f 
 
 
 PHINCETON, N. J. 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY 
 
 INCONSISTENT 
 
 WITH PROTESTANT AND REFORMED 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 B. S. SCHNECK, D.D. 
 
 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that 
 the heart be established with grace. — Heb. xiii. 9. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 J. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO. 
 
 chambersburg: 
 J. N. SNIDER. 
 
 CI NC I N NAT I : 
 
 OFFICE "CHRISTIAN WORLD," 178 ELM ST. 
 1874. 
 
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, ^Y 
 
 B. S. SCHNECK, D.D., 
 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington. 
 
 Right of Translation Reserved. 
 
INSTEAD OF A PREFACE. 
 
 [The following letter from an esteemed ministerial brother tells all 
 that is necessary to be said in the way of motive for preparing the fol- 
 lowing work. This letter and its author, therefore, must be regarded 
 as sharing the chief responsibility in an undertaking which, in itself, 
 had no attractions for me in any view of the case.] 
 
 "Reverend and Dear Brother: 
 
 ******** 
 "Like yourself, I have taken no part in the unfortunate 
 controversies which have been going on for years in our 
 Church. Honestly believing that matters were not so grave 
 and serious as some supposed, and confiding in the oft- 
 repeated declaration that our professors and others were 
 misunderstood, I was led to exercise to the utmost that 
 charity which ' hopeth all things and believeth all things.' 
 And so I was even disposed to defend these brethren. In 
 ecclesiastical affairs I also stood by them. Yet I had to 
 acknowledge to myself all the while that in defending 
 their teachings — for instance, against Messrs. Bomberger, 
 Good, Williard, etc. — there was often a want of manly 
 candor and an effort to avoid meeting the weightier points 
 in dispute. Thus, when proofs were furnished from his- 
 tory by those brethren against some of the doctrinal teach- 
 ings by the professors, those proofs were as often not no- 
 ticed. When Reformed standards were quoted as against 
 the professors on some of the gravest questions, that was 
 quietly passed by. But when a little flaw in an opponent 
 was thought to be discovered, then there was a loud trum- 
 pet sounded in regard to it, winding up with what looked 
 very much like gauzy cunning, by telling the reader that 
 ' such was the way with every thing which came from 
 that side, and hence it was not worth while to notice the 
 opponents.' Thus, some Western writer, it seems, had said 
 something in reference to the present or revised Liturgy 
 
vi INSTEAD OF A PREFACE. 
 
 (* Order of Worship'), and called it the 'new Order of 
 Worship' (or perhaps ' New Order of Worship'). That 
 was a life-and-death question ! To put the word new be- 
 fore the title was an offense of very grave magnitude; and 
 so the Western man is pounced upon with ludicrous fero- 
 city, and duly informed, 'as in such cases made and pro- 
 vided,' that if a man does not study and duly know the 
 proper and authorized title of a book, he is incompetent 
 to write on the subject of the book, or for that matter, I 
 suppose, on any other subject. Now look at it. The re- 
 vised Liturgy ('Order of Worship') is the 'new,' as 
 compared with the former or first Liturgy by the com- 
 mittee, and has been so called over and over again by its 
 own friends in the Messenger, and has been so called even 
 by Dr. Nevin himself, the chief author of the book! (See 
 Vindic. of Lit,, p. 51, etc.) Now, sucli and similar things 
 have all along been noticed by myself and others with pain, 
 but I refrained from dwelling upon them. So also the late 
 effort to cast reproach upon Dr. B., Dr. G., and others, in 
 connection with the conversion of several of our minis- 
 ters to the Roman Catholic Church, had a most painful 
 effect upon my mind ; and several others, ministers and 
 laymen, I found, were impressed in the same way. I 
 looked at it in this way. Here are several men who 
 were among the leaders of the Mercersburg theology. 
 They wrote fiery articles about it, and some of them bitter 
 articles against some of the best and most useful men in our 
 Church, — men whom, although I differed from them in some 
 things, I could not but respect and honor. For years it 
 had been believed that those recent converts were traveling 
 towards Rome, but when it was sometimes hinted at, not 
 only those men themselves denied it but our professors and 
 others publicly denied that the theological system of Mer- 
 cersburg could lead any one to that 'citadel of safety.' 
 But one and another at last did get there, and then they 
 said, frankly and openly, that the teaching at Mercersburg 
 led them step by step thitherward. And when now the 
 opponents of Mercersburg pointed to these confessions 
 (Geo. D. Wolffs confession, for instance), the professors 
 et al. raise the mordio cry of: Our opponents (Dr. B. et 
 al.) are 'leagued with the perverts' — 'Wolff writes arti- 
 cles for the anti-Liturgical men,' etc. I confess to you, 
 
INSTEAD OF A PREFACE. yii 
 
 dear brother, that such disingenuous treatment, even of 
 my opponents as well as theirs, is more than I could stand, 
 and made me hesitate — falter. I now concluded to ex- 
 amine more closely into the merits of the general question 
 at issue, to endeavor to get, if possible, to the bottom of 
 things. I said to myself. You have not studied these sub- 
 jects as you should have done ; you have taken things on 
 trust. And I had not fairly gotten into the matter before 
 my paper brought me the bold — I feel like saying daring — 
 attacks upon the most precious and consoling truth in the 
 Christian system, and which is so fully and clearly set 
 forth in our Catechism. You know to what I refer, — to 
 the doctrine of the Atonement. . . . 
 
 " On further reading, I found that the same antagonism 
 had also been shown against other cardinal truths, — ^justifica- 
 tion by faith, for instance ; but not so boldly, more nega- 
 tively than positively. I began now also to understand 
 the frequent thrusts, innuendoes, and slighting remarks in 
 regard to the Scriptures (making an ' idol of them,' and 
 saying that, apart from the living minister (priest), they 
 were of no more account than the Koran !) ; to doctrines, 
 etc., as if they were of very little account ; and speaking of 
 others, who believe that they are justified by faith, that 
 they believed in what was 'justification by fancy or feel- 
 ing,' and more than insinuating that all real inward 
 operations of the mind were shams in a religious way, — 
 the experimental piety, in other words, 'of reigning Prot- 
 estantism' was branded as a 'false spiritualism,' as 'Phry- 
 gian Montanism,' ranting, demented 'fanaticism' — as 
 an order of 'nature,' — in short, bad as Sinbad the 
 Sailor. . . . 
 
 "My heart is full as I write. I think of the glorious 
 truths which you and I have preached, and without which 
 we would not know what preaching was for, or of what 
 worth it was. I think of the dying Christian whom I 
 have seen clasping these truths to his heart as the only 
 balm for his spirit, the only cordial for his fears. I think 
 of the blessed martyrs, not only in Apostolic times, 
 but in later centuries, who, rather than bow down and wor- 
 ship saint and crucifix, chose rather to go to the stake or 
 the fire, warmed within and armed for the ordeal by the 
 experimental tru til of Christ and Him crucified as a living 
 
viii INSTEAD OF A PREFACE. 
 
 power in their hearts ; and I rose up from my study-chair, 
 and, whilst pacing the room in the dead silence of night, 
 I solemnly vowed to be bound by personal and social ties 
 no longer in this matter, but, if need be, brave the un- 
 friendly looks of some otherwise dear brethren ; for truth 
 is higher than friendship. 
 
 " For at least ten years had I waited to find out where 
 exactly those new views would lead us, — ten years trying to 
 understand these brethren, fondly hoping, like not a few 
 others, that the fog would clear away and bring us a 
 brighter day. But the day came not. ' You do not un- 
 derstand them,' had been iterated and reiterated until I 
 became wearied with the phrasing. I said at last, ' Why 
 cannot Dr. Nevin and his pupils write in such a manner that 
 intelligent men can understand them ?' We can understand 
 Neander (awkwardly as he often did express himself). We 
 can understand Hengstenberg, and De Wette, and Ebrard, 
 and Dorner, and Nitzsch, and Hodge. We can understand 
 the teaching of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the 
 Apostles. Why, then, after a practice of more than twenty 
 years, can these men not write so that other mortals can 
 understand them ? If a man has something to say and 
 wants others to know it (without any reserve on his part), 
 he generally can make himself understood. It is said not 
 to be learning, but the want of learning, that renders men 
 unintelligible. Dr. Hodge had to say of his old friend Dr. 
 Nevin (on the appearance of the latter's introduction to 
 Dr. Schaff's 'Principles of Protestantism,' and that was as 
 long ago as a.d. 1845), that he found it difficult to under- 
 stand him. Surely, if such a man could not, it is not to 
 be wondered at if men of ordinary calibre cannot. If a 
 preacher of the gospel cannot make himself understood, it 
 is usually said, either that the truth is not clear to his own 
 mind, or that he does not venture to speak out courage- 
 ously what is in him. Is it not so? 
 
 "But I think that of late we do understand these men 
 tolerably well. When the articles on ' Early Christianity,' 
 * Cyprian,' etc., appeared. Dr. Nevin was merely attacking 
 \\\t.form of Protestantism, pulling down, ignoring (I cannot 
 help being reminded of '^Ich Inn der Geist dcr stets verneinf) ; 
 then came the attack against the 'Sects' (Dr. Schaff called 
 it ^ eine Sektenschlacht' ), harsh, bitter, as if the pen had 
 
INSTEAD OF A PREFACE. Jx 
 
 been dipped in bitter fluid : so I thought when I first read 
 it, with all my respect for the writer. Such thoughts as 
 these came into my mind : Doctor, who gives thee authority 
 to strike thy fellow-servant, redeemed by the precious blood 
 of the same Saviour? Is it not the spirit of the two disci- 
 ples whom the Divine Master rebuked for calling down fire 
 upon their fellow-sinners? And then, art not thou a secta- 
 rist thyself? Where is thy apostolical succession, unbroken 
 down to this present? And where is thy '■ Cliurch' ? . . . 
 Then came the tinkering with the 8oth Question of the 
 Catechism, which also at that time affected me adversely. 
 It was pronounced ' unfortunate' that the ' mass' should be 
 called an 'idolatry,' and of course all 'we boys' took up 
 the refrain, according to the German couplet, — 
 
 ' Wie die Alten sungen 
 Zwitschern die yungen.^ 
 
 Next the ' Creed' had to be tinkered ; the Greek word 
 hades must be put in the place of hell. Cut bono ? The 
 universal Church, Catholic and Protestant, have used this 
 last term. Every intelligent layman knew its import. 
 Who gave, moreover, a few men the authority to produce 
 a dissonance in the repeating of the Creed ? A synodical 
 president must tell us, too, that the Reformers went too far 
 in their work, etc., etc. . . . 
 
 " Now, my dear brother, all these things have been 
 much on my mind ; and, to bring the matter to the point 
 which is the aim of this long epistle, let me say that I 
 regard it as the duty of some one to speak forth calmly, 
 but decidedly and intelligibly, so that all may understand 
 what are the doctrines of the Church and what are not. And 
 I have it in my mind to say. you are the person. Your age 
 and experience, your former position as a public man, and 
 your known conservatism, seem to single you out before 
 others to do just this work. Besides, although you were 
 the first man who, twenty odd years ago, sounded the first 
 ' bugle-blast,' as ' Irenaeus' lately told us in the Messenger, 
 yet you have not taken any part, so far as I know, in the 
 controversies for years. You are known, moreover, to have 
 been the friend personally of our professors ; known to 
 have first mentioned, and had proposed through another, 
 the name of Dr. Nevin as professor in our seminary 
 
X INSTEAD OF A PREFACE. 
 
 (prompted by your 'better half), as the lamented Rev. 
 John Cares in his lifetime said, who during the special 
 Synod in Chambersburg was an eye-witness of the fact in 
 your own house. Then, too, you have, so far as I know, 
 no reason to be dissatisfied with the Church's treatment of 
 yourself; for she has in her time loaded you with a con- 
 siderable share of duties and onerous burdens, which some 
 men would perhaps count as so much honor. All this and 
 more, it seeiiis to me, fits you for this needed work, whether 
 it be agreeable to you or not. Remember, dear brother, 
 that the path of duty is not always the path of self-choice 
 or of pleasure. Think of what I say, and do as God may 
 seem to bid you. I refrain from a peroration. But this 
 one thing I will yet add, which I omitted to say in the 
 right place : you have no prejudices against you of any 
 moment, for the reasons already stated, neither can you be 
 accused of seeking ' your own' in coming before the public. 
 You have no ambition to gratify, no personal animosities 
 to cherish or avenge. To you many will listen who would 
 not listen to others, because these have aroused prejudices 
 against themselves by their active participation in con- 
 troversy, to which I firmly believe they were 7iot led by 
 unhallowed motives. But my sheets are full, and you are 
 weary. God direct you, bless you ! . . . . 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introductory Remarks ........ 9 
 
 What does Mercersburg Theology teach ? 14 
 
 The Catechism teaches differently ...... 20 
 
 The Doctrine of Atonement 21 
 
 Justification by Faith 43 
 
 The Priesthood. — Are Ministers Priests ? . . . . •5'^ 
 
 Universal Priesthood of Believers . . . . . • 7' 
 
 The Opposite View in the Mercersburg Theory . . .75 
 
 Confession and Absolution ....... 5^3 
 
 Purgatory ........... 86 
 
 Altar and Sacrifice ......... 89 
 
 Altar-Liturgy inconsistent with our Genius and Customs . . 105 
 
 The Sacraments . . , . . . . . .114 
 
 1. Baptism 123 
 
 Deliverance from the Power of the Devil . . .124 
 Clinical Baptism (^Nothtaufe) 127 
 
 2. The Lord's Supper . . . . . . .129 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 A. 
 
 The First Ten Thousand Dollar Gift 147 
 
 B, 
 
 What the New Theory claims to hold ..... 149 
 
 Regeneration. By Dr. Hodge . , . . . -152 
 
 C. 
 
 Justification and Sanctification . . . . . . .154 
 
 D. 
 
 No Human Confessors (Dr. Ryle) ...... 155 
 
 The Cross of Christ (Dr. Luthardt) 156 
 
 (xi) 
 
xu 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Confirmation does not complete Baptism (Dr. Luthardt) 
 
 PAGB 
 
 The Office of the Ministiy (Dr. Schwartz) 
 
 The Church in the Old and New Testament (Neander) 
 
 G. 
 
 How the New Theory has led to Rome 
 
 H. 
 
 Notes on the Gospel of John. By Dr. Scliaff . 
 
 157 
 158 
 
 159 
 
 160 
 
 The Roman Catholic System. By Dr. Dorner 
 
 J. 
 
 Divine Worship in Two Congregations 
 
 Luther's Experience in Rome . 
 
 Progress of Ritualism 
 
 How the Leaven works 
 
 The Use of the Liturgy in Congregations 
 
 Infant Baptism ..... 
 
 Sacerdotal Absolution 
 
 Going Backwards .... 
 
 The "Defects" of the Evangelical Alliance 
 
 The Best Mode of Counteracting Modern Infidelity 
 
 Christ Incarnate if Man had not sinned 
 
 166 
 
 173 
 173 
 175 
 176 
 177 
 180 
 180 
 182 
 184 
 186 
 188 
 
pexkghtoit "%, 
 
 Ji 
 
 
 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 That the Reformed (German) Church in the 
 United States has been greatly disturbed for 
 twenty years past with theological controversy, 
 is well known, not only throughout the length 
 and breadth of the Church, but also outside of 
 its communion. It is equally well known that 
 the cause, as well as the starting-point, of this 
 most unfortunate controversy, has been the 
 promulgation of certain new philosophical and 
 theological speculations, which were taught in 
 our Eastern literary and theological institutions. 
 Beginning with one-sided and highly-exagger- 
 ated attacks on " Modern Protestantism," the 
 movement has culminated in the adoption and 
 teaching, by its originators and their disciples, 
 of doctrines and usages entirely at variance 
 with evangelical Protestantism in general, and 
 the Reformed Church in particular. 
 
 Into the merits or demerits of these new 
 speculations it is not the design of these pages 
 to enter at length. Those who wish to do so 
 
 9 
 
lO MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 will find them defended with more or less clear- 
 ness in the Alercersbttrz Review and the Re- 
 formed Church Messenger, and opposed by Dr. 
 Bomberger's Reformed Church Monthly, the 
 Christian World, of Cincinnati, and, to some 
 extent also, the Western Church paper, Dcr 
 Evangelist (in German), but especially Dr. 
 Dorner's able criticism. 
 
 The main design of these pages is an honest 
 attempt to show : What are the fundamental 
 doctrines of the Reformed Church according to 
 the Heidelberg Catechism, and the teachings of 
 standard writers from the Reformation down to 
 the present time, in regard to the points in dis- 
 pute. Reference will also be made to other 
 Churches of the Reformation in the sixteenth 
 century, for the purpose of showing to the gen- 
 eral reader that, on all the essential points under 
 consideration, the entire Protestant Church at 
 that period was in accord, substantially, with the 
 Reformed Church. Comparing these teachings 
 of the general Protestant Church — but especially 
 those of the Reformed — with the new system 
 'which is attempting to push aside and strangle 
 the old, it will not be difficult, as the writer be- 
 lieves, to see the wide departure from the old, 
 evangelical, sound, and outspoken system of 
 the Reformed Church as it was in the beginning, 
 and from which we have no reason to depart. 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. n 
 
 Whilst it is deeply to be deplored that so 
 much controversy has been provoked by the 
 new system referred to, threatening sometimes 
 to rend the Church, and in many ways producing 
 disastrous results in our communion, yet it has 
 necessarily led to earnest inquiry into the origi- 
 nal history and polity of the Reformed Church 
 on the part of many ministers, who, except for 
 this disturbing element, would not be " rooted 
 and grounded" as fully as they are in the blessed 
 truths for which our fathers lived, and prayed, 
 and died, many of them indeed amid the tortures 
 of the rack, and the agonies of the burning pile 
 kindled by Romish persecution. 
 
 One portion of the Church claims that the 
 new views which for twenty years past have 
 been taught in our Eastern College and Semi- 
 nary are irreconcilable with our Catechism and 
 with evangelical Protestantism, to which they 
 profess to cling with full purpose of heart. The 
 other portion admits that the theology which 
 they hold rests in an " entirely different style 
 of religious thought" from that of their oppo- 
 nents, whom they call the "anti-liturgical and 
 unchurchly party." They not only admit, but 
 affirm, that these two views are " two different 
 versions of the gospel," yea, ''two gospels ar- 
 rayed against each other, so that the one must 
 look upon the other as wrong and false T 
 
,2 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 Now, as this Is admitted to be the fact on both 
 sides, it is necessarily a Hfe-question for the 
 Reformed Church : Who is right, ajid who 
 wrong? If the new system of thought as first 
 taught by Dr. Nevin, and afterwards and now 
 taught by others and held by many of their 
 pupils, is according to and consistent with evan- 
 gelical Protestantism, and, as a part of it, with 
 the clearly-defined doctrines of the Reformed 
 Church, then they should be allowed all freedom 
 to promulgate them, and all clamor should 
 cease. Nay, further, if some philosophical and 
 even theological speculations were held by these 
 men which did not in all respects square with 
 individual views of the other side, and even 
 with those of standard authors of former times, 
 but which were not of the nature of essentials, 
 or which did not run counter to the doctrines 
 of the Heidelberg Catechism, even then there 
 should not be felt any ground for serious alarm. 
 The Reformed Church has ever been regarded, 
 even by those outside of her communion, as the 
 most liberal and generous branch of the Refor- 
 mation. And undoubtedly she has deserved 
 that character, and may she ever deserve it. 
 
 But, on the other hand, if the new system of 
 thought affects, fundamentally and essentially, 
 the Reformed system of truth as this was held 
 by the Reformers and laid down in our acknowl- 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. j -^ 
 
 edged standards — if it is true that the new 
 system is inconsistent with that which has always 
 been held by evangelical Protestantism from 
 the beginning — if it is true that they are " differ- 
 ent versions of the gospel, yea, two gospels 
 arrayed against each other," — then it is high 
 time for us all to know it ; yea, high time that 
 every member of the Reformed Church should 
 know it. 
 
 The writer of these pages desires carefully 
 and conscientiously to compare these two dif- 
 ferent gospels which are " arrayed against each 
 other," without partiality and guile. If he fails 
 in any respect to do this as perfectly as could 
 be desired, the readers may rest assured that 
 he himself feels, far more than they can, the 
 imperfection of the effort, and that he will be 
 heartily glad if some abler pen shall perform 
 the work more perfectly and with greater clear- 
 ness and force. 
 
WHAT DOES THE SO-CALLED MERCERS- 
 BURG THEOLOGY TEACH? 
 
 In answering this question, we shall not 
 attempt to enter at any length on the subject. 
 These pages are intended rather for the people 
 than for ministers. Still it is thought necessary 
 to give some general statements, taken from 
 the writings of Dr. Nevin and those who hold 
 his views, in order to see what the source is 
 from which result the changed sentiments on 
 the Person and Work of Christ, on Baptism, 
 the Lord's Supper, Regeneration, Faith, Re- 
 pentance, and correlated truths. What, then, 
 does the Mercersburg theology teach? What 
 are its professed peculiarities ? 
 
 The theology of Mercersburg starts, so we 
 are told, with the incarnation as its central 
 principle. The redemption and final salvation 
 of the world, according to its teaching, is not 
 accomplished by moral means (moral in the 
 highest Christian sense), but by an organic 
 union of the Incarnate Word with humanity, as 
 a whole, and this in order to form a basis for 
 the regeneration of the i-ace. It is carried for- 
 14 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 15 
 
 ward "by an organic union of the race with the 
 Incarnate Word," this Incarnate Word being 
 developed and transmitted by an organic or 
 historical process. Reference is, indeed, made 
 to the doctrines of the atonement, justification 
 by grace through faith, and also to repentance. 
 But these are secondary, and by the way, to the 
 important Christological (called also the organic 
 " Christocentric") scheme. They are not prop- 
 erly of a fundamental character, only in so far 
 as they may be the means of preparing the way 
 for the effectual working of this organic process. 
 We quote these words from Dr. Nevin, which 
 he employs in summing up a series of articles : 
 
 " The principle of Christianity is Christ ; not 
 any attribute, office, or ministry of Christ simply; 
 not any doctrine, doing, or suffering of Christ ; 
 but the mediatorial Person of Christ, through 
 which only room is made for His mediation in 
 any other view." 
 
 Dr. Nevin, and others of his way of thinking, 
 charge those who do not fall in with their sys- 
 tem that they deny that redemption flows from 
 the mediatorial person of Christ, and that they 
 consider His work as sundered, apart, and dis- 
 tinct from His person. 
 
 This charge is not well founded. Where, we 
 may boldly ask, is this sundering of the work 
 from the person of Christ taught? Surely not 
 
I 5 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 in any of the Evangelical Confessions — not in 
 the Reformed Church, nor is it held by any 
 minister of our Church, so far as we have ever 
 heard. 
 
 But the vital departure of the Mercersburg 
 theology from the theology of Protestant and 
 Reformed Churches Hes in the question, What 
 is the nature of the relation between Christ and 
 the redemption ? That the Lord Jesus Christ 
 is the Life, as well as the Light, of His people, 
 and consequently of the Church ; that He is the 
 Alpha and Omega, the source and fountain of 
 all spiritual life, is a precious truth, and one 
 which evangelical theology, and with it our 
 Heidelberg Catechism, holds and teaches with 
 the utmost clearness and precision. 
 
 But the question is, — 
 
 How is Christ vitally related to His people ? 
 
 We will let Dr. Nevin speak for himself, gath- 
 ering his statements together in. as nearly a 
 connected form as we can. He says, — 
 
 It is by "an organic conjunction with the 
 Saviour," " in a way that makes Him to be the 
 actual life-principle of their (believers) new 
 Christian beincr, and shows their life to he 
 mysteriously involved in His from its com- 
 mencement to its close. The regeneration in 
 which all starts, and the resurrection in which 
 all at last becomes complete, are substantially 
 one and the same process ; which is viewed also, 
 
AfERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. jy 
 
 at the same time, as proceeding- throughout from 
 the glorified hfe of the Saviour Himself" " It 
 is a new creation, which, as such, cannot start 
 from those who are the subjects of it, but must 
 come from the fundamental regfeneration of 
 humanity that is brought to pass, first of all, in 
 the Word made flesh." "The mystery of the 
 incarnation exhibited in the living Christ is the 
 fundamental principle and beginning of the 
 whole Christian salvation." " The Word Incar- 
 nate is the root and origin of the entire new 
 creation, no less fully than He is to be consid- 
 ered as being, before He became man, the pro- 
 ducino; cause of the old creation." " The organic 
 view of Christianity underlies the true idea of 
 the Church." " In this view, of course, Christ 
 becomes at once for faith the root of all Chris- 
 tianity and the fountain of the universal Chris- 
 tian life out to the resurrection of the last day. 
 He is THE SECOND Adam. That, of itself, gives 
 us the whole thought, and causes us to feel the 
 vital character of the relation that holds between 
 Him and His people." "The process starts in 
 the mystery of our Saviour's holy incarnation." 
 " Christianity (therefore) is a new world of 
 grace, a new order of life, which is compre- 
 hended primarily in the (incarnate) person of 
 Christ, and which starts forth from Him as its 
 original principle and root." 
 
 Now, what does Dr. Nevin mean by these 
 declarations ? And before we give their natural 
 and obvious meaning, it is well to remember 
 that he does not prctci:d to hold the Reformed 
 
I 8 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 view on this subject, — as we shall see hereafter, 
 — for he says, openly and frankly, he " cannot 
 endure" it. What then is his peculiar theory ? 
 
 Why, most clearly this, that men are not saved 
 through the sufferinors and death of Christ, the 
 Crucified One, but by the actual, literal, sub- 
 stantial conveyance to believers of the very sub- 
 stance of the life of Christ incarnate. Christ in 
 His theanthropic (divine human) person is as lit- 
 erally and substantially the ground, the fountain- 
 head of the new life of believers, as the natural 
 Adam is of their natural life. The personal 
 regeneration of believers starts in and flows from 
 the general regeneration of humanity, in and by 
 the incarnation of the Son of God, the Word. 
 
 Denying then that the redemption of men is 
 accomplished or the work of the atonement 
 secured through Christ's holy life and propitia- 
 tory sacrifice on the cross {i.e., through His active 
 and passive vicarious satisfaction), this new 
 theory holds that we are saved by the convey- 
 ance to us of this regenerated humanity in the 
 incarnate Word, through certain outward chan- 
 nels (the visible Church, Ordination, Baptism, 
 Confirmation, etc.). The least candor must 
 admit that this is a very mechanical and outward 
 theory ; that it is very different from that which 
 has always been held as true in the Reformed 
 Church, and from what the Scriptures seem to 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. jq 
 
 teach so very plainly, and that it does by no 
 means correspond with the experience of God's 
 people in all ages. 
 
 It is not necessary, nor is it our purpose, to 
 pursiTe our inquiries on the main point any 
 further in regard to the new theory, that the 
 incarnation and not the death of Christ is held 
 to be the fountain of salvation as well as the 
 fountain of all the peculiar teachings of that 
 school. This follows as a necessary conse- 
 quence. If the incarnation of Christ is the 
 central doctrine of the system, it must follow 
 also, as Dr. Ruetenik has well observed, that 
 if the unprofitable question were to be asked, 
 whether Christ would have become man if Adam 
 had not sinned, the answer from Nevin and his 
 disciples would be. Yes. And why ? Because 
 Christ's sacrificial death was not the aim of His 
 incarnation ; it was merely an event — a neces- 
 sary event — in the process of His life. But the 
 Scriptures everywhere imply that the incarna- 
 tion was merely a means — a necessary step to 
 the atonement, just as a seed, in order to grow 
 and ripen, must be placed into the ground. 
 
 Now let the reader turn to the i6th question 
 of our Catechism, where it is asked why it was 
 necessary for Christ to be very man, and also 
 perfectly righteous. The answer is given in 
 these words : 
 
20 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 " Because the justice of God requires that the 
 same human nature, which hath sinned, should 
 Hkewise make satisfaction for sin ; and one who 
 is himself a sinner cannot satisfy for others." 
 (See also the proof-texts quoted under the 
 answer.) 
 
 Here then we have our Catechism teaching 
 most explicidy, with the Holy Scriptures, that 
 the incarnation was necessary, because Christ 
 could not otherwise have suffered death for the 
 human race. The same Catechism teaches that 
 He " bore in body and soul the wrath of God 
 against the sins of all mankind ; that so by His 
 passion^ as the only propitiatory sacrifice. He 
 might redeem our body and soul from ever- 
 lasting damnation." (Quest. '^'].) It makes the 
 solemn, clear, and unequivocal declaration, that 
 the " Holy Ghost teaches us in the gospel, and 
 assures us by the sacraments, that the ivhole of 
 our salvation depends tip07i that one sacrifice of 
 Christ, which He offered for tis on the cross." 
 (Quest. Gj.) And in that notable 8oth question 
 (which not a few have desired to be expunged 
 because it is an honest and decided protest 
 against the Romish mass) we are told that 
 " the Lord's Supper testifies to us that we have 
 a full pardon of all sin b)' the only sacrifice of 
 Jesus Christ, which He has once accomplished 
 on the cross." 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 2 1 
 
 In all candor it may be asked just here, Can 
 any truth be stated with greater clearness and 
 precision ? And it may be asked further, Is not 
 this the Protestant doctrine to which millions 
 of the departed dead and the living have clung 
 and are clinging as their greatest comfort in life 
 and death ? Is it not this truth which is put into 
 the mouth of the believer in that precious first 
 answer of the Catechism where he is asked 
 What is thy only comfort in life and death ? and 
 responds in these words : " That I with body 
 and soul, both in life and death, am not my 
 own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus 
 Christ, zvho with His precious blood hath fully 
 satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from 
 all the power of the devil," etc. 
 
 It would be easy to show that this cardinal 
 truth in the gospel system, as taught in our 
 confession of faith, rests on the obvious teach- 
 ing of the word of God, of which such a pas- 
 sage as I Peter i. 18, 19 gives the key-note: 
 " Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not re- 
 deemed with corruptible things, as silver and 
 gold, . . . but with the precious blood of 
 Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and with- 
 out spot." But this is not what we are called 
 upon to do ; for, as ministers and members 
 of the Reformed Church, our acknowledged 
 standard of truth is the Heidelberg Catechism. 
 
2 2 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 As ministers, we have subscribed to it and 
 solemnly vowed to preach that truth ; as pro- 
 fessors, to teach it ; as members, to, believe it. 
 All that is needed then just now, all that is con- 
 templated in this little work, is to prove that the 
 new system of Mercersburg-Lancaster is not in 
 accordance witli the system of truth as held by 
 the Reformed Church, and as it is clearly laid 
 down in the Heidelberg Catechism, and as held 
 and taught by the Reformers and all acknowl- 
 edged expounders and theological teachers of 
 the Church. 
 
 W^e have seen what is the unmistakable 
 teachine of the Catechism, Now let us see 
 whether the obvious sense of its teaching is 
 borne out by other testimony of undoubted 
 force and authority. 
 
 And first, we will appeal to Ursinus, one of 
 the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism. He 
 wrote a commentary on the Catechism, which 
 was translated into English some )ears ago by 
 the Rev. Dr. Williard, President of Heidelberg 
 College, in Tiffin, Ohio. No authority can be 
 equal to that of the learned and good author of 
 that book when the question concerns the sense 
 and meaninp in which that inimitable text-book 
 is to be understood. In the introduction to the 
 English translation referred to. Dr. Nevin says, 
 " No other [work] can have the same weight as 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 23 
 
 an exposition of its true meaning." Let us 
 then hear how he understood the Catechism. 
 
 In his explanation of the first answer in the 
 Catechism, in treating of the " comfort" of a 
 believer in Christ, Ursinus says that this com- 
 fort consists, first, of " our reconciliation with 
 God throuofh Christ;" and then, as to the manner 
 of it, he says that "our reconciliation (is) with 
 God through the blood of Christ, that is, through 
 His passion, death, and satisfaction for our sins." 
 I Peter i. 18 ; i John i. 7. [Comment., p. 18.) 
 
 In explaining the phrase " to eat the crucified 
 body and to drink the shed blood of Christ," 
 which occurs in the 76th question, he says, — 
 
 " The eating of the body and the drinking of 
 the blood of Christ is not corporal, but spiritual, 
 and embraces : 
 
 " I . Faith in His sufferings and death. 
 
 " 2. The forgiveness of sins, and the gift of 
 eternal life throuo-h faith. 
 
 "3. Our union with Christ through the Holy 
 Spirit, who dwells both in Christ and in us. 
 
 "*4. The quickening influence of the same 
 Spirit. Hence, to eat the crucified body and to 
 drink the shed blood of Christ, is to believe 
 that God receives us into His favor for the sake 
 of Christ's merits ; that we obtain the remission 
 of our sins and reconciliation with God by the 
 same faith." (p. 382.) 
 
 This is the Protestant, this is the Reformed 
 
24 
 
 MER CERSB UR G THEOL OGY. 
 
 teaching- as to the way and manner in which 
 fallen men are saved, not by an " organic pro- 
 cess" which starts in " the mystery" of Christ's 
 incarnation, by which humanity, in some way 
 not clearly stated, becomes regenerated, and 
 which is said to be " the fundamental principle 
 and beginning of the whole Christian salvation," 
 or, as it is sometimes stated, by the actual, 
 literal, substantial conveyance "of the very sub- 
 stance of the life of Christ Incarnate." No ; the 
 Catechism, and indeed the entire evangelical 
 Protestant Church, knows nothlno- of the Chris- 
 tian salvation brought about by any process so 
 physical as this new theory seems to teach. It 
 is to the redemption of Christ accomplished on 
 the CROSS, and secured to the penitent believer 
 by faith, not to the Incarnation process, that we 
 are directed for salvation. 
 
 This Is the doctrine which was taught by all 
 the Reformers and by all accepted writers and 
 preachers of the Reformed Church in Europe 
 and America, — Zwingle and Calvin, and ^the 
 whole line of godly men who adorn the page 
 of Church history. The former says, " Tnere 
 Is, therefore, but one way to become reconciled 
 to God, and that way is through Jesus and Him 
 crucified. It is by preaching Christ on the cross 
 that men are drawn to God, thus fulfilling the 
 word of Jesus : And I, if I be lifted up, will 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 25 
 
 draw all men after me." Calvin says, "The 
 sinner, coming in contrition to the Saviour, finds 
 in Him and in His finished work of redemption 
 on the cross just what he needs, and this is 
 what affords him hope and comfort," 
 
 And, coming to the present age, we hear the 
 same harmonious testimony from the lips of 
 God's honored servants. It is needless to 
 multiply quotations. But let us hear the testi- 
 mony of a man whose name is loved and 
 honored in America as it is in Europe, and who 
 cannot be accused of being unsound to the 
 confession of the Reformed Church. I mean 
 Dr. F. W. Krummacher. It is from his address 
 of welcome to the members of the Evangelical 
 Alliance in Berlin in 1857. The whole eloquent 
 and spirited address is a noble testimony of his 
 oneness with true Christians who hold to Christ 
 the Head as the "All and in All." After saying, 
 as if in the name of all those who were then before 
 him, that they bowed to the Holy Scriptures as 
 the Divine infallible revelation given from God, 
 and that no other can be believed in, whether 
 it be called reason or tradition, hierarchy or 
 church, or by whatever other name it may be 
 known, nor that any can stand above it, and 
 affirming the declaration of faith in the triune 
 God, the lost and sinful state of man, etc., he 
 proceeds to say, — 
 
26 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 " But we also comfort ourselves with the joy- 
 ful assurance that this great grace has appeared 
 in Jesus Christ, who is God manifest in the 
 flesh ; and in His mediatorial work we see the 
 only but the all-sufficient cause of our salvation 
 and of our everlasting happiness. JVc take hold 
 of Christ by faith; we do Him honor; with 
 body and soul we give ourselves to Him ; and 
 thus we conclude, that though we are sinful, 
 miserable, and guilty in ourselves, we stand 
 justified before the Judge of the living and the 
 dead, not on account of our faith as a virtue, 
 much less on account of our good works, but 
 solely for the righteousness of the Great Surety, 
 which is reckoned as grace to those who Jiave 
 faith in Him who justifies the uuQ^odly. On 
 account of the merits of Jesus, the Holy Ghost 
 declares us in our conscience free from sin, gives 
 witness with our spirit that we are the children 
 of God, fills us with that peace which passeth 
 all understanding, and continues in us that work 
 of sanctification which He has already begun 
 in us." 
 
 The same Krummacher holds the following 
 language in a sermon on the " Cross of Christ :" 
 
 ''Christ the Mediator! Touched with erati- 
 tude, I give Him, the Crucified One, my full con- 
 fidence ; and after having taken my place as the 
 Mediator, He now becomes also my Redeemer 
 and Saviour. For His sake I have been absolved 
 from all the guilt of sin. Now He also breaks 
 the dominion of sin in me, by giving me His Holy 
 Spirit, making me a partaker of His nature, and 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 27 
 
 thus brings about a new mode of life well pleas- 
 ing to God. I now do not live any more unto 
 myself, but unto Him, who has pU7'chased me 
 zvith His blood!' . . . "The cross, with its 
 sweet tones of invitation, and at the same time 
 its solemn admonitions to repentance — yes, the 
 cross, with the suffering, dying Lamb of God 
 upon it — the cross is the ce^itre of the gospel!' 
 
 This clear testimony from the able court- 
 preacher of Prussia and the loved favorite of 
 the late king, now with God, is essentially 
 different from the theory which makes the in- 
 caniatioii the " centre of Christianity." Krum- 
 macher, it cannot be doubted, was soundly Re- 
 formed, Evangelical, and Protestant. Whoever 
 was Rationalist, certainly he was not. And the 
 utterances in the opening address, above re- 
 ferred to, were heard by hundreds of the 
 choicest spirits from all parts of the Christian 
 Church with unanimous accord, — the leading 
 men of the Evangelical Church of Germany, 
 England, France, Switzerland, Scotland, and 
 elsewhere, — as with one voice they proclaimed 
 their faith in Christ crucified, as the Lamb of 
 God which taketh away the sin of the world. 
 And need it be said that the same truth has 
 been held in the same way by all sound Pro- 
 testants, not only in Europe, but also in this 
 country, and by none more emphatically than 
 by the ministry of the Reformed Church, among 
 
28 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 the dead and die livinor ? Amonor the former we 
 recall such men as Schlatter and the two Drs. 
 Hendel, Otterbein, and Fries; Dr. S. Helfen- 
 stein, Jon. Helfenstein, and Reiley, Runkel, Dr. 
 Becker, and D. Wagner; Drs. Mayer and 
 Bibighaus ; Drs. Pomp and Hoffeditz ; P. Pauli 
 and Vandersloot, Sr. ; Thomas Winters, Sr., and 
 Glonineer ; Drs. A. Helfenstein and Zacharias ; 
 W. Hiester and the Rahausers ; the earnest 
 Beecher and the devoted Rice ; Smaltz and 
 Leinbach ; Gutelius and the two Fishers ; I. 
 Gerhart and the lovely Cares ; Dr. Heiner, 
 H^ Wagner, and Dr. Rauch* (the first Presi- 
 dent of Marshall College), Dr. Hoffmeier, and 
 by scores of others. 
 
 BUT WHO DENIES THIS DOCTRINE? 
 
 It may perhaps be said that no one denies 
 this truth, and hence the proofs furnished are 
 a fruitless and unnecessary labor. Let us see 
 how this is. Instead of selecting paragraphs 
 and single sentences from numerous articles by 
 
 * Out of a number of quotations from Dr. Ranch's sermons, let the 
 following serve as a specimen on this subject : " Had Christ not been 
 crucified, the kingdom of truth and of love would never have been 
 established on earth. He died, not because He coidd not shun the 
 malice of the Jews, but that He might recoiicile the world to God ; and 
 the Father makes use of their arm to slay Him whose pure and inno- 
 cent blood was to be the ransom for our sins. Now the sinner is 
 justified by faith without the deeds of the law." — The Inner Life, 
 edited by Dr. E. V. Gerhart, 1S56, p. 152. 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 09 
 
 various writers in the Mcrcci^sburg Rcviezv, and 
 the Messenger, in which the opposite truth is 
 taught, we have an article on this very subject 
 in the Messenge7' of September 17, 1873, from 
 one of the professors in Lancaster, which is 
 clear and outspoken ; it could not be more so. 
 The title of the article is, " The Doctrine of the 
 Catechism concerning- the Atoning Death of 
 Christ." 
 
 The writer sees and feels the force of the 
 language employed in the Catechism touching 
 this subject. He admits, in fact, that it requires 
 one to understand its words in a sense which 
 he does not wish them to have. Here is the 
 introductory paragraph : 
 
 "A superficial study of the Heidelberg Cate- 
 chism may make the impression that the atoning 
 sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross is 
 not only essential, but also fundamental and 
 principial, in its doctrinal system of redemption. 
 It teaches, that Christ ' bore in body and soul 
 the wrath of God ajjainst the sin of the whole 
 human race, in order that by His passion, as 
 the only atoning sacrifice. He might redeem 
 our body and soul from everlasting damnation' 
 (Q. 2)1^ ; that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on 
 the cross is the only ground of our salvation, 
 and that ' our whole salvation stands in the one 
 sacrifice of Christ, made for us on the cross' 
 (Q. 67). Again, the Catechism says 'that we 
 have full forgiveness of all our sins by the one 
 
30 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 sacrifice of Jesus Christ' (O. 80). Many other 
 expressions occur, which are equally explicit." 
 
 But why now is it said that the ''superficial 
 study of the Heidelberg Catechism" makes such 
 an impression ? Have all the theologians, and 
 all the millions of pious people, learned and 
 unlearned, for hundreds of years past, been 
 nothing but "superficial readers" ? What other 
 "impression" upon the minds of the devout 
 readers sf that Catechism could by any possi- 
 bility be made, than " that the atoning sacrifice 
 of Christ accomplished on the cross" is essential 
 and fundamental ? That any Protestant teacher 
 of theology, and especially one in the Reformed 
 Church, should ever have received any other 
 impression, is most marvellous. 
 
 But let us hear him further : 
 
 That this doctrinal system underlies and 
 nates 
 believe." 
 
 animates the Heidelberg Catechism we cannot 
 
 " We cannot beheve" ! He cannot believe it, 
 although the entire Protestant Church — yea, we 
 might say, even the Roman Catholic Church — 
 at least in a formal way — has always held to the 
 truth, and the Heidelberg Catechism unmistak- 
 ably -teaches it, so that even the professor admits 
 that the obvious language of this book makes 
 the impression upon the reader to that effect. 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 31 
 
 And why can he not beheve it, then ? Here 
 are his reasons : 
 
 " The notion is incompatible with the central 
 position of the Creed ; incompatible also with 
 its conception of the gospel, as an order of 
 grace standing in the personal history of Jesus 
 Christ." 
 
 Here we have the frank avowal that the 
 " notion" (only a notion) of the atoning sacrifice 
 of Christ, as previously stated, " is incompatible 
 with the central position of the (so-called) Apos- 
 tles' Creed;" and, further, "incompatible also 
 with its conception of the gospel, as an order 
 of grace standing in the personal history of 
 Jesus Christ." 
 
 This is not a very clear statement, to be sure. 
 But any one who has carefully read the new 
 (Mercersburg) theology sees at a glance what 
 it means. It means that men are not saved by 
 the atoning sacrifice of Christ, but by partici- 
 pating in the divine-human life of Christ. In 
 other words, we are saved by the "actual, lit- 
 eral, substantial conveyance to us" of thj very 
 substance of the life of Christ incarnate, and 
 that redemption, as applied and effected, does 
 not flow from " Christ and Him crucified" (for 
 this is said to be only a mode, means, or condi- 
 tion of the process), but from the incarnation. 
 To the Creed is given a peculiar meaning — a 
 
32 
 
 MER CERSB UR G THEOL OGY. 
 
 purely fanciful, subjective theory, and, with this 
 construction put upon it by the new theology, 
 it is made to give the key-note to all that is em- 
 braced under the name of Christianity. Virtu- 
 ally, it is placing the Creed above the written 
 gospel. Now then we see plainly enough that 
 the reason why the Lancaster professor cannot 
 believe in what he is pleased to call the "notion" 
 of the Catechism (and the word of God as 
 well), is because it will not fit in with the new 
 philosophical and theological system to which 
 he holds. Nay, it is antagonistic to it from 
 every point of view. It is altogether " another 
 gospel," starting in and " flowing from the gen- 
 eral regeneration of humanity in and by the 
 incarnation of the Son of God, the Word." 
 ihis is called a process, an "historical process." 
 By means of it we are saved, according to this 
 new theory, not by Christ's passion and death, 
 appropriated by faith, but by participating in 
 the theanthropic or divine-human nature of 
 Christ, a view which the learned Dr. Dorner 
 calls " a manufactured theory which cannot sup- 
 port itself by the Holy Scriptures. "••' 
 
 The method which the writer referred to em- 
 ploys to sustain his position that the Catechism 
 cannot and does not teach what it seems to do, 
 
 * iJr. Dorner's " Liturgical Conflict in the Reformed Church of 
 America," l868. 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 ZZ 
 
 is a very lame and far-fetched one. He says 
 the emphasis which it lays on the sacrifice of 
 Christ was intended rather as an opposition to 
 the "contrary errors of the Roman Church. 
 The sacrifice of Christ is opposed to the sacri- 
 fice of the mass ; and the infinite merit of His 
 sacrifice to the supposed merit obtained by 
 monastic vows, arbitrary penance, and self-in- 
 flicted bodily pains." 
 
 To this unheard-of, pointless, and unnatural 
 assertion, which contains the very embodiment 
 of its own weakness, let it be remarked : 
 
 1. That the Catechism does not furnish the 
 most remote foundation for such an assertion in 
 the passages referred to, except in the Both 
 Question, which was intended to be a testimony 
 against the Romish mass, not by " implication," 
 but directly, positively. But so far as the 37th 
 and 67th Questions are concerned, it is utterly 
 futile to draw from them any other sense or 
 meaning than what the clear, obvious words 
 teach. There they stand, and no turning and 
 twisting can make anything else out of them. 
 
 2. The other remark is, that if the meanino- 
 of the Catechism is different, by implication, at 
 least, from what it seems to be, is it not strange 
 that that meaning was never discovered before ? 
 For more than three hundred years has that 
 precious little work been regarded as containing 
 
34 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 one of the clearest expositions of divine truth, 
 outside of the Bible, the Church has ever pos- 
 sessed. Its compact yet full teachings on the 
 doctrine of redemption, the atonement by 
 Christ, and its application to the believer, have 
 been held and believed, have ever been preached 
 and expounded, in accordance with the obvious, 
 plain meaning of its language. Hundreds of 
 commentaries have been written on the Cate- 
 chism in Germany, Holland, and America, and 
 not one of the writers ever discovered that the 
 Catechism did not mean just precisely what it 
 taught. What no one of them was learned 
 enough to find out, has been, however, discov- 
 ered at this late day, as it would seem ! The 
 entire Protestant Church has so understood it, 
 has indorsed it, and the Reformed Church has 
 gloried in it. No Reformed minister or theo- 
 logian, of any standing or character, ever held 
 the view that the Catechism taught anything 
 else than that the sacrifice of Christ on the 
 cross " was essential, fundamental, and principial 
 in its doctrinal system of redemption." Was 
 there ever a breath to the contrar}^ uttered in 
 our Church, even twenty or twenty-five years 
 ago ? Did not Dr. Nevin himself write a little 
 book in commendation of the Catechism ? and 
 did not the Reformed Church in Germany and 
 in this country unite in celebrating the three 
 
MER CERSB UR G THEOL O G V. 
 
 35 
 
 hundredth anniversary of the Catechism, without 
 ever intimating, in any of the addresses, essays, 
 and speeches, that the teachings of that book 
 were not properly apprehended, or that what 
 seemed to teach this cardinal truth was a mere 
 antithesis against some of the errors of the 
 Roman Church? Never! No, never/ 
 
 But let us hear again what the author of the 
 article in the Messenger says, for the purpose 
 of turning the point against those who believe 
 differently from himself: 
 
 " When the Catechism emphasizes the ex- 
 clusive efficacy of Christ's death," he says, "the 
 implied opposition does not pertain to any other 
 cardinal fact in His history. His death is not 
 opposed to His birth on the one side, or His 
 resurrection on the other. It does not inculcate 
 the idea that the only ground of salvation is 
 the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, not His conception 
 and birth, not His resurrection and glorification ; 
 as if the life were not as necessary as the death 
 of Christ, and His exaltation and glory as 
 necessary as His humiliation." 
 
 Let us ask the writer of the foregoing two 
 sentences whether he can point out any one in 
 the Reformed Church who ever tauQ;ht or held 
 that the Catechism implied'any opposition to His 
 birth or resurrection, or any other cardinal fact 
 in Christ's history. Opposition ! There is no 
 opposition in the case. Who, it may be asked, 
 
36 
 
 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 ever said that Christ's death was opposed to 
 His birth, on the one side, or His resurrec- 
 tion, on the other? It might be interesting 
 to know. 
 
 But when the writer says that the Catechism 
 " does not inculcate the idea that the only 
 ground of salvation is the sacrifice of Jesus 
 Christ, not His conception and birth, etc.," we 
 must ask him what right he has to presuppose 
 any opposition to the conception and birth, 
 resurrection and glorification of Christ. The 
 Catechism in the Question referred to {2)l) 
 treats of the "only ground of our salvation." 
 It says that the " Holy Ghost teaches us in the 
 gospel, and assures us by the sacraments, that 
 the whole of our salvation depends upon that 
 one sacrifice of Christ, which He offered for us 
 on the cross." Here the Catechism does indeed 
 say what the professor denies, that the only 
 ground of our salvation depends on the sacrifice 
 of Christ, but it does not imply that the birth 
 and resurrection were not essential, antece- 
 dent, and consequent facts to the vicarious 
 death of Christ. St. Paul says, "God forbid 
 that I should glory, save in the cross of our 
 Lord fesus Christ'' (Gal. vi. 14). St. John 
 says, " The blood of Jesus Christ His Son 
 cleanseth us from all sin" (i John i. 8). Do 
 these and other like declarations of God's 
 
MER CERSB URG THRO LOG V. 
 
 37 
 
 holy word imply any opposition, or even a 
 sHehtinor of the birth and resurrection of 
 Christ ? Just as much, and no more, than 
 does the Catechism.'-' 
 
 It is then not in the atonement as something- 
 separate and apart from Christ's person and 
 work in any form, but in Christ as born, risen, 
 crucified, and glorified, that we, with the uni- 
 versal church of Christ, believe. But we do 
 believe also, with the same universal church of 
 Christ, that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross 
 as the culmination, the crowning fact of all that 
 went before, " is the only ground of our salva- 
 tion," and " that our whole salvation stands in 
 the one sacrifice of Christ." 
 
 It might seem superfluous, in a case so plain 
 and self-evident, to bring forward any more 
 proof. But let us direct attention to one more. 
 It is in the formula of the Lord's Supper as 
 
 * To give prominence to the death of Christ on the cross has ever 
 been the glory of evangelical Protestantism, and the want of it has 
 always been regarded as the forerunner, if not the actual present ex- 
 istence, of Rationalism. How strangely does it sound, therefore, to 
 have it said in the editorial columns of our Church paper (Oct. i, 1873) 
 that " one of the great prevailing wrong tendencies of the day, when 
 speaking of the atonement of Christ, as related to the grand scheme 
 of redemption, is the disposition to give such prominence to the death 
 of Christ on the cross," and then charging that by so doing it " casts 
 into the shade, if it does not exclude, everything else relating to His 
 person and work" ! The eminent Dr. Luthardt says, " The central 
 point of the revelation of redemption is the atonement on the cross, 
 the forgiveness of sins." — Lecture IX. of his works. 
 4 
 
38 
 
 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 contained in the Palatinate Directory (Heidel- 
 berg, A.D. 1563, only three years after the 
 publication of the Heidelberg Catechism), where 
 it is said, — 
 
 " From this institution of the Holy Supper 
 of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, we see 
 that He directs our faith and confidence to His 
 perfect sacrifice, — once offered on the cross, — 
 as to the only ground and foundation of oiw sal- 
 vation, in which He became to our hungry and 
 thirsty souls the true meat and drink of ever- 
 lasting life." 
 
 Yea, verily, the professor is right in saying 
 that the Catechism " emphasizes" this doctrine, 
 and so have all sound theologians from Ursinus 
 down to Krummacher and Dorner. The pro- 
 fessor, however, and with him the leaders of the 
 new system of Mercersburg and Lancaster, do 
 not emphasize, but, on the contrary, they do not, 
 yea, they ''cannot believe it." And the reason 
 why they cannot believe it has been stated: 
 namely, their new theory of philosophy and 
 theology has no room for it. It starts out from 
 another principle altogether. In that theory a 
 fusion of the theanthropic or divine-human life 
 of the Word with humanity is the central doc- 
 trine, and this rules the whole system of their 
 theology ; and in their view there is no such 
 thing as a sacrifice for sin on the cross, as it has 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 39 
 
 always been held by the evangelical Church.* 
 Just here It is that the new system is unsound 
 to the core, anti-Protestant, and so anti-Re- 
 formed. Its friends may endeavor as much as 
 they please to make it appear that the opposing 
 view is held only by "Piirita7is, fanatics," or, 
 mayhap, by a fraction of " Rationalistic" theo- 
 logians who know no better. This way of 
 throwing mire on a hated few looks very like 
 a ruse. It is not a small fraction, it is 7iot some 
 one-sided Puritans and fanatics, nor some 
 modern " unchurchly sects,'' — Winebrenners or 
 Mormons it might be, — that are meant, merely, 
 although when pressed on this subject they will 
 sometimes point to these as being their " objec- 
 tive point" of attack. But they mean some- 
 thing " broader and deeper" than that. Dr. 
 Nevin speaks out more candidly, and freely 
 admits this, for he tells us that the " reieningf 
 theology of Protestantism" is of an altogether 
 different type, it is on an entirely different basis 
 from that of the new theology, it is "another 
 gospel." He says of his theology, that it "rests 
 in a wholly different style of religious thought" 
 
 * Thus, Dr. Nevin asserts that the death of Christ on the cross is 
 to be regarded as " a necessary all-glorious mode or condition only 
 of the process" of redemption by His incarnation. The redemption 
 of mankind, according to this view, was by the incarnation, and not 
 by the death, of Christ. 
 
40 
 
 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 from that of the other side. Nay, he says that 
 they are two gospels arrayed against each 
 other, so that the one must look upon the other 
 as wi'ong and false ! (See Appendix B.) And 
 here in this fundamental doctrine of the atone- 
 ment by the Lord Jesus Christ is the divergerlce 
 in its beginnings. The new theology starts in 
 the incarnation, and from that develops its 
 peculiar views in such sense as to set aside, or 
 change and modify, every doctiHne of the Chris- 
 tian system. Not a few " ranting sects," there- 
 fore, nor a minority of ministers in this or that 
 denomination, are wrong, according to this new 
 system, but the entir'e Protestant Church of all 
 branches, German, English, and American. '=" 
 
 * We all remember how, some years ago, there was a constant 
 appeal made to German theology as favoring the new Mercersburg 
 system. The writer of these pages once modestly asked an ardent 
 favorer of the new position to what German authors he referred as 
 being in accord with the Mercersburg theology. He did not know 
 any one in particular, was at last his* reply, but he thought Thoiuck 
 and Krummacher (sic!). In the course of time, however, German 
 theology and its glory had departed, and it was so announced in the 
 most public and pronounced way, and "Anglican'''' (the High Church 
 or Puseyite movement) was declared to be the watchword, although 
 this even does not hold to any such theosophic or rationalistic specu- 
 lation in regard to the incarnation. This view is, what its friends claim 
 for it, new, at least in its application to Christian doctrines in the his- 
 torical Protestant churches. It is subjective in the worst sense of the 
 term, i.e. human philosophical specul.ition carried into the word of 
 God. It is also eminently unhistorical. So also was Swedenborg's 
 speculation new in its day. The learned and well-meaning Count 
 dreamed learnedly and mucli, but the world h;is becume neither wiser 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. a^ 
 
 For nothing- is more palpable than that on this 
 doctrine of the atoning sacrifice of Christ all of 
 them are a unit. All hold to it as fundamental 
 to the Christian system; with more or less clear- 
 ness. Only the leading men of this new the- 
 ology " cannot believe" it to be such, and they 
 cannot because their system is constructed upon 
 an entirely different theory. According to it 
 there is no room for the atoning sacrifice of 
 Christ as a fundamental article in the doctrinal 
 system of redemption. And although the Hei- 
 delberg Catechism (with the whole Protestant 
 evangelical Church) holds to it as with one 
 voice, those brethren cannot believe it, and, 
 more painful than all, they attempt to eviscerate 
 the doctrine and give it an entirely different 
 meaning, pronouncing every one who believes 
 in that precious truth as taught in our symbol 
 and the word of God, a " superficial" reader. 
 Let the bold declaration of a professor in our 
 theological seminary at Lancaster stand out 
 
 nor better for his philosophic dreams, and few now care to be at the 
 pains to understand them. Dr. Dorner, whom Dr. Nevin claimed as 
 favoring his views (in a speech at the Dayton Synod), regarding his 
 influence as of immense weight to his new theory, and so liivcwise Dr. 
 Ullmann and Dr. Jul. Miiller, have since been cast out as of no ac- 
 count whatever, chiefly, it would seem, because they cannot judge of 
 theology and philosophy from the clogs of a State Church around 
 them ! And yet who have spoken more freely &.nd boldly on the 
 freedom of the Church from the State than Dr. Dorner, right under 
 the shadow of the Prussian palace ? 
 4* 
 
42 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 clearly before the whole Church, as expressed in 
 his own words : 
 
 ''A superficial study of the Heidelberg Cate- 
 chism may make tlie itnpression that the atoniiig 
 sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross is not 
 only^ essential, btU also fundamental and principial, 
 in its doctrinal system of redemption. . . . That 
 this doctrinal system underlies and animates the 
 Heidelberg Catechism we cannot believe." 
 
 Looking back upon what we have thus far 
 written, we may well ask the question at this 
 point. Shall we allow ourselves to change the 
 entire meaning of the Heidelberg Catechism, 
 and all the Reformed Confessions, and the expe- 
 rience of the best Christians in all ages, and also 
 the clear teachings of Holy Writ, in favor of 
 such a purely human speculative view as this, 
 that when Christ became man He assumed 
 generic humanity and so in principle redeemed 
 humanity ? It is in truth a mere assumption, 
 without a particle of proof, that there is such a 
 thing as "generic humanity." It is furthermore 
 a pure assumption, without a particle of proof, 
 that Christ assumed generic humanity. It is, 
 in the third place, a pure supposition, without 
 any proof at all, that Christ's assumption of 
 humanity was a redemption of man. The 
 Scriptures point to the cross as the redemption. 
 Thus this system is brought into being by piling 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 43 
 
 assumption upon assumption: so unstable is it 
 in its foundation. But worst of all, as we have 
 shown, it entirely changes the gospel of salva- 
 tion. Can any one point out an example in the 
 New Testament where an apostle, or any other 
 convert, bases his hope and certainty of salva- 
 tion upon any such basis as this ? " God forbid," 
 says Paul, " that I should glory, save in the cross 
 ofour Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal. vi. 14). The same 
 Paul, thrice in a single chapter (Col. i. 14, 19, 20), 
 emphasizes the true doctrine as follows : " It 
 pleased the Father that in Him should all full- 
 ness dwell ; and, having made peace through the 
 blood of the ci^oss, by Him to reconcile all things 
 to Himself" If this new theory prevails, we 
 shall have to re-write not only the Heidelberg 
 Catechism, but the New Testament itself. As 
 that blessed book has been apprehended by the 
 long line of martyrs, confessors, and believers, 
 it gave forth no such sound as that. 
 
 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 Another fundamental doctrine of the gospel 
 and of the evangelical Protestant Church, is 
 that of justification by faith. It relates to the 
 question how man comes into possession of the 
 great blessings of the redemption accomplished 
 by Christ. No truth can be of greater impor- 
 tance than the truth which tells him how he may 
 
44 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 be just before God, or, in other words, what he 
 must do to be saved. The gospel answer is 
 clear as a sunbeam, and it comes from the lips 
 of inspired apostles : " Believe on the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." It 
 comes from Christ Himself: " Him that cometh 
 unto me I will in no wise cast out." That it is 
 effective is testified to by all the apostles : " But 
 as many as received Him, to them gave He 
 power to become the sons of God, even to 
 them that believe on His name" (John i. 12). 
 "Therefore, being justified by faith, we have 
 peace with God through our Lord Jesus 
 Christ" (Rom. v. i). And yet this clearly-re- 
 vealed truth became darkened and overloaded 
 with so much error durine the centuries before 
 the Reformation, that it was scarcely understood 
 by one in a thousand. Bodily ' self-inflictions, 
 penances, going into cloisters away from the 
 outside world, paying money to erect shrines 
 and altars to the saints and the Virgin, — these 
 were some of the ways by which men were to 
 obtain the favor of God and the peace of their 
 consciences. And when in the sixteenth cen- 
 tury this system of man had reached its 
 pinnacle, when salvation was literally sold for 
 money by traveling monks (a Tetzel, in Ger- 
 many, for instance), God raised up men in 
 different countries of Europe to re-announcc 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 45 
 
 the simple teachings of God's Holy Word on 
 this subject. The Reformation proclaimed with 
 clarion voice that the sinner is justified by God 
 freely, and that when he humbly approaches 
 Him he can lay hold of (or believe) the blessed 
 truth that his sins are forgiven for the sake of 
 the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This truth 
 the Reformers found in the gospel ; they found 
 it sealed to them by the sacraments ; they found 
 it witnessed by the Holy Spirit in their personal 
 consciousness, in their own experience. So 
 Luther, so Zwingle, Melanchthon, Calvin, and 
 all the host of great and good men of that 
 period; thus they believed, thus they wrote 
 and preached, and in this faith they died full of 
 hope and peace and joy. When Olevianus, one 
 of the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, 
 was on his dying bed, and was asked by one 
 whether he was certain of his salvation, he re- 
 plied by a single word in Latin, " CertissimiLS /" 
 "perfectly sure," and, laying his hand upon his 
 breast, quietly expired. These men of God had 
 read such passages as these in their Bible : 
 " The just shall live by faith." " We have redemp- 
 tion through His blood." " He (Jesus) hath made 
 peace through the blood of His cross." We are 
 justified through the redemption that is in Him. 
 " We are justified in His name." " Believe on the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" 
 
46 
 
 MER CERSB URG THE O LOG V. 
 
 (Gal. iii. 1 1 ; Eph. i. 7 ; Rom. iii. 24 ; i Cor. i. 30 ; 
 Acts xvi. 31). 
 
 In perfect accordance with this truth is the 
 teaching of the Heidelberg Catechism, as we 
 shall now prove. 
 
 The 2ist Question and Answer read as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 " What is true faith ? 
 
 " True faith is not only a certain knowledge, 
 whereby I hold for truth all that God has re- 
 vealed to us in His word, but also an assured 
 confidence, which the Holy Ghost works by the 
 gospel in my heart ; that not only to others, 
 but to me also, remission of sin, everlasting 
 righteousness, and salvation, are freely given 
 by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of 
 Christ's merits." 
 
 Faith, therefore, according to the Catechism, 
 consists in kiicnuledge and an assiL7'ed confidence ; 
 a knowledge of that in which we are to believe, 
 and an application which every one who exer- 
 cises this faith or confidence makes to himself, 
 that his sin is freely remitted unto him for the 
 sake of Christ's merits. " The efficient cause of 
 justifying faith," says Ursinus, " is the Holy 
 Ghost. The instnmicjital cause is the gospel, 
 in which the use of the sacraments is also com- 
 prehended. The subject of this faith is the will 
 and heart of man." 
 
 So much for the Catechism. 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 47 
 
 Let us now quote only a few other authori- 
 ties, not the authorized confessions of other 
 evangehcal communions, for these, as every 
 one can see, are all in full accord on the sub- 
 ject ; but theologians of acknowledged standing 
 in Protestant Christendom. 
 
 Dj^. Krummacher (Reformed) : " The doctrine 
 of justification through the merits of Christ, and 
 received by faith, is the dividing line between 
 the Protestant evanorelical and the Roman 
 Church. It is here we obtain that joyful assu- 
 rance of our salvation, and the consequent 
 peace which flows therefrom. And our own 
 Reformed Church holds and ever has held fast 
 to this truth." Tholiuk (Lutheran) : " When, 
 looking at yourself and within yourself, you 
 feel sad and despondent, then look with peni- 
 tence and faith ever deeper and deeper into the 
 centre, to Jesus Christ, who of God is made 
 unto us wisdom, righteousness (justification), 
 sanctification, and redemption. Forever will it 
 remain true that we are justified by faith and 
 have peace with God through our Lord Jesus 
 Christ" {^Geiuissenspredigten, i860). Dr. Lut- 
 hardt (Lutheran): "The cause of forgiveness 
 (of sins) is in God alone and in His free mercy. 
 It is this which forgives us for the sake of Christ 
 and His redemption It is through this that 
 God's holiness has made it possible for itself to 
 forgive us. But it is oii7' faith which lays hold 
 upon this grace, for it is a faith in the grace of 
 redemption. It is by faith that we obtain for- 
 
48 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 giveness, for, as Luther says, 'What thou be- 
 hevest, that thou hast.' Not that the ground 
 of forgiveness Hes hi our faith, as though it 
 were so meritorious an act, so good a work, 
 that God must reward it ; nor in our love which 
 proceeds from faith, nor in our repentance 
 which begets it ; it is not in 2is, but only in God 
 and m the atoning death of Jesus Christ. It is 
 this which, with the Apostle Paul, we call jus- 
 tification, namely, our acquittal from all guilt 
 and punishment, and our admission to the 
 rights of sonship. Not because we are not 
 sinners, but though we are sinners ; nay, just 
 because we are sinners, and believe in His 
 pardoning grace, are we pronounced free, 
 guiltless, and just, and received into favor. 
 Justification, then, is not a change which takes 
 place ill us, but, if we may so speak, an occur- 
 rence which takes place hi God, — a change in 
 the sentence He passes upon us, in His view 
 of us, in our value in His sight. He chooses 
 to regard and treat us as His children ; for the 
 Spirit of God bears witness with our spirits 
 that we are the children of God ; bears this 
 witness through the Word of God, which 
 addresses us in those loving terms. My son, 
 my daughter, be of good comfort, thy sins 
 are forgiven thee ; thy faith hath made thee 
 whole. Thus does the Spirit, by means of 
 the Word, produce in our hearts the glad, 
 the God-reposed assurance which a Chris- 
 tian must possess, if he is to live and die 
 as a Christian should ; for from this alone ^ 
 can grow a happy childlike love to God, a 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 49 
 
 grateful obedience in life, and a joyful hope 
 in death."* 
 
 Dr. Pressense (the eminent French Reformed 
 divine) : 
 
 " We never could succeed in weaving a wed- 
 ding garment such as would allow of our sitting 
 down at our heavenly Father's banquet. We 
 must receive it from the Redeemer's hand ; and 
 this robe is His own royal robe, which He has 
 dyed in the crimson of His own blood. We 
 cannot appear before God except as we are 
 clothed in His righteousness. But He will not 
 clothe us in this until we have approached Him 
 with an ardent desire to receive His grace, and 
 until, like the poor daughter of Israel who met 
 Him one day, we have seized with a trembling 
 hand that holy robe with which we must be cov- 
 ered. In other words, we can only share in 
 His merits through the faith which unites us to 
 Him. What He did for us eighteen hundred 
 years ago is of no value without this faith, this 
 personal adherence, to Him. 
 
 * " Saving Truths of Christianity," by Doctor and Professor Lut- 
 hardt. Translated from the German by Sophia Taylor. Edinburgh : 
 T. & T. Clark. New York : Scribner, Welford & Co., 1868. To stu- 
 dents and intelligent laymen no more instructive, interesting, and 
 edifying book can be recommended than this. Its strong arguments 
 are clearly stated; its illustrations are beautiful and convincing; whilst 
 its style is remarkable for its simplicity. Appended to these ten 
 lectures are literary and theological notes covering 150 pages full of 
 profound learning. The author is a Lutheran of the moderate 
 Evangelical type, but just such a Lutheran as all Christians must honor 
 and love. We cordially recommend the work to ministers and people, 
 5 D 
 
50 
 
 MER CERSB UR G THE OLOGY. 
 
 " He only will be saved who unites himself 
 to Christ, not with a view of offering again a 
 sacrifice which was perfect in itself, but in order 
 to make it his own by an earnest acceptance 
 and a living faith. If the imputation of Christ's 
 merits was all external, it would be found that 
 He had obeyed in order to dispense us from 
 obeying. If that had been His object, He need 
 not have left heaven at all." 
 
 But let this suffice in the way of quotation. 
 The doctrine of jitstijication by faith is that of 
 the univei^sal Evangelical Church of Christe7t- 
 dom. 
 
 Whilst penning these lines, the newspapers of 
 New York and Philadelphia are sending forth 
 over the length and breadth of the land the 
 proceedings of the Evangelical Alliance''' in the 
 former city, where are assembled representative 
 men. Christian ministers and laymen, from the 
 various nations of Europe, and even from the 
 far-off Orient, and every man of them who has 
 spoken his sentiments, — the dignitary of the 
 Church of England, the learned professor in 
 the university, the nobleman. Reformed, Lu- 
 theran, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Independent, 
 Methodist, all, — all as with one voice testify to 
 this doctrine as a standing article of the Chris- 
 tian system. Constrained for months past by 
 
 * For a further notice of the Evangelical Alliance, see Appendix. 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. ^i 
 
 family affliction to spend his time in the nar- 
 rower circle of his home, the writer has been 
 quickened and refreshed in spirit whilst reading, 
 day after day, the deep-toned and inspiriting 
 utterances of these Christian men, commingling 
 from all parts of the world, and touching thou- 
 sands of other hearts all over Protestant Chris- 
 tendom.* Not one discordant utterance has 
 been heard on this precious gospel truth. Let 
 
 * And yet, sad to say, one of our professors in the Lancaster Semi- 
 nary 'S found making an attempt — feeble and futile, to be sure — to 
 prejudice us against the (then prospective) meeting of that body, by 
 raising objections against one of the topics in its programm4, on the 
 subject of " Prayer for the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Christians" 
 throughout the world, and othe; objects. In several articles in the 
 Messenger a long and labored effort was made to show that prayer for 
 such blessings is wrong, and the sentiment false, because the Holy 
 Spirit is always in Christ's mystical body, the Church ; that the Holy 
 Ghost always " abides and works in the hearts of those who are bap- 
 tized into Christ." All that we wisli to say to this new view is, that if 
 it were true, we ought to have a large number of our hymns expunged 
 from our Hymn-Books, or at least greatly changed, — hymns which 
 have warmed the hearts of millions of God's people, such as, " Come, 
 Holy Spirit, come," " O heil'ger Geist, kehr bei uns ein," Paul Ger- 
 hardt's "O Sacred Head now Wounded," and very many others. Even 
 the new Liturgy would have to he tinned down in some of its prayers 
 in which there are expressions of what the professor calls a " Rational- 
 istic decadence," and "error and unbelief" (!). It grieves us in our 
 inmost soul, that one of our theological teachers, for whom we have 
 ever entertained great respect, and who in former years held entirely 
 different views, should be capable of uttering views which, according 
 to our convictions, sound rationalizing, — yea. Rationalistic. We see 
 plainly enough that the " new theology" has no room in its theoiy 
 for the Holy Spirit in the accepted evangelical sense as held from the 
 beginning. But this does not nuke it any better, but worse a great deal. 
 
52 
 
 MER CERSB UR G THEOL O G Y. 
 
 the question be asketl and pondered, Are all 
 these men wrong? 
 
 But it may be asked, — 
 
 DOES THE NEW OR MERCERSBURG THEORY TEACH 
 A DIFFERENT VIEW? 
 
 We say decidedly, Yes, it does. 
 
 This follows already as a natural consequence 
 from its incarnation theory as the central dogma 
 in Christianity. As we have seen, its theory of 
 redemption is radically different from that of 
 the Reformed Church, in that it is said to con- 
 sist in an organic conveyance or transmission 
 *' of the substance of the glorified humanity of 
 Christ" to man. Hence, as this redemption is 
 in reality of a physical nature, in some way, — 
 physical in the sense that it is not ethical or 
 spiritual, — so also the method or means of apply- 
 ing to man this redemption must be of the same 
 nature. It is not a spiritual operation, not an 
 influence exerted upon the soul by the Holy 
 Spirit, but a transmission of a substance. It 
 follows, hence, that faith, in the sense of the 
 Catechism, is set aside, or so eviscerated that 
 nothing but the shadow of it is left. According 
 to the new theory of Mercersburg and Lan- 
 caster, faith is a sort of organ of the soul which 
 lays hold of or apprehends the theanthropic 
 life of Christ in a real, substantial way. It holds' 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. ro 
 
 also that there are certain channels or means 
 (first of all Baptism) by which this peculiar life 
 is transmitted. Stick faith, however, is not the 
 believing "with the heart unto righteousness," 
 and so unto salvation ; not that faith which the 
 Apostle (Rom. v. i-6) holds up in triumph, 
 as that which justifies and blesses its possessor 
 with such glorious prerogatives. It is not the 
 faith of the Protestant Church, and most cer- 
 tainly not that of our Heidelberg Catechism.* 
 
 What the new theory calls faith is a faith in 
 ike Ckiirck and that which is comprehended in 
 all that belongs to it. (Hence some of the friends 
 and supporters of that theory frequently say 
 that to believe in the Church and to believe in 
 
 * The editor of an Old- School German Lutheran paper (" Getneinde- 
 Blatt''') in the West, — the same body, we believe, to which Professor 
 Kiitschel belongs, who found Dr. Nevin's view on the sacraments 
 rather palatable, only that he went still further than these High Church 
 Lutherans could go, — in noticing the last conversion of a Reformed 
 minister to the Roman Church, says, — 
 
 "We have long been convinced that the views of Nevin in regard 
 to the Church {^Kirchcnthttm Nevins) is nothing else than a Roman- 
 izing tendency, and that one thing is wanted to make it soundly Lu- 
 theran, and that is exactly the principal thing, namely, justification by 
 faith alone." These High Church Lutherans cannot but be pleased 
 with many things in the new theoiy of Mercersburg and Lancaster, and 
 which these last eagerly lay as a flittering unction to themselves; but 
 when it comes to the main thing, these Lutherans repudiate the new 
 theory in the most decided way. And so long as they do this, so 
 long as they hold fast by this Reformation truth, they are still soundly 
 Protestant and evangelical, however they may out-Luther Luther in 
 some other regards. 
 5* 
 
54 
 
 MER CERSB UR G THEOL OGY. 
 
 Christ Is the same thing !) A faith in Christ, a 
 justifying faith, In the language and the sense 
 of the Catechism and the New Testament, Is 
 therefore ruled out by the new theory. In fact, 
 it cannot be otherwise, If the previous positions 
 of the Incarnation theory and the Mercersburg 
 notion of the Church are held. Accordlne" to 
 the new theory, the sinner Is justified and saved 
 in an entirely different way. We will allow Dr. 
 Dorner to corroborate what is here said.* He 
 refers in this extract to that part of Dr. Kevin's 
 "Vindication" of the Liturgy in which he charges 
 his opponents with denying the historical Christ 
 of the Incarnation, the onward flow of His 
 (Christ's) life transmitting itself through Bap- 
 tism and the Holy Supper, which he calls the 
 spirit of Antichrist, and other very harsh epi- 
 thets which we forbear to transcribe. Dr. 
 Dorner says, — 
 
 " Underlying this entire statement, there is 
 an identification of the CImrch In its actual, his- 
 
 * Dr. I. A. Dorner, one of the most eminent theologians in Ger- 
 many, and a professor in the University of Berlin. Dr. Nevin had 
 frequently appealed to him as holding similar views in regard to the 
 person of Christ, etc. A few years ago Dorner felt constrained to 
 ])ublish a lengthy and exhaustive criticism on Dr. Nevin's theory as 
 this is unfolded in the Mercersburg Rerie^c, the Liturgy, etc. This 
 criticism, whilst breathing a kind and truly Christian spirit, is a decided 
 protest against every fundamental position in the new theory, '^e 
 shall have occasion to refer to some of these criticisms in the sequel. 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 55 
 
 torical manifestation imth Christ. Only he be- 
 lieves in an objective and historical Christ 
 (according to Nevin) who sees in the Church 
 not merely the witness of Christ, but the his- 
 torically self-unfolding and developing Christ 
 Himself; and only in this sense does there 
 remain, in his view, any immediate relation 
 between Christ and the believer. That the 
 importance of Christ as the Mediator, in and 
 of itself, is thus made to stand back of this 
 Church, is especially seen in the fact that his 
 theory dwells mostly on the mystical communi- 
 cation of the life of Christ, on the expansion of 
 the theanthropic life, whilst it has little to say 
 of justification, but rather allows this to be 
 merged'-' in sanctification. For the Church 
 can be thus identified with Christ only by ig- 
 noring the work of atonement and justification 
 (which rests in the earthly and heavenly high- 
 priesthood of Christ) in its important principial 
 signification, and by laying the whole weight 
 only upon the powers of sanctification which 
 are unfolded in the Church, and which are me- 
 diated to believers through the Church and her 
 organs, and only through them.f This will 
 become still clearer by the following statement 
 of Nevin: 'Where the gospel (he says) is not 
 apprehended as the historical (in the Church), 
 enduring, objective manifestation of God in the 
 flesh, there can be no steady apprehension of 
 
 * Verschwimmen liisst, dissolved. 
 
 j- On the importance of distinguishing justification from sanctifica- 
 tion, see Appendix C. 
 
5 6 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 that which constitutes the proper mystei'y of it 
 in this view, namely, the union there is in it of 
 the supernatural with the natural in an abiding, 
 historical (not magical) form. This precisely is 
 the true object of an evangelical faith in the 
 New Testament sense, the objective power of 
 salvation, through the apprehension of which 
 only faith becomes justifying and saving' " 
 (p. 78). . 
 
 After reminding Dr. Nevin that his severe 
 accusations against his opponents and other 
 denominations for being extremely " subject- 
 ive"''' is uncalled for, seeing how firmly they 
 cling to the grace of God in Christ, to the cruci- 
 fied Redeemer, and justification by faith alone 
 (all of them clearly revealed, and therefore 
 objective truths), he says : 
 
 " He himself moves in a subjectivism of his 
 own which deceives itself with a delusive ' ob- 
 jectivism.' For where does he get his certainty 
 of his idea of the Church, and where are the 
 proofs for it ? Arbitrarily and without proper 
 judgment he takes for granted as true what the 
 Church before the Reformation says of itself, 
 whilst he still does not allow that the Papacy is 
 a Divine institution ; and yet by rejecting it, to 
 be consistent, he ought to reject all that was the 
 oerin of it. It is easy to see how a person can 
 by faith attain to a Divine and joyful assurance 
 
 * Subjective, internal view or feeling, and is opposed to objective, or 
 views governed by thnt which is from without. v 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 57 
 
 of his personal salvation, and hence also of 
 Christ as his Redeemer, because the power of 
 the gospel which he has received testifies of 
 itself. 13ut how faith is to attain to any cer- 
 tainty from that church-theory is difficult to 
 see, unless it be arbitrarily, or by an arbitrary 
 surrender to churchly authority." 
 
 Just so. The faith of the new theory is a 
 faith in the so-called " objective" powers in the 
 " Church." The faith of the gospel, the faith 
 as explained in the Heidelberg Catechism, and 
 of the whole evangelical Church, is something 
 not so exclusively and entirely "objective," but 
 also subjective, inward, personal, and experi- 
 mental. It is " not only a certain kjiowledge, 
 . , . but also an asstircd confidence, which the 
 Holy Ghost works by the gospel in my heart ; 
 that not only to others, but to vie also, remission 
 of sin, everlasting righteousness, and salvation 
 are freely given by God, merely of grace, only 
 for the sake of Christ's merits." 
 
 This is where we as Protestants stand ; this 
 is where the Reformed Church and her symbol 
 stand, and we trust in God will ever stand, — 
 
 " When rolling years shall cease to move." 
 
 And though an angel from heaven should preach 
 to us another gospel than this, we cannot, we 
 will not believe it, for there is not another 
 (Gal. i, 7). 
 
58 
 
 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 ARE MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL PRIESTS? 
 
 This is a vital question. It is another di- 
 viding hne between the Church of Rome and the 
 Church of the Reformation, inckiding- not only 
 the Reformed and Lutheran, but also the Church 
 of England, and others. The word " priest" is 
 supposed to be abbreviated from the word 
 " presbyter," which means an elder. In the 
 Episcopal Church the term/;7>^/is indeed used 
 in her Prayer Book, but not (as will be shown 
 hereafter) in the sense of the Jewish economy. 
 The Roman Catholic Church alone employs the 
 word in that sense, that is to say, in the sense 
 of one who offers sacrifice. By no Protestant 
 Church is the term used or recognized except 
 when referring to the Lord Jesus Christ, who is 
 the only true Priest, with His one altar and 
 one sacrifice, " once for all" (time) made on the 
 cross. Dr. Thomas Arnold, a clergyman of the 
 English (Episcopal) Church, who died in 1842, 
 gives the definition of the priest's office in these 
 words : " The essential point in the notion of 
 a priest is this : that he is a person necessary to 
 our intercourse with God, without being neces- 
 sary or beneficial to us morally," 
 
 It might be asked, however, whether it is not 
 just as proper to have a priesthood, an altar, 
 and sacrifices in the Church now as under the 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. ^q 
 
 Jewish economy. Why not call the ministry a 
 priesthood, the Lord's supper a sacrifice, and 
 the communion-table an altar? 
 
 To this it might be replied, in the language 
 of the moderate and judicious Dr. Hoff, of the 
 Episcopal Church, that " it ought to be reason 
 enough for us that we know the inspired writers 
 constantly avoid the use of such terms in this 
 connection/'' The words to express the Jewish 
 minister and the Christian, and their acts, are 
 always carefully distinguished. "-]- 
 
 That the terms " priest" and " priesthood" 
 were used at an early day in the Christian 
 Church is very true. Christian converts from 
 the Jewish Church were familiar with those 
 terms, and would easily fall into the accustomed 
 phraseology, even when not ascribing the origi- 
 nal meaninor to the terms. " The mistake was 
 natural, but the effects were most mischievous." 
 In the third and fourth centuries, and onward, 
 the Judaizing or legalistic leaven was already at 
 work, as the waitings of that period clearly 
 show. The truth is, the tendency of the human 
 mind is, and always has been, to rest in some- 
 
 * "The Christian Ministry not a Priesthood." Baltimore, 1869. 
 
 ■)■ I Peter ii. 5, where Christians are called a priesthood, or a com- 
 munity of priests Dr. Lange, in his commentary on the passage, 
 says, " All believers of the New Testament are anointed priests by 
 the Holy Ghost.'''' Not a particular class of men, therefore. 
 
6o MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 thing clone or offered by ourselves in order to 
 merit salvation. Even in the apostolic period 
 there was a tendency in this direction, especially 
 on the part of Jewish converts, — a leaning to 
 and hankering for outward observances, an 
 exalting of the Jewish sacrifices and ceremonials 
 to such an extent that " Christ the Crucified" 
 was in a measure set aside as the ** All and in 
 All." Read Galatians, fifth and sixth chapters, 
 where Paul calls it " falling from grace" if they 
 regarded circumcision and other ceremonials 
 and ritualistic observances as things necessary 
 to salvation. And this strong language is used 
 by the same Paul who, at an earlier period in 
 his apostolate, allowed himself to bring offerings 
 to the temple, and himself performed the rite 
 of circumcision upon Timothy (Acts xvi. 3), by 
 way of allaying weak consciences who had not 
 yet been able to free themselves from what had 
 once been a Divine ordinance, but which had 
 no more binding force. (See Appendix F, for 
 some remarks by Dr. Neander.) 
 
 In the lapse of time, Christian teachers de- 
 parted from the Scriptural mode of speaking on 
 this subject. " Christ and His divinely-appointed 
 intervention for the reconciliation of man to 
 God were more and more obscured by the 
 obtrusive services of the earthly priesthood, 
 until at last there was need of a special inter- 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 61 
 
 position from above to restore the doctrine." 
 Tliis interposition was the Reformation in the 
 sixteenth century. 
 
 All the Reformers — German, Swiss, French, 
 and English — were of one mind on this subject. 
 There was not one dissenting voice among 
 them. They all saw clearly that just this very 
 doctrine of a mediating human priesthood was 
 the foundation of all that is erroneous in the 
 Roman Catholic system. That system was the 
 slow growth of centuries. But the beorinnincr 
 of the system as it now stands, culminating in 
 the infallibility of the Pope, rests in the doctrine 
 that there is a priesthood ; that there is a class 
 of men who stand between sinful man and his 
 God for the purpose of mediating the salvation 
 of the gospel ; that man can only through the 
 priest (of course as the representative of the 
 ChurcJi) have access to his Maker and obtain 
 His favor. 
 
 Now, the Reformers had full knowledge of 
 the results of centuries of slavish subjection to 
 the priest, claiming to dispense mercy and grace 
 by transmitted authority, to the neglect of God's 
 written word. 
 
 Let us for a moment look at the religious 
 sentiment which prevailed at the time of the 
 Reformation, and which still prevails in the 
 Roman Church. The "judicious Hooker," in 
 
62 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 England, who was accused of being too mode- 
 rate in his opposition to Romanism, says in his 
 " Ecclesiastical Polity :" 
 
 " The Romanists imagine that when God re- 
 mits the eternal punishment of sin He reserves 
 torments to be endured for a time shorter or 
 longer according to the quality of men's crimes. 
 Yet there is a certain contract by virtue of 
 which works assigned by the priest shall satisfy 
 God touching that punishment. Yet, as they 
 cannot assure any man that this will suffice, they 
 hold that the soul must remain in unspeakable 
 torture until all be paid. Therefore they advise 
 men to secure prayers and sacrifices after they 
 are gone [the mass]. Hence the infinite pen- 
 sions of their priests, the building of so many 
 altars and tombs, the enriching of churches, etc. 
 But, this done, how far it will avail they are not 
 sure. Hence they have invented the idea that 
 Christ's merits (over and above what are neces- 
 sary for the remission of the eternal penalty), 
 and those of the saints through Him, are common 
 stock, to which the Pope has the key. Christ 
 remits not eternal death without the priest's 
 absolution (unless in certain extreme cases), 
 and the Pope, as it pleases him, delivers from 
 the limited punishment which may remain." 
 
 Let the reader for a moment look at this cor- 
 ruption from which the Reformation freed the 
 Church. Think of the contrast between such 
 a doctrine and that of full and perfect forgive- 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 5 
 
 O 
 
 ness to every one who believes in Jesus ! And 
 this is what the gospel teaches. 
 
 But whilst Romanists demand such a hio-h 
 claim for priestly intervention, they sometimes 
 relax this claim in a manner entirely incon- 
 sistent with themselves. Thus, some of their 
 doctors teach that "whosoever turneth to God 
 with his whole heart hath immediately his sins 
 taken away." Now, if they are pardoned of 
 God before they come to the priest, how then 
 can they say that the priest remits anything? 
 Yet when Protestants ascribe the work of 
 remission to God, and interpret the priest's 
 sentence to be but a solemn declaration of that 
 which God Himself has already performed, they 
 scorn at it. [Hooker.) 
 
 The Protestant Doctrine. 
 
 Now let us see what the Protestant Church, 
 — especially the Reformed branch of it, in the 
 narrow sense — teaches on this subject. 
 
 In the 31st Question of the Heidelberg Cate- 
 chism, Christ is spoken of as "our only High 
 Priest, who by the one sacrifice of His body 
 has redeemed us," etc. Nowhere in that excel- 
 lent and precious summary of Divine truth does 
 the word "priest" or "priesthood" occur in con- 
 nection with the Christian ministry, nor is there 
 anything like an allusion to the powers and 
 
54 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 functions of a priest, in the Romish sense, 
 according to which the blessing of pardon is 
 bound to the act of the priest. We may say 
 clearly and emphatically, the New Testament 
 Church, the Apostolic Church, and, in accord- 
 ance with her, the Protestant Church, has no 
 PRIESTS AND NO PRIESTHOOD. What the Reform- 
 ers contended for — every one of them — was 
 the ttniversal priesthood of all Christians as 
 againsi the false assumptions of Romanism. 
 Rome said. You can only approach to God 
 through the priest, who is the Divine agent of 
 the Church. No penitence, no faith, no prayers, 
 can avail before God, until you come to the 
 confessional, and from that medium, divinely 
 appointed and authorized, receive not merely a 
 declaration or announcement of pardon on the 
 condition of repentance and faith, but that for- 
 o-iveness is actually conveyed and received at the 
 moment of pronouncing it. Hence, no matter 
 how sincerely penitent an individual may be, his 
 sins are not forgiven by God until the priest 
 on earth has pronounced that forgiveness over 
 him ! 
 
 The evangelical Church holds to no such 
 priesdy mediating view as this. She has 77iin- 
 istcrs, preachers, bishops (which means shep- 
 herds), steivards, ruessenoers, but she has no 
 priests ; neither has the New Testament. God 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 5- 
 
 has not bound the forgiveness of sins, or any 
 other grace, to the official act of a man. The 
 passages of Scripture which are adduced by 
 the Church of Rome to prove the opposite are 
 a monstrous as well as preposterous perversion 
 of their meaning. They are Matt. xvi. 19 and 
 Matt, xviii. 18. The first is the saying of Christ 
 to Peter: "And I will give unto thee the keys 
 of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever 
 thou shalt bind 0.1 earth shall be bound in 
 heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on 
 earth shall be loosed in heaven." The other 
 confers the same power, as the context shows, 
 upon all Christians. It is not, therefore, a 
 priestly power conferred upon a special class of 
 men as ministers. This is usually called the 
 "power of the keys;" and the Roman Church, 
 and very High Church people elsewhere, wish 
 to prove from these passages — what? That 
 every preacher is not only a priest, but that he 
 also stands on an equality with the Apostles, 
 who were miraculously chosen, and endowed 
 with extraordinary, miraculous gifts and powers 
 of the Holy Ghost in the founding of the 
 Christian Church. These miraculous gifts of 
 the Holy Spirit, says the able Church historian 
 Dr. Ebrard, were necessary for \h^ founding of 
 the Church, but not necessary for its further 
 continuance, such as the power of the keys, a 
 
 6* K 
 
66 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 gift peculiar to the Apostles and their immediate 
 assistants, exercised in prophetic illumination 
 correlative with the jr/^^/^/ communication of the 
 Spirit (John xx. 22), and, therefore, uncondition- 
 ally valid and miraculous" (John xx. 23. Com- 
 pare Acts V. 5 and 10; i Cor. v. 3, etc.). So, 
 too, they had the extraordinary gift of " speak- 
 ing with tongues," healing the sick, prophecy, 
 and raising the dead. It is true, as Ebrard 
 also says, that the Apostles did not exclusively 
 possess these gifts, but they exclusively were 
 able to impart thevi to others (Acts viii. 15, 16), 
 and hence we read of those cfifts as beine in 
 existence in the apostolic period, and in the 
 period immediately following, but after that they 
 cease. According to the second passage quoted 
 (Matt, xviii. 18), it Is to be observed that Christ 
 accords the power of the keys to all of His dis- 
 ciples, and with them to the Church generally, 
 "or rather," says Dr. Lange, "to the Church 
 along with the disciples." For in verse 17 He 
 lays down the rule for the conduct of the Church, 
 and verse 18 shows that the Church is warranted 
 in this conduct. 
 
 Now let us see what our Catechism teaches 
 on this subject. Does it teach that the minister 
 has priestly powers lodged In him by virtue of 
 his office, to bind or loose, to open or shut the 
 kingdom of heaven ? 
 
MER CERSB URG THRO LOG V. 
 
 67 
 
 ^'^ Quest. 83. What are the keys of the king- 
 dom of heaven ? 
 
 '■'Alls. The preaching of the Holy Gospel and 
 Christian discipline, or the excommunication 
 out of the Christian Church ; by these two the 
 kingdom of heaven is opened to believers and 
 shut atrainst unbelievers. 
 
 ''Quest. 84. How is the kingdom of heaven 
 opened and shut by the preaching of the Holy 
 Gospel ? 
 
 "■Ans. Thus : when, according to the com- 
 mand of Christ, it is declared and publicly testi- 
 fied to all and every believer, that luhencver they 
 receive the promise of the gospel by a t^^ite faith, 
 all their sins are really forgiven thein of God, 
 for the sake of Christ's merits ; and, on the con- 
 trary, when it is declared and testified to all 
 unbelievers, and such as do not sincerely repent, 
 that they stand exposed to the wrath of God 
 and eternal condemnation, so long as they are 
 unconverted ; according to which testimony of 
 the gospel God will judge them, both in this 
 and the life to come." 
 
 And then in the 85th Answer it is explained 
 hoiv the kingdom of heaven is shut and opened 
 by Christian discipline, declaring that those who 
 walk disorderly, and who return not to duty 
 after being admonished by the Church, shall be 
 forbidden the use of the sacraments, " whereby 
 they are excluded from the Christian Church, 
 and by God Himself from the kingdom of 
 Christ." 
 
68 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 No allusion here, nothing that looks like 
 " priestly j^owers," by virtue of which sins are 
 remitted or retained Ijy the priest. The "preach- 
 ing of the gospel," and the exercise of " Chris- 
 tian discipline," which last is to be exercised 
 by the Church, or those "who are thereunto ap- 
 pointed by the Church." 
 
 Dr. F. W. Krummacher, who is acknowledged 
 as good Reformed authority, and whom our 
 Church unanimously called to fill a theological 
 professorship in 1843, but which he declined, 
 says, in his Sabbath Glocke (Sabbath Chimes), 
 on John xx. 22, 23 : 
 
 " God has not given the power of the forgive- 
 ness of sin out of His own hand, but has retained 
 its absolution to Hwiself. But I hear some one 
 object by saying, * But does it not say here, 
 Whosesoever sins ye remit ?' All very true. 
 But in the sense of: In the name and by the 
 authority of God, after that the Holy Spirit has 
 testified that this or that person who seeks the 
 forgiveness of his sins is in such a state of 
 mind, upon whom God, according to His word, 
 will seal forgiveness unto him. To a spiritually 
 dead preacher God gives no such prerogative. 
 A stranger to his own heart, he is totally dis- 
 qualified to judge the innermost state of others. 
 What would it amount to, though he should say 
 ten or a hundred times. Thy sins are remitted 
 or not remitted ? His words would drive to the 
 four winds of heaven without meaning and 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 69 
 
 without effect, because it is without the higher 
 sanction. In the kingdom of Christ, which is 
 a kingdom of the Holy Ghost, things do not 
 proceed in this mechanical style, but all His 
 operations proceed through well-chosen organs. 
 The naked office in such case is not the channel 
 of Divine powers. It is through sanctified per- 
 sonalities tliat the water of life flows. Just 
 suppose, on the one hand, an unenlightened, un- 
 holy, and God-forsaken bishop, and on the other 
 hand a private Christian or layman like the 
 godly Tersteegen, or Jung-Stilling, or Baron von 
 Kottwitz,'-' — to whom among these would you 
 believe yourselves directed by God if you felt 
 the need of some human counsel or instruction, 
 when seeking the consolations of the grace of 
 God for your souls ? You would not require 
 time for consideration, but as with one voice 
 you would say most decidedly, that the Ananias 
 that you would seek should be one of the three 
 last-named persons. I should do the same, and 
 would allow the first-named, notwithstanding his 
 high-sounding title and official dignity, to stand 
 aside. For it remains forever true that the 
 authority to forgive and retain sin is not an 
 exclusive authority which is bound to the office, 
 but is an authority of the Spirit, which is not a 
 prerogative only of the ministerial vocation, but 
 to those of the universal priesthood of believers. 
 That pastor who is born of God possesses it, 
 and will exercise it in his churchly forms. But 
 no less he, though he may be among the lowly 
 
 * Well-known and devout laymen and autliors in Germany. — S. 
 
JO 
 
 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 members of the congregation, if there has been 
 given him the gift of ' discerning the spirits,' 
 and he exercises that gift in his humble way 
 with equal authority and with equal effect."''' 
 
 As this is a vital question to us as Protes- 
 tants, inasmuch as the whole Romish system is 
 founded upon their sacerdotal priesthood, culmi- 
 nating in the powers of the Pope, and latterly 
 of Papal Infallibility, which last is but the pin- 
 nacle to the whole structure, let us consult a 
 few more authorities, — authorities not merely 
 of representative men, but official Reformed 
 Church authorities, to which, as ministers and 
 members, we are obliged to pay deference. 
 
 The Second Helvetic (Swiss) Confession 
 stands among the very first of the standards 
 of the Reformed Church, and alongside of the 
 Heidelberg Catechism itself The great and 
 good Bullinger drew it up. It has the signa- 
 
 * It should perhaps be remarked that Krummacher guards himself 
 well in all he says, and hence we read in preceding paragraphs : " The 
 Evangelical ministry is an ordinance of God, which has great prom- 
 ises. But the office does not impart to him who is clothed with it a 
 mediatiug function in any sense between Christ and the Church. . . . 
 In the next place, the office, which seeks the man but does not make 
 him, imparts to its bearer none of those independent Divine powers 
 apart from his personal spiritual state so far as regards the qualifica- 
 tion to minister in the things of the Spirit effectively. By this it is not 
 denied that in the Church certain churchly offices miy be firmly bound 
 to the office, and that the Sacraments, for instance, as well as lessei 
 services, still remain what they are, even though an unworthy ministei 
 should administer them." 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 71 
 
 til res of approbation by delegates from the 
 Churches of England, Germany, Switzerland, 
 Scotland, France, Holland, Poland, and Hun- 
 gary. Its date is 1566, three years after the 
 Heidelberg Catechism was published. The pious 
 Elector Frederick the Third specially requested 
 Bullinger to publish this Confession of Faith, so 
 well was he pleased with it, and gave as a 
 reason for the request, that it would go to prove 
 that it was in accord with the Heidelberg Cate- 
 chism, and hence would show the agreement 
 which existed in different countries in regard to 
 Reformed doctrines. 
 
 Now, what does it teach on the Universal 
 Priesthood of Believer's ? 
 
 "All (Christians) are indeed by the Apostle 
 called priests (ye are kings and priests unto 
 God), but not in respect to their office, but 
 because all believers through Christ can, as 
 kings and priests, bring spiritual sacrifices to 
 God." Again: "The priesthood and ministry 
 are very different from each other. The former 
 (the priesthood) is common to all Christians, as 
 already said : the latter is not so. . . . For the 
 new covenant there is no more, as in the old, a 
 priesthood which has an external anointing, 
 holy vestments, and manifold ceremonies, which 
 were once types of Christ. All these things 
 hath He abolished by His coming, the types 
 being fulfilled. He alone remains Priest to all 
 eternity ; and in order that we may not detract 
 
72 
 
 MERCERSB URG THEOLOG Y. 
 
 from Him anything, we do not give the name 
 priest to any minister in the Church." 
 
 " Of the Confession of Sin. We heartily 
 approve of the general open confession of sin 
 in the Church; . . . for it agrees with Scripture. 
 
 " Of the Power and Duty of the Ministry. 
 Concerning their power, some have very zeal- 
 ously contended and wished to subordinate 
 everything on earth to their control ; yet con- 
 trary to the command of the Lord, who forbids 
 all lordship to His followers, and rather com- 
 mands humility. 
 
 " Of the Office of the Keys. Concerning 
 the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which by 
 the Lord were committed to the Apostles, aston- 
 ishing things have been spoken, and out of them 
 have been forged swords, lances, sceptres, and 
 crowns ; and full power over the greatest em- 
 pires, yea, even over souls and bodies, has been 
 drawn from it. . . . All properly-called preach- 
 ers have and exercise the keys of the kingdom 
 of heaven when they pi^oclaim the gospel, namely, 
 when they teach, exhort, comfort, admonish, and 
 keep in discipline the people entrusted to their 
 fidelity. . . . They therefore use these keys 
 when they preach repentance and faith. Thus 
 do they reconcile us to God. Thus do they 7'emit 
 sin, and thus unlock the kingdom of heaven and 
 lead believers into it." 
 
 This language speaks for itself. No priest- 
 hood in the Romish sense ; no private confes- 
 sional ; no priestly absolution ; but, on the con- 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 70 
 
 trary, a most decided protest against any and 
 every thing of the sort. 
 
 Luther s View. Let us now give attention to 
 only a few out of numerous expressions from 
 this genial, outspoken German Reformer : 
 
 " Those who preside over the people in the 
 Word and Sacraments may and shall not be 
 called priests. That they are so called, how- 
 ever, is either done in heathen fashion, or is a 
 remnant of the Jews' laws, and afterwards was 
 accepted with great damage to the Church. 
 But according to the evangelical Scriptures 
 they had better be called ministers (servants), 
 deacons, bishops, stewards, or presbyters." 
 
 Dr. NitzscJi, the Patriarch of Evangelical 
 Protestantism in Germany, as he has been 
 called, in his reply to the able but sophistical 
 Roman Catholic, Moehler, after stating that 
 Christ gave gifts to Apostles, Evangelists, 
 Prophets, etc., in the founding of His Church, 
 adds : 
 
 " But that in or by the side of them he placed 
 priests, we do not find." 
 
 He then proceeds to explain the heaven-wide 
 difference between the ministry in the gospel 
 sense and the priestJwod in the Romish sense, 
 and says that the Apostle Peter saw the priest- 
 hood (in the New Testament sense) in the con- 
 gregation, in the believers, as such, and then 
 7 
 
74 
 
 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 quotes with approbation the declaration of an- 
 other, " that In the New Testament there Is no 
 priesthood of this sort" (In the sacerdotal or 
 Roman Catholic sense). 
 
 Dr. Ebrard, an eminent living theologian 
 also, and Reformed, the author of numerous 
 works, has in certain quarters been quoted 
 as favoring certain views which (he says) he 
 does not hold. Here Is what he says on the 
 subject before us : 
 
 " The minister Is only one of the congrega- 
 tion, himself a sinner, who needs forgiveness 
 and sanctification, and this in itself cuts off a 
 particular priesthood. For the sake of order, 
 and by Christ's appointment, there is an office 
 of the ministry, but no priesthood. . . . When 
 the minister leads in prayer, he does not pray 
 as a priest for the congregation, but as a pastor 
 with them.'' 
 
 And thus we might go on quoting page after 
 page from scores of Reformed, Lutheran, and 
 Evangelical (the United) Church of Germany, 
 France, Holland, and Switzerland, — from Pal- 
 mer, Tholuck, Julius Miiller, Schroder, Von 
 Hoffmann, the Gerlachs, and their like. But it 
 Is needless. The voice of the Protestant 
 Church for three hundred and fifty years Is 
 unanimous on this point. It has ever been 
 held that just this subject of the priesthood 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY, >rc 
 
 was the starting-point of the gradual divergence 
 from the simpHcity of the gospel of Christ, car- 
 rying with it the manifold human devices and 
 producing the fearful corruptions of the Roman 
 Church, This has ever been admitted by some 
 theologians of the milder or more moderate 
 type in this Church, such as Bishop Sailer and 
 others. 
 
 WHAT DOES THE MERCERSBURG-LANCASTER 
 THEOLOGY TEACH ? 
 
 Having thus shown what the Roman Catho- 
 lics teach in regard to the priesthood, and then 
 proved from the Catechism, and similar Re- 
 formed Confessions, and the best representative 
 men of the evangelical Church, that the Prot- 
 estant Church from the start held an entirely 
 different view, grounded upon the unadulter- 
 ated word of God, we shall now attempt to 
 show — 
 
 That the new theory taught at Mercersburg 
 and Lancaster differs widely and essentially 
 from the Reformed doctrine, and from the 
 doctrine of the general Protestant Church. 
 
 It is not in a spirit of self-sufficiency, much 
 less with a desire to find fault needlessly, that 
 this task is undertaken. Would to God there 
 were no cause for such unwelcome task ! 
 
76 
 
 MER CERSB URG THRO LOG Y. 
 
 Firmly and conscientiously believing- that there 
 is such cause, we venture to perform the task, 
 in this as in the preceding points. 
 
 We say, then, that the new theory has taught 
 and is teaching in the Mc7'ccrshirg Review, in 
 the 07'der of Worship (the Liturgy), in the Mes- 
 senger, as well as in other ways, views on the 
 priesthood which are greatly at variance with 
 the universal doctrines of evano-elical Protes- 
 tantism, and therefore at variance also with the 
 standards and faith of the Reformed Church. 
 These new teachings coincide with a small 
 fraction of ultra-Lutherans in Germany, and 
 with the Puseyite or High Church party in the 
 English (Episcopal) Church, whose views, again, 
 trench so closely on Roman Catholic ground 
 that the division-line is hardly perceptible. 
 
 Let us then specify more particularly, by way 
 of answering the question. What does Mercers- 
 burg-Lancaster teach on the subject in hand ? 
 
 We reply, it teaches that — 
 
 "The Church is the actual body of Christ, 
 and those who do not realize that, as His body, 
 it possesses all the authority which of rioht 
 belongs to Him, of course do not realize their 
 duty to be obedient unto the Church as unto 
 Christ. They are unable to comprehend that 
 in the Church are now lodged the prerogative 
 of teaching, the priestly functions of the Saviour, 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 77 
 
 and also His kingly functions, and must continue 
 there in virtue of His appointment." 
 
 This extract is from the Report on the State 
 of Religion adopted by the Synod in Danville, 
 held in 1869. It was drawn up by its chairman, 
 the Rev. Geo. D. Wolff, who has since become 
 a convert to Rome. The Synod, by the adop- 
 tion of that report, made it its own in an official 
 way. We will yet remark that the foregoing 
 extract is introduced in these words : 
 
 "The spirit of infidelity afflicts many members 
 of our Church, and thus weakens and hinders 
 her. . . . This spirit of unbelief is associated 
 with a spirit of insubordination." 
 
 And then, after the extract before given, the 
 following harsh words follow : 
 
 " Hence these deluded though often sincere 
 persons imagine that they are right in making 
 their own judgments a law to themselves ; and 
 they frequently rebel against the authority of 
 those who, by Divine, not human appointment, 
 have the rule over them, not understanding that 
 in so doing they are resisting lawful authority, 
 rending the ' body of Christ,' breaking the unity 
 of the Spirit, and following him who is the Anti- 
 christ, ' the father of lies.' " 
 
 Let any one now compare these extracts in 
 regard to " priestly functions" and what is falsely 
 called "Scriptural truth" in reference to the 
 
 7* 
 
78 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 Church possessing all the authority which be- 
 longs to Christ, and then say if such a view of 
 the priesthood and Church authority is a whit 
 behind that of the Roman Church. And then, 
 too, the arrogant and denunciatory way in which 
 all this is spoken savors of the very essence of 
 a Pope's fulmination. Those who hold, as we 
 have seen, to the Reformed view, to Protestant 
 doctrine, to gospel teaching, are charged with 
 the "spirit of infidelity," are said to be "deluded," 
 make their own judgments a law to themselves, 
 rebel against lawful authority because they 
 obey not the authority of what is called Divine 
 appointment, designate the Church as repre- 
 sented by the Synod the " actual body of Christ," 
 and charge those who do not believe this with 
 breaking the unity of the Spirit and " following 
 him who is the Antichrist, the father of lies !" 
 Verily, Dr. Dorner is right when he says in his 
 criticism of the new theory, of which the fore- 
 going is an advanced specimen, that such arbi- 
 trary heaping of all Church powers upon the 
 ministerial office, and thus robbing the laity of 
 their proper rights, " sets eveiy minister higher 
 than the Church of Rome sets her bishops T In an 
 article from the pen of Dr. Gerhart in the Mer- 
 cer sburg Review for October, 1867, he says of the 
 prevailing evangelical system, — 
 
 "This system admits that the minister is a 
 
MER CERSB UR G THE OLOGY. 
 
 79 
 
 teacher of Divine truth, and in some sense a 
 ruler, but denies that he is a priest, nor does he 
 perform any functions which are Divine acts. 
 The success of his labors depends entirely upon 
 the degree of his faith and piety, his talents and 
 scholarship, his eloquence and tact, and upon 
 the measure of heavenly blessings with which 
 God may favor his preaching of the gospel, but 
 not on the Divine powers of his office, nor on 
 his authority to administer the sacraments and 
 to remit or retain .sin in the sense of Christ's 
 words (John xx. 23)." [Appendix D.] 
 
 In the same way Dr. Nevin, in his pamphlet 
 on the liturgical question, defends the unusual 
 and un-Reformed language in the ordination 
 service in the Liturgy, where the office is in- 
 vested with the character of a sacrament " flow- 
 ing directly from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself 
 as the fruit of His resurrection and triumphant 
 ascension into heaven, and being designed by 
 Him to carry forward the purpose of His grace 
 on earth in the salvation of men by the Outre h to 
 the end of time." In the ordination service we 
 read, — 
 
 "The first ministers were apostles who were 
 called and commissioned immediately by Christ 
 Himself. They, in turn, ordained . . . other 
 suitable men as pastors, . . . and these again 
 in the same way appointed others to carry on- 
 ward and forward still the true succession of 
 this office ; which, being regularly transmitted in 
 
So MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 this way from age to ag-e in the Christian Church, 
 has come down finally to our time. The solem- 
 nity of ordination, through which this transmis- 
 sion fiows, is not merely an impressive ceremony, 
 . . . but it is to be considered rather as their 
 actual investiture zuith the very power of the office 
 itself, ^ the sacramental seal of their heavenly com- 
 mission, and a symbolical assurance from on high 
 that their consecration to the service of Christ 
 is accepted, and that the Holy Ghost will most 
 certainly be with them in the faithful discharge 
 of their official labors. They are appointed to 
 . . . offer up before Him the prayers of His 
 people. . . . They are also charged with tJie 
 goveimment of the ChurcJi, and with the proper 
 use of its discipline in the way of censure and 
 absohition according to that awfully mysterious 
 word in Matt. xvi. i8." [Nothing is said of 
 elders, only they, the ministers.] 
 
 In the same service the minister before ordi- 
 nation is asked, — 
 
 " Are you truly persuaded in your heart that 
 you are called of God to the office of the holy 
 ministry, and do you desire and expect to re- 
 ceive, through the laying on of our hands, the 
 'gifts and grace of the Holy Ghost, which shall 
 enable you to fulfill this heavenly commission 
 and trust?" 
 
 This is sufficiently plain, surely. "Through 
 the laying on of our hands the gifts and grace of 
 the Holy Ghost" are received by him who is to 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. gi 
 
 be ordained. We have, we think, in preceding 
 pages given the proof that the evangehcal Prot- 
 estant Church knows nothing and will know 
 nothinof of such mechanism. And as for the 
 ordinary gifts and grac^i' of the Holy Spirit, we 
 hold again, with the Protestant Church, that if 
 the person to be ordained does not possess 
 these before he is ordained he will not possess 
 them afterwards. Ordination is not a channel 
 for the giving or imparting of supernatural and 
 magical powers, but a confirmation (Bestatigung) 
 of the call to the ministerial office. All the Re- 
 formed Confessions which touch upon the sub- 
 ject teach nothing else. The words of the first 
 Helvetic Coiifession, as it is the briefest, may 
 stand here as an example. After stating that 
 this office should not be intrusted to any that 
 are not found by the proper authorities to be 
 well acquainted with the word of God and to 
 be of a pure life and full of zeal for the cause 
 and honor of Christ, it adds, — 
 
 " Since this is a real Divine call, it is of right 
 confirmed by the Church [Gc?neine), by the lay- 
 inof on of hands of a minister." 
 
 To say that this view of the ministerial office 
 would bring the Church down to the level of a 
 " temperance society" is a monstrous perversion, 
 and only confirms the language of the learned 
 
82 MERCERS BURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 Dr. Dorner, that "unless we are willing- to 
 adopt Romish tenets we must be content to 
 hold that the organic communion which flows 
 from Christ cannot be dependent upon the out- 
 ward rite of a sacramental ordination, and does 
 not first receive from that its reality and his- 
 torical character." 
 
 " It will hardly be denied," says the same Dr. 
 Dorner, " that these tenets on ordination go 
 far beyond the bounds of those which are evan- 
 gelical, and must lead to the Hierarchical" (the 
 High Church or else the Romish system). 
 
 This theory of the special priesthood, in the 
 nature of the case, affects more or less every 
 theological point brought out in the Liturgy ; and 
 it was intended to do so. 
 
 Take the form of Confirmation, for instance. 
 Although it is well known that confirmation was 
 not in use for a long time after the Reformation, 
 neither by Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, nor their 
 successors, yet it has for at least two centuries 
 been found a wise and wholesome method, when 
 properly guarded, of receiving persons into full 
 communion with the Church. But the form of 
 confirmation in the new Liturgy foists into that 
 service an entirely new view. It describes it 
 as the completion of baptism (pp. 203 and 206), 
 "just as the Romish Church does," says Dor- 
 ner, "at the expense of baptism, as if the 
 
MER CERSB UR G THEOL O G V. 
 
 83 
 
 Apostles had 'confirmed by laying on of hands' 
 all the adults whom they baptized." (See Ap- 
 pendix E.) 
 
 CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 
 
 The pecuYiar J>rtes//)/ theory comes, as a matter 
 of course, into view on confession and absolution. 
 The wording of it (p. 10) might be allowed to 
 stand, but, taking it in connection with the theory 
 of the priesthood as held and as it must be 
 held to rule here with the new theory, it follows 
 that the remission of sin is bound to the formal 
 pronouncement of it by the priest. When Dr. 
 Dorner referred to this point by saying that 
 forgiveness of sin in the view of Dr. Nevin 
 was " bound to the outward organization and 
 forms of the Church," and that therefore "this 
 cardinal point cuts off individual Christians from 
 direct communication with God by introducing 
 a new priesthood," Dr. Nevin, in a harsh and — 
 we cannot help saying — most sophistical way, 
 defends the position, and charges those who 
 hold a different view with regarding the Church 
 as nothing more nor higher than a " civil corpo- 
 ration." But this is not correct. The charge 
 is aimed at an imaginary opponent, in the Re- 
 formed Church at least^ and in fact in all evan- 
 gelical Churches. How is it, we may ask ? do 
 ministers of the Reformed, the Presbyterian, 
 
84 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 the Lutheran, the Episcopal denominations — do 
 Dr. Dorner, Prof. J. H. Klein, Dr. Hodge, Dr. 
 W. A. Muhlenberg, Dr. Sprecher — " blaspheme 
 the gospel," and are they " infidels," as it is said 
 those are who do not hold these high-priestly 
 views in regard to the functions of the Church 
 and her ministers ? And because they do not 
 believe this, must they therefore be read out of 
 the pale of Christ's Church and handed over 
 to Satan ? Because they believe, with evangelical 
 Christendom, that the theory of a specific priest- 
 hood is a falsehood, do they therefore deserve 
 the charge of believing the Church to be nothing 
 higrher than an Odd-Fellows' lodee or a tem- 
 perance society, as our ears are accustomed to 
 hear from every zealous advocate of the new 
 theory until the people tire of the threadbare 
 formulary ? 
 
 Dr. Nevin asks (Vindic, p. 83), when the min- 
 ister says that by the authority and in the name 
 of Christ "your sins are forgiven you," whether 
 this implies " that the minister himself pretends 
 to forgive sins ;" and then calls this " spiritual- 
 istic prudery of the most captious sort." ^ 
 
 But we are not aware that such a charge has 
 ever been made in this form. The Romish 
 priest, nay, the immaculate and infallible Pope 
 of Rome himself, does not pretend to forgive 
 sin by his own authority. But the charge is 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 85 
 
 this, that by virtue of the Divine powers vested 
 in and conferred upon the minister (priest), it 
 is claimed that there can be no assurance of the 
 pardon of sin, imless it is declared and pronoimccd 
 by a minister {priest). That is the point. And 
 we say that is just what the evangeHcal Church 
 of all times and in all countries has denied, and 
 on account of which thousands have been put 
 to the rack, into prisons, and to the stake. (See 
 Appendix F.) 
 
 To show still more clearly the direct, unmis- 
 takable teachings of the new-theory brethren 
 on this subject, read the following : 
 
 "A sinner may be penitent for his sins, but 
 until he has received baptism, as God's act of 
 remission to him, he has no true assurance of 
 remission ; and when, after baptism, he sins 
 through infirmity, he cannot be sure of pardon 
 till his absolution is spoken, signed, and sealed 
 by Christ, by means of a Divine act, through the 
 Church." {Mercersbitrg Review, 1868, p. 31.) 
 
 And the following in the Messenger, by one of 
 the regular official contributors to that paper, ac- 
 knowledged to be Dr. D. Cans (May 15, 1872) : 
 
 "That the power to absolve from sin was 
 given to the Apostles, there are few who will 
 call in question. ... It was a great power, but 
 it rested on a great gift, even the sovereign and 
 infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 8 
 
S6 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 " As forming a part of the gospel of our Lord, 
 this power necessarily descends in the Church 
 from age to age. [This is assertion, but not 
 proof] .... Every true minister now . . . 
 must possess the same authority. . . . How 
 does this differ from the office of absolution 
 . . . ? In the way of principle there is no 
 difference. 
 
 ** Why should any hesitate to believe all this, 
 if one can steadily acknowledge the fact that the 
 Holy Spirit is abidingly in the Church ? Surely 
 He is as competent now to qualify His ministers 
 for the proper discharge of this duty as He was 
 when first given." 
 
 OF PURGATORY. 
 
 It would not be fair to charge the believers 
 of the new theory that they hold to or teach 
 purgatory ; and yet from the way in which some 
 of them speak and write on the subject it is easy 
 to see that there is some uncertainty in their 
 minds about the subject. Thus, we read in the 
 Mercersbtcrg Reviezv, vol. iv. p. 204 : 
 
 " It is perfectly plain that the article of purga- 
 tory, so far as the primary conception of it is 
 concerned, was in full vogue in the days of 
 Augustine and Chrysostom ; and that the faith 
 of that period was accordingly in full contradic- 
 tion here, as well as at other points not a few, 
 to the whole system of modern Protestantism, 
 whether Anglican or Puritan." 
 
MER CERSB URG THEOLOG Y. 
 
 ^7 
 
 That is all so ; but does this not rather go to 
 show how deep the corruption in that period 
 already was, and how unsafe it is, therefore, to 
 refer so confidently to the " fathers" on all 
 points ? And when we know from some funeral 
 addresses, as we do know, how darkly, shadowy, 
 and murkily some of our brethren represent the 
 state even of the " pious dead," it is enough to 
 cast a gloom over the mind, and to cause us 
 to ask, Are the blessed ones, then, doomed to 
 wander up and down for ages in this gloomy 
 future? No; purgatory is not taught, at least 
 has not been ; but such a passage as the fore- 
 going has some significance. 
 
 Another uncertain sound. In vol. iii. p. 394 it 
 is said, — 
 
 " To some it may seem, possibly, that putting 
 die matter in this form is equivalent to a full 
 surrender of the Church question in favor of 
 Rome, If it were so, we ought not to shrink, 
 certainly, from the confession of clear and open 
 truth, just for the sake of avoiding that conse- 
 quence." 
 
 Suppose I should say, Putting the matter 
 thus and so might seem to imply that I am 
 ready to surrender the question in favor of 
 Mormonisrn ; and I should then ward off the 
 opponent by saying, Well, if it does lead you 
 to embrace that system, you ought not to shrink 
 
gg MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 from the confession of clear and open truth, no 
 matter about the consequence. 
 
 Certainly not, if it is the truth, God's revealed 
 truth. But the very fact that I can speak in 
 this hypothetical way is proof clear as sunlight, 
 either that objective truth is not yet clearly 
 seen and apprehended by myself, or (what is 
 still worse) that I am insinuating my own notions 
 into the mind of another for the purpose of 
 driving- out of his mind his belief, — a belief 
 which to him is perhaps his joy and bliss, — and 
 yet I give him no assurance of anything that is 
 better, nay, only leave him in doubt. Is this 
 not cruel ? 
 
 So, too, Calvin (of whom even Lutheran the- 
 ologians of Germany speak with the highest 
 veneration), Zwingle, and other worthies of the 
 Reformation period, are frequently spoken of in 
 terms of reproach for holding certain doctrinal 
 positions which do not square with the " subject- 
 ivism" of the men of the new theory, whilst a 
 Moehler and other Romish authors are lauded 
 in terms that cannot fail to tell us. These are 
 the men for us ! 
 
 Dr. Nevin speaks of Moehler thus : " One 
 man like the learned and pious Moehler, now 
 with God, who knows how to admit the his- 
 torical sienificance of the Reformation," etc., 
 and then passes on to a wholesale detraction of 
 
MER CERSB URG THRO LOG Y. 
 
 89 
 
 Protestant defenders. We have nothing to say 
 against that artful Roman champion ; but when 
 we see such a one thus carefully lauded, whilst 
 Calvin and other greater and better men are 
 treated with sneers, as some of the younger 
 class of the theorists are doing, we cannot fail 
 to see that " straws show which way the wind 
 blows," And when we hear some of these same 
 brethren say that they called to see the Romish 
 bishop , of , whose company they en- 
 joyed so very much, whilst they fail to pay even 
 their compliments to brethren of their own com- 
 munion in the same place, especially if they are 
 known to hold the " old views," are these not 
 signs of some significance ? 
 
 ALTAR AND SACRIFICE. 
 
 Where there is a priest and a priesthood in 
 the sense of the Roman Catholic Church, there 
 must, as a necessary consequence, be an altar 
 and victim, or a sacrifice. These are inseparable. 
 They are joined together and cannot be sun- 
 dered. Take one of these away, no matter which, 
 and you take all three away. If the Christian 
 Church has priests in the sacerdotal sense, then 
 she must have a victim, something to be offered 
 as a sacrifice in that sense. And if she has such 
 a sacrifice, as the Romish Church has in the 
 mass, then she must have an altar in that sense. 
 
 8* 
 
QO MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 But we have shown, we think, by irrefragable 
 evidence that the Reformed Church, yea, the 
 evangeUcal Protestant Church at large, acknowl- 
 edges no such priesthood. Christ is her only 
 Priest, and, at the same time, her only Sacrifice. 
 And hence she also acknowledo^es no altar in 
 any priestly or sacerdotal sense. The Romish 
 Church is consistent in having all three, because 
 she holds to the mass, the so-called " unbloody 
 sacrifice," in her service. It is with her the 
 " holy of holies," the innermost sanctuary, and 
 in her altars are deposited her sacred vessels, 
 etc., as emblematic of this. Hence, when the 
 priest engages in the services of the mass and 
 in certain prayers, he turns his back to the 
 people, thus facing the altar, which is for him 
 the inner sanctuary, and makes adoration to it 
 by bowing and crossing himself when approach- 
 ing or passing it. The altar was generally ele- 
 vated from the ground-floor; hence the name 
 alta ara, " an elevated place." 
 
 In this sacerdotal sense, as applied to the 
 new or Christian dispensation, the name never 
 occurs. It is used only figuratively, spiritually, 
 or by way of accommodation. Altars were 
 usually built of stone. That of the Jewish 
 Tabcirnacle was called the " brazen altar," and 
 it, as well as the other vessels, seems to have 
 been made chiefly of metal. Everything about 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. qj 
 
 it, as indeed all the Old Testament ceremonial 
 worship, was a type and symbol of the future 
 New Testament sacrifice, of which it was a 
 significant prefigu ration. Thus, the daily offer- 
 ings of animal sacrifices on the altar, the smoke 
 of the burning flesh, the dark cloud mounting up 
 toward heaven, were, as Dr. J. W. Nevin says in 
 his Biblical Antiquities, — 
 
 " A continual remembrance of sin, displaying 
 in lively representation its awful guilt and the 
 consuming wrath of heaven which it deserves. 
 . . . 'This Brazen Altar,' to use the words 
 of a learned and holy man, ' was a type of 
 Christ dying to make atonement for our sins.' 
 The luood (the inside lining) would have been 
 consumed by the fire from heaven, if it had not 
 been secured by the brass ; nor could the human 
 nature of Christ have borne the wrath of God 
 if it had not been supported by a Divine power. 
 Christ sanctified Himself for His Church as 
 their Altar (John xvii. 19), and by His media- 
 tion sanctifies the daily services of His people, 
 who also have a right to ' eat at this Altar' 
 (Heb. xiii. 10), for they serve at it as spiritual 
 priests. To the horns of this Altar (Lev. iv. 
 30, xvi. 18) poor sinners fly for refuge when 
 justice pursues them, and there they are safe in 
 the virtue of the sacrifice there offered. . . . 
 The washing of the body, in the outward service 
 of the ancient sanctuary, was intended to teach 
 the necessity of inward purity in all who would 
 draw near to Him in spirit and in truth (Psalm 
 
92 
 
 MER CERSB UR G THRO LOG 3 '. 
 
 xxvi. 6, Ixvi. 1 8). Thus the Apostle exhorts 
 believers to draw near to God with a true 
 heart, in full assurance of faith, having 'their 
 hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and 
 their bodies washed with pure water' (Heb. 
 X. 22). So we need to be washed every day, 
 and are required every day to come with re- 
 pentance and faith to Christ, that we may be 
 cleansed, and so fitted to come before the Lord 
 with an acceptable service (James iv. 8 ; i John 
 i. 7-10). More especially the laver, moreover, 
 was a continual sign that the nature of man had 
 become polluted, and that until the pollution 
 was entirely taken away it could find no en- 
 trance into heaven. As on the altar the eye of 
 taith might behold, as it were, this inscription. 
 Without shedding of blood there is no remissimt, 
 so also it might read upon the laver, Without 
 holiness no man shall see the Lord. It is not 
 enough that sacrifice and atonement are made 
 for sin so as to satisfy the law ; the soul needs 
 at the same time to be delivered from its deep- 
 rooted power, to be washed from its dark-colored 
 stain, to be sanctified as well as justified, and so 
 made meet for the inheritance of the saints in 
 light. A laver, therefore, as well as an altar, 
 was planted out before the tabernacle, and it 
 stood between the altar and the sanctuary, show- 
 ing that pardon through the Great Sacrifice is 
 the first benefit which the believer receives, and 
 that this is followed by the complete sanctifica- 
 tion of his nature before he passes into the 
 house not made with hands on high. ... It 
 gave assurance at the same time that this great 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 93 
 
 purification was not an object of despair, as it 
 must have been if left to man to accomplish by 
 his own power, but that the grace of God had 
 made provision for it altogether sufficient and 
 sure, that a f 02111 tain for (he ^mcleaiiness of sin 
 was wonderfully secured by the same love that 
 procured redemption from its guilt, in which the 
 soul might be made as white as if it had never 
 been defiled with the smallest stain (Eph. v. 26, 
 27; Rev. i. 5, vii. 14)." — Biblical Antiquities, 
 pp. 264-66. 
 
 We have purposely given the foregoing quo- 
 tations at length, because they show us in the 
 clearest light and in very apt language the 
 purport and deeply-spiritual meaning of the 
 symbolical and figurative terms which are em- 
 ployed in the Old Testament service. The 
 whole of it is a grand, deeply-instructive cere- 
 monial, " a shadow of good things to come," but 
 which, having their fulfillment in Christ, "are 
 passed away." Christ, therefore, is now the 
 true, the only altar to the Christian ; the " bra- 
 zen altar" is needed no more to point to Him. 
 He is here Himself. No external altar at 
 Jerusalem or on Gerizim is now needed for the 
 worshiper to approach unto, — so taught the 
 Saviour Himself, — for they that worship Him 
 worship Him in spirit and in truth. The Chris- 
 tian's altar, according to the passage quoted by 
 Dr. Nevin in the passage above (Heb. xiii. 10), 
 
94 
 
 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 is Christ Himself, whereof they have not the 
 privilege to eat who serve in the tabernacle. 
 
 This might be sufficient to satisfy us that the 
 term altar is now an inappropriate term in con- 
 nection with New Testament worship. In any 
 proper, in the Christian or Neiv Testament sense, 
 thej^e IS NO altar save as applied to the Lord 
 Jesus Christ Himself. The exposition of Dr. 
 Nevin, given in the foregoing quotations, is the 
 undoubted true gospel sense, the sense of the 
 early Church, the sense of the evangelical 
 Church of Protestantism. The name altar was, 
 it is true, retained by Luther, but without the 
 Jewish or Roman Catholic idea connected with 
 it. And as Protestants worshiped in a number 
 of churches in Europe which were built in the 
 middle ages with the regular altar-form in them, 
 they continued to call it so, and also called 
 the Lord's Supper the sacrament of the altar. 
 But it was a misnomer. Luther repudiated, as 
 we have seen, the priesthood in the Jewish and 
 Romish sense with all his soul, and so also the 
 term altar in its priestly and sacerdotal sense. 
 The " sacrament of the altar," in proper lan- 
 guage, means a priestly sacrifice in the Jewish 
 or Roman Catholic sense, and nothing else. 
 The Reformed Church, from the start, more 
 free and unfettered than the Lutheran, refused 
 to allow the term altar to be used, on account. 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 95 
 
 in a great measure, of the shameful abuses con- 
 nected with it. And hence they at once restored 
 the apostolical terms, " The Table of the Lord," 
 '< The Lord's Table," '< The Supper of the Lord," 
 etc. And it is very significant that in no one of 
 the numerous confessional writings Is this term 
 ever used. It was designedly discarded. 
 
 THE REFORMED VIEW. 
 
 The Heidelberg Catechism does not contain 
 the word altar, in the sense referred to, from be- 
 ginning to end. In treating of the Eucharist it 
 calls it the " Lord's Supper," the "Bread and Cup 
 of the Lord," but nowhere does it speak of it as 
 the "altar." There is a wise and Scriptural 
 avoidance of any expression which by possibility 
 could lead to the idea underlying that term. 
 
 Out of a number of Reformed Confessions, we 
 shall quote only the following, to show why altars 
 were discarded in the Reformed Churches : 
 
 Confession of Nassati (a.d. 1559): "And as 
 we, as Christians, have, properly speaking, in 
 the New Testament neither altar nor sacrifice as 
 under the law of Moses ; and the Papists have 
 again introduced the altars from the old Leviti- 
 cal Priesthood, and only for this reason, because 
 out of the Lord's Supper they have made the 
 sacrifice of the mass. . . Therefore such entirely 
 idolatrous altars have been removed, and in their 
 stead proper tables, covered with cloth, are 
 
96 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 placed in the churches and used for the com- 
 munion. In some places the altars of stone 
 have been remodeled so as to be like tables." 
 
 And ao-ain : 
 
 "It is certain from the history of the Church 
 that altars were introduced lono- after the time 
 of Constantine [in the fourth century]. From 
 this it follows that the Church of God, from the 
 Apostles' time down to the time of Constan- 
 tine, made no use of altars in the administration 
 of the Holy Sacraments, but only of tables. So 
 also Christ in the first institution of the Supper. 
 Hence the Apostle speaks, not of the altar, 
 but of the Lord's Table." 
 
 Bremen Confession : "In the first and oldest 
 churches there were for hundreds of years no 
 altars in use, because the Old Covenant had 
 ceased, and altars do not belong- to the public 
 worship of the New Covenant, after the fulfill- 
 ment of the sacrifice of Christ, made through 
 His death upon the cross. But when, under 
 the Papacy, they made out of the Supper a pro- 
 pitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead, 
 then they also introduced in a perverting man- 
 ner the altar into the churches. And as in the 
 mass they invoked the departed saints, so they 
 also filled the altars with many sacred things 
 and idolatrous pictures. They also held that 
 the Supper could not be rightly administered, 
 unless from a consecrated altar. And hence 
 the name has remained, although it would be 
 much more appropriate to call it, with the 
 Apostle, the Table of the Lord. . . . Many of the 
 Evangelical Churches, for the purpose of mani- 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. q7 
 
 festing their earnest dislike of the papistic 
 abominations connected with the sacrifice of the 
 mass and invocation of saints, have entirely abol- 
 ished the altars, and instead thereof make use 
 of suitable tables, covered with a cloth, which 
 are allowed constantly to remain in one place, 
 from which the Supper is distributed. But if 
 the fabulous holy things and idolatrous pictures 
 have been removed, and the abomination of the 
 mass has given place to the true doctrine and 
 appropriate use of the Holy Supper, we allow 
 it, from want of a better opportunity, to be a 
 part of Christian liberty that, after doing away 
 with the idolatrous practices, use be made of 
 the masonry of the altars in the churches, as of 
 a table of stone ; and we regard it as useful for 
 the edifying of God's Church, that in place of 
 the wings which formerly were at the altar, 
 hereafter the principal part of the Catechism 
 be engraved in good readable letters and placed 
 before their eyes ; but, whether it be a table of 
 stone or wood from which the Holy Sacrament 
 be dispensed, it is always proper that the min- 
 ister should turn, not his back, btU always his 
 face toward the people f'' in order that the whole 
 
 * It is significant and worthy of note that some of the more ardent 
 friends of the Mercersburg theology have already begun to imitate the 
 custom here condemned, by turning their back to the people in per- 
 forming certain portions of the liturgical service. The writer was 
 witness himself of such a performance in a Reformed congregation, 
 when two of our professors stood, one on the right, the other on the 
 left side of the communion table, engaged in liturgical services pre- 
 paratory to the communion on the following day. They faced each 
 other (the table between them), having their backs to a portion of the 
 9 G 
 
gS MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 congregation may be able the better to hear, 
 see, and understand that the reciting of the 
 words of the institution of the Supper takes 
 place, not on account of the bread and wine, 
 but on account of the people, as also Christ 
 Himself did not talk with the bread and wine, 
 but with His disciples, in the institution of the 
 Supper." (a.d. 1595.) 
 
 Even Luther himself, with all his conser- 
 vatism in these outward matters, says that the 
 "vestments [3fessgewdnder), altars, and candles 
 might be allowed to remain as yet, until they 
 are all to be changed, or until we think it is the 
 right time. But in the right mass [he means 
 the Supper], with true Christians, the altar 
 would have to be changed, and the priest [min- 
 ister] always to turn toward the people, as Christ 
 Himself doubtless did in the Supper." 
 
 That eminent theologian and writer on 
 Church History, Professor K. R. Hagenbach, 
 of Basle, says : 
 
 "The elements (bread and wine) are placed 
 upon the Table of the Lord, and afe thence 
 distributed to the people. This table is, in the 
 Catholic and the Lutheran Church, the altar. 
 
 congregation, — a sort of compromise measure, we suppose, at least for 
 the present. We repeat, "such things are of themselves of no great 
 moment, but as part and parcel of something back of them they are sig- 
 nificant. On leaving the church referred to, a good, simple-hearted 
 member of the congregation said to her companion, "Why/did those 
 two ministers stand sideways as they did ?" — a question which the other 
 could not answer. 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. gg 
 
 The altar is also, in part, found in Reformed 
 Churches [as before noticed, they were allowed 
 to continue in the old churches], but without 
 claiming any otJier ineaiiing thaji that of 'a com- 
 niunion-tabler In a note he remarks, '■'Table of 
 the Lord is the proper biblical expression (i 
 Cor. X. 21 ; compare Heb. ix. 2). The first 
 Christians, it is well known, had no altars."* 
 
 DOES THE NEW OR MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY TEACH 
 OTHERWISE ? 
 
 Let US see. An altar, in the view of Roman 
 Catholics and Puseyite (or High Church) Episco- 
 palians, is the specially holy place in the church. 
 A special sacredness is attached to it, because 
 
 * A year or more ago, we read an article in the Reformed Cliui-ch 
 Messenger from a correspondent, in which he compliments a previous 
 writer, presumably another correspondent (for we have neither of the 
 numbers of the paper at hand, and speak from memory), on having 
 triumphantly proved that the removing of the altar in the churches in 
 this country and putting in their place a table was an " innovation," 
 and consequently " anti- Reformed P^ I may not use the correspondent's 
 exact words, but I am sure I give the substance. I have no recollection 
 whatever of seeing the article with its triumphant proofs, and can only 
 surmise what they must have been, — probably the removal of square 
 wooden things yclept altars, but which were no altars, and which the 
 people and their ministers most assuredly did not regard as such in the 
 sacrificial sense. After what we have allowed some of our Reformed 
 standards and other authorities to testify on the subject of the altar on 
 the foregoing pages, we are inclined to think that the triumphant proof 
 was probably of the kind which a certain young pulpit orator years 
 ago furnished. He boldly announced that he would (i) explain and 
 show where the wind came from, (2) whither it went, and (3) that, 
 as nobody had ever seen the wind, it was more than probable that 
 nobody knew whence it came or 70/iitker it went ! 
 
lOo MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 only from it should intercession be made or 
 prayer for the people be offered. It should be 
 an altar in form as well as in fact: hence the 
 great zeal which some of our younger brethren 
 display to have the " puritanic table" removed 
 and the right sort of thing substituted therefor. 
 Hence we have had a profusion of articles in 
 our Church periodical on the subject in time 
 past, long before it was clearly declared what 
 was inchicied in the altar-service. 
 
 This term, altar-service, is of itself sufficiently 
 significant. It tells any one who is acquainted 
 with High-Church Lutheran or High-Church 
 English writers that it means immensely more 
 than some more or less multifarious liturorical 
 forms or ritual ceremonials. A mere outward 
 service of this sort might be nothing more than a 
 matter of taste, — something a^sthetical, perhaps. 
 But in ecclesiastical lanofuacre that word has a 
 peculiar, fixed, and definite meaning. It includes 
 the sacrificial and priestly view to which we 
 have referred at some length. The altar belongs 
 to that, and is in harmonious accord with it, and 
 with no other view. Dr. Nevin well understood 
 this when he used that term in his tract before 
 the Liturgy made its public appearance. Perhaps 
 few, comparatively, among our ministers then 
 understood it ; many do not now, — if we may 
 judge from their declarations that there are no 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. iqi 
 
 doctrines enunciated in the Liturgy, especially 
 in the new Order of Worship, which go beyond 
 the confessional system of the Reformed Church. 
 That this is so is, however, confessed by Dr. 
 Nevin himself, nor was he at fault on that 
 account, although it might perhaps have been 
 expected from him that he should have more 
 fully advertised his unsuspecting brethren and 
 the Church at large of the fact. He said frankly 
 that Jiis idea of a liturgy was that of an altar- 
 liturgy. That should have been sufficient to 
 tell every one of us what was comprehended in 
 his plan of a liturgy. But it was not. And when 
 a few of us hinted even that a great deal was 
 meant by it, we were looked upon as " enemies 
 of Dr. N.," and I know not what else. 
 
 In his "Vindication of the New Liturgy," Dr. 
 Nevin says : 
 
 " I may say that I hardly expected or wished 
 the Synod to fall in with the high view of altar- 
 worship presented in the tract" (p. '^'^. 
 
 Again : " The idea of an altar-liturgy was de- 
 clared [by him] to be alone worthy of respect." 
 
 He says "the Synod knew perfectly well 
 where the committee [of the Liturgy] stood in 
 regard to the whole subject." 
 
 Here, we think, he is mistaken, and just this 
 not 2uidersta7iding the full import of what was 
 comprehended in an altar-liturgy on the part 
 
I02 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 of the great majority both of ministers and 
 people at that time, laid the foundation of the 
 great troubles afterwards. But of this it is not 
 our purpose to speak. 
 
 It was an altar-liturgy that was intended to 
 be prepared, not a "mere pulpit-liturg)^" says 
 Dr. Nevin, "a collection of dry forms [but must 
 the forms necessarily be d)'y because not read 
 at the altar ?] for the use of the minister, in the 
 usual style of such mechanical helps. It was 
 somethine altoo-ether different from that. It 
 carried with it the spirit and power of a true 
 altar-liturgy, . . . not simply a scheme of re- 
 ligious service, but a scheme also of religious 
 thought and belief materially at variance with 
 preconceived opinion in certain quarters" 
 [rather, at variance with the doctrinal faith and 
 standard of the Reformed Church, as it is else- 
 where also candidly acknowledged to be].'-' 
 
 No one, we think, will undertake to say that 
 an altar-liturgy, with all that it includes, was 
 ever intended by the Synod in Norristown, in 
 1849, when it first appointed the committee to 
 prepare a new Liturgy; no one, after the decided, 
 clear, ringing testimony of the early standards 
 and other authorities of the Reformed Church 
 
 * Dr. Nevin says of the Western Liturgy that "it lacks the very 
 centre of all liturgical worship, namely, a true central altar-sacrifice." 
 This is speaking out manfully in words of " no uncertain sound." 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 103 
 
 which have been adduced (and which might be 
 increased tenfold), will dare to say that such was 
 the "worship of our fathers." There was not one 
 Reformed congregation three hundred years 
 ago, and there is not one now on the continent 
 of Europe, which has used or is now using such 
 an altar-liturgy, with all that is included in it, in 
 the sense and meaning as held by Dr. Nevin 
 and those who hold his views on the subject 
 under consideration. This may seem a sweeping 
 declaration, but we challenge a contradiction. 
 
 Seeing, then, what is meant by an altar- 
 liturgical service, it is not surprising that the 
 Reformers in the sixteenth century, and the 
 framers of the standards of the Church, and 
 later evangelical writers down to the pres- 
 ent time, so earnestly lifted up their voices 
 against the altar. They, also, comprehended 
 fully its meaning. It meant the human priest- 
 hood ; it meant the sacrifice ; it meant the 
 priest clothed with power and authority, all in 
 some sense akin to, if not in full measure 
 with, that which obtains in the Roman Catholic 
 Church. There they had seen its workings in 
 perfection, and they felt in the very depth of 
 their souls that the Reformation would have no 
 meaning and could not be justified if the main 
 prop and pillar of the Papacy — the priesthood 
 with its altar and sacrifice — were suffered to 
 
I04 
 
 MER CERSB UR G THEOL OGY. 
 
 Stand intact. Hence their outspoken opposition 
 to it. (For a truly masterly delineation of the 
 PAPAL SYSTEM, sec some extracts in the Appendix 
 (I.) from Dr. Dorner's Essay read before the 
 Evangelical Alliance in New York.) 
 
 The editor of the New York CJiristian Intel- 
 ligencer i^^iornx^d. Dutch) says on this subject: 
 
 ..." We do offer to God spiritual sacrifice 
 when we offer devout worship to Him, but these 
 acts of prayer and praise cannot be laid upon 
 any table or altar which is open to human 
 inspection. The heart is the altar from which 
 they ascend. These acts in their very nature 
 are spiritual, and the addition of any material 
 object seems to us to be irrelevant. ' God is a 
 spirit, and they that worship Him must worship 
 in spirit and in truth.' It is all true that public 
 worship needs forms of expression. It is de- 
 signed to find utterance in words ; but the 
 simplest forms of speech are as acceptable as 
 the most elaborate of liturgies, when they pro- 
 ceed from a heart filled with the love of God. 
 In using symbols for the furtherance of public 
 devotion, we must have New Testament warrant 
 for the adoption of any rite or the introduction 
 of any emblematic device. Rome has adopted 
 the altar in order to keep prominently before 
 her devotees the idea of the real presence in 
 the offering up of the mass, which she calls the 
 'unbloody sacrifice of the mass.' With the 
 special design of insisting upon the transub- 
 stantiation of the wafer into the real body and 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 105 
 
 blood of Christ, she sets up her altars in the 
 buildings which are dedicated to the exercise of 
 her forms of worship. The wafer, after the form 
 of consecration in the use of which it is re^rarded 
 as miraculously converted into the real, actual, 
 living Christ, is called the host, i.e., hostia, a 
 victim, and our Lord is represented as being 
 thus perpetually and repeatedly offered up as 
 often as this ceremony is repeated. The use 
 of the altar, under such circumstances, is espe- 
 cially significant, but apart from all such ideas 
 the relevancy of this furnitiLj^e is not easily 
 understood. The usages of the Church of 
 Rome indicate, as it seems to us, that our 
 Lord is crucified afresh, and such acts of wor- 
 ship cannot be acceptable, because they are 
 manifestly in direct contradiction of the words 
 of Holy Scripture. By that one sacrifice offered 
 on Calvary, He has forever perfected them 
 that are sanctified. That oblation cannot be 
 repeated. It was the one great transaction 
 in which all the sacrificial ceremonies of the old 
 Jewish ritual found their completion. There 
 remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, since Christ 
 has died, except that one oblation which is of 
 perpetual efficacy ; and therefore the use of the 
 altar apart from all afifinity with such views is 
 not relevant." 
 
 AN ALTAR-LITURGY INCONSISTENT WITH THE GE- 
 NIUS AND CUSTOMS OF THE REFORMED CHURCH. 
 
 We have already shown that the doctrines 
 contained in the Liturgy (" Order of Wor- 
 
I06 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 ship") are not in accordance with the teachings 
 of the Heidelberg Catechism. But, apart from 
 the doctrinal departure, a most serious objection 
 holds aofainst that book, more even than to its 
 predecessor, the Provisional Liturgy, because 
 of its complicated and constrained ceremonial. 
 The Reformed Church never worshiped ac- 
 cording to anything of the sort. That there 
 were forms of prayer and other services pre- 
 pared during the Reformation period, not only 
 by Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, and even by Knox 
 (in Scotland), we know full well — none of them, 
 however, in the style of the " Order of Wor- 
 ship ;" but we know, also, that those forms, 
 which were retained at first from expediency, 
 soon came to be distasteful to the people, and 
 hence, with the exception of a few prayers and 
 sacramental forms, etc., were very soon out of 
 use in public worship. A full responsive ser- 
 vice, away from the gorgeous cathedral or simi- 
 lar surroundings, is in fact out of place. It is 
 not in harmony with Protestant houses of wor- 
 ship and with the genius of the Protestant 
 Church, in which, although too much preponder- 
 ance may often have been given to preaching 
 and too little to prayer and praise, yet, thank 
 God, the preaching of the word is, and ought 
 to be, according to the word of God and the' 
 examples of the Apostles, the central part 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 107 
 
 of the worship in God's house. In propor- 
 tion as rituaHsm is made prominent, the 
 sermon will fall into the background, — the 
 pulpit will be overshadowed by the altar, — an 
 evidence of which, in its incipiency, is already 
 showing itself in the utterances and even in 
 some cases in the practice in some quarters 
 in our own Church. Now, we say that this 
 style of worship is new and strange in the 
 Reformed Church. Neither in Germany, Swit- 
 zerland, France, Holland, nor, indeed, anywhere 
 else, have we seen or heard anything of the 
 kind. And we are confident in our own mind 
 that it never will, it never can be ingrafted 
 upon the Reformed Church in this country. 
 You may get people here and there to submit 
 to it, they may unthinkingly agree to it to 
 please the preacher, or some may even be 
 made to believe that it is " worshiping as the 
 fathers did," and that it is therefore according 
 to the " genius and spirit of the Church a hun- 
 dred years ago" (which is simply not so) ; but 
 as for a hearty acceptance and adoption, it will, 
 we are fully persuaded, never be done. You 
 may get an organ and a choir to go through 
 certain portions of the service, and you may 
 have faint-hearted responses here and there, but 
 the great mass of the people will eschew it. And 
 then what is gained by any such forced method 
 
I08 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 of introducing the Liturgy? Heart-burnings, 
 distractions, confusion, and all manner of evil 
 fruits. A few only of our congregations use 
 the service in full now, after years of effort to 
 introduce it ; and are these benefited by it, even 
 in an external way ? It seems not. And as for 
 the German portion of the Church — by far the 
 largest portion yet — whether native or foreign 
 born, we know not of a single congregation 
 which has expressed the desire to have a full 
 liturgical service. Indeed, the Liturgy has only 
 quite recently been translated into German, a 
 proof that it was not called for, and we pre- 
 dict that the book will lie on the shelf for a 
 long time, and then scarcely find entrance into 
 any number of German congregations. This 
 was our conviction thirteen years ago, when we 
 were appointed one of a committee to trans- 
 late the Provisional Liturgy into the German 
 language, before we were fully aware of the 
 objectionable doctrinal contents of the book. 
 On that account we afterwards declined to 
 serve on the committee, and the Synod, after 
 waiting one or more years, finally dropped the 
 matter, and only recently had the work pub- 
 lished. 
 
 Dr. Nevin has declared more than once that 
 it did not seem to meet with favor, and had 
 therefore better be given up. But some others 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. ^OQ 
 
 were fully bent, it seems, on pushing matters to 
 an extreme, and by their actions, if not by their 
 words, seemed to say that they would rather 
 see the institutions at Lancaster given up, and 
 general disaster to the Church ensue, than give 
 up the Liturgy. 
 
 Now we ask brethren, why this uncalled-for 
 zeal to force upon the Church (for it is, after all, 
 force in some form) a liturgical service which 
 is foreign to our custom and genius as a de- 
 nomination ? For most assuredly it is foreign 
 in both these respects, although it has been de- 
 nied again and again, we charitably hope from 
 ignorance rather than from a worse motive. 
 This we shall now try to substantiate from the 
 admissions and confessions of the principal au- 
 thor of the Liturgy, Dr. Nevin. 
 
 In his tract on the " Liturgical Question," he 
 says that it was constructed on a different plan 
 from any of the Liturgies of the Reformed 
 Church (p. 39). And in the following pages are 
 these words (the italicizing is our own) : 
 
 " It is to be fully admitted that there lay in 
 the distinguishing spirit of the Reformed Con- 
 fessions, as such, from the beginning, a tendency 
 in opposition to the constraint of fixed religious 
 rites and ceremonies, which could hardly fail to 
 exert an injurious influence on any work of this 
 sort [an altar-liturgy]. It belonged, as we all 
 know, to the Reformed Church, to represent 
 
] I o MER CERSB URG THEOLOG Y. 
 
 that side of the Christian hfe in which the 
 inward, the free, the spiritual in reHgion are 
 asserted against the authority of the merely 
 outward in every view. Such is her historical 
 vocation, — such her genius." Again, on page 
 50 he says, speaking of the Provisional Liturgy, 
 " It has not professed at all to be of one order 
 simply with the liturgical practice of the Ger- 
 man Reformed Church of the sixteenth cen- 
 tury, and much less of one order with what had 
 come to be its liturgical practice in the eigh- 
 teenth century, when it was first transplanted to 
 this country. That practice, from the beginning, 
 is believed to have been too naked and bald, 
 running naturally into the theory which makes 
 a liturgy to be a book of outward forms and 
 nothing more. The new Liturgy was constructed 
 throughout on another theory altogether, — the 
 theory of an altar-service, in distinction from 
 what may be called a service simply of the pul- 
 pit. — It makes common cause with the Liturgies 
 of the ancient Church. — It breathes throughout 
 a sacrificial spirit y (Page 51.) " The Reformed 
 Confession from the beginning has not been 
 favorable to much outward form or ritual action 
 in worship ; and its liturgical productions have 
 all along been more in sympathy with the pul- 
 pit than the altar." (Page 60). " It requires no 
 argument to show that it is not after the pat- 
 tern strictly of any system of worship which 
 has prevailed hitherto in the German Reformed 
 Church, either in this country or in Europe. It 
 makes no such profession or pretense. If, thcn^ 
 we want no such innovation upon the old system. 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. m 
 
 . . . it Is most certain, without further question, 
 that the new Liturgy, as it now stands, is not 
 what we need, or should be wilHng to receive. 
 It is a question of very viatcrial change in our 
 C/uu^ch practice, if not in our Church life. The 
 new Liturgy is for us as a Church in many re- 
 spects a new scheme of worship. It is not the 
 pattern according to which our fathers ivor- 
 shiped, either in these United States, or else- 
 zuhere." (Page 62.) Again, "We can never be 
 satisfied with the Old Palatinate Liturgy, nor 
 with any of the Helvetic Liturgies used in the 
 sixteenth century, or since ; and still less, of 
 course, with any of the jejune formularies that 
 were used by our ministerial fathers of the last 
 century here in America. No reconstruction 
 of any such order of worship will serve our 
 purpose." (Page 71.) 
 
 Let this suffice to show that an altar-liturgy 
 is not after the pattern of the Reformed Church 
 ' in any period of her history. It needs no further 
 proof, an abundance of which we have lying be- 
 fore us, to substantiate this, especially as it is 
 so fully and unequivocally acknowledged by the 
 highest authority. Dr. Nevin himself. Only let 
 none of the younger brethren hereafter use the 
 argument that the use of a liturgy, of an altar- 
 liturgy, in the Church is "only going back to 
 the usages of the old Reformed Church as it 
 used to be," or that it is "merely reviving old 
 customs which Puritanism or Methodism had 
 
112 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 for a time brought into disuse." We forbear 
 to characterize such declarations as they justly 
 deserve. There is not a shadow of fact to sus- 
 tain them. Just in the same way it has been 
 maintained, even by theological teachers, in re- 
 gard to the new doctrmal position, of which we 
 may, by way of example, quote but a single sen- 
 tence : " If the doctrinal position concerning the 
 Liturgy is once understood," says Dr. Apple, in 
 the Messenger, on " False Alarms," — " if it is 
 once understood that that position is none other 
 than the Church has all along maintained, a 
 large portion of the wind will be taken out of 
 the sails of those who oppose it." Now let the 
 candid reader refer to the frank confessions 
 made by Dr. Nevin and others, quoted in pre- 
 vious pages in this book and elsewhere, in 
 which there is avowed an utter and entire re- 
 nunciation of all past and present " reigning 
 Protestantism," and we think " the wind will be 
 taken out of the sails" of Dr. Apple to a de- 
 gree that must bring his craft to a dead stop. 
 
 Yes, verily ! " It is a question of very matej^ial 
 change in our Church practice, if not in our 
 Church life. ... It is not the pattern accord- 
 ing to which our fathers worshiped, either in 
 these United States, or elsewhere." So says Dr. 
 Nevin ; and he knows what he says, and says 
 what he knows. 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. n^ 
 
 Let this be understood, then, once for all, 
 without further debate or controversy. The 
 sophistical Mephistopheles, in Goethe's Faust, 
 misled the poor young man who came to him 
 for the arcana of knowledge, when he said to him 
 to " stick to his ivords if he would pass through 
 the gate into the temple of certainty ;" and when 
 the young man said something about the impor- 
 tance of having some trtith or some meaning 
 connected with words, his teacher glossed over 
 in a most wretched way his sophistry, by telling 
 the young man, with wonderful assurance, — 
 
 " ScliDii gut ! Nur muss man sich nicht allzu angstlich (|ualen; 
 Denn eben wo Begriffe fehlen, 
 Da stellt ein Woit zur rechten Zeit sich ein. 
 Mit Worten lasst sich trefihch streiten, 
 Mit Worten ein System bereiten, 
 An Worte Ijisst sich trefflich glauben, 
 Von eineni Woit lasst sich kein Iota lauben." 
 
 Let our brethren on the other side frankly 
 acknowledge, " This is essentially a new thing, 
 such as the Reformed Church never before had, 
 even so far as the outward form of it is con- 
 cerned, but we believe it is better than the old, 
 and therefore we want you to permit your min- 
 isters to introduce it." 
 
 That would be candid, honest, truthful. And 
 if the people zvisJi to have it, if they " long for it," 
 as has been said, if the great mass of our 
 church-members show that it is in harmony 
 with their convictions and feelinq-s, then, in 
 
114 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 God's name, let them have It, and we will 
 answer with a loud, responsive Amen ! But, 
 on the other hand, if such is not the case, then 
 we beseech brethren, for the love of God and 
 of Christ, for the peace and prosperity of the 
 Church, and for the sake of that charity which 
 never faileth, to desist from their endeavors by^ 
 this and that means to obtain an unwillino- sub- 
 mission to that which, if their whole heart is not 
 in it, must prove the very opposite of true wor- 
 ship, and so must prove displeasing in the sight 
 of God and of good men. 
 
 THE SACRAMENTS. 
 
 We have shown with sufficient clearness, we 
 hope, that the new theory taught in Mercers- 
 burg and Lancaster is of such a radical charac- 
 ter that it necessarily affects the whole range of 
 Christian doctrine. Hence it must, as a matter 
 of course, affect also the important subject of 
 the sacraments. 
 
 Let us then see, in the first place, what is the 
 teachine of the Reformed Church on the sacra- 
 ments in general, and then on each one of the 
 two sacraments in particular. We quote from 
 the Catechism : 
 
 ''Quest. 65. Since then we are made par- 
 takers of Christ and all His benefits by faith 
 only, whence does this faith proceed ? 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. i,t 
 
 ''A71S. From the Holy Ghost, who works faith 
 in our hearts by the preaching of the gospel, 
 and confirms it by the use of the sacraments. 
 
 " Quest. 66. What are the sacraments ? 
 
 '■'Ans. The sacraments are holy visible signs 
 and seals appointed of God for this end, that 
 by the use thereof He may the more fully declare 
 and seal to us the promise of the gospel, to wit, 
 that He grants us freely the remission of sin, and 
 life eternal, for the sake of that one sacrifice of 
 Christ accomplished on the cross. 
 
 ''Quest. 67. Are both word and sacraments 
 ordained and appointed for this end, that they 
 may direct our faith to the sacrifice of Jesus 
 Christ on the cross as the only ground of our 
 salvation ? 
 
 "Ans. Yes, indeed ; for the Holy Ghost 
 teaches us in the gospel, and assures us by the 
 sacraments, that the whole of 02ir salvation de- 
 pends upoji that one saci-ifice of Christ which He 
 oficrcd for 71s on the cross!' 
 
 Here, then, we have a clear statement of the 
 nature of the sacraments, and also of the con- 
 nection which exists between faith and the sacra- 
 ments. In the first of the foregoing answers 
 we are told that the Holy Ghost works faith in 
 our hearts by the preaching of the gospel, and 
 (in the language of Ursinus) "cherishes, confirms, 
 and seals it by the use of the sacraments. The 
 word is a charter, to which the sacraments are 
 attached as signs. The charter is the gospel 
 itself, to which the sacraments are affixed as the 
 
Il6 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 seals of the Divine will. Whatever the word 
 promises concerning our salvation through 
 Christ, that the sacraments, as signs and seals 
 annexed thereto, confirm unto us more and 
 more for the purpose of helping our infirmity." 
 (Comment., p. 340.) 
 
 It will thus be seen that, according to Re- 
 formed doctrine, the sacraments are not in and 
 of themselves efficacious to salvation. It is 
 faitJi that saves. The sacraments are " holy 
 visible signs and seals appointed of God for 
 this end, that by the use thereof He may the 
 vioi'e fttlly declare and seal to ns the pi'oviise of 
 the gospel, to wit, that He grants us freely [that 
 which the word has already assured to us] the 
 remission of sin, and life eternal, for the sake 
 of that one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on 
 the cross." 
 
 "We are made partakers of Christ and all 
 His benefits [not in or by baptism, but] hy faith 
 only!' The answer to Question 32, "Why art 
 thou called a Christian ?" is in this clear and 
 unequivocal form : " Because I am a member of 
 Christ [not by baptism, but] by fait Jl' There 
 is much more to the same effect which could be 
 adduced in our incomparable Catechism, which 
 the more we study the more we admire and love 
 it. But let this suffice. The Catechism does 
 not teach that forgiveness of sins, the grace of 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. ^y 
 
 salvation, or the new spiritual life (regeneration), 
 is bomid to the rite of baptism. 
 
 This is the teaching also of all the standards 
 of the Reformed Church. Let us listen to one 
 or two of these out of many : 
 
 The Confession of Brandenburg (Prussia) : 
 "Therefore baptism is called the bath of re- 
 generation, and consequently also that of the 
 covenant and adoption [Khidschaft) of God, 
 because it is a sign and seal of such grace of 
 God. And this grace is as sure to us who 
 believe [not who are bapti.zed~\ as certainly as 
 we are baptized, according to the promise, 
 Whosoever believeth and is baptized shall 
 be saved." (See also the Palatinate Baptism 
 Formular)^) 
 
 Dr. Heppe, the able Reformed theologian, 
 in setting forth the old Reformed doctrine, 
 which it is confessed on all sides that he has 
 done with great impartiality, says : 
 
 " The reception of the grace, the communica- 
 tion of which is attested and sealed through 
 baptism, is 7iot bound to the outward act and to 
 the moment of the sacramental transaction, be- 
 cause the efficacy of baptism rather presupposes 
 the faith and conversion of men as already at 
 hand." (Much more to the same effect might be 
 quoted from this learned living author.) 
 
 Calvin, speaking of the Catholics, who attri- 
 
Il8 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 bute to the sacraments all kinds of hidden 
 virtues by which justification and grace are 
 conferred, says : 
 
 " It is impossible to express the pestilent 
 and fatal effects of this opinion. . . . Yea, 
 it is manifestly diabolical, because, by promising- 
 justification without faith, it hurries souls into 
 destruction. . . . We see this exemplified in 
 the centurion [Cornelius], who, after having 
 received the remission of his sins and the 
 visible graces of the Holy Spirit, was baptized, 
 not with a view of obtaining through baptism a 
 more complete remission of sins, but a stronger 
 exercise of faith and an increase of confidence 
 from that pledge (Acts x. 44-48). Perhaps it 
 is objected, Why then did Ananias say to Paul, 
 'Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins' ? 
 I answer, we are said to receive or obtain that 
 which our faith apprehends, as presented to us 
 by the Lord, whether at the time when He first 
 declared it to us, or when, by a subsequent 
 testimony. He affords us a more certain con- 
 firmation of it." 
 
 Now, what are the views of the Mercersburg- 
 Lancaster school on this subject? Do they 
 conform to the foregoing clearly-expressed 
 views of the Reformed Church, or do they 
 not? 
 
 Before quoting the language of the new 
 theory on baptism, the reader must remember 
 the peculiar view which lies back of it as its 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. ug 
 
 groundwork, in order to understand fully the 
 " reason of thino;s" in their connections. 
 
 Let it be remembered, then, that redemption, 
 according to the new theory, is brought to man 
 (we quote Dr. Nevin's language) •' by an orgastic 
 conjwictioii with the Saviour, in a way that makes 
 Him to be the actual life-principle of their new 
 Christian beine, and shows their life to be 
 mysteriously involved in His from the com- 
 mencement to its close. . . . Religion, to be 
 real, must be in some way a community of life 
 with God, ... an inward conjunction in a real 
 way, ... an incorporation of this higher 
 element into the actual onflowing life of the 
 world." (Language, this, which sounds strange 
 to the ear that has not been familiar with the 
 theosophic system of Jacob Bohme or the writ- 
 ings of the school of the pantheist Spinoza.) 
 
 Now, in consistency with such a view of re- 
 demption is Tract No. 3, acknowledged to be 
 by one of the professors in Lancaster, in which 
 it is said that 
 
 "All the benefits of Christ are received, not 
 by faith, not through previous knowledge of our 
 misery, not in the way of repentance and faith, 
 but through baptism, and through baptism ex- 
 clusively." And again: "There is no way in 
 which a man can be created anew by the Spirit, 
 according to the established economy of salva- 
 
I20 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 tion, but by baptism." And again : " A sinner 
 may be penitent for his sins, but until he has 
 received baptism, as God's act of remission to 
 him, he has no true assurance of remission. 
 And when after baptism he sins through in- 
 firmity, he cannot be sure of pardon till his 
 absolution is spoken, signed, and sealed by 
 Christ, by the means of a Divine act through 
 
 the Church." 
 
 y 
 
 Another writer of respectable standing on 
 the same side, in speaking of baptism, holds 
 the following singular language : 
 
 " It is, in a few words, the implantation of the 
 germ or principle of a new or spiritual life from 
 Christ, by the operation of the Holy Ghost, 
 brought to pass in connection with the proper 
 use of the outward sign" (baptism). 
 
 Our honored father used to tell us that if we 
 had one or two good, clear, unmistakable proofs 
 in favor of any point, it was as valid as twenty 
 or fifty, and, besides, saved time. We leave the 
 reader to look for himself " on this picture, and 
 then on this," and judge whether this new theory 
 does or does not square with the teachings of 
 the Reformed Church. And this is all that 
 we intended. We did not design to enter upon 
 any discussion as to the merits or demerits 
 of the new theory here. We say nothing in 
 reference to the question what the sacraments 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 121 
 
 are in an objective way. We believe, with the 
 Reformed Church, that they are more than mere 
 outward signs, yea, that there is an offer of 
 grace tendered through them. But we waive 
 all that, and have fulfilled our task if we have 
 succeeded in showing that, so far at least as 
 baptism is concerned, our brethren of Lancaster 
 teach another system altogether on the subject 
 from that of our standards and of all Reformed 
 theologians.* And that is enough for us for 
 
 * Di". Nevin, in his " Vindication of the Liturgy" (p. 89), quotes 
 from the French Reformed divine Pressense, with approbation, his 
 saying, " It is impossible to establish the necessity of infant baptism, 
 except upon the ground that baptism imparts a special grace;" 
 and then Dr. Nevin adds, " We are decidedly of the same opinion, 
 and for this reason we denounce this theology [the anti-liturgical 
 theology he calls it] as in reality . . . hostile to infant baptism." 
 (Just before he characterized it as " Pelagian," landing us swiftly in 
 downright Rationalism.) 
 
 Now we, too, are " decidedly of the same opinion" with the eminent 
 and good Pressense; and as we had the privilege of personally knowing 
 him and his views on this and other theological subjects, and, more- 
 over, have read some of his works, we can assure Dr. Nevin that if 
 he agreed fully with the entire theological system of that divine, 
 including the subject of baptism, there would be no need of any con- 
 troversy in our Reformed Church. This is one way of seeking comfort 
 from European theologians. So Dr. Apple refers to the " excellent Dr. 
 Christlieb's" address at the Alliance over against our American theology 
 on the subject of inspiration, when in fact hardly a respectable theolo- 
 gian of this country could be found who holds essentially a different 
 view from that incidentally touched upon by Dr. C. But it cannot 
 have escaped Dr. Apple that the excellent Christlieb's entire stand-point 
 in theology is an out-and-out opposition to the new theorj'. So with 
 Dr. Nevin and Dr. Pressens6. This eminent man holds good Reformed 
 doctrine on other subjects as well as on the subject of baptism, and 
 II 
 
122 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 the present. If they, in their judgment, think 
 that they have discovered something deeper 
 and better from pre-Reformation authors, if 
 they choose to sit at the feet and learn of 
 men in the fourth and sixth centuries rather 
 than of those of the sixteenth, they have a 
 natural right to do so. But we submit that 
 they have no moral right in the case. As 
 ministers, and especially as teachers of theol- 
 ogy, they are solemnly sworn as by a solemn 
 oath to expound the fundamental doctrines 
 of the gospel as explained and taught in the 
 Reformed Church. If they cannot do this, they 
 should have no difficulty in seeing what their 
 duty is in such circumstances.^' We ought 
 
 every Reformed minister can say Amen to them. But Dr. N. can rest 
 assured that he repudiates ht Mo his entire system, just as Domer and 
 Liebner and others have been found to do when it comes to t];e 
 marrow of things, and not merely to some non-essential " points." 
 
 * The following is the form prescribed in the Constitution : 
 " At his inauguration a professor elect shall solemnly affirm the fol- 
 lowing declaration^ as by an oath, in the presence of God, in a public 
 assembly : 
 
 " You, N. N., professor elect of the Theological Seminary of the 
 German Reformed Church in the United States, acknowledge sincerely 
 before God and this assembly, that the Holy Scriptures of the Old 
 and New Testament, which are called canonical Scriptures, are genuine, 
 authentic, ins])ired, and therefore Divine Scriptures; that they contain 
 all things which relate to the faith, the practice, and the hope of the 
 righteous, and are the only rule of faith and practice in the Church of 
 God; that, consequently, no traditions, as they are called, and no 
 mere conclusions of reason, which are contrary to the clear testimony 
 of these Scriptures, can be received as rules of faith or of life. You 
 acknowledge, further, that the doctrine contained in the Heidelberg 
 Catechism is the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, and must, there- 
 fore, be received as in accordance with Divinely-revealed truth. You 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 123 
 
 perhaps not to dismiss this subject without 
 some reference to the form of baptism in the 
 new Order of Worship, in which, of course, the 
 same views are brought forward to which we 
 have just referred. In the introduction the 
 congregation is requested to call upon God, 
 "that of His bounteous mercy He may grant 
 to this child, through the holy sacrament of 
 baptism, that which by nature lie cannot have ; 
 that being washed from his sins, and delivered 
 from the power of the devil, he may be made a 
 member," etc. 
 
 And again, when addressing the parents : 
 
 " You present this child here, and do seek 
 for him deliverance from the power of the devil, 
 the remission of sin, and the gift of a new and 
 spiritual life by the Holy Ghost, through the 
 sacrament of baptism,, which Christ hath or- 
 dained for the co7imm7iication of such great 
 graced — And similarly also in the closing 
 prayer. 
 
 No further remarks are necessary on this 
 point. But that which strikes us as unusual 
 
 declare sincerely, that in the office you are about to assume, you will 
 make the inviolable Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, and the 
 truth of the doctrine contained in the Heidelberg Catechism, the basis 
 of all your instructions, and faithfully maintain and defend the same, 
 in your preaching and writing, as well as in your instructions; you 
 declare, finally, that you will labor, according to the ability which God 
 may grant to you, that, with the Divine blessing, the students entrusted 
 to your care may become enliglitened, pious, faithful, and zealous 
 ministers of the gospel, who shall l)e sound in the faith." 
 
124 
 
 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 and strange in a baptismal form in a Reformed 
 book is the phraseology brought out in several 
 particulars, especially the words "delivered 
 from the power of the devil," and " You pre- 
 sent this child here, and do seek for him de- 
 liverance from the power of the devil," etc. 
 
 We say this is unusual and strange in this 
 connection. We know very well that those 
 who urge its use charge those who object to 
 it with Pelagianism, — that is, that they are 
 tainted with low and unsound views on the 
 subject of human depravity. Professor Rust 
 was charged in this way, and, although he dis- 
 avowed the charge in the most emphatic man- 
 ner, the charge was repeated in the most un- 
 ceremonious terms aofainst that excellent man. 
 
 Now, every reader of Church history knows 
 that an extreme party in the Lutheran Church, 
 in the seventeenth century, reinstated the 
 popish ceremony of exorcism [Austreibung cics 
 Teufels) ; and hence they used those words in 
 the form of baptism. In Germany a small 
 number of ultra-Lutherans have ag-ain at- 
 tempted, not indeed to introduce exorcism in 
 form, but to interlard the form of baptism with 
 the words just as in the Order of Worship ; 
 but it created such a storm of opposition, even 
 among the "faithful few," that the innovation 
 has, so far as we learn, been abandoned, after 
 
MER CERSB UR G THEOL OGY. 
 
 J25 
 
 first causing a division among the hyper-ortho- 
 dq^ brethren themselves. 
 
 The Reformed Church has ever protested 
 against anything that looked in that direction. 
 The Bremen Confession of 1595, speaking of 
 exorcism, says that it 
 
 " Strengthens many and great errors which 
 should not by any means be suffered in the 
 true Church of God. For if plain people hear 
 that the devil is adjured in children, . . . what 
 else can they think but that children are pos- 
 sessed of the devil ? But if it should be said 
 that it refers to the spiritual tyranny of Satan, 
 still the Scriptures speak only of reprobates, 
 who have been given over to a perverse mind, 
 and in whom Satan is mighty as in ' the children 
 of disobedience,' that they are possessed of 
 the devil. And it is one thing to be subjected 
 to the power of original sin, and another thing 
 to be spiritually possessed of the devil. Al- 
 though all men are by nature children of wrath, 
 and therefore of and for themselves subjected 
 to the spiritual tyranny of Satan on account of 
 original sin, yet it is otherwise with the children 
 of believers, according to the special grace of 
 God, through which such children belong to the 
 covenant wherein Divine favor and the kingdom 
 of heaven are promised to them ; and just as 
 the wrath of God does not reign over them, ■ 
 so also is there no reigning power over them 
 left to the devil." (See Appendix J.) 
 
 This is discriminating and just, in making a 
 II* 
 
J 26 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 distinction between orimnal sin and beinof under 
 the power of the devil. And whether anything 
 of Satanic possession is intended or not in the 
 Liturg)^, it is a most harsh and unjustifiable use 
 of language, such as was never in vogue in the 
 Reformed Church, and which, with the writer's 
 view, deeply as he feels and knows what 
 heights and depths of sin there are in the hu- 
 man heart, he could and would never employ, 
 and therefore he can only feel regret that it 
 should ever have found a place in that book. 
 
 Moreover, as Dr. Dorner very justly re- 
 marks, "according to the Palatinate Liturgy the 
 requirement of antecedent or subsequent peni- 
 tent faith, in opposition to a magical efficacy, 
 should not have been omitted. Besides, there 
 is something unequal \eine Unebenheit\ in Kev- 
 in's expressing himself in the strongest terms 
 upon the guilt and damnableness of original 
 sin as the ground for the baptism of infants, 
 whilst in the doctrine of justification the for- 
 giveness of sins does not occupy the independ- 
 ent position as a turning-point" (in that doc- 
 trine). 
 
 Very naturally and consistently with that 
 view is that of clinical or lay baptism {Noth- 
 tatife), which rests on the idea of a magical 
 efficacy in its performance. Hence it is that in 
 the Roman Catholic Church, and with some of 
 
MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 127 
 
 the ultra-Lutherans, a midwife may perform 
 that rite, — nay, even Jews and Turks have 
 performed it on sick or dying children, and it 
 was pronounced valid by the Church and her 
 priests ! 
 
 The Reformed Church has always abhorred 
 such a view, and we are well persuaded that 
 our people will never submit to any such fetich- 
 ism as this. 
 
 " But no one in the Reformed Church teaches 
 any such view." We are happy to say that we 
 know of no one who does. And yet there is a 
 " tendency" which seems to look in that direc- 
 tion on the part of leading men in the Church. 
 Their views of baptism must lead them to 
 clinical baptism. And we know how many 
 grave speeches were made in its favor at the 
 Synod in Danville and the following year in 
 Mechanicsburg. Did not brethren with great 
 apparent solemnity declare that they could not 
 rest contented in their minds if a child of theirs 
 should pass out of the world unbaptized, and 
 that if no minister were at hand they would let 
 any one else baptize them ? It was found, how- 
 ever, that the time had not yet come for that, 
 and so it was postponed. We will close these 
 remarks with an extract from a learned and 
 well-known Reformed clergyman in Germany, 
 who was informed of the discussions at the 
 
128 MERCERSBURG THEOLOGY. 
 
 Mechanicsburg Synod through a young German 
 then in this country. He says : 
 
 "And your Synod discussed the question of 
 the NoiJitatLfe in all true seriousness ! Verily, 
 that is a significant sign of the times, and for 
 the Reformed Church! I doubt whether our ali- 
 Luthera7ier here in Silesia, even, could muster 
 twenty men who would dare to broach such a 
 dogma publicly, — the men who say of us (Re- 
 formed) that we have no baptism — who won't 
 allow any but their own stripe to commune with 
 them, and who would almost as soon allow Me- 
 phistopheles to preach in their pulpits as they 
 would allow you or me. One of these ultra- 
 Hieh-Church ecclesiastics said to me when I 
 
 
 
 mentioned to him the fact as above : ' That is 
 truly wonderful !' — Yes, I must repeat it: that 
 you could even discuss such a theme, is a signifi- 
 cant \siginjicantes~\ sign of the times, and tells 
 me that the ' matin bells of Rome' must have 
 been ringing in Pennsylvania. Do write and 
 tell me whether such chimes haye any charm 
 (or yozi'' 
 
THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 The writer of these pages has no heart to 
 enter at any length upon a discussion of this 
 subject in its purely dogmatical form. He con- 
 siders the Lord's Supper one of the most tender, 
 holy, and blessed ordinances of Christianity, one 
 in which all the love of God and the Lord Jesus 
 Christ concentres, in which the believer has the 
 nearest approach to the very heart of his 
 Father, where, like the disciple who leaned on 
 Jesus' bosom, he too is permitted, as it were, to 
 lean lovingly, confidingly, and with an humble 
 boldness. It is, therefore, a hallowed subject, 
 one which the mind in a tender frame does not 
 feel like profaning by controversial discussion. 
 Nothing can be more sad to a devout heart than 
 the fact that the very ordinance which was de- 
 signed, among other things, to symbolize the 
 love and fellowship of all true Christians with 
 one another and with Christ their blessed Lord 
 and Master should have been made the occasion 
 of heart-burnings and bitter strifes. Well may 
 
 we cry out, with a lovely departed servant of 
 
 1 129 
 
I30 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 Christ* " Oh for a cycle of peace ! Oh for a 
 breathing-spell from these unnatural conten- 
 tions ! I feel as if I could join with any who 
 would humbly unite in direct and kind efforts 
 to save sinners and reheve human misery. 
 Cannot a poor believer go along in his j)ilgrim- 
 age heavenward without being always on mili- 
 tar>- dut}- ? At judgment I heartily believe that 
 some heresies of /ica7't and teiJipcr will be charged 
 as worse than hea^y doctrinal errors. To you 
 I may say this, because you understand me as 
 holding, not merely that the tenets of our 
 Church are true, but that they are ver)' impor- 
 tant. But I see how easy it is to 'hold the truth' 
 in rancor and hate, which is the grand error of 
 depraved human nature, yea, and of diabolism 
 itself" There is much force in this remark, and 
 it has an important bearing on our subject. 
 There may be, there aj-e, no doubt, some whose 
 views of this holy ordinance are too low, and 
 yet they may have all the benefits and blessings 
 for their spiritual well-being notwithstanding. 
 And God forbid that we should therefore de- 
 nounce those as outside of the pale of Christ's 
 Church whom He has received, and who show 
 forth in their lives and conduct the image and 
 spirit of the Redeemer. Still, it is important 
 
 ♦ Tlie Rev. Dr. James W. Alexander, in his " Familiar Letters," 
 voL L, iS6o. 
 
THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 131 
 
 that we should have Scriptural views of truth 
 and that these be neither mere notions or dry 
 dogmas on the one side, nor fanciful or super- 
 stitious speculations on the other. 
 
 We shall, therefore, as already intimated, deal 
 very briefly with the dogmatical statement of 
 the subject on either side, whilst we shall furnish 
 evidence of a satisfactory nature, as we humbly 
 trust, that the commonly-received truths on the 
 subject of the Eucharist are fully in accordance 
 with the teachings of the Heidelberg Catechism 
 and the word of God as these have been held 
 in the Reformed Church, and that the views as 
 brought out in the Liturgy and elsewhere by 
 the new theory are not in accordance with the 
 faith of our Church and the word of God. 
 
 And first of all we will bring forward the 
 Catechism as a witness in regard to the teach- 
 ings of the Church on this point, so that the 
 reader may not need to lay aside the book for 
 the purpose of reference. (The reader may 
 also refer to Questions 65, 66, and 6^ in the 
 Catechism, which have already been quoted.) 
 
 ''Quest. 75. How art thou admonished and 
 assured in the Lord's Supper that thou art a 
 partaker of that one sacrifice of Christ, accom- 
 plished on the cross, and of all His benefits ? 
 
 ''Ans. Thus, that Christ has commanded me, 
 and all believers, to eat of this broken bread, 
 
.132 
 
 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 and to drink of this cup, in remembrance of 
 Him; adding these promises, first, that His 
 body was offered and broken on the cross for 
 me, and His blood shed for me, as certainly as I 
 see with my eyes the bread of the Lord broken 
 for me, and the cup communicated to me : and 
 further, that He feeds and nourishes my soul to 
 everlasting life, with His crucified body and shed 
 blood, as assuredly as I receive from the hands 
 of the minister and taste with my mouth the 
 bread and cup of the Lord, as certain signs of 
 the body and blood of Christ. 
 
 ''Quest. 76. What is it then to eat the crucified 
 body and drink the shed blood of Christ ? 
 
 "Alts. It is not only to embrace with a believ- 
 ing heart all the sufferings and death of Christ, 
 and thereby to obtain the pardon of sin and life 
 eternal ; but also, beside that, to become more 
 and more united to His sacred body, by the 
 Holy Ghost, who dwells both in Christ and in 
 us ; so that we, although Christ is in heaven 
 and we on earth, are, notwithstanding, 'flesh 
 of His flesh and bone of His bone ;' and that 
 we live and are governed forever by one Spirit, 
 as members of the same body are by one soul. 
 
 "Quest, y'j. Where has Christ promised that 
 He will as certainly feed and nourish believers 
 with His body and blood, as they eat of this 
 broken bread and drink of this cup ? 
 
THE LORD'S SUPPER. j^^ 
 
 ''Ans. In the institution of the Supper, which 
 is thus expressed: 'The Lord Jesus, in the 
 same night in which He was betrayed, took 
 bread,' etc. (i Cor. xi. 23-26; Matt. xxvi. 26; 
 Heb. ix. 20). 
 
 " This promise is repeated by the holy Apostle 
 Paul, where he says, ' The cup of blessing which 
 we bless, is it not the communion of the blood 
 of Christ ? the bread which we break, is it not 
 the communion of the body of Christ ? for we, 
 being many, are one bread and one body; 
 because we are all partakers of that one 
 bread' (i Cor. x. 16, 17). 
 
 ''Quest. 78. Do then the bread and wine be- 
 come the very body and blood of Christ ? 
 
 *'Ans. Not at all ; but as the water in baptism 
 is not changed into the blood of Christ, neither 
 is the washing away of sin itself, being only the 
 sign and confirmation thereof appointed of God ; 
 so the bread of the Lord's Supper is not changed 
 into the very body of Christ, though, agreeably 
 to the nature and properties of sacraments, it is 
 called the body of Christ Jesus. 
 
 ''Quest. 79. Why then doth Christ call the 
 bread His body, and the cup His blood, or the 
 new covenant in his blood ; and Paul the ' com- 
 munion of the body and blood of Christ' ? 
 
 "Ans. Christ speaks thus not without great 
 reason, namely, not only thereby to teach us. 
 
134 
 
 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 that as bread and wine support this temporal 
 hfe, so His crucified body and shed blood are 
 the true meat and drink whereby our souls are 
 fed to eternal life ; but more especially by these 
 visible signs and pledges to assure us that we 
 are as really partakers of His true body and 
 blood (by the operation of the Holy Ghost) as 
 we receive by the mouths of our bodies these 
 holy signs in remembrance of Him ; and that 
 all His sufferings and obedience are as cer- 
 tainly ours, as if we had in our own persons 
 suffered and made satisfaction for our sins to 
 God. 
 
 '■'Quest. 80. What difference is there between 
 the Lord's Supper and the Popish mass? 
 
 "Ans. The Lord's Supper testifies to us that 
 we have a full pardon of all sin by the only 
 sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which He Himself has 
 once accomplished on the cross ; and that we 
 by the Holy Ghost are ingrafted into Christ, 
 who, according to His human nature, is now not 
 on earth, but in heaven, at the right hand of 
 God His Father, and will there be worshiped by 
 us : but the mass teacheth that the living and 
 the dead have not the pardon of sins, through 
 the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is also 
 daily offered for them by the priests ; and fur- 
 ther, that Christ is bodily under the form of 
 bread and wine, and therefore is to be worshiped 
 
THE LORD'S SUPPER. i^e 
 
 in them f so that the mass, at bottom, Is nothing 
 else than a denial of the one sacrifice and suffer- 
 ings of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry." 
 On the first of these answers Ursinus has a 
 long exposition, to which we refer the reader.-j- 
 For the benefit of those who do not possess 
 this work, we append the following extracts : 
 
 " It Is called the Lord's Supper, from the cir- 
 cumstance of Its first Institution. . . . Paul calls 
 it the Lords Tabic. It is also called a covenant 
 or assembly, from the fact that In the celebration 
 of this supper there must be some, whether few 
 or many, that meet together for this purpose. 
 . . . This sacrament, therefore, consists in the 
 rite and the promise annexed to it, or in the 
 signs and the things signified. The rite or signs 
 are the bread which is broken and the wine 
 which is poured out and drunk. The things 
 signified are the broken body and shed blood 
 of Christ which are eaten and drunk, or our 
 union with Christ by faith, by which we are 
 made partakers of Christ and all His benefits, 
 so that we derive from Him everlasting life, as 
 the branches draw their life from the vine. We 
 are assured of this our union and communion 
 with Christ by the analogy which there is bc- 
 
 * In canone missae et de consecrat. distinct. 2 Concil. Trid., Sess. 
 
 13.15- 
 
 ■}• We sincerely recommend this invalual^le " Commentary of Ur- 
 sinus," not only to young ministers, but to all our Church members. 
 No family should be without it. It is a large royal octavo volume of 
 658 pages, full of instruction for bo^h young and old. 
 
136 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 tvveen the sign and the thing signified, and also 
 by the promise which is joined to the sign." 
 [pp. ?>77^ 378.] 
 
 The Design of the Lord's Supper. — It was 
 intended to be "a confirmation of our faith, or 
 a most sure proof of our union and communion 
 with Christ, who feeds us with His body and blood 
 unto everlasting life, as truly as we receive 
 these signs from the hands of the minister. 
 This object is obtained by all those who receive 
 these signs in true faith : for we so receive these 
 signs from the hands of the minister, as if the 
 Lord Himself gave them unto us with His own 
 hand. It is in this way that Christ is said to 
 have baptized more disciples than John, when 
 He, nevertheless, did it through His disciples" 
 (John iv. i). [p 379.] 
 
 In the exposition of Question ']6, — 
 
 "This eating is that communion which we 
 have with Christ, of which the Scriptures speak, 
 and of which we make confession in the Creed, 
 which consists in a spiritual union with Ou^ist, 
 as members with the head, and branches with 
 the vine. Christ teaches this eating of His 
 flesh in the sixth chapter of St. John, and con- 
 firms it in the Supper by external signs. It is in 
 this sense that the ancient fathers, such as Au- 
 gustine, Eusebius, Nazianzen, Hilary, and others, 
 explain the eating of Christ's flesh. ... It is 
 plain, therefore, that neither the doctrine of 
 transubstantiation, which the Papists advocate, 
 nor a corporal presence of Christ and the eadng 
 of His body in the bread with the mouth, which 
 
THE LORD'S SUPPER. i,^ 
 
 many defend, can be established from the lan- 
 guage which is employed in reference to the 
 Slipper which promises the eating of Christ's 
 body." [p. 382.] . 
 
 (On this subject, as well as other points closely 
 connected with it, see Appendix H for a mas- 
 terly and truly edifying as well as instructive 
 exposition.) 
 
 The Mercersburg theory, It is hardly neces- 
 sary to say, proceeds on an entirely different 
 system, being ruled by its theory of the Incarna- 
 tion. As we have no system of theology writ- 
 ten out, as yet, from our brethren who differ 
 from us on all the other points which have been 
 under review, and very little has been said in 
 a direct way by them on this subject, it is, of 
 course, not very easy to say what their exact 
 views are. But the Liturgy contains points of 
 such wide departure from the Palatinate and all 
 other Reformed forms on the Lord's Supper, 
 uses language so singularly strange and un- 
 usual, that our ears cannot but be pained by 
 the great change. Thus, for Instance, the well- 
 known and hallowed phrases, " through the suf- 
 ferings and death of our Lord and Saviour 
 Jesus Christ" — " His broken body and shed 
 blood" — are not found there. Why not? Dr. 
 Nevin, in his "Vindication" (p. 92), says that 
 
 the Liturgy " teaches that the Lord's Supper is 
 12* 
 
I ^8 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 o 
 
 more than an outward sign, and more than a 
 mere calHng to mind of our Saviour's death 
 as something past and gone," — intimating that 
 those in our Church whom he opposes did not 
 hold, with the Catechism, that it was 7Jiore than 
 " an outward sign." He goes on to say : " It 
 [the new theory] teaches that the value of 
 Christ's sacrifice never dies, but is perennially 
 continued in the power of His life ; . . . the un- 
 dying power of Christ's life is there in the 
 transaction, for all who take part in it by faith." 
 This grace we are to app-ropriate, " and to bring 
 it before God (the ' memorial of the blessed sac- 
 rifice of His Son') as the only ground of our 
 trust and confidence in His presence" (p. 93). 
 Without this (mind, the " perennial," the " me- 
 morial sacrifice'), he says, we should have no 
 sacraments — we should plunge into the " full 
 abyss of Rationalism." 
 
 Well, then, the whole Protestant Church 
 for three hundred and fifty years (except the 
 fraction of Puseyites and ultra-Lutherans) are 
 and have been " plunged" in this abyss : that's 
 all ! Every thing for Dr. N. looks towards a 
 sacrifice ; and although he repels the possible 
 charge of holding anything so offensive as " the 
 Roman Catholic so-called sacrifice of the mass," 
 and although we are quite ready to accept his 
 disclaimer, yet he must pardon us for saying 
 
THE LORD'S SUPPER. j,g 
 
 that the entire drift of the teaching on this and 
 co-related subjects points to something so hke 
 that offensive thing that we wonder that a man 
 of such acumen as Dr. N. should not avoid 
 even the "very appearance of evil." We are 
 the more readily confirmed in this belief from 
 the fact that at least one of our foremost men, 
 who stood in the new theory years ago, was 
 most deeply exercised on this very subject of 
 the Romish mass, and earnestly desired that he 
 might be able to believe it. We doubt not that 
 others have been exercised in the same way, 
 and that their wish culminated or will yet cul- 
 minate in its realization, in one form or another. 
 
 The idea of a sacrifice is there, and in a way 
 that must grate upon every Protestant ear; 
 and all the harsh epithets of " rationalism, 
 spiritualism, and puritanism" are idle as the 
 wind, and simply prove that those who use 
 these epithets are fully aware that they are 
 breasting the mighty current of evangelical 
 Protestantism at fearful odds. The late meet- 
 inof of the Evaneelical Alliance has told them 
 that there are a unity and power in our '' so- 
 called Protestantism" (!) which, thank God, 
 show that it is not yet dead, albeit its funeral 
 dirge has been sung never so often in doleful 
 and whining tones. 
 
 To show what are the views of such a man 
 
140 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 as Dr. Dorner on the sacramental form in the 
 Liturgy, we give the following calm and con- 
 siderate words as they are found in his " Litur- 
 gical Conflict :" 
 
 "But in the form for the Lord's Supper, 
 which otherwise contains much that is beau- 
 tiful, the idea of a sacrifice presented by the 
 communicants stands forth in a manner which 
 is forced, and which must be offensive to 
 an evangelical ear. It is not according to Cal- 
 vin, as N. supposes, but to the Greek Church, 
 that God is implored to 'send down upon 
 the elements the powerful benediction of His 
 Holy Spirit, that they may be set apart from 
 a common to a sacred and mystical use, and 
 exhibit and represent with true effect the 
 Body and Blood of His Son Jesus Christ, so 
 that in the use of them we may be made, 
 through the power of the Holy Ghost, to par- 
 take really and truly of His blessed life, whereby 
 only we can be saved from death and raised to 
 immortality at the last day.' (Nothing is said 
 of the death of Christ.) On p. 1 76 of the new 
 Liturgy, the chief point is : ' Cleanse our minds, 
 we beseech Thee, by the inspiration of Thy 
 Holy Spirit, that we. Thy redeemed people, 
 drawing near unto Thee in these holy mys- 
 teries, with a true heart and undefiled con- 
 science, in full assurance of faith, may offer 
 unto Thee mi- acceptable sacrifice in righteous- 
 ness ;' and (on p. 181) it is required that this 
 grace shall be appropriated, and that ike vie- 
 
THE LORD'S SUPPER. j^I 
 
 mortal of the blessed sacrifice of His Son be 
 offered unto God. 
 
 "All this shows that the Revised Liturgy con- 
 tains many things which from the stand-point 
 of the Evangelical Church must be pronounced 
 objectionable and erroneous. Other things, 
 even though they may admit of an evangelical 
 sense, are expressed in strange terms, and 
 should have been avoided to prevent natural 
 offense. This is doubly necessary when the 
 non-evangelical sense is the more obvious one 
 and seeks to prop itself upon an entire theo- 
 logical system." 
 
 Here now we lay down our pen. God is our 
 judge how much conflict it has cost us to use it 
 at all. That introductory Letter was the solemn, 
 decisive monitor and prompter to this under- 
 taking. If any of our brethren shall feel tempted 
 to deal harshly with us, we have made up our 
 mind to bear it, and in no case to return railing 
 for railing. We desire peace, and now in the 
 eventide of our life more than ever we desire to 
 pursue It. But we know that In the present state 
 of thlno-s amonor us Truth Is in order to Peace. 
 We fiFmly believe that that truth has been In a 
 measure forsaken by some of our brethren, and, 
 unless they can honestly and conscientiously re- 
 turn to the truth from which they have swerved, 
 there caii be no peace. It Is not we, but they, who 
 have brought this trouble into the Reformed 
 
142 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 Church. So we firmly believe ; and they them- 
 selves admit it. They admit that their theory 
 on all the points brought forward in this book 
 is in many respects at variance, if not in direct 
 conflict, with the general faith of the evanoei- 
 ical Protestant CJiurch. From the bottom of 
 our heart we love all Christ's true followers, 
 whether found in this or that portion of Christ's 
 kingdom, whether Protestant or Roman Catho- 
 lic, for God has His people also in this last. 
 But in the Protestant Church is our ecclesiastical 
 home. In the Reformed branch of It were we 
 born and reared under the prayers and pious 
 teachings of godly parents. In it were their 
 ancestors reared, some of them in the honored 
 ranks of the mlnl^ry and the civil service, 
 others in the more humble and retired walks 
 of life ; but all, as the precious ancestral record 
 has touchlngly recorded it, " were a worthy, 
 pious stock, true to the Church of their fathers, 
 and true to their country in hours of trial 
 and sorrow," My heart softens at the words as 
 I read the certificate from the tremblino- hand of 
 the venerable Westphallan pastor, given to my 
 revered father when, more than a hundred years 
 ago, he was about to leave his kindred for this 
 Western world, which reads thus : " And may 
 the God of your fathers go with and bless you, 
 and make you a blessing in the New World ; 
 
THE LORD'S SUPPER. j^^ 
 
 and may you never forget that their name has 
 a good sound here {eincii gittcn Klang) in 
 Westphaha. Honorable and true before man, 
 devout and humble before God, earnest and 
 devotedly attached to the Reformed Church, in 
 which the whole family of your ancestors seem 
 to have been conspicuous without bringing 
 reproach upon their name, — follow such exam- 
 ples, and let the name of your fathers not be 
 dishonored in the Abendland, but may children's 
 children rise up and bless it. Be true to your 
 country, be true to the pure faith of your 
 Church in head, heart, and life, and you will be 
 true X.O your adopted country ajid your God P' 
 
 By God's grace I have, though very, very im- 
 perfectly, followed this pious counsel given to 
 my parent and through him to me. I love my 
 Church, her pure martyr- faith and her worship. 
 This Church Is dear to me as the apple of my 
 eye. My labors and toils In my better years 
 have been cheerfully given to her. I have 
 made no "sacrifices" worth speaking of; I can 
 boast of no great talents or learning ; I have 
 performed no great deeds. And yet she has 
 honored me in many ways, and in the forty-nine 
 years of my imperfectly performed ministerial 
 service I have shared as much — nay, more — of 
 the good will, the love and respect of my min- 
 isterial brethren and the membership at large, 
 
144 ^"^-^ LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 as any man ought to desire. I have, therefore, 
 no ends to seek — no dissatisfied feelings which 
 might incite me to oppose any portion of 
 my brethren on personal grounds. This has 
 been alleged against others, although, I must 
 say, very unjustly, so far as I can see. Cer- 
 tainly it is not so in my case. The Church has 
 ever dealt gently with me, and often have I 
 been humbled most deeply by it. She has my 
 undying gratitude and love. I have nothing 
 more to look forward to at my time of life, and 
 I have no desire to be anything else than a 
 private in the ranks, performing quietly such 
 official duties as come to hand. But as I sol- 
 emnly believe, so have I spoken, not to wound, 
 but, if possible, to heal. My days will soon be 
 numbered ; and when the number is full, and my 
 head shall rest upon the death-bed pillow, I 
 am persuaded that the truth which then, as now, 
 will prove a balm and a cordial in my dying hour, 
 will be the truth which, however feebly, I have 
 sought to state and defend in these pages: 
 " That I, with body and soul, am not my own, 
 but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus 
 Christ, who with His precious blood hath 
 FULLY satisfied FOR ALL MY SINS." This is my 
 hope, my only trust, my well-grounded assur- 
 ance. Here I stand. I cannot otherwise. 
 So HELP me God. Amen. 
 
APPENDICES. 
 
 13 
 
APPENDICES. 
 
 THE FIRST TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR GIFT IN THE 
 REFORMED CHURCH. 
 
 Reference having been made, in the " Letter"* which precedes this 
 volume, to the first ten thousand dollar donation which was given to 
 the institutions of our Church by Mr. Daniel Kieffer, of Berks County, 
 Pennsylvania, it seems a fitting occasion to refer to the circumstances 
 which led to the application, without laying any stress upon them or 
 explaining them, leaving the latter to the psychologist if deemed of 
 sufficient importance. 
 
 When the special synod held in Lebanon in the winter of 1843 
 had unanimously elected the Rev. Dr. F. W. Krummacher as German 
 Professor in the Seminary at Mercersburg, Dr. Hoffeditz and myself 
 were appointed commissioners to convey and more fully to explain the 
 call to that eminent man. There had, however, been no adequate 
 provision made for his support. Ten years before (in 1832) the first 
 professorial endowment of ten thousand dollars had dwindled down, 
 by losses and otherwise, to several thousand dollars less than that 
 amount, which led to my appointment as an agent to make up this de- 
 ficiency. The plan was to raise it by fifty-dollar subscriptions, which 
 was at that time thought to be a very respectable and rather unusual 
 sum. Coming to the well-to-do rural charge of my friend, the Rev. J. 
 C. Bucher, in Middletown Valley, Maryland, that noble people responded 
 so generously, under the leadership of their zealous pastor, that the 
 amount needed was made up before I had canvassed one-half of the 
 pastorate. Full of the idea that we ought to have another professor- 
 ship endowed, and that that should be a German one, I took the 
 responsibility, before I had time to receive any official sanction, to 
 commence the raising of funds for a German professorship, for which, 
 if I remember rightly, nearly two thousand dollars more were raised 
 in that vicinity, which, as I was then providentially interrupted in my 
 agency, was prosecuted by another for a short time, adding a thousand 
 or two more to the subscription. 
 
 This, therefore, was all the provision which had been made for a 
 
 ♦ The reference here alluded to is omitted in the Letter, to save space. 
 
 >47 
 
148 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 German professorship ; and even this amount, thus subscribed and col- 
 lected, had, no doubt from dire necessity (for those were times when 
 funds were generally low in our church treasuries), been diverted to 
 other uses. At the special synod referred to, this state of unprepared- 
 ness to support such a man as Krummacher was referred to ; but there 
 were brethren who were so zealous to have the author of " Elisha the 
 Tishbite" among us, that they gave assurances of an overflowing 
 treasury in thirty days' time. It was tacitly understood that, as an 
 earnest, ten thousand should be pledged before the commissioners left 
 for Germany. 
 
 The commissioners had fixed to meet on the first of April, in Phila- 
 delphia, and there they were to hear from the brethren who M'ere so 
 ardent in Lebanon, of the success of the pledges given. But Dr. 
 Hoffeditz, it was found after several days of anxious waiting, could 
 not leave home for a month. Nor was there a single response from 
 any one in regard to the ten thousand dollars. That night was an 
 anxious, sleepless night under a dear brother's roof. Now the thought 
 came to my mind to single out ten brethren who, with myself included, 
 should each give or raise one thousand dollars within thirty days. But 
 this seemed a doubtful measure. Then there came " airy castles" one 
 after another, only to vanish again. At last I laid hold of a remark 
 which the Rev. J. C. Guldin once had made to me : " Some time when 
 you go to your native place, Reading, go to see Daniel Kieffer, in Oley 
 (about eight miles away). He is a pious man, unmarried, is blessed 
 with earthly means, lives very plainly, but I think you could obtain 
 perhaps a handsome donation for the Church from him. He gets your 
 paper, esteems you," etc. 
 
 But I had never seen him, and the fact that he was a plain farmer in 
 Berks County seemed not to promise very much. But the thought, 
 though once and again suppressed, would return again, — Go and see 
 him. I so resolved. But the morning light soon dispelled the waking 
 vision of the night. Instead of going to Reading, I went directly 
 homeward to spend the night with my good friend, Judge Bucher, at 
 Harrisburg. ^Iy dolorous plaint was confided to his ears — schemes 
 and all. " I will be one of the ten," he promptly replied ; " but sup- 
 pose you first follow out your rejected idea of seeing Mr. Kieffer." 
 But I had lost all heart for it by this time. In the morning, at table, 
 he related, in presence of his family, my distressed state of mind, and 
 that I was fully resolved not to set sail for Europe unless the sum named 
 was guaranteed. All joined in urging me to go to Reading. At last I 
 brought forward the expense of a doubtful journey, whilst yet there 
 was within me a faint lingering hope of possible success. After some 
 time, the Judge remarked, " There is the stage at the door which I have 
 ordered, and the fare to Reading is paid — and you will go." I was 
 really glad of it, as things now came in this shape. Dr. Bucher was 
 then the pastor in that city, who at once favored the visit. We drove 
 to the unassuming farm-house, were cordially received, and in the 
 evening opened up the case to our friend. It came as a surprise to the 
 good man that we should wish so large a sum from one individual. 
 But the case was a plain one, and Dr. Bucher knows well how to state 
 such a case, for he was the Apollo of the occasion, and we left him to 
 
APPENDICES. I4Q 
 
 think over it during the night. Early in the morning we found him 
 attending to his farm duties, and met him near the house. Dr. Bucher 
 inquired at once whether he had made up his mind on the subject ; 
 to which, with an earnest look, he replied, " I have ]irayed over the 
 matter, dear brethren, and by God's blessing I will do what you have 
 asked of me." 
 
 And so he did, although, through tlie intervention of certain meddle- 
 some parties, the good man was led to withhold the gift for a time. 
 But, through the considerate and prudent measures of Dr. Bucher, it all 
 came right in the end. And thus was the first donation of ten thousand 
 dollars obtained in the Reformed Church, and thus was a plain farmer 
 of Berks County the instrument of founding the German (or second) 
 professorship, which it is hoped will some day be occupied, as it was 
 intended it should be, by a professor who will give instruction in the 
 Seminary in that language. This statement I have thought due to the 
 memoiy of the man who gave his money for a " German Professor- 
 ship." 
 
 WHAT THE NEW THEORY CLAIMS TO HOLD. 
 
 As a further proof that Dr. Nevin and his school do not pretend to 
 hold the accepted and universally received doctrines of the Reformed 
 Church, or even the generally received truths of Protestantism, we sub- 
 join the following, out of many other declarations. Let the reader say 
 what we are to think of those who over and over again tell us that the 
 new theories " imply no change in Reformed doctrine and worship." 
 To Dr. Nevin must, at least, be accorded the merit of speaking hon- 
 estly and without reserve. We shall not say more in regard to these 
 extracts, but throw in a few remarks of our own, in brackets. 
 
 " With all our respect for the sixteenth century, there is no reason 
 why we should be bound slavishly by all its opinions and judgments 
 [not at all, only that as Rt:fonned we have no right, so long as we are 
 in that Church, to cast its " opinions and judgments" overl)oard] ; no 
 reason .why we should not see and acknowledge its defects, where they 
 may appear ]dainly to exist." [Appear to exist for Tuhom? Shall every 
 man's private judgment pit itself against the Church, as, for instance, 
 Rationalism did in Germany in the last century, changing the hymn- 
 books, catechisms, etc., to suit " the wants of the enlightened age" ?J 
 — A^eviii's Liturg. Quest., p. 40. 
 
 " The conflict in the case, as already said, is a conflict of theological 
 systems; ... a controversy about doctrines and articles of faith, that 
 strikes far beyond the German Reformed Church, into the life of the 
 
 I?* 
 
1 50 APPENDICES. 
 
 entire Protestantism of this land''' [doctrines and articles of faith, — 
 mark this, — and not merely those of our own Reformed Church, but all 
 Protestautisni\. — Xiroin''s Viitd., p. 80. 
 
 " It is to be freely admitted, moreover, that there lay in the distin- 
 guishing spirit of the Reformed Confession, as such, from the beginning, 
 a tendency in opposition to the constraint of fixed religious rites and 
 ceremonies, which could hardly fail to exert an injurious influence on 
 any work of this sort. It belongs, as we all know, to the Reformed 
 Church, to represent that side of the Christian life in which the inward, 
 \.he.free, the spiritual, in religion, are asserted against the authority of 
 the merely outward in evei-y view. Such is her historical vocation ; 
 such is her genius." — The Liturg. Quest., p. 41. [True, every word of 
 it. The Reformed Church (more than the Lutheran) was ever de- 
 cidedly opposed to the trammels of " fixed religious rites and cere- 
 monies." She emphasized rather that side which is practical and 
 " subjective" (so called). That was and is her genius — that her " his- 
 torical vocation." \VTiy shall it now, therefore, be ignored and cast 
 out as vile and anathema ?'[ 
 
 " The idea of a resuscitated theology, then, in our circumstances, 
 requires something more than a simple return to the theology either of 
 the seventeenth or sixteenth century." — A'evin, Merc. Rev., July, 
 1868, p. 360. [But does it require us to go back to the time when 
 priests, bishops, and popes scandalized religion and morality (accord- 
 ing to their own historians) and resuscitate our theology from that 
 period ?] 
 
 " But this is just what repristination means here, whether on the Lu- 
 theran side or on the Reformed side. Let it be atiathema vu^ranatha, 
 then, we say, on both sides." — Merc. Rev., p. 363. [An inspired Apos- 
 tle pronounced the Lord's anathema — upon whom ? Upon those who 
 hated, i.e., did not love, the Lord Jesus Christ. Is it competent for any 
 mortal man now to hurl that curse against those who do sincerely 
 aim to love and honor the Lord Jesus, although they may not be will- 
 ing to cast away the birthright of the Reformation ? We do not hold 
 to a blind fettering of the spirit to every formulated dogma, as such, as 
 this may have been held in the sixteenth or seventeenth century. But 
 as to the essential truths of that period, no unhallowed rude hand may 
 violently tear them asunder, in the style of the pope.] 
 
 " This theology [the Mercersburg] has never professed to be of the 
 satne type with that around it." — Merc. Rev., July, 1867, p. 383. 
 
 " Our Christological theology is distinctive. Let all understand this 
 fully a7td finally, and then save themselves the useless pains of meas 
 uring it by their own." — p. 383. [This is fully understood. We know 
 of no Protestant, or, for that matter, any other theology, that is just like 
 it. It is a new type, but, as with wine, we think the old is better than 
 the new.] 
 
 " Thus it is to the honor of our theology that on the one hand it is 
 charged with a backward tendency towards Rome, and on the other 
 hand // is characterized as a bold and free movement forwatd beyond the 
 traditionary bounds of all that is called orthodoxy \-n Protestantism." 
 — p. 400. 
 
 [This, again, is both true and honest. The charge that this new 
 
APPENDICES. , r I 
 
 theory is " a backward tendency towards Rome" is thus not only ac- 
 knowledged, but is deemed an honor. And so, on the other hand, it 
 is acknowledged to be " a bold and free movement beyond all that is 
 called oithodoxy in Protestantism." Let us, then, have no more denial 
 on this point by the disciples of the new theory. The master is above 
 the disciple.] 
 
 " Our opponents, comprising four-fifths, if not nine-tenths, of the 
 ministry and laity belonging to the Reformed family of Churches, an- 
 swer in the negative, and maintain that the doctrine of baptismal re- 
 generation is neither Reformed nor Protestant, but Romish." — Merc. 
 Jiev., April, i86S, p. 182. 
 
 " If it be so that Protestantism shall stand the test in the arbitrament 
 of God in history, as being substantially the main bearer of the Chris- 
 tian life, it is plain that it cannot do so on the sole basis on ivhich it 
 started, or on the basis of what it has since been or now is, but alone 
 on the basis of what it has the p07ver of yet becoming^ — ]>. 394. [ On the 
 sole basis on which it started. Protestantism cannot stand the test, so 
 Dr. Nevin thinks. It is plain, therefore, that he has no faith in it as 
 it now stands, " but alone on the basis of what it has the power of yet 
 becoming." We must therefore still wait to see what " the things be 
 that are yet to come." All is yet a sandy bottom — all uncertainty ; 
 no realizing conviction of the passage in Hebrews, xiii. 9, especially 
 after the German rendering: £s ist ein kostlich Ding dass das Ilcrzfest 
 •werde. Is it any wonder, then, when young men are taught that 
 Protestantism, on the basis on which it started and on which it has since 
 been or now is, is untenable, and that we must therefore look else- 
 where, — is it any wonder, after teaching them that they must go back- 
 ward (back of the Reformation) — back to the middle ages, and then 
 " forward beyond the traditionary bounds of all that is called ortho- 
 doxy in Protestantism," — is it any wonder, we ask, that young men 
 so taught should not lose faith in Protestantism? and what more 
 natural than to catch at the straw of Infallibility which the Romish 
 Church throws out to them ? You first remove from under their feet 
 the foundation, and then say to them, " But don't you catch at the 
 straw; by-and-by we will perhaps discover some safe boat for us and 
 you!" That is miserable comfort, we should say.] 
 
 (Appendix G contains some further statements on this subject.) 
 
 Whilst penning the foregoing sentences, we were led to refer to the 
 recent work of that eminently great and good man, who is acknowl- 
 edged to have written the ablest work on Systematic Theology in 
 America, — we mean Dr. Charles Hodge, of Princeton.* We append 
 a few extracts on the philosophical and theological aspects of the new 
 theory now under consideration, which will show how they strike such 
 a man as Dr. Hodge ; a man who shows, in this learned work, that the 
 speculations of ancient and modern times are well understood by him. 
 And so also are our new theories. 
 
 * Systematic Theology. By Charles Hodge, D.D., New York, 1873, vol. Hi. 
 
152 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 REGENERATION. 
 
 MODERN SPECULATIVE VIEWS ON THIS SUBJECT. 
 
 After saying that modern speculative pliilosophy had introduced such 
 a radical change in the views entertained of the nature of God, His 
 relation to the world, of the person and work of Christ, and of the 
 application of His redemption for the salvation of men, that one might 
 safely say that the ancient and Scrij^tural forms of these doctrines were 
 superseded, and others introduced which could not be understood unless 
 one understood their philosojjhy, and that this brings down the truths 
 of the Bible to the form of philosophical dogmas. Dr. Hodge says: 
 
 " We cease to hear of the Holy Ghost, as the third person of the 
 Trinity, applying to men the redemption purchased by Christ. 
 They teach. First, that there is no dualism in man between soul and 
 body. There is but one life. The body is the soul projecting itself 
 externally. Without a body there is no soul. Second, that there is 
 no real dualism between God and man. The identity between God 
 and man is the last result of modern speculation ; and it is the funda- 
 mental idea of Christianity. . . . These attempts have resulted, in 
 some instances, in avowed Christian Pantheism, as it is called; in 
 others, in forms of doctrine so nearly pantheistic as to be hardly dis- 
 tinguished from Pantheism itself; and in all, in a radical modification, 
 not only of the theology of the Church as expressed in her received 
 standards, but also of the Scriptural form of Christian doctrines, if 
 not of their essence. . . . There is no dualism in Christ as be- 
 tween soul and body. Neither is there any dualism between Divinity 
 and humanity in Him. The Divine and human in His person are one 
 life. In being the ideal or perfect man, He is the true God. The 
 deification which humanity reached in Christ is not a supernatural act 
 on the jjart of God ; it is reached by a natu7-al process of development in 
 His people, that K,the Church.* The soteriology [the doctrine of salva- 
 tion by Christ] of this system is simple. The soul projects itself in the 
 body. They are one life, but the body may be too much for the soul. 
 . . So humanity as a generic life, a form of the life of God, as 
 projected externally in the world from Adam onward, has not devel- 
 oped itself aright. If left unaided, it would not reach the goal, or 
 unfold itself as Divine. A new start, therefore, must be given to it, a 
 new commencement made. This is done by a supernatural intervention 
 resulting in the production of the person of Christ. In Him Divinity 
 assumes the fashion of a man — the existence-form of man; God 
 becomes man, and man is God. This renewed entrance, so to speak, 
 of God into the world, this special form of Divine-human life, is Chrts- 
 iiani/y, which is constantly declared to be ' a life,' 'the life of Christ,'-j- 
 
 * The italicizing is our own, here and onward. 
 
 t [A plain but pious and well-read member of our Church said to me some years 
 ago, " For a whole year 1 listened to the sermons of our new pastor, and heard him 
 
APPENDICES. IC3 
 
 'a new theanthropic life.' Men become Christians by being par- 
 takers of this life, ... by union with the Church and reception 
 of the sacraments.* The incarnation of God is continued in the 
 Church [is ' perennial'] ; and this principle of ' Divine-human life' 
 descends from Christ to the members of the Church, as naturally and 
 as much by a process of organic development, as humanity derived from 
 Ada?n Pinfolded itself in his descendants. Christ, therefore, saves us, 
 not so much by what He did [His sufferings and death, for instance], as 
 by what He is. He made no satisfaction to the Divine justice; no 
 expiation for sin. . . . There is, therefore, no justification, no real 
 pardon even, in the ordinary sense of the word. . . . Those who 
 become partakers of this new principle of life, which is truly human 
 and truly Divine, become one with Christ. All the merit, righteous- 
 ness, excellence, etc., are our own. They are subjective in us and 
 form our character, just as the nature derived from Adam was ours, 
 with all its corruptions and infirmities. 
 
 " If asked what is regeneration according to this system, the proper 
 answer would probably be, that it is an obsolete term. There is no 
 room for the thing usually signified by the word, and no reason for 
 retaining the word itself. Regeneration is a work of the Holy Spirit 
 as a distinct person or agent. But this system in its integrity does not 
 acknowledge the Holy Spirit as a distinct person or agent. And those 
 who are constrained to make the acknowledgment of His personality 
 are evidently embarrassed by the admission. What the Scriptures and 
 the Church ascribe to the Spirit working with the freedom of a personal 
 agent when and where He sees fit, this system attributes to the ' the- 
 anthropic life' of Christ, working as a new force, according to the 
 natural laws of development. f 
 
 " The impression made upon the readers of the modem theologians 
 of this school is that made by any other form of philosophical disquisi- 
 tion. It has not, and from its nature it cannot have, anything more than 
 human authority. This system may be adopted as a matter of opinion, 
 but it cannot be an object of faith; and, therefore, it cannot support 
 
 going over the expressions, ' Christianity is not doctrine, not this and not that, but 
 life :' and I still thought he meant by that, that we must show our faith by a godly 
 life. And yet he never said a word about repentance, faith, or things of that sort. 
 So I once asked him about it, when he smiled at my ignorance and tried to explain 
 what it did mean. But for the life of me I could not understand what it was, but I 
 thought of I Timothy vi. 20." — S.] 
 
 * [To corroborate and intensify the correctness of this delineation of the teachings 
 of the new theory as here given by Dr. Hodge, we annex the following two sentences 
 from an article on (Baptismal) Regeneration in the Ulercersburg Review for January, 
 1873, by the Rev. \V. Rupp, and defended by our Lancaster professors. Speaking 
 of regeneration, he says, " That life-breath which God breathed into Adam, when 
 he became a living soul, cannot be regarded otherwise than as an emanation from 
 the being of God." And then, further on : " In like manner the life of regeneration 
 is an emanation, by the Holy Ghost, from Christ's Divine-human life, and yet no 
 sensible or material part of His personal being." 
 
 The critical reader will please mark -the expression " emanation" (twice repeated), 
 as appertaining to the out-and-out pantheistic school. Yet Mr. Rupp may be un- 
 willing to be understood in so bad a sense. But in that case a scientific statement 
 ought to be made in strictly scientific form. It certainly both looks and sounds 
 strange, to speak mildly. — S.] 
 
 t Mystical Presence (by Dr. Nevin), pp. 225-29. 
 
154 APPENDICES. 
 
 the hopes of a soul conscious of guilt. In turning from such writings 
 to the word of God, the transition, these theologians would have us 
 believe, is from yvCtoiq to mcrvQ [from knowledge \.o faitli] ; but to the 
 consciousness of the Christian it is like the transition from the confusion 
 of tongues at Babel, where no man understood his fellow, to the 
 symphonious utterance of those ' who spake as they were moved by 
 the Holy Ghost.' " — pp. 18-22. 
 
 Referring to those who deny the Scriptural doctrine of the relation 
 of God to the world, everything being according to law, ordered, and 
 uniform, the same author says : 
 
 " Those who depart from their principles so far as to admit the person 
 of Christ to be supernatural in its origin, contend that the supernatural 
 in Him becomes natural, and that from Him onward the diffusion of 
 spiritual life is by a regular process of development, as simply natural 
 as the development of humanity from Adam through all his posterity. 
 This is a purely philosophical theory. It has no authority for Christians. 
 As it is contrary to the express teaching of the Scriptures, it cannot be 
 adopted by those who recognize them as the infallible rule of faith and 
 practice. As it contradicts the moral and religious convictions arising 
 from the constitution of our nature, it must be hurtful in all its tenden- 
 cies, and can be adopted by those only who sacrifice to speculation 
 their interior life." — p. 37. 
 
 JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 An eminent writer says on this subject : 
 
 "Justification and sanctification should always be discriminated, but 
 they must never be disunited. Where they are not distinguished, a 
 religious system cannot be clear; and where they are divided, it can 
 never be safe. Where they are not distinguished, law and gospel, 
 free will and free grace, the merit of man and the righteousness of 
 Christ, run into a mass of confusion and disorder. And where they are 
 divided, Pharisaical pride and antinomian presumption will be sure to 
 follow. Be it remembered, then, that the one regards something done 
 for us, the other something done in us. The one is a relative (change 
 of our relation to God), the other a personal change. The one is 
 perfect at once (justification), the other (sanctification) is gradual. The 
 one is derived from the obedience of the Saviour, the other from His 
 .Spirit. The one gives us a title to heaven, the other a meetness 
 (fitness) for it." 
 
 The venerable Dr. A. Alexander, of Princeton, s.iid on his death- 
 bed, " All my theology is reduced to the prayer of the publican : God 
 be merciful to me a sinner!" 
 
APPENDICES. J ^2 
 
 John Wesley said on his death-bed to one who referred to the lonj; 
 and successful labors of his (Wesley's) life and labors, " I see nothing 
 in aught I have done that can be a ground of hope or assurance to me 
 but this : 
 
 ' I the chief of sinners am. 
 But Jesus died for me I ' " 
 
 And that was enough. May it be your heart-felt confession, dear reader, 
 and mine ! 
 
 ID. 
 NO HUMAN CONFESSORS. 
 
 The devoted Canon Ryle, a dignitary of the Church of England, and, 
 if we mistake not, one of the chaplains of Queen Victoria, in one of 
 his tracts on the present disturbed state of the Church in that country 
 on account of the gradual introduction of Romish ceremonies, uses 
 the following solemn words on the effort to revive the Confessional : 
 
 " We honor the minister's office highly, Ijut we refuse to give it a 
 hair's breadth more dignity than we find given it in the word of God. 
 We honor ministers as Christ's ambassadors, Christ's messengers, 
 Christ's watchmen, helpers of believers' joys, preachers of the word, 
 and stewards of the mysteries of God. But we decline to regard them 
 as priests, mediators, confessors, and rulers over men's faith, both for 
 the sake of their souls and our own. 
 
 •' Listen not to those who tell you that evangelical teaching is opposed 
 to the exercise of discipline, or heart-examination, or mortification of 
 the flesh, or true contrition. Opposed to it ! There never was a more 
 baseless assertion. We are entirely favorable to it. This only we 
 require, that it shall be carried on in the right way. We approve of a 
 Confessional, but it must be the only true one, the Throne of Grace. 
 We approve of going to a confessor, but it must be to the true one, 
 Christ the Lord. We approve of submitting consciences to a priest, 
 but it must be to the great High' Priest, Jesus the Son of God. We 
 approve of unbosoming our secret sins and seeking absolution, but it 
 must be at the feet of the great Head of the Church, and not at the feet 
 of one of His weak members. We approve of kneeling to receive 
 ghostly counsel, but it must be at the feet of Christ, and not at the feet 
 of man. 
 
 " Reader, beware of ever losing sight of Christ's priestly office. 
 Glory in His atoning death. Honor Him as your substitute and surety 
 on the Cross. Follow Him as your Shepherd. Hear His voice as 
 your Prophet. Obey Him as your King. But in all your thoughts about 
 Christ, let it be often before your mind, that He alone is your High 
 Priest, and that He has deputed His priestly office to no order of men 
 in the world. This is the office of Christ which Satan labors above 
 all to obscure. It is the neglect of this office which leads to every 
 
156 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 kind of error. It is the remembrance of this which is the best safe- 
 guard against the plausible teaching of the Church of Rome. Once 
 right about this office, you will never gi-catly err in the matter of the 
 confession of sin. Vou will know to whom confession ought to be made ; 
 and to know that rightly is no slight thing." 
 
 THE CROSS OF CHRIST THE BELIEVER'S JOY. 
 
 " A few years since, a drawing representing the crucified Saviour was 
 found upon the walls of the ancient palace of the Caasars in Rome. 
 The rude sketch speaks to us from the midst of the times of the struggle 
 between Christianity and heathenism, and is a memorial of the manner 
 in which the minds of men were then stirred. Some heathen servant 
 of the emperor is taunting his Christian fellow-servant with this con- 
 temptuous sign. The relic belongs to about the year A.D. 200, and is 
 by far the most ancient crucifix we know of. But this, the oldest 
 crucifix, is an ironical one. It is a caricature of Christ, before which 
 a Christian stands worshiping, and it bears the inscription, ' Alexamenos 
 (the name of the derided Christian) worshiping his God.' We see 
 that the crucified Saviour and the preaching of the Cross were the scorn 
 of the world. In the great struggle between heathenism and Chris- 
 tianity, the Cross was the sign of victory. ... If Christianity is to 
 conquer the world, it will only do so as the preaching of the Cross, and 
 not by concessions to the natural reason. ... If we would truly 
 understand God, we must make the Cross our starting-point, for it is 
 here that His holiness and His love are found united. If we would 
 have communion with God, we must seek it at the Cross, for it is here 
 that judgment is executed on the sin which separates us from God, and 
 here that the love is manifested which unites us with Him. So long, 
 therefore, as there are Christians on earth, — and that will be to the end 
 of time, — their confession will be, ' He who died upon the Cross is 
 my Beloved.' " — Luthardt. 
 
 "O sacred Head, now wounded, 
 
 With grief and shame weighed down, 
 Now scornfully surrounded 
 
 With thorns, Thine only crown, — 
 O sacred Head, what glory, 
 
 What bliss, till now was Thine ! 
 Yet, though despised and gory, 
 
 I joy to call Thee mine." — 
 
 (Paul Gerhardt: translated by Dr. James W. Alexander.) 
 
APPENDICES. I r 7 
 
 E. 
 
 Dr. Luthardt says, " He [God] has His work in the souls of chil- 
 dren as well as in the souls of adults. Yet we grant that this commu- 
 nion with God must become a matter of consciousness [experience]. 
 And it is for this reason that we follow Baptism by Confirmation, — not 
 to complete Baptism, for it is complete already ; not to renew it, for it 
 is a beginning once for all ; but that the baptized may express, with his 
 own mouth, that confession of faith upon which he was baptized, that 
 his covenant with God in Baptism may be the covenant of his con- 
 scious choice, and that he may receive the blessing at the very lime of 
 his moral development and his moral danger. With Confirmation we 
 combine the first reception of the Lord's Supper, and consequently full 
 membership in the Christian Church." (Lecture ix. pp. 241-2.) 
 
 IP. 
 
 [The following theses on the ministerial office were proposed by the 
 eminent Court preacher and councillor of the High Consistory, Dr. 
 Schwartz, of Saxony, before a convention of ministers, several years 
 ago, and by them were adopted. It is seldom that we see so much valu- 
 able matter compressed into so few words. We ask a careful study of 
 this able statement.] 
 
 THE OFFICE OF THE EVANGELICAL MINISTRY IN ITS 
 RELATION TO THE CHURCH. 
 
 1. The office of the ministry exists not for its own sake, neither out- 
 side, nor before, nor over the Church ; but it grows out of her, stands 
 in her, and labors with her, as the central point of the organized 
 Church. 
 
 2. It does not operate in a saving way by the power of an institution, 
 but alone through a living and working {xverkthatigen) faith of the 
 office-bearer. 
 
 3. It is not founded, nevertheless designed {geivollt) by God, pro- 
 ceeds not immediately but mediately, not in a supernatural but in a 
 natural way, from Him, and is in no other sense of Divine origin than 
 as every higher organization from an inward necessity is such, — as is 
 the office of teaching and governing. 
 
 4. It is not founded by Christ, although designed by Him, as He 
 specially called only the Apostles, furnished with His Spirit, merely 
 founding the Kingdom of God, but not organizing the Church. 
 
 5. It is exercised by the commission and authority of the Church, 
 but is not on that account dependent upon the variable views and 
 
 14 
 
158 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 wishes of the many, but rather under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, 
 who is the only Lord of the Church, and who leads her into all Truth. 
 
 6. The idea of the Universal Priesthood, as it was again revived by 
 Luther (and other Reformers), contains the truth, that the office of the 
 ministry does not rest upon a difference of the quality, but only upon 
 a distribution of labor, or, that there is not a special class {Stand), but 
 only a spiritual calling [Beriif). 
 
 7. The ministerial office includes, as its necessary prerequisites, these 
 three things: («) an inward call or a spiritual fitness; {/>) the prepara- 
 tion or education for it ; {c) the external call or appointment. 
 
 8. The inward call, although in different degrees, belongs to all the 
 members of the Church, and is the foundation of the Universal Priest- 
 hood ; the education and external call belong only to a part, and are 
 the basis of the regular office. 
 
 9. Fanatics and sectarians disregard education and -an outward 
 call; State theologians and hierarchists disregard the gifts of the 
 Spirit. 
 
 10. The ministerial office is an office of the Spirit, and therefore 
 is efi"ective only in a spiritual — that is to say, in a real and free — way, not 
 by outward constraint or coercion. 
 
 11. There is a pastoral office, not n>erely an office of preaching, but 
 one in deed, consisting not merely in proclaiming the gospel, but also 
 in leading the congregation by an exemplary evangelical life. 
 
 12. The sermon, the administration of the sacraments, and the office 
 of the Keys (the exercise of Christian discipline), are only different 
 methods and applications in preaching the gospel. 
 
 THE CHURCH IN THE OLD AND IN THE NEW 
 TESTAMENT. 
 
 The Church historian Dr. A. Neander, in his preface to a book by 
 the Rev. Mr. Coleman (August, 1843), says: 
 
 " It is of the utmost importance to keep ever in view the difference 
 between the economy of the Old Testament and that of the New. The 
 neglect of this has given rise to the grossest errors, and to divisions, by 
 which those who ought to be united together in the bonds of Christian 
 love have been sundered from each other. In the Old Testament, 
 everything relating to the Kingdom of God was estimated by outward 
 foniis and promoted by specific external rites. In the New, every- 
 thing is made to depend upon what is internal and spiritual. Other 
 foundation, as the Apostle Paul has said, can no man lay than is laid. 
 Upon this the Christian Church at first was grounded, and upon this 
 alone, in all time to come, must it be reared anew and compacted to- 
 gether. Faith in Jesus of Nazareth, the Saviour of the world, and 
 union with Him, a participation in that salvation which cometh through 
 Him, — this is that inward principle, that unchangeable foundation, on 
 which the Christian Church essentially rests. But whenever, instead 
 of making the existence of the Church to depend on this inward prin- 
 ciple alone, the necessity of some outward form is asserted as an indis- 
 pensable means of grace, we readily perceive that the purity of its char- 
 
APPENDICES. I rg 
 
 acter is impaired. The spirit of the Old Testament is commingled with 
 that of the New." 
 
 Dr. Neander, in the same preface, says : " When, however, the doc- 
 trine is (as it gradually gained currency in the third century) that the 
 bishops are by Divine right the head of the Church, and invested with 
 the government of the same; that they are the successors of the Apostles, 
 and by this succession inherit apostolical authority ; that they are the 
 medium through which, in consequence of that ordination which they 
 have received merely in an outward manner, the Holy Ghost in all 
 time to come must be transmitted- to the Church, — when this becomes 
 the doctrine of the Church, we certainly must perceive in these assump- 
 tions a strong corruption of the purity of the Christian system. // is a 
 carnal perversion of the true idea of the Christian Chureh. It is fall- 
 ing back into the spirit of the Jewish religion. Instead of the Chris- 
 tian idea of a Church based on inward principles of communion, and 
 e.xtending itself by means of these, it presents us with the image of one, 
 like that under the Old Testament, resting in outward ordinances, and 
 by external rites seeking to promote the propagation of the Kingdom 
 of God. This entire perversion of the original view of the Christian 
 Church was itself the origin of the whole system of the Roman Catho- 
 lic religion, — the germ from which sprang the popery of the dark 
 ages." 
 
 HOW THE NEW THEORY HAS LED TO ROME. 
 
 A FRIEND at a distance has sent us the following extract from a letter 
 from one of the Reformed ministers who, under the influence of Mer- 
 cersburg teaching, have been landed in the Roman Church, which 
 strongly confirms and illustrates our position referred to in its 
 proper place, and hence it is proper and right to give it a place here. 
 He says : 
 
 " The report on the state of religion at the Synod of Danville was 
 adopted nem. con. (Dr. Nevin being reported ... to have called 
 it a 'glorious' report). . . , The Afessenger unwittingly speaks 
 one true word in reference to certain ' perverts' giving up the active 
 duties of the ministry, or laboring in it with only half a heart. The 
 reason was that Mercersbiirg cut the sinews of their strength by destroy- 
 ing their faith in Protestantism. So it was with and myself. So 
 
 it was with and and others. . . . used to say (and 
 
 others repeated it), 'Dr. N'evin has hamstrung his horses, and then 
 says to them. Now, horses, go and work P " 
 
 We regard this testimony from one of the " perverts" as important 
 and significant. It is the same that was given to us by one of them 
 twenty years ago, and it opens to us a view of the process by which 
 their minds were led away from the faith of their fathers into the dismal 
 and dreary notions of Romanism. We can see, too, that this description 
 
1 60 -- APPENDICES. 
 
 is true. It was a legitimate e^Qc\. of the system we have l)een tr)in<T to 
 lay open to the public gaze of the Church. The childish outciy that 
 this is testimony from men who are now Roman Catholics, won't do. 
 They were on their way thither for a long time, and when some of us 
 said so it was cried down as slander. They carried the seeds in them for 
 years, and they merely say now what they always did, that they were 
 taught in a way that made them dissatisfied with Protestantism. That 
 is the truth in a nutshell, and it cannot be successfully gainsaid. 
 
 " Irenjeus," in the Messenger of October 8, 1873, says that the 
 opposition to " Nevinism" was as much in fault in leading some of our 
 ministers to Rome as was the " Mercersburg-Lancaster School ;" and he 
 argues more truthfully, but for his cause not more wisely, than some 
 others. His argument is, that ifthose who were" afllicted by a Romanizing 
 mania had been allowed quietly to go on without opposition, they 
 would have remained in the Church ; but, finding powerful opposing 
 elements at work which might put an end to that ' mania,' they pre- 
 ferred to depart." Just so. Allow the men to go on " developing" 
 their " Romanizing mania" at pleasure, as the Puseyites in England 
 are doing (and " Irenasus" says Puseyism is a "parallel" to "Nevin- 
 ism"), and the Reformed Church, with a comfortable support, will be 
 good enough for them. Why should they leave the Reformed Church 
 if she is weak and good-natured enough to allow those smitten with 
 the " Romanizing mania" to eat her bread, and, besides that, to brow- 
 beat and smite her children because they will not take the infection 
 of the Pontine marshes near the Tiber? The reasoning is well taken; 
 but a shrewder man would not have " taken" it. 
 
 13L. 
 EXEGETICAL NOTES ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 BY DR. SCHAFF, IN LANGE'S COMMENTARY.* 
 
 The readers of these pages will, we are sure, thank us for the fol- 
 lowing well-matured and instructive notes on various important pas- 
 sages from the pen of Dr. Schaff. No one, probably, is better qualified 
 than he to appreciate the new theory which we regard as erroneous, 
 and which these expositions, without any apparent aim or design, 
 nullify or disprove. We avail ourselves, in part, of the judicious 
 grouping of these extracts by the Rev. Dr. Bomberger, in his Reformed 
 
 * The Gospel .according to John. By John Peter Lange, D.D., Professor of The- 
 ologj' in the University of Bonn (Prussia). Translated from the German, revised, 
 enlarged, and edited, hy Ph. Schaff, D.D., Professor of Theology in the Union The- 
 ological Seminary, New York. 1871 ; Scribner & Co. ; royal 8vo, pp. 654. We 
 consider the volume of Lange's Commentary on John, and that on Matthew, the 
 most valuable of all the New Testament volumes as far as published. 
 
APPENDICES. j5i 
 
 Church Monthly for 1 87 1, together with some remarks from his own 
 pen, 
 
 " The distinctive characteristics of the Gospel of John," says Dr. 
 Bomberger, " invest it with special interest and importance for some 
 of the leading points of llieological discussion or controversy in our 
 day. It is to this Gospel, mainly, tliat the advocates of thcanthropisni 
 appeal, as if confident that it furnishes full support to their theory of 
 an immanent organic union of the Godhead with humanity. So, too, 
 when they claim that Christ and the Ciiurch are so substantially one, 
 that the Church is but Christ perpetuating His own personal life 
 through the Church in the world, and so redeeming the race, they 
 mainly rely on John for proof. Here, too, they think they find the 
 strongest justification of their peculiar sacramental views, baptismal 
 regeneration, and the real communication of the substance of Christ's 
 glorified humanity in and through the Holy Supper. And no one can 
 deny that there are detached passages in this Gospel which may, in 
 sound at least, sean to favor these and other similar ultra false church 
 views. 
 
 " As it is by John that the Spirit reveals more fully than in either of 
 the other Gospels the mysterious tri-personality of the glorious God- 
 head, so it is here we find set forth, in the most explicit terms, the vital 
 relation of believers to God in Christ. This is naturally and neces- 
 sarily done in figurative language; hence the temptation for minds of 
 a speculative mystic turn to misapprehend and misinterpret what is 
 said, and to let themselves be led, by their own error, into pantheistic 
 mists. The Gospel is not a fault. It presents the truth plainly enough 
 to prevent such false conceptions of the matter. Those falling under 
 the power of such conceptions are betrayed by their own deceptive 
 philosophy and indulged theosophic dreams. 
 
 " All this, however, adds greatly to the interest as well as responsi- 
 bility of the expositor's work. And any one duly competent for the 
 sacred task, not only by his learning, but still more by his being in 
 true spiritual harmony with the spirit of John, and especially of Him 
 on whose inmost bosom the beloved disciple so confidingly reposed — 
 any one so fitted for the work could not fail to find the work as con- 
 genial as it is solemn. 
 
 " This Gospel affords such a commentator abundant opportunities for 
 exposing and correcting some of the most specious and ensnaring 
 errors by which the truth has ever been perverted, as well as for clearly 
 exhibiting and defending the most vital doctrines of Christianity. It 
 thus becomes at once a severe test of his own evangelical orthodoxy 
 regarding fundamental articles of faith. And in proportion to his 
 fidelity to that faith in the performance of his task, will he be sure to 
 receive the warm approval of all who love it, and to draw down upon 
 himself tlie censure and condemnation of those who have departed 
 from it. 
 
 " Dr. Schaff has clearly felt this, and more deeply, no doubt, than 
 we can tell it, in the preparation of the volume before us. He proves 
 it by the labor so cheerfully bestowed upon the work in large voluntary 
 additions to the original. He knew the special demands of the theo- 
 logical latitude in which it would circulate. Circumstances had made 
 14* L 
 
1 62 APPENDICES. 
 
 him more familiar than, probably, any other American theologian, with 
 speculations of the most perilous character. These, though as yet con- 
 fined to very narrow limits of influence, might, by their novelty and 
 speciousness and ' show of wisdom,' spread with mischievous power 
 among unsuspecting but novelty-loving disciples of theology. Hence 
 the American editor felt called by duty freely to enlarge upon Dr. 
 Lange's comments by numerous notes. These notes are critical, exe- 
 getical, and doctrinal, and add greatly, for us at least, to the value of 
 the German work. 
 
 " The added doctrinal notes have special significance, as some of 
 the fullest of them touch upon important questions now at issue among 
 us. We can cite only a few of them. But they will suffice to show 
 our readers both what we mean, and why we set so much store by 
 them. 
 
 " Fhst, on the relation of God in Christ to creation and the world, 
 Dr. Schaff declares : 
 
 '"The Scripture doctrine of creation differs: I, from Pantheism, 
 which teaches an eternal world, and confounds God with the world ; 
 2, from Dualism, or the eternity of matter antagonistic to God ; 3, from 
 the emanation theory ;* 4, from Deism, which asserts the creation but 
 separates it from the Creator; 5, from Materialism, which makes matter 
 the mother of the spirit and is alike degrading to God and man' (p. 63 
 of Comm.). 
 
 " The first and third points in the above quotation merit special 
 thought. We have italicized the third, which the editor does not 
 define, and added in the foot-note what we regard as its true import. 
 
 " Secondly, on the Incarnation, it is gratifying to hear Dr. S. affirm so 
 distinctly: 
 
 "'The Logos assumed, not an individual man or a single human 
 personality, but human nature (of course this individually, — B.), i)ito 
 union with His pre-cxistent Divine personality. . . . It is not the 
 flesh as opposed to the spirit, that is here ("the Word became flesh"), 
 but human nature as distinct from the Divine. . . . The term 
 ("only-begotten," chapter i. 14) refers back to v. 12, and marks the 
 difference between Christ and the believers. I, He is the only Son 
 in a sense in -which there is no other; they are many ; 2, He is Son 
 from eternity; they become children in time; 3, He is Son by nature; 
 they are made sons by j^race and adoption ; 4, He is of the same 
 essence with the P\ither ; they are of a different substance. In other 
 words. His is a metaphysical primitive and co-essential Sonship, 
 theirs only an ethical and derived Sonship.^ 
 
 " In the passages we have italicized above, it must be cheering to all 
 evangelical readers to note how distinctly Dr. S. reiterates the old 
 faith, and repudiates all thought of such an organic conjunction of the 
 eternal Word with humanity as involves a perpetual transmission of 
 the substance of the life of the Word incarnate to the race regenerated 
 by such transmission. 
 
 " Thirdly., In the third chapter of the Gospel, which contains the con- 
 
 * " Which teaches that all life is but a flowing forth of the substance of the life of 
 God into things so created and an essential part of that Divine life, by an organic 
 process. — B." 
 
APPENDICES. jg- 
 
 versation of our Lord with Nicodemus, Dr. Schaff finds a fitting oppor- 
 tunity to affirm and vindicate the old evangelical doctrine concerning 
 Baptism, and he faithfully improves the opportunity. After remarking- 
 that ' true religion in the soul begins with a persottal conviction of sin 
 and guilt, . . . without which all efforts to convert a man are in 
 vain,' he adds : 
 
 " ' It is characteristic of the idealism and mysticism of John that 
 in his Gospel he gives no account of the institution of the Church and 
 the sacraments. But, anticipating the visible rite, he presents in ch. 3 
 the idea of the new birth which is symbolized in Christian Baptism, 
 together with the idea of " the kingdom of God" which is the internal 
 and abiding essence of the Church. So in ch. 6 he gives the general 
 idea of vital union with Christ, which underlies the sacrament of the 
 Lord's Supper.' 
 
 "Baptism and Regeneration. These, in their relation to each other, 
 receive earnest consideration under ch. 3. Dr. Schaff's notes upon 
 them are full and explicit. And they were evidently written, 7tot hastily, 
 as Dr. Apple of Mercersburg says, but with careful thought. This will 
 be evident from the following quotations : 
 
 " ' Regeneration is a creative act of God the Holy Spirit, whereby a 
 new spiritual life from al)ove is implanted in man, through the means 
 of grace, especially the preaching of the gospel ; like the natural birth, 
 it can occur but once. . . . As to its origin and mode of operation, it 
 is a mystery, like the natural generation and birth, but a mystery mani- 
 fest in its effects to all who have spiritual eyes to see ; it meets us as a 
 fact in every frue Christian or child of God, who is as sure of the higher 
 life of Christ in his own soul as he is of his natural existence.' In 
 another view of the suljject, yet one in entire hamrony with the fore- 
 going passage, he speaks of regeneration as ' a moral new birth.' 
 
 " Having thus defined the true idea of regeneration, the doctrine of 
 baptism itself receives attention in a note under verse 5, — ' born of 
 water and the Spirit,' etc. Dr. S. says, ' The key to the sense of the 
 passage is furnished by the declaration of the Baptist that he baptized 
 only with water, but Christ would baptize with the Holy Ghost (i. 33), 
 and by the passage of Paul where he connects Christian baptism as 
 " the bath of regeneration" with the renewal of the Holy Ghost, and 
 yet distinguishes both (Tit. iii. 5).' Other illustrative passages are 
 cited, and the frequent figurative use of the term water in the Old 
 Testament referred to. Dr. Schaff then adds : 
 
 " ' The idea which underlies all these baptisms is essentially the same. 
 We would, therefore, not confine " water" to any particular form of 
 baptism, but (with Lange, see below. No. 5) extend it to all preparatory 
 illustrations; nor would we refer it directly to the sacrament as an 
 external act or rite, but (with Olshausen) to the idea rather, — of which 
 the cleansing with water is the symbolic expression, — just as in ch. 6 
 we have an exposition of the general idea of the holy communion 
 before the sacrament was instituted in which it comes to its full em- 
 bodiment. The idea underlying all fomis of baptism is the forgiveness 
 of sins on condition of repentance. This is the negative part of regener- 
 ation, while the new life communicated by the Holy Spirit is the 
 positive part, or regeneration proper. So Peter, in his pentecostal ser- 
 
1 64 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 mon, represents the matter when he calls upon his hearers, " Repent 
 and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, 
 and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts ii. 38). The 
 chief matter is, of course, the positive part, the gift of the Holy Spirit, 
 who is the efficient cause, the creative and vivifying agent of regenera- 
 tion, and who alone can make the word and the sacrament effective. 
 Hence the Spirit alone is mentioned in verses 6 and 8. The omission 
 of water here is as significant as the omission of baptism in the negative 
 clause of Mark xvi. 16, where the condition of salvation and the reason 
 of damnation are laid down. This is a sufficient hint that the necessity 
 of water baptism to salvation is not absolute, but relative only. The 
 penitent thief passed into Paradise without water baptism. Corne- 
 lius was regenerated before he was baptized, and many martyrs in the 
 early ages died for Christ before they had a chance to receive the 
 sacrament. // is possible to have the substance without the form, the 
 baptism of the Spirit without the baptism of the water ; as it is quite 
 common on the other hand to be baptized 7uith water and have the Chris- 
 tian name zvithout the Christian spirit and life. The Apostles them- 
 selves (except Paul) never received Christian baptism, for Christ 
 Himself, who alone could have administered it to them, did not baptize 
 (iv. 2). In their case the pentecostal effusion of the Spirit was suffi- 
 cient. We are bound to God's appointed means of grace, but God is 
 free, and the Spirit " bloweth where it listeth." ' In another note he 
 still further emphasizes the vitally important truth brought out so strongly 
 above, by declaring, 'The necessity of regeneration and faith to salva- 
 tion is absolute, the necessity of baptism or anything else is merely 
 relative. Only imbelief that is, the rejection of the gospel, with or 
 without baptism, condemns.' 
 
 " Dr. T. G. Apple, as it were speaking for Mercersburg theology in 
 its latest development, takes Dr. Schaff to task for uttering sentiments 
 like these. He charges Dr. S. with error in exegesis (!) and in 
 theology. Of course, then, by Dr. A.'s confession, Mercersburg holds 
 essentially different views. This we readily believe. Then the simple 
 question is. Which is Reformed doctrine ? which is true ? The doctrine 
 as so explicitly and frankly avowed in his commentary, or the views 
 advocated by Mercersburg ? Few readers will probably hesitate, any 
 more than we do, to prefer the old faith to the new. 
 
 "Fourthly. The Lord's Supper, etc. Under the sixth chapter of the 
 Gospel Dr. Schaff supplies some very valuable notes touching the 
 significance of the Lord's Supper and doctrines connected with it. We 
 reluctantly limit ourselves to a few brief quotations, which, however, 
 will enable the reader to catch the general drift of the comments. As 
 a clear indication of his ruling convictions, Dr. S. remarks, on vi. 29, 
 Upon ' the distinction between believing Christ, which is simply an 
 intellectual assent to an historical fact, . . . and believing in Christ 
 as an object of confidence and hope, which implies a vital union with 
 Him. This is both a work of Divine grace and the highest work of 
 man. . . . Faith is the greatest act of freedom towards God, for by it 
 He gives Himself, and more man cannot do. . . . Schleiermacher 
 calls this passage the clearest and most significant declaration that all 
 eternal life proceeds from nothing less than faith in Christ.^ 
 
APPENDICES. 
 
 165 
 
 " Again, on vi. 44 : ' The natural inability of man to come to Christ, 
 however, is not physical nor intellectual, but moral and spiritual. It 
 is an unwillingness. No change of mental organization, no new faculty, 
 is required, but a radical change of the heart and will. This is effected 
 by the Holy Ghost, but the providential drawing of the Father prepares 
 the way for it.' 
 
 " Regarding the sacramental interpretation of vi. 51, etc.. Dr. Schaff 
 holds, that whilst the passage does not refer dii'ectly to the Lord's 
 Supper, it sets forth the idea of it. He says : 
 
 " '' }f pci>'ticipation in the Lord's Supper were a necessary prc-requisite 
 of salvation, Christ would undoubtedly have said so when He instituted 
 the ordinance. But throughout the gospel, and especially in this dis- 
 course. He makes FAITH the only condition of eternal life. He first 
 exhibits Himself as the Bread of Life, and promises eternal life to every 
 one who eats this bread, that is, who believes in Him. He then holds 
 out the same promise to all those who eat His flesh and drink His 
 blood, which, consequently, must be essentially the same act as bclievi7ig. 
 The discourse, therefore, refers to a broader and deeper fact, which 
 precedes and underlies the sacrament, and of which the sacrament is a 
 significant sign and seal, \\z., personal union of the belie^nng soul with 
 Christ, and a living appropriation of His atonitig sacrifice. . . , We 
 must distinguish between a spiritual manducation of Christ by faith, 
 and a j^craw^zAz/ manducation; the former alone is essential to ever- 
 lasting life, and is the jjroper subject of the discourse. John omits an 
 account of the institution both of baptism and the Lord's Supper, 
 . . . but he gives those profound discourses of Christ which explain 
 the spiritual meaning of the sacraments, namely, the idea of regenera- 
 tion, which is sigtied and scaled in baptism (ch. 3), and the idea of 
 personal commuftion with Him, which is celebrated in the Lord's Supper 
 (ch. 6). This suggests a very important doctrinal inference, viz., that 
 the spiritual reality of regeneration and union with Christ is not so 
 bound to the external sacramental sign that it cannot be enjoyed with- 
 out that sign. IVe must obey God's ordinances, but God is free, and 
 we should bless whom He blesses. High sacramentarianism is con- 
 trary to the teaching of Christ, according to St. John.' 
 
 " Strongly as we feel tempted to multiply such declarations as these, 
 so fully in harmony with Apostolic teaching and the common faith of 
 Evangelical Christendom, and just as directly opposed to all Popish 
 and Puseyite perversions of the gospel, we must not trespass upon our 
 pages further than to add the following : 
 
 " ' Mark, also, that /<?//■/;, and nothing else, is laid down here, and in 
 this whole discourse (comp. v. 40: and chap. 3, 15, 16), as the condition 
 of eternal life. The eating of Christ's flesh and the drinking of His blood, 
 to be consistent with this, is only a stronger form of expressing the same 
 idea of a real personal appropriation of Christ by faith. This refutes all 
 forms of ecclesiasticism which throw any kind of obstruction between 
 the soul and Christ as an essential condition of salvation, whether it be 
 the authority of Pope, or Council, or Creed, or system of theology, or 
 the intercession of saints, or good works of our own. Salvation de- 
 pends solely and exclusively upon personal union with Christ; all 
 other things, however important in their place, are subordinate to this. 
 
1 66 APPENDICES. 
 
 Without faith in Christ there can be no salvation for any sinner; this 
 is the exclusiveness of the gospel ; but with faith in Christ there i& 
 salvation for all, of whatever sect or name. This is charity.' 
 
 " Enough has now been said by us and quoted from the volume before 
 us, to commend it strongly to all earnest students of the Bible. Al- 
 though this commentary exhibits great learning, and must prove most 
 helpful to the advanced scholar, it is also adapted to general use. 
 Every thoughtful layman, given to any proper study of the Scriptures, 
 can learn much from it, and would find most of its pages sufficiently 
 plain for practical instruction. 
 
 " To students of theology in our schools of training for the ministry, 
 this volume, with the others of the series, will afibrd assistance which 
 they can find nowhere else. And those especially who may be in any 
 peril of High-Church sacramentarianism would find it one of the surest 
 safeguards against the danger besetting them. The sincere thanks of 
 the Church are due to Dr. Schafi' for the fidelity and courage with 
 which he has done his work." 
 
 [From the foregoing lucid exposition, many of our readers will not 
 fail to be reminded of the contrast between it and the forced and 
 unusual explanation which is frequently given from the pulpit by some 
 brethren to this beautiful chapter of the " disciple whom Jesus loved." 
 We have on two occasions heard prominent brethren of the new views 
 quoting, for instance, from the sixth chapter of John, the verses from 
 fifty-three to fifty-nine, " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," 
 etc., and then giving the explanation that in the Lord's Supper the 
 verj' body and blood of Christ was partaken, and that just as th^se 
 words stand there ; that " Christ does not stop to give any explanation 
 to these words" (we quote verbatim from one brother), even when objec- 
 tions were made to such phraseology; adding that " the popular view 
 of the modern Churches on this point was '■Rationalism of the baldest 
 kind.' " In both cases verse sixty-three was not only not quoted, but not 
 the most distant allusion was made to it ; whilst that verse, in connection 
 with the one following, is the very key to the proper understanding of 
 the chapter. " The eating of Christ's flesh, and the drinking of His 
 blood, is only a stronger lorm of expressing the same idea of a real 
 personal appropriation of Christ by faith." If this is Rationalism, then 
 may God give us a large measure of it !] 
 
 I. 
 
 THE ROMAN CATHOLIC SYSTEM. 
 
 FROM DR. DORNER'S ARTICLE. 
 
 We regard the essay of Prof. J. A. Dorner, D.D., which he read 
 at the Evangelical Alliance in New York, on the Infallibility of the Pope, 
 which is now a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, as the ablest paper 
 we have ever perused on that subject. It is a perfect piece of mosaic, — 
 
APPENDICES. 
 
 167 
 
 thoroughly and compactly put together by the hand of £\ master-artist. 
 It does not content itself with combating the mere outer scaf- 
 folding of popery ; it is no skirmishing with small arms upon the 
 turrets and pinnacles of the Vatican, as the manner of some is, but 
 it takes us into its very centre and points out every stone in the decep- 
 tive structure, and how and why these stones are thus and so inti- 
 mately constructed and fitted together to produce certain ends and 
 results. As many of the readers of this work may not have seen the 
 essay, we will not confine our extracts merely to those few paragraphs 
 (at the close) which bear more directly on the subject under considera- 
 tion in these pages. 
 
 The following are the introductory words of Dr. Dorner, which 
 show us at once the spirit of the man : 
 
 " It is a righteous indignation which is felt against the Council of 
 the Vatican, that it should sanction a dogma of such fearful and far- 
 reaching importance as the Infallibility of the Pope; and it is the 
 duty of pure and evangelical Christianity to contend against its doc- 
 trine and life. But in order to contend successfully we must under- 
 stand our adversaries, must discern the roots of the errors, which are 
 powerful only in that they are connected with great truths. And again, 
 in order to contend as Christians, we must strive with sorrow and 
 sympathy, with that love which would have our brethren likewise in 
 possession of the truth, and which does not proudly exalt itself above 
 the communions, but is mindful of our own infirmity and sin, 
 which, manifold and contradictory as it appears, is yet fundamentally 
 one; and it is just so with error. 
 
 " In this spirit I would treat both parts of my theme, in order that we 
 may strengthen one another in the common joy of the pure gospel, 
 whose light has been restored by the Reformation, fruitful in blessings, 
 as the mother of us all. 
 
 THE ERROR OF THE INFALLIBILITY DOGMA. 
 
 ..." But, nevertheless, we cannot justly understand this powerful 
 error without seeing its connection with Christian truths whose cari- 
 cature it is. We cannot master it entirely until we clearly and purely 
 apprehend the evangelical truth of which it is the counterpart. The 
 Infallibility of the Pope could not have become a dogma without the 
 consent of the bishops. Why did they yield ? not only those who for 
 a long time had acted as mere servants and menials of the Pope, not 
 only those accustomed to regard religion as a mere mechanical cere- 
 monial service, whilst, without astonishment, they added this dogma to 
 other dogmas, yea, merely wondered why others regarded the matter 
 as serious — but other bishops likewise, of more earnest spirit and 
 deeper religious interests ? Why did the German bishops particularly 
 submit themselves ? At first, part of them bravely resisted. At the 
 beginning, they, not less than the Old Catholics, drew back with horror 
 from this dogma, as a mystery of lies, which, after it had secretly 
 matured in Rome, suddenly stepped forth before the world with 
 shamelessness and arrogance. But their opposition became weaker 
 and more lukewarm, until at last they capitulated with resignation. I 
 
1 68 APPENDICES. 
 
 shall not acquit them of cowardice and fear of man ; but the human 
 heart is deep and strong in self-deceptions and artifices. The entire 
 episcopal order would not have submitted themselves with so much 
 unanimity had they not supposed that only in this way could they pre- 
 serve great Christian possessions. 
 
 " (^b.) This infallibilism is a machine well calculated to compel obedi- 
 ence, nominal and real, to an appearance, a phantom, of unity; but it 
 likewise renders the original substance of Christianity unsafe and un- 
 certain, and robs it of its internal redemptive value. For in accord- 
 ance with this system the substance of Christianity is essentially in- 
 different, if only this one thing is maintained, the recognition of the 
 formal authority of the Roman oracle (consequently of the Divine form), 
 that formal authority is thus invested with the Divine right of pro- 
 viding whatever it thinks best with the Divine stamp of truth ; that is, 
 that the whole tendency of modern Catholicism is to make the entire 
 substance of Christianity questionable or worthless by the form in 
 which all value is placed. 
 
 " (</.) What is assurance without truth ? Error can never give assur- 
 ance of itself, but merely unsafe, fluctuating opinion ; for our spirit is 
 destined for the truth, in which alone it finds its home, its rest, and its 
 peace. We cannot make the truth ; must accept it as it is and as it 
 proves itself to be by its ability to give us full and Divine assurance of 
 itself. Now the Pope would make truth to be truth, so indeed that 
 he holds and claims that what he speaks is inspired ; and not only is 
 he involved in the arbitrariness of subjectivism, but likewise all those 
 who obey him ; for their arljitrary will elected him to be the head and 
 oracle of the Church. While he uses his arbitrary will to command 
 and govern, his Church uses its freedom to renounce freedom and 
 abdicate it. Both are alike arbitrary, both are equally guilty. 
 
 " (f.) The assurance respecting Christianity sought in this way flees 
 from us. And it is the same with the unity of the Church, as we have 
 seen. What is the unity of the Church without truth? It is a formal- 
 ism. The dictatorship of the one and the obedience of the other may 
 constitute an ecclesiastical em]iire having the external appearance of 
 unity; but without the truth and the spirit it is a hollow mockery, an 
 empty pretense. Such an ecclesiastical body lacks the immediate 
 communion of its members with the living God, and is a dualism 
 throughout. 
 
 " (f.) How very different that unity of the Church which is constituted 
 and cherished by the word of the Spirit and the truth ! It is peaceable, 
 friendly, and salutary to all the institutions of nature, such as mar- 
 riage, the family, antl the State. But the empire of the Pope desires 
 to be a spiritual empire above all States, and yet is itself only a form 
 of government indued with almost all tlie attributes of the State, even 
 the power of coercion, thereby becoming hurtful to religion, which 
 can only thrive in the atmosphere of freedom, and is moreover hostile 
 to the State, which is conscious of its office and endeavors to realize 
 its own idea. For the empire of the Pope is a government which 
 would pervade entire Christendom and all of its States, supreme above 
 
APPENDICES. 
 
 169 
 
 them all even in external affairs; a second State in every .State, so 
 that it must sooner or later come in collision with every one of them 
 that does not submit itself. It is a great error, as we have seen in 
 Germany, to suppose that the State can avoid this conflict by not 
 troubling itself about this Church. If the Stale docs not trouble it- 
 self about this Church, it will trouble itself about the State, and ap- 
 propriate more and more the State's prerogatives. 
 
 " Since the Pope henceforth takes this position, a great change awaits 
 the Catholic Church, demanding our deepest sympathy. For ought 
 it not to grieve us that so large a portion of Christendom which Christ 
 has redeemed should again fall so low as that, under the name and 
 appearance of unity, the Romish Church should become a despotism, 
 the most absolute monarchy ever known? Herein, likewise, is in- 
 volved a rupture of unity, a dualism, by which the uniformity and 
 unity of the members in participation in the Holy Sjiirit is done away 
 with, since the wisdom and will of the Holy Spirit are said to concen- 
 trate themselves in one member, while the others, called by the Apostle 
 Peter 'a royal priesthood,' are said not to have their immediate part 
 in the Holy Spirit, but only through the high priest. Does not this 
 renew the distinction of the religion of priests before Christ, with a 
 boldness hitherto unknown ? What a disunion such a unity brings 
 within the body of the Roman Catholic Church itself! Christ says 
 that the water he will give is to be a well of waters springing up in 
 the believer himself unto everlasting life. The new dogma will no 
 longer have the Holy Spirit to dwell independently in the members; 
 they are not to have wells of life, streaming forth from the mysterious 
 depths of the water of the Divine Spirit and word ; but merely pas- 
 sive channels for the water which is to flow forth from the Tiber to 
 Rome to enrich the globe. What then is the unity of Christians with 
 one another, for which our Lord prays in His intercessory prayer, if 
 Christian brotherhood is merely a communion in servitude and non- 
 age under an infallible Pope ? Not less painful is the fact that this 
 dogma erects a new wall of separation between the Roman Catholics 
 and the rest of Christendom, not only against us and the Orientals, but 
 likewise against the promise of the Lord respecting the one fold and 
 the one Shepherd, by which He did not mean a Pope. 
 
 NOMINAL PROTESTANTISM. 
 
 "We have thus been brought to the consideration of evangelical 
 Christianity. And, that we may not give ourselves over to ecclesias- 
 tical pride, we must not forget the evils of nominal Protestantism ex- 
 isting among us, against which we have to contend. 
 
 " Evangelical Christianity is the frceborn daughter of the Reforma- 
 tion. It has reconciled the principles of Authority and Freedom in 
 the* moral and religious sphere. For the gospel proves itself to evan- 
 gelical faith as a power of God ; the believer is overcome in his in- 
 telligence, will, and feelings by the spiritual power of redeeming truth 
 
 15 
 
170 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 in Christ, and thus has first of all an assurance of personal salvation in 
 Christ, a subjective knowledge of himself as redeemed, and then at 
 the same time an objective knowledge of the Redeemer, of His Divine 
 power and grace. This victory of truth as light and life is at the 
 same time victory over doubt, skepticism, disunion, and enmity with 
 God. In one word, man by faith is restored to unity with himself and 
 God, to unity of Christian character, and that is the foundation of all 
 true unity of men in the Church. For how could there be unity of 
 the Church if its members have chaotic and internally discordant ele- 
 ments within their own jiersons ? And, on the other hand, how can 
 lliose who are born of God refrain from loving their kindred of the 
 Divine seed?" 
 
 [After showing that unless there is constant renewal of the truth 
 from generation to generation, room will be f6und for error and de- 
 parture from the simple truth, on the one hand in the way of an over- 
 valuing of authority, on the other, arbitrary freedom (hierarchism and 
 rationalism), he proceeds as follows :] 
 
 THE ROMANIZING TENDENCY. 
 
 " I. Alarmed by the abuse of freedom, on the one side, others flee 
 from freedom altogether. Lest they should open the door to disorganiz- 
 ing arbitrariness, they inipriscMi Christianity itself; lest they should give 
 room to subjectivism, they lead the way to an objectivism which is 
 human bondage. Church authority is made the basis of faith ; the 
 symbols of the Church, and their formula, are placed above the Bil)le ; 
 Church tradition is most scrupulously guarded, not because it is the 
 truth, but because it is tradition, and thus there is a zeal for evangel- 
 ical doctrines which are based merely on tradition. Many, who are 
 especially anxious for the credit of orthodoxy, subordinate the study 
 of the Scriptures to the symbolical books and the ancient dogmatical 
 writers. They are annoyed when the believer in the study of the 
 Scripture shows the necessity of harmonizing more completely Church 
 doctrine with the Bible. They are sluggish in the fulfillment of the 
 duty of the true scribe, in bringing out of the treasure of the heart 
 things new and old. (Matthew xiii. 52.) There is a tendency, still 
 more extended, to substitute for the ancient, conscious, personal form 
 of piety, an impersonal form, which lives in shadowy and esthetic 
 feelings of an indefinite kind. This they accomplish by means of 
 gorgeous ceremonial and manifold symbolism ; by subordinating the 
 preaching of the word to the liturgy and the sacrament; by the 
 propagation of Christianity rather by cramming the mind with Chris- 
 tian material than by leading to Christian knowledge and the personal 
 appreciation of the truth of salvation; by sensuous forms and ceremo- 
 nials, to which spiritual indolence ascribes the power of pervading the 
 entire man, as a fluid with magical influence. And connected with 
 this there is likewise an unevangelical emphasis of the power of the 
 keys, and a Romanizing distinction between the clergy and laity, 
 which is rooted in the unevangelical doctrine of sacramental ordina- 
 tion. This method, which is a reaction from evangelical Christianity, 
 is unfruitful in religion, is unsuited to the needs of the present age, 
 
APPENDICES. jyj 
 
 and to the ever-youllifiil gospel and its regenerative powers. It is 
 related to the present as a peevish old man who would carefully guard 
 a rich inheritance, yet allows it to rust and spoil, because he does not 
 increase it by use and does not continually coin and distribute the 
 noble metal of the gospel. The Church will never in this way pre 
 vail over the masses of the people who are estranged from it. Rather, 
 this leaven of Romanism wliich has again been brought in leads back 
 behind the Reformation, of which it speaks with unhappy retractions 
 and regrets, while it takes away or shakes the evangelical assurance 
 of faith, destroys the present evangelical unity, misleads, if not to 
 apostasy to Rome, yet to weak effort to establish on evangelical soil a 
 miniature popedom in every congregation. But we cannot linger 
 longer by this foul stream, which now flows through the Evangelical 
 Church of more than one land. It has already been condemned by 
 what has been said with reference to the modern Romish Church, of 
 which it is but a dwarfish, inconsistent copy." 
 
 [At the close of the essay. Dr. Hitchcock, Professor in the Union 
 Theological Seminary in New York, who followed in an address on the 
 same general subject, rose and said : " We have all listened with 
 great satisfaction to the admirable paper which has just been read. I 
 have in my mind only one living theologian who might think to bet- 
 ter it ; and that is Dr. Dorner himself. The fault must be our own if 
 we are not more firmly rooted in tlie conviction that, in adding to its 
 creed this new dogma of Papal Infallibility, the Roman Catholic 
 Church has both erred and blundered."] 
 
 cr. 
 
 HE WAS NOT "PROPERLY" BAPTIZED. 
 
 As an illustration to what lengths men will go who are fanatically 
 exercised about the exclusive and " supernatural powers of the priest- 
 hood," we give the following from a religious paper in London, of a 
 recent date. The clergyman referred to was, of course, one of the ad- 
 vanced ritualists, — probably one of the four hundred and eighty-three 
 who lately petitioned the archl)ishop for a regular permit to exercise 
 their gifts in the confessional, but against which Lord Shaftesbury, at a 
 large public meeting in Exeter Hall, in London, protested, saying, 
 among other things, " If bishops yield, and if rubrics are enacted to 
 authorize, then let bishops and rubrics all go ! W^e know the Bible, 
 and we will cany it with us ; and we know history, and therefore need 
 no experiment to learn what debasement is made on the minds of 
 dupes of the confessional, or the power for- evil it puts into the hands 
 of confessors." 
 
 The article referred to is as follows : 
 
 " The clergy appear determined to precipitate disestablishnien?. We 
 should have thought that now, if ever, especially with the fate of the 
 
172 APPENDICES. 
 
 Irish Church before them, they would have at least learned discretion, 
 if not justice ; but it seems that even this very modest estimate of their 
 capabilities is futile. What might the Shah, for instance, think of the 
 following unvarnished statement of how English priestcraft, acting up 
 to the strict letter of the prayer-book, outrages our common humanity ? 
 A fortnight ago, a little boy, named Arthur Pickford, and aged five 
 years, was drowned at Seaton, in the river Axe. He was pla)nng 
 by the water, when he was swept oflf his legs by a tidal wave and 
 drowned. The interment was arranged to take place in Seaton church- 
 yard, but upon the body reaching the place the clergyman refused to 
 allow any service to be performed, as the child had not been properly 
 baptized.* Here is the published account of the funeral : ' The grief 
 of the mourners was heart-rending. The poor mother, on looking 
 round and seeing the coffin being silently lowered into the little grave, 
 exclaimed, in agonizing tones, "Will no one say a single prayer- for 
 my darling child ?" and, finding no response, she dropped upon her 
 knees and uttered a few sentences, which went to the hearts of all 
 present, and brought tears into every eye.' We are glad to find that a 
 very general feeling of indignation has been aroused, and that even 
 the local journals, which are usually inclined to preserve silence in 
 such matters, speak out well. How, then, can it be wondered at, it is 
 asked, amid the laxity and moral cowardice of late years, that the laity 
 should at last wake up to find that the priesthood of this century is 
 identical with that of times called something very different, — that the 
 spirit is precisely the same as that by which the fires of Sniithfield were 
 lighted and lively Christians burned each other for the love of God ? 
 Human nature is very uniform, and it is natural enough that the love 
 of power and the efl'ects of superstition and over-zeal in strong and 
 even strictly conscientious natures, when encouraged by the apathy or 
 blindness of those most immediately affected, should in time produce 
 such fruits as those by which the public feeling is at length aroused." 
 
 FREE PRAYER, OR ONLY PRAYER FROM THE BOOK? 
 
 An eminent and highly successful living Reformed pastor in Switzer- 
 land says, in reference to this subject, that, " say what we will, the fact 
 is undeniable, that the free spoken prayer is more efficacious and tends 
 to greater edification of the people than that M'hich is read from the 
 book ; and especially is this the case among jieople outside the larger 
 towns and cities. He does not wish the minister to ascend the pulpit 
 without having in his own mind and heart, as it were, prayed and 
 thought over the subject-matter of his intended prayer, without which 
 
 * " Properly baptized." Roman Catholics (and High Churchmen elsewhere) lay 
 great stress on the " intention." If a minister with /tnu views of baptism, for in- 
 stance, baptizes a child, he could not have had the " intention" that that child should, 
 through the act, be regenerated -and so the baptism would be vitiated. Thus, an in- 
 telligent woman in the Reformea Church, whose then pastor held verj- high views, said 
 to me, among other strange things, " Since we know what our Church used to teach 
 about baptism, we will not allow any minister to baptize our children who has not 
 the right intention on the subject." It will, therefore, not surprise anjrone to be told 
 that, on her pastor removing to another place, she and her family joined another 
 church, where, as she supposed, the intention figment was believed in. 
 
APPENDICES. 1 
 
 16 
 
 he could not feel himself in sympathy with the congregation. Rut 
 having done this, in a devout and prayerful spirit, — with all the needs, 
 the trials, the sorrows of his members present to his own soul, — he is 
 then best prepared to pray with them and for them most perfectly, far 
 better than to go over a form, — may-be a very good one, — according to 
 the book, and that, too, the ever-returning self-same one, and nothing 
 else." 
 
 " I have," he continues, " already directed attention to the fact how 
 many painful experiences we meet with in the religious life of our peo- 
 ple, and how often we find such a reliance upon the heartless perform- 
 ance of some outward duties; and in the family, how often great stress 
 is laid upon the mere observance of family prayer, with little or no re- 
 gard as to ho7u it is done ; and hence many seem to be well satisfied 
 with themselves, because they read a prayer from some book, be it 
 never so heartlessly, as if that really weie prayer. And now when the 
 minister in the church does the same thing, must these people not be 
 strengthened in such wrong views ? I cannot withhold in this connec- 
 tion a death-bed scene as being in point. The child of a worthy 
 family in the village was very ill. The father describes the case him- 
 self, thus : ' My poor wife was so overcome that she had to sit down 
 with the dear child in her arms. " O Lord God, shall it come to this, 
 that this my child shall be taken?" she sobbed. "Will God chastise 
 us so severely? Oh, Peter, pray that God would spare it to us." I took 
 our prayer-book and seated myself by the side of the dimly-shining 
 lamp, and, half crying, and with earnest devotion, began to read a 
 prayer for times of sickness. " Not so, Peter !" she said, " not so ! that 
 will be of no use ; there is nothing in that about our sick child. Pray 
 that it would please Him to let us keep our child." I then turned over 
 the leaves, and began to read another prayer with increased earnest- 
 ness. " And that, too, will do no good," she said ; " do pray out of 
 yourself, just as it comes to you, but about our child, just about ;V." I 
 rose up from the lamp, with a heart full of fear, — fear and anxiety for 
 the child, and fear about the prayer to be uttered ; for in that way, by 
 myself and out of myself , I had never before prayed. And then my 
 wife sank down upon her knees, and in the deep agony of her soul 
 cried to God.' " 
 
 DIVINE WORSHIP IN TWO CONGREGATIONS. 
 [The following is translated from the " Evangelical Fefor/ned Church 
 Gazette" of Germany, in which it appeared as a communication from 
 the Rev. Dr. Treviranus, pastor of one of the largest Reformed 
 churches in Bremen. Dr. T. was one of the most able, genial, and 
 devoted servants of God whom it was our privilege to meet during 
 our first visit to Europe in 1843. ^^ now rests with Go<l. The reader 
 will doubtless be interested in the description here given, and at 
 the same time will also learn how such a sound, learned, and godly 
 man looked at things which at present concern the Reformed Church 
 in America.] 
 
 " Basle and Hamburg ! Widely apart, both nearly at the extremi- 
 ties of the Fatherland, 
 
 15* 
 
1 74 APPENDICES. 
 
 " Where still the German tongue doth ring, 
 Aud German hymns to God in heaven we sing. 
 
 '• Wuh many differences, they have slill much in common. Both 
 cities, though differing in size, are seats of great wealth and trade. 
 Both are central points of free States. The one is an old home of the 
 Reformed Church ; the other, formerly at least, a strong bulwark of 
 Lutheranism, from which so many a passage at arms was made against 
 the ' Calvinists.' Joachim Westjjhal, Erdmann, Neumeister, Melchior 
 Goetze, who thundered against the Reformed from this city, are not 
 forgotten. But all this is past now, and a new time has come. In 
 Hamburg they have become modernized, whilst what was beautiful 
 and good in Basle has been preserved and restored. Clearly to see this, 
 we need but refer to the two churches in which the writer was per- 
 mitted to be present one Sunday morning, namely, in the large St. 
 Michael's in Hamburg, and in the Minster (Cathedral) in Basle. To 
 the former we yield the palm in respect to acoustics, whilst its general 
 appearance, as well within as without, with its architectural style in 
 the time of Louis XIV., impresses one unpleasantly. But the Swiss 
 Cathedral has been restored to its old beauty. 
 
 " If the architect could once more return, he would be full of thanks 
 to the later generation which has so well understood how to purify the 
 thoroughly harmonious edifice from the disfiguring additions, and to 
 banish the old red color, so that the stones now look as though they 
 had just come from the quarrj'. 
 
 " Here, in Basle, on a Sunday forenoon, the beautiful chimes called 
 the congregation together. The older families of Basle have, for the 
 most part, yielded up their property-right to their seats. Nearly all 
 the seats are free. In devout silence the mass of the congregation as- 
 sembled. When the bells ceased, the organ intoned ; soon it passed 
 over into a choral melody, and the whole congregation now sang two 
 stanzas out of the excellent Basle hymn-book, li was a devotional 
 singing,— praying in singing; and singing prayerfully is, in truth, the 
 appropriate aim of congregational singing. Here it was disturbed by 
 no noisy coming and going. The soul became silent and collected for 
 the prayer which the minister now offered. T/iere was no responding 
 coitgregaiion, no lihirgical succession of formulas, but a hearty con- 
 fession of sin, and a believing calling upon that name in whom alone 
 there is salvation. It was worship ' in the spirit and in the truth.' I 
 could not help but think of this saying of our Lord, which the vulgar 
 Rationalism in its day despoiled so often, until at last there was neither 
 spirit nor truth in its Divine services ; a saying which is in danger of 
 being overlooked by laying such stress upon fixed forms and pre- 
 scribed prayers, yea, even upon the priestly posture of the liturgist. 
 Then followed the announcements. Then first the text, and an ani- 
 mated sermon on the word of God. All felt that this was the chief 
 thing, — 'building up themselves in their most holy faith.' This was 
 followed in the usual way by prayer, singing, and the whole was con- 
 cluded with the benediction. 
 
 " In Hamburg the sermon was preceded by lengthy singing. I 
 opened the hymn-book at the number indicated by the tablet, but it 
 
APPENDICES. 
 
 175 
 
 was not the right one. I looked into the book of my neighbor, and 
 saw that they were singing, ' Come, Holy Spirit, Son of God.' This 
 beautiful hymn by Luther was unchanged ; but the singing was greatly 
 disturbed by frequent coming in and rising up. There still exists in 
 Hamburg the bad custom, that women (appointed for the purpose) 
 point out seats to those who have none of their own ; these go, sing- 
 ing out of the open hymn-books, hither and thither, and when they 
 catch a glimpse of a stranger they take charge of him and usher him 
 into a seat, for which afterward, during the Divine service, the women 
 collect from each a shilling, by means of boxes. The three verses 
 came to an end, and I again looked for the designated hymn, but it 
 was still another hymn, and the whole of ' To God alone on high be 
 praise' was sung. When this was concluded, commenced the hymn 
 ' Heart and heart be knit together.' After a few verses, the minister 
 entered the pulpit. At other times I had noticed it as a beneficial 
 result of long singing that the people became hungry, as it were, for 
 the word, and this, then, would in truth be a compensation for it, 
 since it is quite difficult to sing so long with devotion. 
 
 "This hunger was then satisfied, for there followed a decidedly 
 biblical, spiritual sermon on the epistle for the day. Rejoiced and 
 edified, we left the church. Here also there was no liturgy, but here, 
 as in Basle, the chief thing took the most prominent place, namely, 
 the preaching of the word of God ; all the rest, whatever weight we 
 may attach to it, is and remains subordinate. The word has the 
 promise, and in truth, — not the word mediated in manifold ways, 
 even although the Lord can give His blessing also to this ; but the 
 simple proclamation that there is salvation in no other, and that no 
 other name is given unto men whereby we can be saved. The spoken 
 word, with demonstration of the Spirit and of power! Therefore 
 the member of the Reformed Church could be edified as well in 
 Hamburg as in Basle. When on a fonner occasion I heard Claus 
 Harms preach, and took sincere delight in his sermon, I was still com- 
 pelled to leave the church with the silent thanksgiving in my heart 
 that I was Refomied. For, after the sennon, the minister pronounced 
 the benediction from the pulpit, and then went down to the so-called 
 altar (it was in the afternoon, and there was no communion), and 
 sang the same over again before the same assemblage. I was not able 
 to realize the adage, Sitperjlua non nocent {i.e., 'superfluous things 
 do no harm')." 
 
 LITURGICAL SERVICE, ETC. 
 
 Luther went to Rome with the expectation of finding there the 
 nearest approach to God and a foretaste of heavenly peace and comfort, 
 for which his soul ardently longed. " There," he thought, " dwells the 
 Holy Father, and there I shall find so many of the holy servants of 
 Christ, that it must needs be the nearest approach to heaven to be in 
 such company and to worship in those holy places." But just the very 
 opposite effect was produced upon him. Never had he met with greater 
 irreverence in priests, never with greater ungodliness and worldli- 
 ness among the people. He came home with the conviction that it 
 was rather the synagogue of Satan than the city of God, and that 
 
176 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 corruption and debauchery dwelt nowhere else so fearfully under the 
 cloak of religion, as in Rome, with all its gorgeous ritual. 
 
 The writer has frequently expressed the wish to some who are so 
 loud in their denunciations of the " baldness of our Protestant Church 
 service," that they might have the ocular demonstration of what is to 
 be seen in Roman Catholic churches during their services in the 
 classic home of this Church, — in France, in Italy, in Spain, everywhere, 
 except in countries where Protestantism has exerted a reformatory 
 effect upon priest and people. They would, like Luther, come home 
 with quite different views and feelings, unless they had beforehand fully 
 made up their minds to become submissive to all and singular the 
 shams, the trickeries, the mountebankism of innumerable priests, and 
 the mechanical, often most ludicrous, often blasphemous, irreverence 
 and superstitious rehearsals of Ave Marias and Paternosters. That 
 there are notable exceptions even there is fully admitted, but that they 
 are only exceptions is equally true. On this point let us hear what the 
 cool-headed, learned German theologian Dr. Richard Rothe says. He 
 is writing to a friend from Rome, where he had spent some time. " I 
 cannot tell you," he says, " how disgusted I am with what I have 
 seen of the worship in the (Romish) churches here. How any Prot- 
 estant can here have any desire to pass over to the Catholic Church 
 is inexplicable to me. It is here (in Rome) that one only conies to the 
 full measure of the conviction how much reason one has to be thankful 
 to God for being a Protestant Christian." 
 
 A writer in the (Episcopal) Chiarh Journal o{]>it\f York City says : 
 " I desire to call to your notice the fact that we have within the pale 
 of our Church some Roman Catholics in disguise! Last Sunday 
 morning (September 21st) I attended the seven-o'clock communion at 
 Trinity chapel, and noticed the following singular performances. When 
 the Creed was said, the congregation bowed the head reverently (as 
 was proper) at the name of Jesus; but what was my surprise to see 
 several worshipers kneel at the sentence, • born of the Virgin Mary,' 
 and at its conclusion rise again ; and others bowed more devoutly at 
 the Virgin's name than at the name of their Saviour ! When the 
 communion had been received, and we were leaving the chancel-rail, 
 I noticed one man in particular leave the chancel-rail, step back a few 
 paces, and kneel with clasped hands, gazing at something on the 
 ceiling of the chancel." 
 
 The liturgical service of the Episcopal Church, in the sense of 
 the oldest and best of its writers, is deeply spiritual and evangelical. 
 But for its frequent repetitions of the same forms in the same service, 
 no serious objection could be made to it. And yet let any one go to 
 most of the churches in London and elsewhere, and all the boasted devo- 
 tion of a " rich churchly service in which the people join" vanishes 
 like the morning cloud. Instead of "all the people praising God," it 
 is a parcel of boys in white frocks, not unlike a certain ]irivate garment, 
 rising and bowing, and, with the choir "up yonder," doing all, or 
 nearly all, the responding, singing, and praying. So in West- 
 minster Abbey, and so in most of the churches in which I attended in 
 Europe. The exception to this I found — more than anywhere in any 
 country — in Surrey Chapel, Dr. Newman Hall's Independent (" Puri- 
 
APPENDICES. ,77 
 
 tan") congregation of four thousand people, where a somewhat abbre- 
 viated form of the Episcopal Liturgy is used. There all the peo])le sang, 
 all the people joined in the service with life and spirit, and we felt like 
 being in an evangelical congregation in Germany, where the sins^iu-:; 
 of the majestic chorals was a liturgical service that lifted the heart u]i 
 to God, and made you forget all the artistic flummery of " book, l)ell, and 
 candle," or of " churchly vestments with gold trappings, and bowing 
 and scraping boys," which so interests some minds in ritualistic places 
 of worship. And that church in Surrey Chapel in London, with its 
 liturgical worship, is composed of living Christians, made such liy what 
 is sneeringly decried as " Puritanism" or " Methodism." Just because 
 the life of religion was in the people, did life flow forth through them 
 from the Liturgy. The Liturgy did not create that life, but the life 
 created the Liturgy. Let us first, then, be careful to have living, 
 devoted congregations, and if then there is a want felt by the people 
 for proper forms, they will come to hand in a natural way. But let us 
 beware of thrusting upon the churches a ritualism, even if not objec- 
 tionable in a doctrinal way, for which they have no heart, as if this 
 would make them a whit better. There is a formalism with no forms, 
 which is lamentable enough, but in mulli|ilying forms you set about it 
 systematically to produce and perpetuate formalism. Let us avoid all 
 forced work, especially in public worship. 
 
 HOW RITUALISM PROGRESSES. 
 
 A Religious Order in the Episcopal Church. 
 
 It appears by some late publications that there exists in the Episco- 
 pal churches in England and America a religious order called " The 
 Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament." The associates of the 
 "American Branch" of this confraternity held their Annual Confer- 
 ence during the latter part of the month of Jime. There was much 
 posturing and many processionals, and the conference was opened by 
 " vespers," sung in St. Ignatius' Church, New York City, where Dr. 
 Ewer* is celebrant, and who, it seems, is Superior-General of the 
 American Branch of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament. The 
 next morning there were " low masses" every hour at several of the 
 advanced ritualistic churches in New York City. At the "seven- 
 o'clock mass" at St. Ignatius' Church the celebrant was Dr. Quintard, 
 Bishop of Tennessee, who was also figuring at Cape May about that 
 
 * This Dr. Ewer is the person who, two years ago, preached some sermons in 
 which he tried to show that " Protestantism was a faiUire." We have not yet seen 
 anything like a failure of Protestantism, but the papers have lately informed the 
 public that he was lecturing in favor of Darwinism (that men are descended from 
 monkeys). So, then, if this be true. Ewer himself has proved a failure, and a very 
 considerable failure. Another person of the same order, a few months ago, preached 
 a whining discourse in the West, about the "failure of the Protestant Church to 
 draw the masses," and in two months after he was drawn into Holy Mother 
 Church. Thus it proves the old saying to be true, that when men see all things 
 wrong around the-n, there is generally something wrong in themselves. It is the 
 easiest (and poorest) thing in the world to be forever finding fault with cvcr>'thing 
 and everybody, but not so easy (nor so noble) a thing to render things better. The 
 former class may be said to be moral dyspeptics, who deserve our pity more than our 
 blame. 
 
 M 
 
178 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 time. He seems to have been the only bishop mixed up in this mass- 
 saying, and we hope that some of the evangelical people of his diocese 
 will endeavor to find out from him what "low mass" means as 
 administered by an Episcopal dignitary. 
 
 "High mass" also was celebrated at the Church of St. Mary the 
 Virgin, and the preacher was Rev. Father Grafton, S.S., J.E., cabalistic 
 initials which we cannot interpret. Dr. Ewer, Superior-General of 
 the order, was re-elected, and gave an annual address, in which he 
 congratulated his brothers that the principle of non-communicating 
 attendance and the vital truth involved therein, viz., that the Blessed 
 Eucharist is a holy sacrifice as well as a sacrament, had been success- 
 fully asserted in the General Theological Seminary of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church ; that there were now sixty-five priests-associate, as 
 against twenty-one in 1869; that eucharistic vestments are worn in six- 
 teen out of forty-one dioceses ; and that eucharistic lights have recently, 
 and without objection, been introduced in Trinity Church, New York. 
 
 Dr. Batterson, formerly of St. Clement's, Philadelphia, offered a 
 resolution to the effect " That the secretary be directed to forward semi- 
 annually to all priests-associate a printed list of all priests-associate, 
 which list is to be considered confidential." 
 
 At the close of this business-meeting the Atiima Christi was said, 
 the prayers for the Confraternity and the repose of the souls of the 
 dead were offered, and the conference was brought to a close. 
 
 Nothing has been said of all this in the American E])iscopal papers ; 
 but the New York Imiepoident " smoked it out" of a corner of an 
 English High-Church journal. 
 
 HOW THE LEAVEN WORKS, 
 
 A Lutheran clergyman writes to the Observer as follows : 
 " Should any of our readers be privileged to spend a few Sabbaths 
 in Baltimore, we would advise them to give two separate afternoons to 
 Ritualism, one to St. Luke's, the other to Mount Calvaiy : either will 
 do ; both will satisfy you as to how far men and women can be Protest- 
 ants in name and Romanists in heart. Enter Mount Calvary, as an illus- 
 tration. The head does not call himself rector, but priest. Sisters are 
 there in black garments and hoods, with white faces, gloomy and 
 ghastly. A font of holy water stands at the door on entering; banners 
 decorate the high altar, and candles blaze on every side. Here mass 
 is said, or its full equivalent. Mary is recognized, and prayei-s to the 
 Virgin, by her full title of Mother of God. Then begins the show, and 
 the low chanting is heard afar off, very solemn, sepulchral, and theat- 
 rical. Then enters the procession, the audience bowing and crossing 
 themselves ; resplendent banners, boys gay in white somethings, very 
 good imitations of genteel night-gowns, or some other under-garment. 
 The priests tread majestically forward, like theatrical kings, mixed 
 with the boys, who seem rather to enjoy the fun. Then enters the 
 principal actor, the high-priest, with sad face and studied gait, moving 
 to the altar, where he kneels, and behind him the assistant priest pros- 
 trates himself. Then — well, enough of this mocker)- — this stuff is 
 called religion. We go away, partly in disgust, partly in sadness, and 
 
APPENDICES. J 70 
 
 we ask ourselves, Is this aping of Rome to lefonn the world ? Is tliis 
 the simple gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ ? Why, reader, it would 
 puzzle you even to give a list of the names of the jmits of this show, 
 the various garments, etc. ; and yet we wonder that these people go 
 over to Rome. We herald it through the press. We regard it as a 
 strange thing. The only wonder ought to be, not that some go, but 
 that any remain ; for in Protestantism they know it is mockery, and in 
 Rome it is consistent. It is sometimes asked by people who are in the 
 habit of attending their own churches, and have no inclination to run 
 about, whether these ritualistic churches are well attended. We 
 answer, Yes — crowded. ' Sunday theatricals' it is called by many. 
 People will have amusement, and Sunday is well observed in Baltimore. 
 Theatres, etc., are closed, and hence you see the young folks moving 
 up-town to witness the performance at St. Luke's or Mount Calvary. 
 Very recently an old canon, peculiar to the Episcopal Church of Mary- 
 land, was abolished at the convention held in Baltimore. It referred 
 to theatricals and other vain amusements. The Episcopalians of 
 Maryland can now indulge with the brethren of other .States and 
 Churches ; and, there being wow no canon to reach theatricals and 
 other vain amusements, we suppose St. Luke's and Mount Calvary, and 
 others of that class, can flourish without protest. Bishop Whittingham 
 suppressed Mount Calvary Church, on one occasion, for its mummeries, 
 and since then its priest went over to Rome, and Bishop Whittingham 
 now protests very justly against the abolition of the old canon. There 
 may be some connection between them." 
 
 THE USE OF THE LITURGY IN CONGREGATIONS. 
 
 After the greater portion of this work had already been in type, it 
 occurred to the author that an incidental allusion in regard to the use 
 of the Liturgy might be misconstrued, and hence he allows himself to 
 add the following in this place. 
 
 He would say, then, that as matters stand now, each congregation 
 has the right to have the Liturgy introduced in public worship or not, as 
 seems best to it. We deem this a most undesirable state of things, as 
 tending to great diversity instead of uniformity in the public worship 
 of the sanctuary. But the Synod has so ordered it, and the General 
 Synod in Dayton has settled the matter. No minister, however, and 
 no Consistory even, has the right to introduce that form of worship 
 without the consent of the people. The book has not been adopted by 
 the Synod. It simply alloived its use. The 44th Article of the Con- 
 stitution says that in the spiritual concerns of a congregation none but 
 communicants are entitled to vote, and it implies, of course, that a 
 change in the form of worship, which is a spiritual concern, is to be 
 decided by them. So it was explained at Dayton by all who spoke on 
 the side of the Liturgy, according to the reports i)ublished in the 
 Messeni^er. 
 
 Dr. Nevin says in his pamphlet, Tke Liturgical Question, " It must 
 ever be worse than folly to think of carrying any measure of this sort, 
 with a religious denomination like ours, without its own most general 
 if not entirely universal consent.'''' 
 
1 80 APPENDICES. 
 
 At the General Synod in Dayton Dr. Apple said : 
 
 " It is for them [the churches] to determine whether they will accept 
 and use it." 
 
 Dr. Gans said : " We owe it to the people to say what they want in 
 an order of worship." 
 
 Dr. Nevin : "Are you not willing to trust the people? Do you 
 know better than they what they want?" 
 
 Dr. Gerhart : " It must be submitted to the people. I am not afraid 
 of its going down to the people" [not the minister merely, nor the 
 Consistory merely]. 
 
 Dr. Russell : " Let the Liturgy therefore go to the churches for 
 optional use and trial." And similarly they all spoke. 
 
 It is plain, therefore, that the churches, as such, are to decide for 
 themselves in this matter. This is in accordance with the Constitution, 
 and also, as we have just seen, with the fully-expressed sentiments of 
 the representatives of the General Synod, which allowed the use of the 
 Liturgy. Christian prudence, however, would dictate to a minister that 
 he ought not to introduce it, unless it can be done without offense to 
 any, or at least any considerable number, of his memliers ; because its 
 use is, in any view, not essential, and, as Dr. Nevin has said, the Re- 
 formed Church got along without a Liturgy before, and it can do so 
 still. 
 
 "INFANT BAPTISM." 
 
 Professor Doctor Luthardt (Lutheran) says: " Once when Jewish 
 mothers brought their children to Jesus to bless them, and the disci- 
 pies would have repelled them because these little children understood 
 as yet nothing of the matter, Jesus expressly reproved them, and took 
 the children in His arms, laid Ilis hands upon them, and blessed them. 
 [He did not say that they were "under the power of the devil."] 
 And why should not we, too, bring our children to Him, and feel cer- 
 tain that He receives them and gives them His blessing? It is of 
 this that baptism is the expression." And in a note it is added : 
 
 " Matt. xix. 13, seq. ; Mark x. 13, seq. ; Luke xviii. 15, seq. Thus 
 were the discijiles taught the position occupied by children with respect 
 to the kingdom of heaven. Baptism in Church times corresponds with 
 the blessing then bestowed on children by the Lord Jesus." — Saving 
 Truths, p. 240. 
 
 "SACERDOTAL AB.SOLUTION." 
 
 The following are the concluding objections against a ]iublished 
 sermon on the above theme, by the Rev. M. A. Curtis, of the Episcopal 
 Church in North Carolina. The review is frtun the pen of the late 
 Dr. J. Addison Alexander, and is found in the Prmceton Rcviexv, vol. 
 xvii. The whole article is able and thorough, like everything from 
 that remarkable man. 
 
 " Our fifth objection to the doctrine [of sacerdotal absolution] is that, 
 as a theory, it is part and parcel of a system of falsehood, from which 
 it cannot be detached without gross inconsistency and arbitrary violence. 
 Among the unscriptural and dangerous doctrines which it presupposes, 
 
APPENDICES. igj 
 
 or to which it leads, is the doctrine that the Apostles were the original 
 recipients of the Holy Ghost, whom they alone had the power to com- 
 municate by the imjiosition of hands; that they transniiited this jiower 
 to their episcopal successors; that in every ordination by a bishop, 
 sanctifying grace and supernatural power are imparted; that all who 
 are thus ordained priests have power to make the sacraments effectual 
 means of communicating the benefits of redemption, the power, as even 
 Protestants express it, of making the body and blood of Christ ; that in 
 the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ is really repeated, or at least so 
 commemorated as to secure the pardon of sin ; that it is only by par- 
 ticipation in the sacraments, thus administered, that men can be 
 sanctified and saved. With the priestly power to forgive sins is 
 connected, on the one hand, the necessity of specific confession, and, 
 on tlie other, the infallibility of the Church ; with that, the denial of 
 the right of private judgment ; and with that, the necessity of persecu- 
 tion. To one who goes the whole length of these error?, their connec- 
 tion and agreement can but serve to strengthen his convictions; but to 
 those who shrink from any of them, it ought to be a serious considera- 
 tion that they stand in the closest logical relation to the plausible and 
 cherished dogma of sacerdotal absolution. 
 
 " Our sixth objection to the doctrine is that it is practically a sub- 
 version of the gospel, a substitution of human mediation for the 
 mediation of Christ, and an exaltation of the priest into the place of 
 God. It is easily said that the power arrogated by the clergy is deriva- 
 tive and delegated ; that it is God who pardons and Christ who makes 
 the throne of grace accessible, just as it may be said and is said that 
 the papist who adores an image uses it only as a help to his devotion 
 while he worships God. The profession may in either case be honest, 
 but in neither case can it avail to change the practical result, to wit, 
 that God is neglected or forgotten in the idol of the priest. Instead of 
 that dependence on the Spirit and the word, which form an indispensa- 
 ble condition of Christ's promise to His people, the clergy are invested 
 with authority, first, to decide what is Scripture; then to determine 
 what the Scripture means; and then what is to lie believed as matter 
 of faith, though not contained in Scrijiture ; while at the same time 
 they alone have power to forgive the sins of men. This practical 
 restriction of the power to determine what is sin and to forgive sin, in 
 the hands of a certain class of ministers, as such, without regard to 
 their character and standing before God, is the sum, essence, and soul 
 of Antichrist; the constituent principle of that very power which has 
 debauched and enslaved the world; of the power which sits in the 
 temple of God; the mystery of iniquity, sustained by the working of 
 Satan with all power, the power of the sword, the power of learning, 
 the power of superstition, the power of an evil conscience, the power 
 of lying wonders, a power which has held and will hold the world in 
 subjection till the Lord shall consume it with the Spirit of His mouth 
 and destroy it by the brightness of His coming. The gospel thus 
 preached is ' another gospel,' and the doctrine which tends to such a 
 practical result is and must be false. 
 
 " To such of our readers as are satisfied, by these or any other argu- 
 ments, that forgiveness of sins is not a sacerdotal function, that the 
 i6 
 
1 82 APPENDICES. 
 
 Christian ministry is not a priesthood, that the power of remission was 
 not given to the ministry, that the power of absolule effectual remis- 
 sion was not given at all, that the contrary liypothesis is one link in a 
 chain of fearful errors, and practically tends to the subversion of the 
 gospel, we may now say what we waived our right to say before, to 
 wit, that the doctrine of sacerdotal absolution is unscriptural, dishonor- 
 ing to God, and incompatible with human fallibility and weakness. 
 
 " In the course of our argument, and at its close, the question natu- 
 rally presents itself. What is the Church to which the power of remis- 
 sion has been granted ? how does it act, how can it be consultetl, what 
 relation has it to the Christian ministry? These are inquiries of the 
 highest moment, and the answer to them is really involved in the pre- 
 ceding argument. But a direct and full solution is not necessary to 
 the negative conclusions which we have endeavored to establish, and 
 may be better given in another place." 
 
 "GOING BACKWARD." 
 
 This has been a favorite expression with some of our brethren who 
 hSiWQ gone fonvard pretty far on the " inclined plane," as Dr. Dorner 
 calls it. They justify this by saying that the Reformed Church had 
 done so in some other things, — with the Creed, for instance, which had 
 been greatly unden-alued, but was no7v restored in these latter days as 
 an authoritative symbol; and so also in regard to "educational reli- 
 gion," which had pushed aside " wild-fire fanaticism," so threateningly 
 dangerous in the Church at one time. Now, on these two little illus- 
 trative references I wish to say a few words. 
 
 And first. When was the Creed undervalued in the Reformed Church 
 any more than it is now? Was it not always taught in the instruction 
 of our youth? Can a dozen ministers be named in the whole East- 
 ern Synod who neglected it in this way ? There were ?<Qme— foreign- 
 ers, perhaps — who did so ; I mean those who came from other de- 
 nominations. The great, the overwhelming majority of our ministers 
 instructed their young people in the Catcchi.sm, in which the Creed is 
 explained with great simplicity and beauty; not indeed in the new, 
 forced, and unnatural sense which is now attempted to be given to it, 
 and which was nt'xrr — I say never — before given to it, nay, not even 
 in the fourth nor in the fourteenth centuiy. And so also in reference 
 to " wild-fire fanaticism." The Church — I speak of the Eastern por- 
 tion particularly — was but very partially affected (or afilicted) by ex- 
 treme measures in and through our 07iin ministry. Those portions of 
 it where the evil was most felt were acted ujion from outside of the 
 Reformed Church, especially by one denomination with which our 
 own is so closely connected. It is true that some of our ministers, 
 under the pressure and force of outward circumstances, were in some 
 instances led to adopt measures that were of doubtful expediency. 
 But these were rare; they were exceptional cases. So that this hue 
 and cry, started by one or two men and now taken up at second and 
 third hand by younger brethren, is really an affair of moonshine, or at 
 least dealing in stilted exaggerations. I speak that which I know. 
 I had as good an opportunity of knowing the status of the Church 
 
APPENDICES. 
 
 183 
 
 at tiie period referred to as any one else, because of the position in 
 which I was then placed and my frequent mingling with pastors 
 and people in almost every part of the Church. And I remember 
 well that a few of the brethren who were then sympathizing with the 
 " new measures" to some extent, thought that / was too " old- 
 fogyish" for them (that was the word) to be invited to preach at their 
 religious meetings, as once, but who have since gone " up" and " for- 
 ward"' so high and so far that we cannot again touch hands. 
 
 No: our Church, as a whole, did not greatly suffer in that direction 
 from within our own bosom, but from without. She suffered much more, 
 1 think, from too much cold than too much heat, and I greatly fear 
 such is the case in a degree to this day.. This was the judgment of 
 one of our professors twenty years ago, when travelyig over Eastern 
 Pennsylvania. When one of the worthy but very easy ministers told 
 him that the " Albrights" were creating some trouble in his country 
 charge, the professor replied, •' A little stirring of the stagnant waters 
 here, I should judge, would do you good; for you need it." Hence 
 the illustrations which some of the younger brethren are so fond of 
 bringing forward to show that, as in these things the new-theory move- 
 ment was for good, therefore it must be good to go back still farther, 
 is a nonsequitiir : in other words, it will not hold. The premises are 
 not true. It is far from being true that the Church then (thirty years 
 ago) "was ready to fall over into wild-fireism." It is an effort to 
 "raise funds on a fictitious capital." When Dr. Nevin's tract on the 
 Anxious Bench appeared, the feverish excitement which had pre- 
 vailed was nearly at its end. That tract came in good time, and 
 strengthened the sober and sobering second thought of many in the 
 Lutheran Church and also in our own. It did good, unquestionably; 
 but it is too much to say that the tract put a stop to the epidemic. It 
 had in great measure run its course. Nor was it all unmixed evil. 
 Many who were then brought into the Church under the " high-press- 
 ure system," as it is called, are among the stable, bright members 
 and ministers of the Church now, some of these in our own Church, 
 and several even among the advanced side of it ! 
 
 This "going back" is well enough within proper limits. But we 
 have, alas ! already seen that there is a going back that tendeth toivard 
 and into Rome. And yet, with all the heedlessness of ardent youth, 
 sober-minded men will write and preach up to us this " going back," 
 in order to go gloriously forward according to the " law of develop- 
 ment" — a word of such charming sound — and the " law of progress." 
 Thus discourseth a writer in the Messenger oi September 17, 1S73: 
 
 " Will not Protestantism be forced, by the law of progress itself, to 
 approach the Church of Rome both theologically and practically ; not 
 to fall over helplessly and blindly into her rtrms [of course not blindly, 
 but with eyes wide open], but to cope with her in the theoretical and 
 practical issues of our common Christian faith ? [But, my dear child, 
 old mother is too old to learn from you, and you are very green to ex- 
 pect to gain her over to you.] Is not ihis the only way in which she can 
 be brought to abandon her errors and to yield to the just and sacred 
 demands of personal freedom ? There seems to be clearly a fixed and 
 absolute necessity of going backward in this case also, that a triumph- 
 
1 84 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 ant going fonvard in the grand solution of the gigantic problems of 
 the last times may follow as a result. We settle no dogmas now ; we 
 mean only to suggest ideas : let time show whether these ideas are in 
 accord with the law of historical development, the law of life and sal- 
 vation to the world." [The " dogmas" are all fixed, like the laws of the 
 Medes and Persians, in the Roman Church. Time will show that 
 your laws are no laws at all, but a mere ignis fatnus.'\ 
 
 THE "DEFECTS" OF THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 Whilst the last pages of this work are passing through the press, the 
 Reforfiied Church Messenger of December lo contains an article from 
 one of the professors at Lancaster on the late meeting of the Evan- 
 gelical Alliance in New York, which claims some notice. 
 
 The criticism is presented, we are told in the intioduction, "not 
 in an unfriendly spirit," for it is rather " an act of friendship to look 
 at the defects as well as the merits of that assemblage." 
 
 1. The first defect which he notices is, that "it failed to represent 
 all sections of Protestantism. It was predominantly Presbyterianism. 
 Germany was but 'partially represented.' But few delegates, com- 
 paratively, from that country were present." 
 
 2. But the greatest defect, he thinks, " was the absence of a Lu- 
 theran representation:'' There was one there, it is true, besides Dr. 
 Conrad, but he " felt that the Alliance was entirely oue-sided, and 
 could not properly represent Protestantism; and so he read his essay, 
 a philosophical one, and merely looked on." ..." Lutheranism was 
 there only through politeness, not to speak a great Lutheran word. 
 Dr. Krauth could have done that ; he has already uttered it in his 
 able work on the Conservative Theology." 
 
 3. "Then the Alliance failed in representing what may be called the 
 churchly side of Protestantism." The professor adds that he would 
 like to see even a broader discussion than this to be had, and if the 
 Roman [Catholic] Church would consent, he would like to see " Ro- 
 man and Protestant issues discussed." 
 
 Now, as to the first defect adverted to, we have only to say that if 
 " Presbyterianism" was more largely represented than others in the Alli- 
 ance, it would seem to show clearly that Presbyterians took a more heart- 
 felt interest in that meeting. Why were some other Churches not more 
 fully represented (the Reformed from this country, for instance) ? Just 
 because they preferred to " look on" merely, or even preferred to pre- 
 judice ministers and people against the Alliance. Should they now 
 complain against " one-sided" representation in that body, when they 
 themselves, perhaps, were the very persons who prevented a larger 
 representation? — As for Germany being but "partially represented," 
 we wish to say that it is to be regretted that providential circum- 
 stances prevented some of the most sincere friends of the cause and 
 some of the brightest lights of that country from being present on the 
 occasion. Tholuck, unable from bodily infirmity to be present, was 
 there, however, by a written paper; Dr. von Hoffmann, the eminent 
 Prussian court-preacher, died just prior to the time of the meeting; 
 Tischendorff, the renowned Oriental Christian scholar, became par- 
 
APPENDICES. 
 
 185 
 
 alyzed ; and some others were prevented by similar causes from being 
 present. And yet Germany was not feebly nor " partially" repre- 
 sented, taking all things into account. Dorner, Christlieb, flicdner, 
 Krummacher, Ahel (of Berlin), Boegner, Prof. Wide, Prof. Dr. 
 Kraft, Count Benistorff, Dr. Zimvtermatiti, and perhaps others, Mxre 
 there. Surely this was no mean delegation, even as to numbers ; and 
 as to intellectual and moral force they were a mighty host, and their 
 presence was highly appreciated by thousands. As for the Reformed 
 Church from abroad, it was numerous and highly respectable. From 
 France, from Switzerland, from Germany, and from Holland, more 
 than a score were present. Only from the Reformed Church of our 
 own country (our own branch of it, we mean) we had no correspond- 
 ing representation. We feel humiliated at the thought, but especially 
 when we think of the reason "w/iy it was not otherwise. 
 
 As regards the second defect referred to by the professor, it is some- 
 what singular that he should take it so much to heart that that side 
 of Lutheranism should not be fully represented which tinchurches the 
 Reformed, and, indeed, all other Protestant denominations. In "that 
 great word" spoken by Dr. Krauth in his book, he coolly hands the 
 Reformed professor and his Church over to unchurchly sectarists. 
 And is it for this that the professor feels bound to praise him ? One 
 cannot help being reminded of the keen irony of the Apostle in 2 Cor. 
 xi. 20. — But the professor commits an egregious mistake when he 
 makes Lutheranism responsible for such ultra High Church views. Dr. 
 Krauth would represent a small fraction only of the Lutheran Church in 
 Germany and America when combined. The separated Lutherans in 
 Germany — the High Church — are a very small body, taking even the 
 five or six different fractions existing there all together. The same is 
 substantially true of this country, although we do not know how the 
 case may stand relatively. But we doubt if, in the separated body to 
 which Dr. K. belongs ("The Council"), a majority can be found to 
 stand by his exclusive views. This, of course, does not concern us; 
 but it concerns the criticism of our Reformed professor. 
 
 4. And when, finally, the professor regards it as a defect that the 
 " churchly side" in Protestantism was not duly represented in the Al- 
 liance, and a wish is expressed that the Roman Church, even, might 
 also be represented, in order to have " Roman and Protestant issues 
 discussed," we cannot but marvel at his taste, as well as at the total 
 misapprehension of the nature and object of the Alliance. Contro- 
 versial discussion, — discussing prelacy and priesthood, the Papal In- 
 fallibility question, et cetera! Surely the professor has mistaken the 
 foundation-principle of the Evangelical Alliance altogether. He 
 seems to have in his mind a theological debating-society, in which all 
 the discordant elements are to engage in a gladiatorial encounter. 
 And then, when the fight is over, who is to act as umpire in behalf of 
 the multitudinous combatants? Most devoutly would we say. From 
 such an Assembly deliver us ! and we cannot but believe our friend in 
 Lancaster, with all his seeming calmness and gentleness, even towards 
 his opponents, would be tempted to say, Procul, O procul este, pro 
 fani ! 
 
 16* 
 
1 86 APPENDICES. 
 
 THE BEST MODE OF COUNTERACTING MODERN 
 INFIDELITY. 
 
 Professor Christlieb, of the University of Bonn, in Prussia, read a 
 part only of a paper he had prepared on the above subject. But its 
 efiect upon the thousands who heard it was such that other tliousands 
 who heard of it requested that the lecture might be repeated, which 
 was afterwards done, to the delight of all, notwithstanding it occupied 
 two hours and forty-five minutes in its delivery. The efiect is said to 
 have been overpowering, and its publication in book-form has been 
 requested, and it has already been printed. We give the following 
 brief sketch of its leading points, as prepared by the editor of the New 
 York Obsei-ver, who was the General Secretary of the Alliance. Prof. 
 Christlieb said: The Church should eschew all methods of defending 
 her faith which did not rest upon a spiritual and moral basis and look 
 to the conversion of the objector. The subject was divided naturally 
 under three heads. The first part was as to the encountering of un- 
 belief in individuals. The best method was that by which the con- 
 science and the heart could be reached. The inward causes and 
 effects of unbelief upon the moral character were to be enlarged upon, 
 not in an inquisitorial spirit, but in a sympathetic way. It should be 
 shown that faith and knowledge were not antagonistic. Cointe once 
 thoughtfully paused before what he called the radical evil within us. 
 The morality of men was •defective. In Christ there was moral per- 
 fection, confessed even by Rationalistic critics. With regard to the 
 best scientific method of defense, the positions were the clear defini- 
 tion of the fundamental articles of our faith as distinguished from the 
 less important ones. In every fortress there was a central stronghold, 
 then there was the enceinte* and then the outside fortifications. The 
 central position of Christianity luas the essential doctrine of the atone- 
 ment of Christ, reconciling men to God. Certain positions were in- 
 dispensable to this,— our original need, and the love of God which 
 carried out the atonement ; the reception of the word into the heart, 
 and the regeneration of the believer. The enceinte was the doctrine of 
 Holy Scripture as the record of Divine revelation. The outer circle 
 comprised such matters as historical investigation and philosophical 
 speculation. The outer circle should not be given up prematurely; 
 but a wise defender would withdraw from it sooner than risk the inner 
 fort. With regard to philosophy, the harmony and symmetry of the 
 Christian system had to be demonstrated, and it could be shown how 
 the isolated conceptions of truth outside of revelation converged to- 
 wards a focus in the Biblical system. Without embarrassing oppo- 
 nents with such questions as the positive and substantial results of 
 these speculations, what were their main positions? (The professor 
 rapidly sketched some of the main philosophical theories prevalent in 
 Germany.) Such views, if impartially examined, led to the conclusion 
 that the faith of the Christian was the only star of ho])e for humanitv. 
 Let us boldly attack unbelievers on this their weak point. In all 
 natural and pantheistic systems the spiritual capacities of man were 
 
 * Encnintf — a French military term, which means the wall or inclosure of a place, 
 citadel, etc., — the outer defense. 
 
APPENDICES. 
 
 187 
 
 sacrificed. With reference to the German general notion of inspira- 
 tion, he would guard against any exaggerated theory of inspiration, as 
 placing undue advantage in the hands of opponents. The canon of 
 Scri]iture was not apostolically announced ; but was it not probable that 
 the Spirit guided the Church in the adoption of the canon ? From the 
 inner spirit of the canonical Scriptures the strongest proof of their 
 authority should be drawn. If chronological and other disputes arose, 
 it was wise to say, in the spirit of Luther, " What matter, if it does 
 not invalidate our central truths?" He wouhi say, " What cannot be 
 denied need not be feared." But if criticism sought to invalidate 
 revelation, it should be boldly met. The objection to the resurrection, 
 for instance, should be met with the rejoinder that primitive Christian- 
 ity cannot be explained if Christ did not do what the Gospels alleged. 
 He would also advise stripping modern skepticism of the claim 
 of novelty. With regard to the attacks of anti-miraculous, natural 
 science, a sharp line must be drawn between the end and object 
 of Scripture and of natural science. The latter dealt with things as 
 they are, and could not penetrate into the spiritual and invisible world. 
 A stand should then be taken on the general harmony already estab- 
 lished between Biblical cosmogony and science. As to the generation 
 of man from mere natural forces, the argument should be drawn from 
 man's moral self- consciousness pointing to a Divine origin and the 
 unity of the race. With reference to the attacks on Christianity as a 
 social power, there were two lines of defense: — first, the historic 
 method, as to tlie eff'ects and spirit of infidelity. " By their fruits ye 
 shall know them." The proof that the fruit of infidelity was cor- 
 rupt and corrupting was very convincing. The professor scathingly 
 exposed the spirit of modern infidelity, its shallow learning, the poor 
 substitutes it afforded to humanity for the ennobling and sublime doc- 
 trines of revealed religion, and its want of practical results tending to 
 the welfare of man. In the last continental war the great task of 
 succoring the wounded and needy fell upon the Church. Christianity 
 was the bond that held humanity together, — the true conservative in- 
 fluence of society. In fact, not only as Christians, but as citizens and 
 patriots, they must protest against infidelity. The second line of de- 
 fense was the practical religious method, — the actual proof of Christian 
 truth by the actual fruits of a Christian life. Narrow-minded preju- 
 dices must be laid aside. • This conference was a practical proof of 
 Christian life. The Christian was the world's Bible. The strongest 
 argument for the truth of Christianity was the true Christian. The 
 best proof of Christ's resurrection was a living Church. Meanwhile, 
 the world was fast becoming divided into two hostile camps, — the 
 unbelievers and the faithful. Every church and eveiy nation should 
 contribute its peculiar talent for the defense and honor of the truth, in 
 intellectual argument, in courageous living, in benevolence, in love. 
 
 " It is impossible," says Dr. Prime, " to convey in writing any idea 
 of the effect produced by the paper of Professor Christlieb of which 
 the above is a meagre outline. The audience listened with rapt 
 attention, and at the close broke forth into shouts of approval; great 
 relief was produced by the singing of the verses, 
 
 " ' Dear dying Lamb, thy precious blood 
 Shall never lose its power.' " 
 
1 88 APPENDICES. 
 
 WHAT IS TO BE THE EFFECT? 
 
 This question is on the lips of all who have enjoyed the wonrierfiil 
 meeting of the Evangelical Alliance. It is confessed on all hands that 
 the Conference was attended with signal evidence of Divine power, 
 and that those who were present enjoyed a revival of religion extraor- 
 dinary in its character and unprecedented in its immediate usefuhiess. 
 So far as we have knowledge from tradition and history, no religious 
 convention in any period of time, in any country, ever commanded 
 such attention, or so powerfully and instantaneously affected the public 
 mind. It was manifested in the Conference, in all Us sections and 
 popular meetings, that the people were not running after novelties or 
 seeking sensations. They desired religious instruction. The ablest essays 
 developing strong religious sentiment and feeding the soul with the 
 profoundest religious truth were heard with the highest satisfaction ; 
 while the unpremeditated exhortation, however warm and brilliant, was 
 regarded as a waste of precious time. The people came to learn the 
 way of God more perfectly, and in hearing they found great reward. 
 
 On those who enjoyed the rare privilege of attending the meetings the 
 effect was mighty for good. And the effect, also, on the interests 
 of evangelical religion in the city and in the whole country has been 
 powerful and happy. It has exhibited an intellectual strength and an 
 amount of learning and zeal on that side, which the free religionists and 
 other enemies of the gospel had not imagined that truth could command. 
 
 And what is to be done about it !iow ? It should be followed by 
 such results as will make it felt in all the cities and villages and rural 
 districts of this whole country. It should mark an era in the history 
 of Christian Union, united religious effort, closer relationship and more 
 ardent love among all the followers of Christ, of whatever name. All 
 over the land Christians ought to associate themselves into Alliances, 
 irrespective of denominations, and auxiliary to the great Alliance of 
 the United States, thus constituting themselves members of it, and 
 increasing its power. In all these places such Unions will bring Chris- 
 tians of many religious names into harmonious action for the pro- 
 motion of good works, while by the principles of the Alliance the 
 denominational peculiarities and relations of all are left undisturbed. 
 Such unity of effort and prayer, in all places, will not fail to give fresh 
 impulse to evangelical religion. It would be in the best sense of the 
 word a RFA'IVAL. That God would take pleasure in such a i-esult 
 there can be no doubt; and it is equally certain that the best spiritual 
 interests of the people would be promoted. 
 
 CHRIST INCARNATE IF MAN HAD NOT SINNED. 
 
 [To corroborate what is said on p. 19, the following extract is given :] 
 " It is quite evident that even had the angels in heaven never re- 
 belled and dragged men through their temptations into sin and misery, 
 still He would have united Himself, in some form, to the human race, 
 so as to raise it beyond the position which it occujiied in Paradise. 
 Intimations of this fact, clear and forcible, abound in the revelation of 
 God; and the nature of man and the nature of Christ both demand 
 this." — Dr. Cans, in the Messenger of Dec. 24, 1873. 
 
Date Due 
 
 f-AJULTY 
 
 
 
 
 .,.——* 
 
 •«■» 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 •-** 
 
 
 
 -«*«*'-'— 
 
 « — 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^