tive imagi nation, based upon a care ful survey of avail able details, which, while faith ful to the past, had no hesi tancy, when the time came, to break away from beaten paths. The problem ever before him, was the read justment of the old faith to new re la tions and condi tions in a new world and a new age. The ide al ism of his phi los- o phy and the re al ism of his his tor i cal temper were uni fied by the central prin ci ple of un wa vering faith in Christ, both as re vealed in the Gospels, and as living and reign ing in all hu man progress. His devo- tion to the Lutheran Church never quenched his sym pathy for what was uni versally Chris tian; nor did his conse cra tion to the min istry make him the less a faith ful citi zen and an ardent pa triot.

Thus through his partic i pation in delib er ative assem blies, through his vo lu minous corre spondence, and through the produc tions of his prolific pen in books and ar ti cles, in elab o rate re ports and edi to ri als, as well as in edu cational projects of many forms, this congre ga tion, through its pastor , has been set ting forth ever multi ply ing and widening streams of blessing. Noth ing grows like the work of a thor oughly earnest man. The tree planted by rivers of wa ters, ever sends out new boughs, each bough new shoots, each shoot new buds and blos soms and fruit.

At this hour, we cannot re count the vari ous offices which he held, or esti mate the value of the ser vices which were rendered in each. They will be sub jects of study for years to come as they pass into history. But were grateful recog ni tion not given here, of the states man- like grasp of his fif teen years’ admin is tra tion of the Gen eral Coun cil, or of his re la tions to the sem i nary, our si lence would be misu n derstood. Con cern ing the latter which occu pied so large a share of his atten tion, and in which we were most closely asso ci ated, we would say, that, from his un dergrad u ate days, when, un der the stim u la tion of an excep tional in ti macy enjoyed above all other stu dents, with his great teachers, Drs. Krauth and Mann, he al ready prepared an elab o rate scheme for the devel op ment of the Li brary, and edited “The In di cator,” which aroused the Church to the need of a new site for the in sti-

289 tu tion, down to his last ill ness, when it was a com fort to him to have one of his stu dents minis ter ing at his side, he never wa vered in loy- alty to his Alma Mater. As Presi dent of the Board, he was ever dis- cussing with the Faculty , and plan ning new programs. Fill ing the place, but declin ing both the ti tle and the com pensa tion of a Pro fessor, and rendered al most home less by his weekly jour neys during term time, his prepa ra tions for the class-room constantly in volved new la bor, while his vari ous engage ments were of ten protracted un til late in the night. He lived among the stu dents, tried in all things to gain their viewpoint, cham pi oned their cause, and cul ti vated their personal friendship, as though he were an elder brother.

So heavy has been the blow, suc ceeding within barely a month the depar ture of the most vener able member of our Faculty , that as teacher af ter teacher has stepped al most from the lec ture-room into the eter nal world, we are bewil dered.

But whatever be the re la tions we have borne to the departed — and there are here repre senta tives of many in ter ests that are alike almost prostrated for the time — we have only to raise the stan dard that has fallen from his hands and to go on ward. While the bat tle rages, we cannot nurse our grief. We live in com mu nion with him by tak ing up his work, and prose cut ing it with the consum ing zeal which he dis- played.

We are cast down; but not in despair; or we would be false to the Gospel, to which the life of our departed brother was so bril liant a tes ti mony.

Ex pres sions Of Sor row

That a great gap in the lead er ship of the Church had been made was expressed in many tele grams and letters that came to Lebanon upon the an- nouncement of Dr. Schmauk’s death. Dr. Knubel expressed the widespread feeling when he wired: “The sorrow and sym pathy of the Church gather around Lebanon.” Presi dents of synods and lead ers in the United Church with one voice poured out heart felt expres sions of their profound sense of

290 loss. “A mighty leader has fallen” — “The whole Church mourns” — “His loss to the Church at large and to the Lutheran Church in partic u lar is ir- repara ble” — “He was in a class by himself; no one can take his place,” — such are among the many mournful state ments that found their way to Lebanon. Nor was the sor row confined to The United Lutheran Church. From the Presi dent of the Augus tana Synod (Dr. Brandelle) the fol low ing tele gram was received:

The Aug ustana Synod weeps at the bier of Doc tor Schmauk. In his death, it has lost one of its truest and most beloved friends, and the Church of our land one of its greatest, most ar dent and most trusted lead ers.

A simi lar mes sage came from the Presi dent of the United Nor we gian Church (Dr. Stub). It reads as fol lows:

The mes sage telling of Dr. Schmauk’s death came un expect edly. I hereby express my deep sym pathy . The United Lutheran Church has sustained a great loss, as Dr. Schmauk was one of the ablest men — a real leader in the Lutheran Church. His memory will live.

Es ti mates Of Dr. Schmauk

Among the many esti mates of Dr. Schmauk’s life and char acte r and work, we must be cont ent with three, which in substance express what multi tudes who knew him feel. One is from Dr. Knubel, who wrote for The Lutheran as fol lows:

There is no man in our Church whose Chris tian conse cra tion has been more evi dent, whose deep loy alty to the Church has been stronger, whose full partic i pation in her thought and activ ity has been wider, whose counsel has been more constantly sought and given, whose in flu ence has been more power ful and help ful than that of Dr. Schmauk. He is dead. How shall our hearts be saved from in- creas ing heavi ness? These days tell us that Christ’s supreme blessing

291 came to us through His death. May it be of all His dis ci ples that they bless oth ers more by what they suffer than by what they do. May it be that our Church will now re ceive even richer good from Dr. Schmauk than ever before. One thing is sure, those of us clos est to him in the last few years have re ceived the fullest, ripest, greatest gifts he has ever given. His ser vice to His Church goes on. We continue to thank our Lord for him."

Another is from Dr. John Haas, pres i dent of Muhlen berg College, a life- long friend and co-worker. He says:

His life was to me a constant source of new in spi ra tion to larger efforts in schol ar ship and in the prac ti cal work of the Church. In him I found the counter-bal ance to my desire to go fur ther than is meet in the appr eci ation of what is true in mod ern thought and its devel op- ment. The conser vatism of Dr. Schmauk was a mighty force for good, and it was not a stag nant but a progres sive devel op ment. His mind was not only an alyt i cal but also strongly synthetic. He poss essed great con structive imagi nation. With a mar velous mas tery of a mul ti- tude of details, he never failed to mar shall them for the demon stra tion of a great prin ci ple. A rich vo cabu lary enabled him to express his thought with strik ing exu berance and force. He joined the poet’s ap- preci ation with the or ator ’s power. He could write with simplic ity for the child and with philosophic in sight for the thinker. The whole range of thought and expres sion was at his com mand. All these gifts he laid on the altar of his Lord.

In his personal life he was ten der, gentle, kind, consid er ate, and hun gry for sin cere friendship. He might fight like a lion for a great cause or a great prin ci ple, and yet person ally he was al ways just to his op po nents. There was no bitter ness in his most vehe ment polemics. The sources of his spir i tual life lay deep in his soul. Ev ery- thing in him welled like a fount ain out of the depths of his life. Even when he was playful, it was sim ply to prepare for the opening up of the hid den springs of his soul. His faith was sturdy, his love self-sacri fic ing, and his hope bright and sweet and strong.

292 He was a born leader, and his lead er ship bore no marks of personal self-grati fi cation or self-ag grandize ment. It simply fur nished him the occa sion for larger and more ar du ous work. What he did, he did with all his might. We shall miss him in the fu ture as a leader in Sun day-school work where he ranked as the pi o neer in app ly ing sound ed u cational prin ci ples to re li gious teaching with out destr oy ing its substance. He thought construc tively in his defense of the Chris- tian faith, re al iz ing the neces sity of up hold ing the Church’s Con fession of the Truth. His the ol ogy was never cramped by ter minol ogy. There was life in all that he expressed. He stood out as a leader in all the delib er ations , activ i ties and in ter ests of the Church. He knew how to fuse the di verse el ements within the Gen eral Coun cil. It was his influ ence which kept the Swedish brethren with us. His mind was the dom i nat ing force in the cre ation of The United Lutheran Church. Much of the best thought of its Con stitu tion and its plans are his work. He was the greatest man on the floor of its first conven tio n. No one else mea sured up to him. We are at a loss to un derstand why the Lord took him at this time when we needed him to help give strong and con sis tent char acter to the life of The United Lutheran Church. One thing is sure, his absence from us will turn the channels of the his tory of Lutheranism in a differ ent di rec tion. We only hope that it may be a di rec tion that augurs good. He stood among the few great names in the his tory of our Church. Since the days of Muhlen berg, no one’s in flu ence was so uni vers al and touched so many in ter ests as that of Dr. Schmauk. He was not only a scholar like Dr. Krauth, he was not only a preacher like Dr. Spaeth, he was not only a teacher like Dr. Mann; but in addi tion he shaped the life of a gener ation in the Sun day-schools, and made defi nite the pol icy of the lead ing boards of the Church. Truly his was the work of a great, bril liant, devoted, zeal- ous ser vant of his Church and his Master .

Another is from the Parish and Church School Board of The United Lutheran Church, where his wisdom and counsel will be greatly missed. A minute on his death reads as follows:

In the death of the Rev. Theodore E. Schmauk, D.D.,LL.D., first pres i dent of the Sun day School Board of The United Lutheran

293 Church, a loss has been sustained which it is not in the power of words to express. For twenty-five years he had grappled with mar- velous in dustry and re source ful ness with the problem of Bible in- struction for the young in the Sun day-schools of the Gen eral Coun cil, and had become the advo cate and in spi ra tion of a system of Graded in struction which, though far from being in its fi nal re vised form as contem plated and planned by him, was yet rec og nized at Washi ng ton as the pi o neer in this field, and without a ri val. It is with profound re- gret, a re gret keenly felt in schools where the system had won fast friends and was in success ful use, that we as a Board must face this un fin ished work with out the able lead er ship of this prince of Bible teachers. He had grasped the peda gog i cal prin ci ples, which must form the basis of any sound Scrip tural system of graded in struction, with a mas ter mind. His in ti mate knowl edge of the child mind and the child na ture; his wonder ful adapt ability which enabled him to stoop to its level and meet its needs; his thor ough acquain tance with the whole range of lit er ature that had any bear ing, however re mote, on the subject of re li gious in struction of the young; his in tense devo tion and enthu si asm; and above all his un shaken faith in the Rev ela tion of which the Scrip tures are the unerring record; made him a leader par excel lence in this field of Chris tian edu cational endeavor . We bow in deep hu mil ity be fore that in scrutable di vine Prov i dence which saw fit to take him away in the midst of his un fin ished work, and pray for wisdom and guid ance as we at tempt to take up the task where he has laid it down. A mas ter work man has passed from our midst, but the work en trusted to our Board must and will go on.

Po si tions Held in the Church

1. Lit er ary Edi tor of The Lutheran (1889 to 1920) 2. Ed i tor of Lutheran Church Review (1895 to 1920) 3. Ed i tor of Lutheran Graded Se ries and Com men tary (1896 to 1920) 4. Mem ber of Gen eral Coun cil Church Book Commit tee and of Joint Commit tee of Com mon Ser vice Book and Hym nal ( 1895 to 1920)

294 5. Trustee of Muh len berg College (1898 to 1920) 6. Presi dent of the General Coun cil (1903 to 1920) 7. Chair man of Commit tee on De grees, Muhlen berg College (1903 to 1920) 8. Mem ber of the Ex ecu tive Commit tee of the In ter national Lutheran Con fer ence (1903 to 1920) 9. Presi dent of Trustees of General Coun cil. … (1907 to 1920) 10. Presi dent of Board of Di rec tors of Phila. The o log i cal Sem i nary (1908 to 1920) 11. Oc cupant of Chair of Chris tian Faith, Apolo get ics and Ethics, Etc (1911 to 1920) 12. Chair man Commit tee of Quadricen ten nial Cel ebra tion of Refor mation (1917 to 1918) 13. Chair man Ways and Means Commit tee for Orga ni zation of United Lutheran Church. . (1917 to 1918) 14. Chair man of Commit tee on Con stitu tion for United Lutheran Church (1917 to 1918) 15. Mem ber of Ex ecu tive Board, of Board of Pub li cation, and Pres i dent of Sun day School Board of United Lutheran Church (1918 to 1920) 16. Mem ber of Commit tee on Re la tion of Con stituent Syn ods of U. L. C (1918 to 1920) 17. Mem ber of Na tional Lutheran Coun cil (for whose orga ni zation he is sued the call) (1918 to 1920) 18. One of Orga niz ers of Penn syl vania Chau tauqua (1892) and its Chan cel lor (1895-96). 19. One of Orga niz ers of the Penn syl vania Ger man So ci ety (1891) and Chair man of its Exec u tive Com mit tee (1895), and its Pres i dent (1896). 20. One of Orga niz ers of Lebanon County Histor i cal So ci ety (1898) and Member of its Ex ecu tive Com mit tee (1898). 21. Life Mem ber of Penn syl vania His tor i cal So ci ety (1898).

295 Au thor of Fol low ing Books

Dr. Schmauk was the au thor of the fol low ing:

The Neg a tive Crit i cism of the Old Testa ment (1894) Cate chet i cal Out lines (1892) The Voice in Speech and Song (1891) The Charms and Se crets of Good Con versa tion (1889) History of Old Salem in Lebanon (1898) Heartbr o ken (1893) Hyp no tism (1890) Bible History (1899) Manual of Bible Ge og raphy (1901) The Early Churches of the Lebanon Val ley (1902) History of the Lutheran Church in Penn syl vania from the Orig i nal Sources (1903) Bible Facts and Scenes (1905) The Chris tian Kindergarten (1906) The Con fes sional Prin ci ple and the Con fes sions of the Lutheran Church (1909) An no tated Edi tion of Ben jamin Rush’s Ac count of the Ger man In hab i- tants of Penn syl vania (1910) In Mother’s Arms (1911) How to Teach in Sun day School (1920) An no tated Bib li og raphy of Re li gious Ed u cation and. Child Psyc hol ogy (1920).

296 In dex of Per sons

297 In dex of Places

298 Gen eral In dex

299 300 301 302 303 304 305 Copy right No tice

This book was pub lished 2021 by The Lutheran Li brary Pub lishing Min istry Luther anLi brary.org. Slight up dates to spell ing and punctu ation may have been made. Origi nal SMALL CAPS in the text have been rendered in bold. Unabridged. Origi nally pub lished 1921 by the United Lutheran Pub li catio n House, Phil adel phia. Im age on imprint page is Still Life With Bible by Vin cent Van Gogh. This Luther anLi brary.org book is re leased un der the Creative Commons At tri bu tion 4.0 In ter national (CC BY 4.0) li cense, which means you may freely use, share, copy, or translate it as long as you provide at tri bu tion to Luther anLi brary.org, and place on it no fur ther re stric tions. The text and art work within are believed to be in the U.S. pub lic do main. 102 – v6.. ISBN: TBD (paper back)

306 How Can You Find Peace With God?

The most impor tant thing to grasp is that no one is made right with God by the good things he or she might do. Justi fi cation is by faith only, and that faith resting on what Jesus Christ did. It is by believ ing and trust ing in His one-time substi tu tionary death for your sins. Read your Bible steadily. God works His power in hu man beings through His Word. Where the Word is, God the Holy Spirit is al ways present. Sug gested Reading: New Testa ment Con versions by Pastor George Ger- berding

Bene dic tion

Now unto him that is able to keep you from fall ing, and to present you fault less before the pres ence of his glory with exceed ing joy, To the only wise God our Sav ior, be glory and majesty, do minion and power, both now and ever. Amen. (Jude 1:24-25)

Ba sic Bib li cal Christian ity | Books to Down load

307 The Small Cat echism of Mar tin Luther The essen tials of faith have re mained the same for 2000 years. They are sum ma rized in (1) The Ten Command ments, (2) The Lord’s Prayer, and (3) The Apos tles’ Creed. Fa mil iar ity with each offers great protec tion against fads and falsehoods. The Way Made Plain by Si mon Pe ter Long A se ries of lec tures by the beloved Twen ti eth Cen tury Ameri can pastor on the ba sis of faith. Bible Teachings by Joseph Stump A primer on the faith in tended for new believ ers. Rich in Scrip ture. Chris tian basics explained from Scrip ture in clear and jargon-free language. Many ex cel lent Bible studies can be made from this book.

Full cat alog avail able at Luther anLi brary.org. Many paper back edi tions at Amazon .

Essen tial The ol ogy | Books to Down load

The Augs burg Con fes sion: An In tro duction To Its Study And An Ex- po si tion Of Its Con tents by Matthias Loy “Sin cere be lievers of the truth revealed in Christ for man’s salva tion have no rea son to be ashamed of Luther, whom God sent to bring again to His people the precious truth in Jesus and whose heroic contention for the faith once deliv ered o the saints led to the estab lishment of the Church of the Augs burg Con fes sion, now gener ally called the Evan gel i cal Lutheran Church.” The Doc trine of Justi fi cation by Matthias Loy

308 “Hu man rea son and in clina tion are al ways in their nat u ral state averse to the doctrine of Justi fi cation by faith. Hence it is no wonder that earth and hell com bine in persis tent efforts to banish it from the Church and from the world.” The Con fes sional Prin ci ple by Theodore Schmauk Theodore Schmauk’s explo ration and defense of the Chris tian faith consists of five parts: Histor i cal In tro duction; Part 1: Are Con fes sions Nec essary?; Part 2: Con fes sions in the Church; Part 3: Lutheran Con- fes sions; and Part 4: The Church in America. Summary of the Chris tian Faith by Henry Eyster Jacobs A Summ ary of the Chris tian Faith has been appre ci ated by Chris- tians since its orig i nal pub li cation for its easy to use question and answer for mat, its clear orga ni zation, and its cover age of all the essen- tials of the Christian faith. Two essays on election and predes t i nation are in cluded, in clud ing Luther’s “Specu la tions Con cern ing Pred esti nation”.

Full cat alog avail able at Luther anLi brary.org. Many paper back edi tions at Amazon .

De vo tional Clas sics | Books to Down load

Sermons on the Gospels by Matthias Loy. and Sermons on the Epis- tles by Matthias Loy_ “When you feel your burden of sin weighing heavily upon you, only go to Him… Only those who will not acknowl edge their sin and feel no need of a Sav ior — only these are re jected. And these are not re jected because the Lord has no pity on them and no desire to deliver them from their wretched ness, but only because they will not come to

309 Him that they might have life. They re ject Him, and therefore stand re- jected. But those who come to Him, poor and needy and help less, but trust ing in His mercy, He will receive, to comfort and to save.” The Great Gospel by Si mon Pe ter Long and The Eter nal Epis tle by Si mon Pe ter Long “I want you to un derstand that I have never preached opin ions from this pul pit; it is not a question of opin ion; I have abso lutely no right to stand here and give you my opin ion, for it is not worth any more than yours; we do not come to church to get opin ions; I claim that I can back up every ser mon I have preached, with the Word of God, and it is not my opin ion nor yours, it is the eternal Word of God, and you will find it so on the Judgment day. I have noth ing to take back, and I never will; God does not want me to.” True Christian ity by John Arndt The Sermons of Theophilus Stork: A Devo tional Treasur e “There are many of us who believe; we are convinced; but our souls do not take fire at contact with the truth. Happy he who not only believes, but believ es with fire… This ener gy of belief, this ar dor of convic tion, made the com mon places of the Gospel, the old, old story, seem in his [Stork’s] ut ter ance some thing fresh and ir re sistibly at tractive. Men listened to old truths from his lips as though they were a new reve la tion. They were new, for they came out of a heart that new coined them and stamped its own impress of vi tality upon them as they passed through its ex peri ence…” – From the In tro duction

Full cat alog avail able at Luther anLi brary.org. Many paper back edi tions at Amazon .

310