sec 
 
 #11,285 
 
EEFORMED, 
 
 :^TOT RITUALISTIC 
 
 APOSTOLIC, NOT PATRISTIC. 
 
 A REPLY 
 
 Dr. nea^n's "vindication," &o. 
 
 BY 
 
 J. H. A. BOMBERGER, D.D 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 JAS. B. RODGERS, PRINTER, 52 & 54 NORTU SIXTH STREET. 
 
 18G7. 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 Rev. J. H. A. BoNrBERCER, D.D. 
 
 Dear Brothkr: — As your tract, entitled "The Revised Liturgy: A History and Cri- 
 ticism of the Ritualistic movement in the Reformed Church," has been violently assailed 
 in a reply by the Rev. J. W. Nevin, D.D., entitled "Vindication of the Revised Liturgy," 
 in which the author not only indulges in gross personal abuse of yourself and many of 
 your brethren, but makes statements which we believe to be utterly groundless; advocates 
 views which are believed to be at variance with historical facts, the doctrinal standard of 
 the German Reformed Church and the Holy Scriptures, most earnestly labors to introduce 
 a Liturgy which is not German Reformed ; and to the introduction of which into our Church 
 we most decidedly object : the undersigned Elders of said Church would respectfully request 
 you to furnish for publication such a defence of your former tract as you may deem proper 
 to write, and especially such an exhibition of the Liturgical principles and of the doetrijies 
 of our Church upon the points involved, as may serve to fortify us and the members of the 
 Church generally, against what are regarded as dangerous errors. 
 
 Permit us to request, however, that whatever plainness of speech and pointedness of 
 proof you may think proper to employ, you will not allow yourself to be tempted by the 
 unfortunate style used by the author of the " Vindication " to imitate his example in this 
 respect. It is with pain and sorrow that we refer to the uncalled for unkindness and bit- 
 terness manifested by Rev. Dr. Nevin. 
 
 We trust, therefore, that you will not write one word in your defence, that you would 
 wish had been omitted when you close your career here below, and that will not aid in 
 maintaining the truth as taught by the fathers of our Church, and advance the cause of 
 our Redeemer's kingdom. With kind regards, 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 John Wiest, Abraham Kline, 
 
 W. E. ScHMKRTz, Dr. Thos. Ingram, 
 
 Geo. Besore, C C. Reepheim, 
 
 R. F. Kelker, W. H. Schall, 
 
 Col. Daniel Follmer, . CiiAS. Wanxemacher, 
 
 Charles Newhard, Abraham Bausmann, 
 
 W. H. Frymire, Abraham Peters, 
 
 Levi Balliet, J. L. IIoffmeier, 
 
 Peter Shepper, Sam'l Yost, 
 
 Jacob M. Foli.mer, Christian Gast, 
 
 Jacob Yeisly, Jos. K. Milnor, 
 
 David M'Williams. 
 
 To the Elders George Besore, Wm. E. Schmertz, 
 John Wiest and others : 
 
 Philadelphia, Ma>/ 9, 186: 
 
 Mr Deak Brethren: — In the following pages you will find, it is hoped, a satisfactory 
 answer to your request ; 
 
 But why have you asked for a continuance of this controversy? And why should I 
 comply with your request ? A tract abounding in such bitter personal abuse, indulging 
 in a tone so insultingly imperious, assuming airs so lofty and dictatorial, and yet relying, 
 in its sense of real weakness, upon fierce denials for rebutting proofs, and upon bold 
 dogmatic assertions and evasive sophistries for facts and honest arguments, might seem 
 beneath criticism and wholly unworthy of notice. No mere personal consideration, cer- 
 tainly, could have induced me to give it any attention. And you are perfectly right, breth- 
 ren, in deprecating the thought that the style and logic of Dr. Nevin's " last words," should 
 be retaliated either in manner or in kind. At the same time I accede to your opinion, 
 that the unhappy tract referred to demands some replj'. Dr. Nevin has been long regarded 
 as an almost unerring oracle in our Church. We have been accustomed to pay well-nigh 
 
IV CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 unquestioning deference to his opinions. It is one of our ecclesiastical virtues to cherish 
 and manifest scntiiflents of profound respect for those who occupy posts of responsibility, 
 or who may seem to be endowed with superior gifts. But it is easy to see how all this 
 may be perverted and abused. The oracle may err. Opinions once received as the syno- 
 nyms of truth, may involve the very quintessence of false doctrine. Reverence for 
 dignitaries may degenerate into blind servility, and become a snare. More than one illus- 
 tration in point is furnished by ecclesiastical history. 
 
 And yet a generous and confiding people will commonly be slow to believe that their 
 very confidence is placing in jeopardy their dearest and holiest interests. This is espe- 
 cially apt to be the case when those by whose influence and measures the peril is occasioned, 
 seem to be sincere, when, indeed, no one may dispute that they are acting in full accord- 
 ance with deep convictions. The teachers whose lessons we have been long accustomed 
 to receive with meek docility, must go very far and openly astray, before we can consent 
 to doubt their doctrines, or even to scrutinize their theories and schemes. To abandon 
 or condemn those who have for many years been trustingly followed as safe and certain 
 guides, involves humiliation and exposes to reproach. We naturally shrink not only 
 from such humiliation, but from a course which impliedly condemns those guides. 
 
 All this gives to errors and subversive measures a dangerous power. While hesitating 
 to believe them such, they secure overwhelming ascendancy, accomplish their schemes, 
 and involve the Church in ruin. Hence the necessity for a prompt and decided exposure 
 of what are believed to be pernicious errors and menacing evils. Hence also the full 
 justification of such exposures. That this does not imply what Dr. Nevin has labored so 
 unjustly to make out, an accusation of conspiracy, has, I think, been fully shown on pp. 
 16-24 of the present tract. But Dr. Nevin's attempt to distort this point, must not be 
 allowed to conceal what it does involve. And when we are plainly told that the ])urpose 
 of the ritualistic movement is to revolutionize our Church, it is time to be aroused to a 
 sense of the great peril which threatens us. To sound the alarm in such an emergency 
 is not to be troublers in Israel. They are the troublers who seek to subvert Israel's faith 
 and worship, and to lead both into bondage. To point out the evils of such a scheme 
 may provoke angry maledictions. But what is there in the malediction thundered from 
 a source like this to frighten loyal hearts from the discharge of a solemn duty. 
 
 None could find less pleasure in controversy, than those who have felt constrained to 
 oppose the extreme turn taken by the present ritualistic movement. None could more 
 earnestly desire than they, that there had been no occasion for such opposition. But 
 their Church, in her true historical character, is more to them than the peculiar theology 
 or ritualistic scheme of Dr. Nevin and those who embrace and advocate his views. And 
 the movement has been forced to a point at which the choice lay between firm opjiosition 
 to its furiher progress, or the abandonment of the Church to the subversive tendency of 
 the ritualistic " new measures." 
 
 If any ask why this resistance was not made long ago, I reply: 1. That it is not long 
 since the Liturgical movement has assumed openly the extreme ritualistic character which 
 it now avows. 2. That we were too slow to believe that so radical a revolution in our 
 cultus would ever be seriously attempted or pressed; and 3. That it seemed proper to wait 
 for the full develoj^ment of the scheme, as now made in the Revised Liturgy. But 
 although for these reasons, the force of which all generous minds will appreciate, the 
 opposition has been delayed so long, whj' should it be too late to arrest the further 
 progress, or defeat the purposes pf this extreme ritualistic movement? Only let the Church 
 realize what the points at issue are, and duly consider them. Our greatest danger lies in 
 a prevailing reluctance to believe that Dr. Nevin and those who favor his scheme, really 
 mean what they avow. If the Church can once be persuaded that the new " Order of 
 Worship " means a fundamental and radical revolution mainly of our Church ])ractice, 
 and incidentally of some essential articles of our faith, her decision will not be doubtful. 
 I do not believe, notwithstanding all the influence with which this movement is pressed, 
 that one member in twenty of our Church, would vote for the adoption of this new system 
 of worship, knowing what such adoption would involve. 
 
 In the following reply to Dr. Nevin's "Vindication," it has been my desire and endea 
 vor to shun the bad example of his tract, in regard to spirit and style. And yet as I wa 
 brought so closely in contact with it, my pen may occasionally have caught the contagior 
 
 Of course I did not limit myself for proof's to the "Vindication." The discussion fair 
 involves all that has been written or said on that side, by responsible parties. Especial 
 does the tract of 1862, " The Liturgical Question," belong here. Indeed it is the prof 
 key to the true design of the ritualistic scheme; and no one can rightly estimate the p 
 sent posture of the case, without studying that memorable tract. 
 
 Committing the whole matter to llira who is the Head of the Church Militant as ^ 
 as the Church Triumphant, in the full confidence that He will deliver our Zion from 
 its present dangers, I remain sincerely 
 
 Your Brother, 
 
 J. H. A.BOMBERGE^ 
 
PRELIMINARIES. 
 
 One of the most painful positions in wbich it is possible for a man to 
 be placed, is to find himself arrayed in open and decided antagonism 
 against those in whose fellowship he once found sincere pleasure, and with 
 whose real or supposed views he once thought himself in happy agreement. 
 To difter positively from intimate friends, or from those for whom senti- 
 ments of fraternal regard may be cherished, even on matters of lesser im- 
 portance, is undesirable. But when the points of diversity affect, or are 
 honestly believed to affect, the substance and the form of evangelical faith 
 and practice, as avowed and maintained by the Church to which the par- 
 ties owe spiritual fealty, the duties imposed by such antagonism become, 
 most literally, a cross. It must be a cold heart which can bend to that 
 cross, without reluctance. It must be an easy, indifferent friendship, which 
 can render unhesitating, eager compliance with the demands of those 
 duties. 
 
 And yet, in such exigencies, the clear dictates of duty must prevail 
 over all mere personal considerations. If professed reverence and regard 
 for long established Church doctrines and customs, founded upon Apos- 
 tolic authority and primitive practice, have not prevented an attempt, 
 "materially and essentially," to change those customs and doctrines, why 
 should sentiments of inferior value deter us from earnestly resisting such 
 an attempt? Opposition to innovating schemes, subversive of the histo- 
 rical life and traditional character of the Church, may indeed, expose 
 those w4io make it, to bitter denunciation. By impugning their motives, 
 by vituperative misrepresentations of their views and aims, the entire en- 
 ginery of party power and partizan animosity may be turned upon them, 
 if possible to crush them, and with them the opposition made to the bold 
 new measures. The very influence with which they have helped to invest 
 some of the advocates of those measures, may be used to injure them. 
 Nevertheless, the established faith and practice of the Church should be 
 defended, no matter by whom assailed, or to what denunciations those 
 who engage in the defence may be exposed. And. this defence, whilst 
 it should be made in a manner consistent with the requirements of de- 
 
b PRELIMINARIES. 
 
 cency and of cliarity, should be also unequivocal and decided. Error is 
 naturally artful and insidious. In its first approaches, it may wear a harm- 
 less aspect, and seem wholly inoifensive. Its advocates may not be arrogant, 
 presumptuous, or dictatorial. Gentle of speech, unassuming, meek, they 
 may timidly ask only for a hearing, for toleration, for the opportunity of a 
 harmless experiment, under a pledge or promise at once to desist, if ob- 
 jection should be made to their further advancement. But no sooner 
 have they thus gained a foothold, and acquired some strength under the* 
 fostering influence of such unsuspicious toleration, than they make bold to 
 speak in quite a diiferent tone, confidently assume a more commanding 
 posture, and, instead of asking for favors^ dictate their dogmas and mea- 
 sures in terms of lordly authority. Now, they defiantly challenge contra- 
 diction; and if any attempt is made, in the interest of the old faith, or 
 through honest zeal for the maintenance of ecclesiastical integrity, to re- 
 sist and arrest their progress, they strive not only to defeat the attempt, 
 but to overwhelm all who make it with a torrent of ridicule and defama- 
 tion. No scene exactly like that at Ephesus, in St. Paul's day, or at the 
 same Ephesus, in A. D. 449, may be re-enacted in form. But the same 
 furious and bitter spirit betrays itself; a spirit of angry determination to 
 carry by violence, what might not be won by more decorous means. 
 
 Shall error and revolutionary innovations, grown into such magnitude, 
 and arrogating such defiant manners, be therefore allowed to have their 
 way? Shall the hallowed heritage of centuries be timidly abandoned to 
 the inroads of bold adventurousness and wild presumptuous speculations, 
 because they may carry the Creed as their standard, and shout, as their 
 battle-cry : The Church, the Church ! By no means. Come what may, 
 they must be opposed and withstood, if the hallowed faith and traditions 
 of our fathers shall not be forfeited and lost. Those fathers were the 
 honored instruments in the hands of God, in jjroducing or perfecting that 
 "Reformation which was the resia-rection of the Truth, once more, in its 
 genuine, original life." (See Dr. Nevin's "Anxious Bench," 2d ed.. p. 
 51.) Their Creed, their Cultus, founded upon that revived Truth, and 
 framed in accordance with the simplicity of Apostolic and Primitive 
 usage, are the most precious legacies bequeathed to us by the consecrated 
 past. The Church of the present holds them as a solemn trust. They 
 are talents which are not, indeed, to be buried in the ground, and left 
 unimproved, but talents which are to be improved according to their kind, 
 and not to be tampered with as a medium of mercenary trafiic in all sorts 
 of theological and ecclesiastical commodities, and to be bartered back 
 again for the conceits and measures of that false "philosophy by which 
 the Church of Rome, from the fourth century doimiward, was actuated in 
 all her innovations." (See "Anxioxis Bench," 2d ed., p. 53.) 
 
PRELIMINARIES. 7 
 
 To the past, as well as to the future, therefore, the Church of the 
 present is under solemn obligations to preserve her inherited faith and 
 practice inviolate, and to defend it, with firm, undaunted courage against 
 all '^material improvements," however plausible, and against all "inno- 
 vation upon her old system," however specious. Indeed, this obligation 
 is formally confessed in the Constitution of our Church. Her Professors of 
 theology are not left at liberty to invent doctrinal and liturgical systems of 
 .their own, and then to use the influence of their position in endeavoring 
 to secure the adoption those systems. They are required to affirm 
 as by an oath, and in the presence of God, that they believe "the 
 doctrine contained in the Heidelberg Catechism is the doctrine of the 
 Holy Scriptures" (evert including the 44th, 47th, 48th, 49th, 54th, 56th 
 and 80th questions), that they will make it "the basis of all their instruc- 
 tions, and faithfully maintain and defend the same, in their preaching and 
 writing, as well as in their instructions." (See Constit., Art. 19.) All 
 her ministers are bound by a similar pledge (Art. 4.) This, then, is a 
 statute imposed alike upon all. There is no exemption. The Church 
 avows her debt of fealty to the past, by laying those entrusted with the 
 official custody of her spiritual treasures, under the most solemn oath of 
 fidelity to the trust. They must swear, not merely that they will not 
 themselves exchange these treasures for any which may seem more valua- 
 ble, but that they will, zealously defend them against every attempt 
 which others may make to purloin them. Though they may sometimes 
 deceive themselves, or be deceived, by the specious pleas and forms under 
 which such attempts may be commenced, and let themselves be deluded 
 into the belief that they contemplate nothing more than the burnishing of 
 what, in time, had become dim, or repairing what may have been marred 
 or broken ; yet, when they find reason to believe that the effort involves 
 "materially" more than such mere renovation, and contemplates essential 
 substitutions, they cannot regard the process with indifference, without 
 violating their sacred obligations. 
 
 And in such emergencies, they have not only a right, but it is their 
 solemn duty, to speak and to claim a calm, dispassionate hearing. Those 
 who may seem to be implicated in attempts to effect such "material 
 changes'' in the established faith and practice of the Church, or who may 
 openly advocate views which involve " a scheme of religious belief mate- 
 rially at variance with preconceived opinions," may take offence at being 
 even impliedly blamed with such attempts. They may raise a clamorous 
 outcry against all who utter a word of warning, or charge their theory and 
 measures with tendencies of a subversive and revolutionary character. 
 By violent vituperations, by representing themselves as vilified and slan- 
 dered, by appealing to prejudices and inflaming bitter partizan passions, 
 
8 PRELIMINARIES, 
 
 they may endeavor to excite a very hurricane of indignation against those 
 whom they decry as false accusers, and so try to pervert their testimony 
 and to drown their voice. All this has often been done in like cases, 
 and may be constantly repeated. There is no doubt, also, that the appre- 
 hension of such a storm being raised, combines frequently with considera- 
 tions of personal regard, in long deterring many who may see reason for 
 alarm, from uttering their fears, and publicly directing attention to the 
 threatening peril. But when, at length, they feel constrained to speak, 
 and do so in plain and earnest, but decorous and moderate terms, should 
 they be smitten on the cheek, or rudely cast down and trampled under 
 foot ? May it not rather be expected, that as they would most certainly 
 not have spoken at all, but from a firm persuasion of danger, and a strong 
 conviction of duty, so now, that they have, perhaps after too long delay, 
 made bold to express their anxieties and give their reasons for those 
 anxieties, they will at least be calmly and fairly heard? 
 
 But whether heard, or discarded, they must be true to their solemn 
 oath. The dictates of duty must be obeyed, and consequences be left 
 with Ilim who is able to control them. Even though denounced as false 
 witnesses, if their testimony of warning is true, time will vindicate it. 
 Conscious of integrity of purpose, and convinced of the reality of the 
 evils they expose, they can aiFord patiently to bide their time. 
 
 It was with such sentiments, and after a struggle which continued 
 through the several months immediately preceding the Synod of York, in 
 October last, that I felt myself compelled at length to make the written 
 statement submitted to that Synod, adverse to the results reached by the 
 other members of the Liturgical Committee. And it was with such con- 
 victions, that I subsequently acceded to the request of a number of 
 Brethren, to prepare and publish a History and brief Criticism of the 
 Revised Liturgy. The facts of the history were gathered fairly and 
 faithfully from official documentary sources. Its purpose was to show by 
 official evidence, that if the Provisional Liturgy was, what some members 
 of the Committee declared it to be, a unit, and as such a true Liturgy in 
 their sense of the term; and that if the Revised Liturgy, or "Order of 
 Worship" reported to the Synod, was in true essential harmony with the 
 Provisional Liturgy, that then both were not in accordance with instruc- 
 tions given from time to time, by successive Synods, to the Committee, 
 for their government in the preparation of the work. This point will be 
 more fully examined in a subsequent section of the present tract. For 
 my purpose now, it is sufficient to state it. After giving, in my former 
 tract, the historical proofs of this position, I showed, in a necessarily brief 
 criticism, in what respects the Revised Liturgy, both as to its ritualistic 
 and doctrinal peculiarities, differed "materially" from the established 
 
PRELIMINARIES. 9 
 
 worship and standard doctrines of the German Reformed Church, and, 
 indeed, was "essentially" contrary to them. "Essential" diversities in 
 regard to the mode of worship, were admitted to be proposed by the Com- 
 mittee; even important diversity at least in the manner of presenting 
 some doctrines, was not denied. 
 
 It was delicate ground to go over. There were items in the history of 
 the movement, which could not be otherwise than most offensive to any 
 one cherishing, not bigoted and prejudiced, but only proper and natural 
 affection, for our ecclesiastical traditions. More than once had the Com- 
 mittee treated with disdain the cultus handed down to us by our fathers. 
 Not merely were certain extravagances of extemporaneous prayer ridi- 
 culed, but the whole system was stigmatized. Without reserve, it was 
 affirmed that its "natural character was to be jejune, confused, prosy, not 
 sapid, not satisfying nor nourishing for the soul. * * * Q^j^g misery 
 of the extemporaneous system is * * that it proves the liberty of being 
 weak, and of doing in a weak way, what there is no power of doing in a 
 way that is strong." (Liturgy, Question, p. 21.) This wholesale con- 
 demnation, let it be remembered, was passed upon the mode of worship 
 prevailingly practiced by our Church for at least two centuries, and au- 
 thorized even from the first. This, moreover, was not condemning and 
 stigmatizing the system only, but all who, during those centuries, had 
 practiced it. To Dr. Nevin, and those who joined him in endorsing his 
 sentiments on this point, it may seem pleasant pastime to indulge in such 
 sarcastic criticisms upon the customs of those who cannot answer them from 
 the silence of the grave. There are others, however, to whom such sar- 
 castic reproaches are insufferable. This is not all. Such "pulpit hand- 
 books" as the Old Palatinate Liturgy, met with no better treatment at 
 the hands of this ritualistic surgery. They are set down as "no true 
 liturgies;" as "a sort of unbound-book service;" as a "mummery of ritual- 
 istic forms;" as a kind of worship which '■'ceases to he distinctively Chris- 
 tian, and becomes necessarily more or less Gnostically spiritualistic only, 
 ending at last, indeed, in mere humanitarian deism." (Liturgy. Q. pp. 
 18—27, 28.) 
 
 Let the above quotations suffice as a few specimens of the indignity put 
 upon the labors and legacies of our Church when this "new flood" broke 
 in upon her. Let them suffice, also, to show how much occasion was thus 
 given for severe animadversion upon the temper evinced, and the lan- 
 guage employed by the advocates of the innovations (the difference be- 
 tween which and the Old Palatinate order of worship, is affirmed "to he 
 wider altogether than their common difference from woisliip in the free 
 form," Liturgy. Q. p. 5.) 
 
 But with all the provocation thus given, it was my steady aim and ef- 
 
10 PRELIMINARIES. 
 
 fort, in preparing the tract published last November, to avoid all harsh- 
 ness of style, all ribald epithets, all obnoxious personalities. As a his- 
 tory, facts had to be taken and given, as they were furnished by the 
 record; they could not be altered or modified, for they were a part of the 
 unchangeable past. They had to be given, also, in their true connection 
 and their historical import. But though the recital of them, as any re- 
 flecting mind can see, furnished frequent and tempting occasion for the 
 sharpest criticisms (Sartor resartus), scarcely any such were indulged in, 
 beyond what may be involved in obvious and necessary inferences. This 
 characteristic of the tract has been appreciated, also, by others. And 
 when Dr. Nevin afiirms (p. 5), that its criticisms '■^turn for the most jJort 
 on the use of invidious terms of reproach^ and appeals to popular preju- 
 dice," he says what he does not attempt to prove, what he cannot prove, 
 and what every reader of that tract knows to be unti-ue. 
 
 And yet that tract, in gross violation of parliamentary order, was 
 dragged into the public debate, and seized upon by the Rev. Dr. Nevin 
 (as the leader of the ultra ritualistic party in the German Reformed 
 Church, at the General Synod in Dayton, and made the occasion of a 
 personal attack upon me, which m.ay be mildly characterized as vulgar 
 i»nd vituperative to an extreme degree. And to prove the strength and 
 depth of the malevolent purpose which inspired that assault, it is now re- 
 peated, with a large addition and intensification of virulence, in hi^ recent 
 pamphlet, entitled "Vindication, &c." 
 
 If this published assault, and the pretended exhibition and defence of 
 the peculiarities of the Revised Liturgy, were issued upon the responsi- 
 bility of the author alone, and depended for their influence and effects 
 upon their own merits, nothing, assuredly, would be hazarded by me per- 
 sonally, or for the interest of the true faith and practice of the Church, in 
 letting it drop, unnoticed, into its own natural element. It appears, how- 
 ever, in a form which seems to make lay Brethren for whom I cherish 
 sincere private regard, and whom I hold no way answerable for Dr. 
 Nevin's language and sentiments, endorse the bitter denunciations of his 
 pamphlet, and so, possibly, secure for them a consideration which they 
 could not otherwise command. Ardent zeal, also, for the cause so un- 
 worthily defended, may gather warmly around this "Vindication," and 
 labor to secure currency for it by concealing or extenuating its faults, and 
 by lauding its sophistries and assumptions, meant for arguments. 
 
 It is thought proper, therefore, that the "Vindication" should be an- 
 swered; that its true character should be exposed; that its misrepresenta- 
 tions of facts should be corrected; and that the superior excellence of the 
 liturgical and doctrinal inheritance of the Reformed Church should be ex- 
 hibited in contrast with the ritualistic "new measures" and Christo-cea- 
 
GENERAL CRITICISM. 11 
 
 trie conceits, wliicli are now striving to usurp the claims and place of that 
 inheritance. 
 
 With these preliminary explanations, therefore, I proceed to the 
 task of replying, so far as it may deserve an answer, to Dr. Nevin's so- 
 called "Vindication of the Revised Liturgy," and of considering the im- 
 portant questions involved in this controversy, Historical, Hitualisfic, and 
 Theological : 
 
 The "Vindication" ca]h,frst of all, for some 
 
 GENERAL CRITICISM. 
 
 Wholly apart from any arguments, or assertions meant for arguments, 
 which Dr. Nevin's tract contains, it is pervaded by a spirit, and charac- 
 terized by a style of rhetoric, which must have excited feelings of pro- 
 found regret in the heart of every impartial reader. On every page of 
 the historical section, including the introduction, the writer betrays a 
 passionate determination to give the fullest license to the promptings of 
 ridicule, sarcasm and invective. And to show the depth and strength of 
 that determination, and the inexhaustible violence of those promptings of 
 embittered passion, the fifty pages devoted to what is miscalled "The 
 Historical Vindication," are found insufficient to contain the overflowing 
 of the turbid torrent. They mar large portions even of that " Theological" 
 Christo-centric section, which, by the very sacredness and solemnity of the 
 subjects treated, should have forewarned the champion to leave at its 
 threshhold the sandals soiled with the grime and gore of the field he had 
 just so furiously traversed. Language is employed which should have no 
 currency among Christians. Epithets are heaped upon the objects of his 
 anger, which should find no place in a noble-minded theologian's vocabu- 
 lary. Contempt, disdain, ribald contumely, fierce vituperation, constitute 
 the staple of a large part of the tract. The unhappy author appears to 
 have set out with the fell purpose of trying to do his worst; and surely 
 his success is not more manifest than, for his own sake, it is deplorable. 
 
 All this, too, without any real, justifying occasion. Nothing had been 
 said or done by those who so materially difi'er in their views from Dr. 
 Nevin and his more zealous disciples to merit or to provoke such treat- 
 ment at his hands. That my former tract did not, has been admitted 
 by more than one unbiassed reader. And how little occasion for any 
 thing of the sort was given by what was said in opposition to the Revised 
 Liturgy innovations, at Dayton, must be evident even from the imperfect 
 sketches published in our Church papers. No one denies, of course, that 
 some things, both in my tract and in the speeches at Synod, might be dis- 
 torted and exaggerated into shapes and proportions which would make 
 them hideous and abominable. Nor will anv one familiar with some of 
 
12 GENERAL CRITICISM, 
 
 the phases of the movement now agitating our Church, question the fa- 
 cility with which such distortions can be practiced, whether in the way of 
 ridicule or misrepresentation, by some advocates of ultra ritualism. But 
 those to whose possible disadvantage, for the time, this may be done, are 
 not responsible for perversions of their words or acts. And candid, in- 
 telligent observers of what is said and done on both sides, will not be 
 easily deluded or misled by any malpractice of this kind. The world is 
 too old, and the discernment of good common sense is too penetrating, to 
 allow the use of such devices to escape detection. As far back as the 
 days of Ahab, the artifice of putting an odious construction upon the 
 words of one whom it was designed to brand with infamy and blast in 
 reputation, and of attributing to him sentiments never uttered, was fa- 
 miliar. Occasionally it has been successful for a season. Ultimately, 
 however, it ftills headlong into its own pit. 
 
 A writer of Dr. Nevin's experience, would of course not use this method 
 of controversy without design. The vindictive ebullitions which so over- 
 run the pages of his tract, are not the involuntary outbursts of a holy in- 
 dignation, at a real or imaginary wrong done him or the party he repre- 
 sents. They indeed reveal intense excitement, often even furious ani- 
 mosity. But amidst all the violence of the storm, the rocking, creaking 
 vessel of his anger is, as by a strong, unbending will, kept steadily on one 
 course. Yv'hither? Towards a desired port or haven, where it may be 
 safely anchored, and find rest? By no means. It is guided by quite a 
 different purpose. In the same waters in which it is tossed, there are 
 other vessels, ^^ small, contempiihle croft" which dare to cross the track of 
 the leviathan, nay, which even have the audacity to dispute its progress. 
 And now, like another Atlanta, he turns his prow upon them, as if de- 
 termined to run them down, and sink them to the bottom of the sea. 
 That he missed his aim, or failed in the execution of his strategy, proves, 
 not the absence of the purpose, but only its fury and its folly. 
 
 It must be a cause of deep regret to many of Dr. Nevin's more conside- 
 rate admirers, even, that he has so often displayed this spirit of bitter, 
 overbearing intolerance towards those who may differ from him, or become 
 obnoxious to his displeasure; and that he is so ready to indulge in low 
 ridicule and disparaging sarcasm, even when dealing with things in them- 
 selves sacred, and therefore entitled to serious consideration and at least 
 decorous treatment, though they may not be quite according to his mind. 
 This spirit and manner are uuwortliy of a Christian, and must always 
 damage the cause they profess to serve. Without convicting those against 
 whom they are directed of error or wrong (for ridicule is no test of truth, 
 and although sarcasm may wound, it can never heal), they offend and pain 
 others by a superfluity of irony which can never compensate for a lack of 
 
GENERAL CRITICISM. 13 
 
 logic. Who does not know that madly to tear in pieces a lawyer's brief, 
 does not destroy his argument? And yet, both at Dayton and in this 
 " Vindication," Dr. Nevin has acted recklessly upon the contrary hypothe- 
 sis. Under whatever spell, he has assumed that nothing is necessary in 
 dealing with those who differ from him, and oppose his " new measures," 
 than to hold them up to be laughed or hissed at by those who may be 
 ready to respond to his appeal. Poor Burns' address to his "Young 
 Friend" contains a stanza which might have taught a better lesson. All 
 this is done, moreover, without any excuse. Those whom he allows him- 
 self so unrestrainedly to asperse, and to treat with such supercilious dis- 
 dain, are in every sense his peers. He possesses no qualities, natural or 
 acquired, which entitle him to the imperious manner he arrogates; or 
 give him a right to speak to his equals as though they were his serfs. 
 And notwithstanding all the flattery bestowed, the Church has never con- 
 ferred upon him prerogatives beyond those enjoyed by all her ministers. 
 From the prevailing tone and style, however, of his speech at Dayton, and 
 still more of this latest effusion of his pen, it is painfully evident that he 
 holds very different views. 
 
 For myself, I may be allowed to say, that whilst amazed and indignant 
 at the perverse exaggeration and misrepresentation of some portions of 
 my former tract, (of which more anon) Dr. Nevin's violent and abusive 
 personal assault upon me has filled me with far more sorrow and shame 
 for the assailant than with concern for myself. It is most sad and humil- 
 iating to see a man of his years, position, and opportunities, stoop to 
 means so unworthy, and to words so low. And yet what else might have 
 been expected from the author of the "Liturgical Question," of 1862, 
 not to name other effusions which betray, to a mournful degree, the same 
 infirmity? That tract is history, though not "a Grod-send." It should 
 never have been written. Nay more; the thoughts and feelings to which 
 it gives the most unrestrained utterance, should never have been conceived 
 or cherished in a Christian mind or heart. But they were cherished. It 
 was written. And until the author recants, it bears its painful testimony 
 against him. Part of that testimony declares, that personal vituperation 
 from one who could cast such indecorous ridicule upon /y-ee prayer, though 
 such prayer was sanctioned by the Church for centuries, rests upon 
 Apostolic precedent and Primitive usage, and was uniformly practiced by 
 our fiithers, is of small account; that to be derided and denounced, how- 
 ever unsparingly, by one whose professed veneration for the past, did not 
 deter him from pouring contempt and reproach upon pulpit hand-books 
 like the old Palatinate Liturgy, should not be taken much to heart. 
 The hand that had no compassion on the tree, could not be expected to 
 deal tenderly with one of its branches. Let me not be censured, there- 
 
14 GENERAL CRITICISM. 
 
 fore, for regarding with profouud indifference, so far as I am personally 
 concerned, the persistent attempts of Dr. Nevin, to cover me with reproach. 
 His calumnies, however, badly meant, tell a far worse tale for the fountain 
 whence they issue, than for the objects they seek to aspei-se. Partizan 
 zealotry may, of course, refuse to admit this. Its interests require both 
 that I and my former tract, should be exhibited in the most odious light, 
 and that Dr. Nevin's "Vindication" should be shielded against censure. 
 But the case will be adjudicated before a more equitable tribunal than 
 partizan partiality. 
 
 The unhappy author of that '-Vindication" is not content, however, 
 with hurling the missiles of his ridicule, sarcasm, and denunciation at me 
 alone. His vast displeasure cannot be appeased with the attempted anni- 
 hilation of a single mark. It must take in a wider range. The Profes- 
 sors in Tiffin, and other Brethren of the Western Church, of the same 
 mind, in regard to the ritualistic innovations, not excepting the Rev. 
 David Winters, one of the Vice Presidents of the General Synod, whose 
 years and long continued faithful services in the Church, if nothing else, 
 should have shielded him from such abuse, and the Delegates from the 
 Classis of North Carolina, are massed into one common herd, with the 
 "miserable faction" from the East, (including men whose money Mercers- 
 burg was glad enough to accept in times past, and to solicit even since the 
 tornado at Dayton,) and assailed with equal fury, and the same deadly 
 weapons. The Liturgical Committee of the Western Synod is ridiculed, 
 and its labors are derided as having resulted in an abortion, and come to 
 an "inglorious end." The title of their specimen Manual is ridiculed. 
 The "Western Missionary" is ridiculed for having displayed some zeal 
 in the case. The brethren from North Carolina are ridiulced as mere 
 "cyphers-" All indiscriminately are branded as Gnostics, Phrygian Mon- 
 tanists. Rationalists, Socinians, Pelagians, Muggletonians, and, worst of 
 all, as pietistic Puritans. And why pierce them with all these dreadful 
 epithetic javelins? Because they dared to lift up their hand and voice or 
 record only their vote (many, including the North Carolina delegates, did 
 no more than merely vote) against Dr. Nevin's Mercersburg "new meas- 
 ures," and "new theology." They had withstood the edict of the king, 
 and refused to do homage at his shrine. Were they not worthy of the 
 consuming flames? 
 
 Such is the general spirit unfortunately displayed by Dr. Nevin, and 
 especially in his recent tract, towards all who adversely cross his path. 
 And whilst many of those who in the main, pei-haps, share his sentiments, 
 wholly disapprove of his manner of dealing with opponents, it is to be la- 
 mented that a few of his more devoted pupils evince only too great a 
 willingness to imbibe the same spirit, and deplorable aptitude in imitating 
 
GENERAL CRITICISM. 15 
 
 its supercilious, vindictive manners. For him, and those thus following 
 in his footsteps, it is quite allowable to write and speak in defamatory 
 terms not only of good and learned men in other Churches, but, impliedly 
 at least, of the founders and fathers of our own Church in this country, 
 decrying all as nothing better, on the whole, than bold and shallow ra- 
 tionalists, and as abettors of a style of worship "not distinctively Chris- 
 tian, but more or less Gnostically spiritualistic, ending at last in mere 
 humanitarian deism." But let any one venture to demur at his theologi- 
 cal discoveries or revolutionary ecclesiastical schemes, and although the 
 demurrer may be couched in respectful terms, and be pressed in a courte- 
 ous manner — as I may boldly affirm was done, both at York and Day- 
 ton — and at once they are assailed with the most caustic indignation. 
 On the floor of the Synod at York, Dr. Harbaugh, among other vulgar 
 jests, held up to public ridicule the Old Palatinate form of comforting- 
 penitents, by making it appear, as he and some others seemed to think, 
 absurdly stupid. Dr. Nevin could join in the profane merriment thus ex- 
 cited, and cheer the speaker with an approving smile. But if some one, un- 
 able to appreciate the witticism indulged in dishonor to the Church, should 
 dare to denounce the system which in this way seeks to magnify itself by 
 casting reproach upon the memory of our fathers, and to win applause for 
 its pretended excellencies by detracting from their reputation, he must at 
 once be run down and crushed. It must be made a fatal, unpardonable 
 offence to rebuke such raillery, or even to intimate that it involves ecclesi- 
 astical disloyalty. All who may differ from the theory, and feel unfa- 
 vorable to the measures of this school, must see how terrible is the doom 
 of those who may have the audacity to challenge its leader, or attempt to 
 thwart the consummation of his schemes. Love for the Church, zeal for 
 the maintenance of her denominational integrity, all go for nothing, unless 
 that love and zeal defer to his fancies, and surrender themselves as sub- 
 servient instruments in the furtherance of his schemes. Not under the 
 irritation of some momentary offence at Synod, but for weeks and months, 
 this spirit of detraction, denunciation and bitter hatred is harbored in the 
 depths of this Mercersburg heart. And lest its implacable virulence 
 should be doubted, it gives proof of its unrelenting animosity, by filling a 
 tract of ninety-three pages, not "hastily written," with its double-distilled 
 wormwood and gall. 
 
 Next to these general remarks, demanded by the ruling spirit and pre- 
 vailing style of Dr. Nevin's controversial discussions, oral and written, 
 and emphatically of this last production of his pen, his mode of warfare 
 requires the notice in detail of some 
 
16 SPECIAL POINTS. 
 
 SPECIAL POINTS. 
 
 These are raised very much at random, and are, indeed, for the most 
 part wholly irrelevant to the subject avowedly under consideration. In- 
 wardly as disconnected from each other, as they are severally foreign to 
 the questions at issue, they can be taken up one by one in any order, 
 without disturbing their sense, or affecting the real bearing of the various 
 sentences or paragraphs in which they occur, whether in the speech at 
 Dayton or in this "Vindication." It will have been noticed by those to 
 whose attention they have come, that they are mostly side issues, in the 
 way of personal thrusts. Their obvious aim is threefold: 1. To inflict a 
 severe chastisement upon offending parties, by holding them up to mock- 
 ery, scorn and condemnation : 2, To bring, in this way, the cause espoused 
 by those offenders, under derision and contempt: 3, To divert calm and 
 earnest attention from the true merits of that cause, and to occasion a 
 general confusion of thought and judgment by the excitement and agita- 
 tion thus produced. Perhaps they might be allowed to pass unnoticed, 
 without much disadvantage either to the parties assailed, or the interests 
 they represent. But such disregard of them would again be liable to 
 perverse interpretations. And past experience in our dealings with a 
 few of the advocates of the "new measure^," has taught us some signifi- 
 cant lessons on this point. For however irrelevant "the points thus intro- 
 duced are, they are largely substituted for argument, and adroitly made 
 to wear the semblance of triumphant answers to the objections urged, and 
 the proofs presented against the proposed innovations. And as the re- 
 sponsibility of their introduction, and of the consequent necessity of no- 
 ticing them, rests upon others rather than upon ourselves, it will not be 
 thought an abuse of patience to devote some space to their consideration. 
 They spring, furthermore, wholly from the misapprehensions and errors 
 of those who raise them, and may, therefore, be treated as so many ^ra?;e 
 mistakes of Dr. Nevin and his associates in this work. 
 
 The, ^rs^ mistake made, consists in asserting that my tract of last No- 
 vember charges the Lituygical Committee with a conspiracy to perpetrate 
 a fraud upon the Church. This grave accusation was started in York, 
 industriously propagated in private, reiterated, with divers variations, 
 during a full hour of the time occupied by Dr. Nevin in his speech at 
 Dayton, and is now again repeated in more permanent form in the so- 
 called "Vindication." The terms in which the accusation is variously 
 expressed, need not be quoted here; it is enough that they have been se- 
 lected by their author as the medium of giving vent to his displeasure. 
 And they shall most certainly not be retorted upon him, though abundant 
 occasion has been given for such retort. I disdain to take advantage of 
 his self-exposure. The ground about my feet is strewn thick with the 
 
SPECIAL POINTS. 17 
 
 ugl}' missiles used in this part of tlie contest. They were flung with 
 angry violence, and with malignant aim. Doubtless it was meant that 
 they should do fatal execution. And so they probably have done; but 
 not upon their mark. They have utterly failed to inflict the harm in- 
 tended. And now they lie, scjttered and spent, on every side of me. It 
 would only need stooping to pick them up. But it is better to leave 
 them where they are. If Dr. Nevin, or those disposed to imitate his 
 taste in such archery, should feel inclined to use them again, they may 
 come and gather them. I shall not touch them, even with my feet. 
 
 But apart from the phraseology employed in presenting the accusa- 
 tion, it amounts substantially to what is stated above. I am violently 
 charged with having indicted the Committee for a conspiracy to defraud 
 the Church. And by what means is it attempted to sustain this charge? 
 By any fair and tangible proofs from any thing really uttered or pub- 
 lished by me? Nothing of the sort was heard on the floor of the General 
 Synod, and nothing is furnished in the tract entitled a "Vindication," 
 which, by any candid and legitimate interpretation, can be construed into 
 such an expressed or even implied indictment of conspiracy. Admonished 
 by some things said on the floor of the Synod at York, of a purpose to 
 give this false and unwarranted significance to the position taken against 
 the majority of the Committee, I was especially careful in my tract, subse- 
 quently published, to disclaim, in the most positive terms, any such de- 
 sign. (See History and Criticism of the Ritualistic movement, &c., p. -9.) 
 That disclaimer is now as positively reiterated; and I deny mo&t unquali- 
 fledly, that any paragraph or sentence of said tract, fairly considered, jus- 
 tifies this bad sense. And unless we are to take Dr. Nevin's opprobrious 
 denunciations for proof, unless labored and extreme exag-gerations shall 
 be allowed to pass for argument, unless to decry a man, as a felon, is de- 
 monstration that he purloined his neighbor's goods, the accusation brought 
 against the tract has not been substantiated. It is easy to produce tem- 
 porary excitement by sueing a man at law for a libel or for slander. But 
 not ever.y such suit prevails. The prosecution may seek to make out its 
 case in the strongest terms, may invoke the aid of the most violent epi- 
 thets,* may make the most inflammatory appeals to those sitting in judg- 
 
 •••'■ The Law of association of ideas will reailily explain how the perusal of some portions 
 of Dr. Nevin's tract served to remind me of the following incident recorded in Macaulay' s 
 History of England, vol. I., pp. 3S6, Ac: Boston ed. It is an account of Baxter's trial 
 before Lord Jeffries, the notorious tool of the extreme High-Church party, under that 
 equally notorious persecutor of the Puritans, James the Second, 
 
 Baxter had begged for some delay, to allow him time to prepare his defence. 
 
 "Jeffries burst into a storm of rage. 'Not a minute, he cried, to save his life. I can' 
 deal with saints as well as sinners. There stands Gates on one side of the pillory; and 
 o 
 
18 SPECIAL POINTS. 
 
 merit upon the cliarge. But all tliat will not sustain it. And unless 
 equity is made subservient to passion, and justice is degraded into a 
 minion of partizan rancor and arbitrary tyranny, the failure to sustain the 
 charge by clear and unquestionable proof, must ensure the defendant's 
 acquittal. 
 
 The only charges which can be said to have been made, even by im- 
 plication, against the course of the Committee, were the following : 1, diso- 
 bedience to Synodical instructions: 2, persevering efforts to work out 
 their own ideas of ritualism, rather than prepare such a Liturgy as the 
 official action of the successive Synods called for: 3, a desire to secure, by 
 delay, time and opportunity to have the Church educated to their standard 
 of worship, and thus to ensure its ultimate adoption. These points, 
 moreover, were not brought out in any formal way; it was not within the 
 scope or design of my tract, that they should be. That part of the tract 
 in which they incidentally occur, was avowedly a history of the movement 
 
 if Baxter stood on the otlier, the two greatest rogues in the kingdom would stand to- 
 gether. 
 
 "When the trial came on at Guildhall, a crowd of those who loved and honored Bax- 
 ter, filled the court. At his side stood Doctor William Bates, one of the most eminent of 
 the Non-conformist divines. Two Whig barristers, of great note, Pollexfen and Wallop 
 appeared for the defendant. Pollexfen had scarcely begun his address to the jury, when 
 the Chief Justice (Jeffries) broke forth: 
 
 " Pollexfen, I know you well. I will set a mark on you. You are the patron of the 
 faction. This is an old rogue, a scliismatical knave, a hypocritical villain. He hates the 
 Liturgy. He would have nothing but long-winded cant, without the book : and then his 
 lordship, turning up his eyes, clasped his hands, and began to sing through his nose, in 
 imitation of what he supposed to be Baxter's style of praying, ' Lord, we are Thy peofile, 
 Thy peculiar people. Thy dear people.' Pollexfen gently reminded the court that his 
 late majesty had thought Baxter deserving of a bishopric. 'And what ailed the old 
 blockhead, then/ cried Jeffries 'that he did not take it.' His fury now rose almost to 
 madness. He called Baxter a dog, and swore that it would be no more than justice to 
 whip such a villain through the whole city. Wallop interposed, but fared no better than 
 his leader. 'You are in all these dirty causes, Mr. Wallop,' said the judge. 'Gentlemen 
 of the long robe ought to be ashamed to assist such factious knaves.' The advocate 
 made another attempt to obtain a hearing, but to no purpose. 'If you do not know your 
 duty,' said Jeffries, 'I will teach it you.' Wallop sat down; and Baxter himself at- 
 tempted to put in a word. But the Chief Justice drowned all expostulation. 'My lord,' 
 said the old man, 'I have been much blamed by dissenters for speaking respectfully of 
 bishops.' 'Baxter for bishops,' cried the judge, 'that's a merry conceit, indeed. I know 
 what you mean by bishops, rascals like yourself, Kidderminster bishops, factious, snivel- 
 ling Presbyterians.' Again, Baxter essayed to speak, and again Jeffries roared : ' Rich- 
 ard, Richard, dost thou think we will let thee poison the court? Richard, thou art an 
 old knave. Thou hast written books enough to load a cart, and every book as full of 
 sedition as an egg is full of meat. By the grace of God, I'll look after thee. I sec a 
 great many of your brotherhood waiting to see what will befall their mighty Don. And 
 *there is a doctor (Bates) of your party at your elbow. But by the grace of God Al- 
 mighty, I will crush you all.'" 
 
 Other apt illustrations might be added from the style in which Bcsshuss denounced 
 the Reformed faith and practice, as advocated by Ursinus; but the above will suffice. 
 
SPECIAL POINTS. 19 
 
 wliicli "had reached its climax ia the Revised Liturgy. But no one could 
 write that history in accordance vfith actual facts, as furnished by official 
 documents and the course really pursued by the Committee, without 
 bringing into view those very points. That history shows most conclu- 
 sively that the Synod gave a definite expression, after mature delibera- 
 tion, of its desires and purpose in entering upon the work of providing 
 the Church with more settled forms of worship, and that its instructions 
 were not carried out by the Committee intrusted with the work (myself, I 
 regret to say, included, for which I am ready to be reproved.) That his- 
 tory proves that instead of laboring to prepare and furnish such a Liturgy 
 as Synod had plainly and positively declared to be desired and demanded, 
 the Committee persistently worked according to its own theory of cultus 
 and worship, laboring to produce a Liturgy after its own mind and heart; 
 at least that this was the ruling aim of that portion of the Committee 
 which favors the new " Order of Worship." For Dr. Nevin, as their fore- 
 man, declares that all those larger parts of the Provisional Liturgy, which 
 aeem to have been wrought after "the pattern according to which our 
 fathers worshipped," were not meant to be in harmony with that pattern, 
 but are really of the same order with the opposite system, and subordinate 
 to it. And that history, once more proves, that the Committee, or rather 
 those members favoring the new " Order of Worship," did. oppose the work 
 of revision from time to time, because they did not think the Church pre- 
 pared as yet for the adoption and introduction of such an order of worship 
 as they hoped the revision would produce, and because they hoped that by 
 various means the Church might be educated into a state of mind and 
 feeling which would ultimately be favorable to its adoption. ( Vindic. p 25.) 
 Even Dr. Nevin, with a measure of cool self-contradiction which he 
 himself may explain, admits all this substantially, in the tract of 1862-3, 
 (The Liturgical Question, pp. 62, 69), in his speech at Dayton, and in his 
 so-called "Vindication." On p. 13 of this last tract, after denouncing 
 me in his own peculiar style for asserting this very fact, he concedes it 
 all by saying; "The movement inaugurated at JSTorristown in IS-IO, he 
 (Bomberger) says, contemplated no such Liturgy as we have now offered 
 for our use. This is very truQ and needs no argument.'" But when this 
 very same thing is affirmed by another writer or speaker, the statement is 
 pronounced erroneous^ though in soniewliat different terms! An offender 
 acknowledo'es his fault, but denounces the mention of its name ! 
 
 Is it denied that the Committee did not proceed in their work according 
 to instructions? Then I refer to the resolution of the Synod of Norristown, 
 1S49; to the action of the Synod of Baltimore, 1852; and to the resolu- 
 tion of the Synod of Easton, 1861. Taking these together, they enjoin, 
 to say the very least, that ei|ual regard shall be paid to Heformed Litur- 
 
20 SPECIAL POINTS. 
 
 gies oF the IGtli centuries with what may be shown for earlier Liturgies. 
 But the majority of the Committee come forward in the face of all this, 
 and declare that their Liturgy ^'■was constructed througlwiit on another 
 theory altogether^' from that of those early Reformed Liturgies. Was 
 this, then, obeying or disobeying instructions? 
 
 Is it, again, denied, that the majority of the Committee labored persistent- 
 ly to work out their own idea of ritualism (whatever its source or basis may 
 be), rather than to produce such a Liturgy as the instructions of Synod de- 
 manded? Then I appeal once more, 1, To the plain tenor of those instruc- 
 tions themselves, which, if they mean any thing, distinctly call for the prepa- 
 ration of a work which should be in essential, material harmony "with the 
 devotional and doctrinal genius of the German Reformed Church," and to 
 the almost universal desire and expectation that, in the Revised Liturgy 
 especially, no other would be offered to the acceptance of the Church, 2. 
 To the confessions of the Committee, that in allowing themselves to be 
 ''■ Tjrought more and more under the poicer of an idea, ivhicli carried them 
 with inexorable force its own way," instead of heeding the rule which the 
 Synod had prescribed, they produced a Liturgy which involves " a ques- 
 tion of very material change in our Church practice, if not in our Church 
 life," and to the fact that their new "Order of Worship" has been drafted 
 and compiled without the least ruling regard to any of the earlier German 
 Reformed Liturgies. Is this a misrepresentation (Dr. Nevin uses other 
 terms in speaking of the matter, which had as well not be quoted), of the 
 Committee's course? Does this charge them with any thing beyond their 
 own concession, and at which Dr. N. has a right to grow so excessively in- 
 dignant? (See Liturgy. Q. p. 39 — 62, c^ pa.s.sm.) 
 
 Is it, finally, denied, that the authors and advocates of the new "Order 
 of Worship," desired to secure, by delay, time and opportunity to have 
 the Church educated to their standard of worship, and thus to ensure its 
 ultimate adoption? Then I appeal 1, in proof of their effort to retard or 
 delay the work of final Revision, to the fact that they steadily and uni- 
 formly ojjposed every attempt made to have the Revision undertaJcen. 
 They did so at the Synod of Easton, in 1861. They did so during the 
 year that followed, notwithstanding the action of the Easton Synod, order- 
 ing the Revision, and notwithstanding the earnest entreaty of that 
 obstinate, intractable member of the committee, who would not bend his 
 knee simply because five other members bent theirs, that as they saw 
 their way clear, they should take it regardless of his "obstinacy." They 
 did so at Chambersburg, in 1862, arraying their entire force, and struggling 
 for three days to prevent the adoption of any action by which they would 
 be required to go on with the work; until at length the matter was 
 
SPECIAL POINTS. 21 
 
 referred to a special committee, of which tlie President of Syaod (the Rev. 
 Dr. Gerhart), I thiuk, appoiuted the Rev. Dr. Nevin Chairman, and that 
 committee reported a resolution of indefinite postponement. This resolution 
 was, after further discussion, adopted, largely through the influence of a 
 remark made by a lay member of the committee, to the eifect, that the further 
 agitation of the matter might involve the Synod in difficulty with the 
 publishers of the Provisional Liturgy.* Agaiu they opposed the Revision 
 at the General Synod of Pittsburgh, in 1863. And I am persuaded, 
 that, could they have prevailed, they would have prevented the accom- 
 plishment of it until this day. 
 
 2, I appeal to the manifest and avowed reasons for this opposition. 
 These I affirm to have been twofold. First, those involved in a desire 
 that their theory of worship should be adopted. That such a desire ani- 
 mated, and was cherished by them, must be evident from their having 
 personally embraced the theory, from their having recommended it to 
 Synod, from their repeated and extravagant declarations in praise of it, 
 and from their vehement defence of it against all opposition. If the zeal 
 thus displayed in its favor during the course of many years, does not prove 
 the intensity of their desire to secure its ultimate adoption, it would be 
 hard to find evidence of such a desire in any other case. Has it not been 
 proclaimed again and again, that the new Order of Worship they have 
 produced on this theory, is so transcendantly excellent, that in comparison 
 with it, that framed by our fathers, according to the pattern received by 
 them from the Mount, does not deserve to be called a Liturgy? Do we 
 not read their eloquent laudations of its inimitable merits (although it is 
 their own work), set forth in avowed disparagement of such ''pulpit hand- 
 books," as our fathers used, on many an offensive page of the notable 
 report of 1862-3 ("The Liturg. Question")? All that Dr. Nevin has 
 said at different times, and reiterates in this " Vindication," of his lack of 
 heart in the matter, is no offset to this evidence. It is not to be wondered 
 at, that his courage often failed him in regard to the final success of the 
 movement. He seems to have had from the start a comprehensive and 
 penetrating view of what it involved ; at least he seems to have known for 
 some years past, what he meant by it. He had a clear vision of the 
 "essential and material changes in our Church practice and life," that is 
 in her mode of worship, and of holding some vital fundamental doctrines, 
 which it demanded, and sought to effect. And that, with these fairly 
 before his eyes, he should often be tempted to despond or despair of suc- 
 cess, is not at all amazing. There was good reason for despondency, if 
 
 -••■ Tliese facts were not mentioned in my former tract, because I wished to avoid as 
 much as possible every thing which might seem offensive. But Dr. Nevin knjw them all, 
 for he participated in what was done. 
 
22 SPECIAL POINTS. 
 
 lie liad any proper conception of the deep and sincere attachment of the 
 general membership of the Church, to her time-honored evangelical 
 doctrines and customs. A cedar of three hundred years growth, and which 
 has so firmly entwined its roots about the Rock of Ages (the foundation 
 other than which no man can successfully lay) is not so easily to be plucked 
 up and cast into the sea. But the prevalence of despondency does not 
 prove the absence of desire. It is simply beyond contradiction, that for 
 many years, the ritualistic members of the committee have strongly desired 
 the success of their scheme, and have labored with a constant aim to this 
 end. Hence, in part, their strong and persistent opposition to the Re- 
 vision. 
 
 Further reasons, corroborative of all this are furnished by the arguments 
 employed by the committee in favor of delaying the Revision. These 
 must not simply be fresh in the memories of those who have attended 
 Synods at which the subject was discussed, but are a matter of record. 
 Immediate revision was urged by those who desired it, because the Pro- 
 visional Liturgy had proved a practical failure, especially as to its more 
 ritualistic peculiarities; because, on actual trial, one of the forms most 
 needed, that for the administration of the Lord's Supper, was found to be 
 objectionable, both ou account of its length and complications; because, 
 through the growing zeal of those who desired the introduction of "mate- 
 rial and essential changes" in our mode of worship, the Church was 
 becoming exposed to the perils of increased liturgical diversities, and of 
 internal dissensions ; and finally because it was believed to be desirable 
 that the whole question should be settled as soon as possible. On the 
 other hand, however, such immediate revision was opposed, and mainly by 
 that portion of the Committee which advocated extreme ritualistic forms, 
 because the Church was not yet thought ready to appreciate their theory 
 of worship, and, therefore, to pass an intelligent judgment upon it; and 
 because they claimed time and opportunity to educate the Church into an 
 approval and acceptance of their theory. 
 
 That the former of these reasons was correct, is too obvious to admit of 
 a doubt. It has been demonstrated practically by the almost universal 
 unwillingness of congregations to admit the ritualistic forms, and by the 
 dissatisfaction which has been occasioned, with possibly two exceptions, 
 in those congregations into which it has been attempted, cautiously to 
 introduce the novelties even in small part, and by slow degrees. And 
 in these cases, the thing has been done without affording the congregation, 
 or perhaps even the consistor}^, an opportunity to take formal action upon 
 the matter. No; the Church has manifestly not been ready to appreciate 
 the ritualistic "new measures" in the Committee's sense. But it is 
 equally evident that the Church was thought ready to reject them. Or 
 
SPECIAL POINTS. 23 
 
 else wliy has there been so persistent an effort on the part of the advocates 
 of those niQASures, to evade and prevent a fair and square vote upon the 
 real merits of their scheme ? And why was this done with such consum- 
 mate skill even at the General Synod in Dayton, the action of which 
 Synod Dr. Nevin claims, most erroneously as shall be shown, as a com- 
 plete triumph of ritualism? 
 
 Of the other plea, that time should be allowed for the ritualistic train- 
 ing of the Church, it is difficult to speak without ridicule or reprobation. 
 It involves such absurd sophistry and a begging of the question, on the 
 one hand, and so much of design and artifice on the other, that it seems 
 incredible how the fallacy and deeeptiveness of it should have escaped the 
 discernment of the Committee. Grant time and opportunity to educate 
 the Church into an acceptance of the "new measures"? Who does not 
 see that in this way the most orthodox and evangelical Church might, in 
 the course of a single generation, be converted into a very synagogue of 
 heresy and superstition ? Let our schools come under the reigning influ- 
 ence of Unitarianism. Let our congregations be supplied for successive 
 years with pastors inculcating Unitarian views. Let the children and 
 youth of the Church have Unitarian books of devotion and for reading^ 
 placed in their hands, and be taught Unitarian doctrines. How long would 
 it take, by this method, for Drs. Bellows, Furness, and Osgood, to kindle in 
 the Church such ardent zeal for their theory of Christianity, that its ge- 
 neral adoption would be insured? And an experiment tried in the same 
 way, with any other system of error, would lead to the same result. 
 
 Can Dr. Nevin have been ignorant of this fact, or have overlooked it? 
 Could he have forgotten the history of the Anxious Bench innovations, 
 and its significant lessons ? It was by the application and success of this 
 very scheme of education, that those innovations gained the ascendancy 
 and power in the Church, which they enjoyed thirty years ago. And it 
 was largely upon their supposed deceptive and mischievous influence in an 
 educational view, that Dr. Nevin so vehemently denounced the system in 
 his tract on the Anxious Bench System, in 1842—4. So far, also, he was 
 right, if that system was pernicious, and subversive of the evangelical doc- 
 trines and customs of our Church. But is this educational theory, applied 
 to innovations, to "material and essential changes," any less unfair and de- 
 ceptive now than it was then? 
 
 Evidently, therefore, before such innovations are attempted, their true 
 character and their necessary tendencies should be ascertained and decided 
 upon. They should be carefully examined, and properly authorized in the 
 constitutional way. To prevent or evade this, lest they should be rejected, 
 even as an experiment, is wrong, and must expose the Church to danger. 
 Are they so profound in their principles, so transcendantly excellent in 
 
24 SPECIAL POINTS. 
 
 their spirit and orgauism, that the Church is incompetent to pass an intel- 
 ligent judgment upon them, even after years of opportunity to examine 
 their merits? Then an evangelical Church, fully conscious of the intrinsic 
 and tried worth of those spiritual blessings v/hich it actually possesses, had 
 better let the innovations, vfith all their mysterious and incomprehensible 
 superiority, alone. 
 
 But by what means was this educational success of the new order of 
 worship to be secured ? The answer to this question is obvious. It is 
 well known what agencies the advocates of ritualism have had under their 
 control, and how diligently they have been used. And it must be equally 
 aj)pareut, that with such use of those means, the success of the movement 
 would be only a question of time. Not all the specious plausibility with 
 which Dr. Nevin may plead the case in his tract, or Dr. Wolff in his arti- 
 cles upon the subject in the German Reformed Ilessenger, during the 
 months of January and February, can blind the eyes of considerate per- 
 sons to these facts. Neither can any fail to see, that by the natural course 
 of things, the final result thus gained would be, not the decision and choice 
 of the German Reformed Church as such, but of that Church as ritualisti- 
 cally educated, and converted to the new faith — both in regard to her wor- 
 ship and her life. Of course, after having had time thus to educate and 
 convert her, the formal entire adoption of the "new measures" would be 
 virtually secured. 
 
 This, then, is what was implied or said, and no more than this, in those 
 portions of the historical section of my former tract, which Dr. Nevin al- 
 lowed so greatly to infuriate him. And it is this, no more than this, which 
 has been so unjustly and violently exaggerated and distorted into an accu- 
 sation, the very sound of which might excite indignation, and inflame bit- 
 ter passions against me. But what becomes of all those vituperations now ? 
 
 Another grave mistake committed by Dr. Nevin in his assault, is the at- 
 tempt to make out a special point against me on the ground of-wi/ alleged 
 ■inconsistencies. Both in the speech at Dayton and in his present tract, 
 humorous and exultant allusions are found to a supposed absurd contradic- 
 tion between my views in 1853 and 1857, and my present opposition to the 
 new Order of Worship. As it will be shown, presently, that Dr. Nevin 
 himself seems to make little account of ecclesiastical and theological vicis- 
 situdes, this point may be very briefly disposed of. Regarding the articles 
 in the Mercersburg Review for 1853, he has by some strange error, over- 
 looked or forgotten three facts: — (1.) That with but one exception, and 
 that in a modified form, the charges of error involved in the discussion, 
 were altogether different from those involved in the present controversy. 
 (2.) That whilst defending the Church against the reproach of endorsing 
 
SPECIAL POINTS. 25 
 
 doctrines at variance with evangelical orthodoxy by her toleration of Dr. 
 Nevin's views, decided dissent from some of those views is expressed on pp. 
 1G9, 170, especially the foot-note, and 177-8. It is a pity that these pages 
 were not consulted before the ridicule was indulged in. (3.) That prior 
 to 1853 Dr. Nevin had written no such tract as the Liturgical Question of 
 ten years later. At that time yet, his great aim seemed to be, to have the 
 Church fully brought back to her historical character, and true, legitimate 
 usages; not to introduce into her midst a new order of things, "not after 
 the pattern strictly of any system of worship which has prevailed hitherto 
 (1863) in the German Reformed Church, either in this country or in Eu- 
 rope." See very particularly the closing chapter of the "■ Anxious Bench."* 
 With reference to the article of 1857, in which the general character 
 and contents of the Provisional Liturgy (issued that Fall), are commended, 
 it will be sufficient to reply : That the commendation was meant to apply 
 to what many considered the main, as they were hy far the larger portions of 
 the work. Those are forms framed after the pattern according to which 
 our fathers, from the first, did worship. Let them but be examined- 
 There are four different forms for the Lord's day. The first is after the 
 new system; but it was said that even it might be used without the ritual- 
 istic peculiarities. So I supposed it mostly would be. And so, with but eight 
 or ten exceptions, it has been, at least until last November. The second 
 has simply five amens, and even these are not directed to be used respon- 
 sively by the people. It has no formal confession and declaration of par- 
 don, calls for no recital of the Creed by the people, but only by the minis- 
 ter, and expressly allows free prayer at the close of the service. The third 
 provides merely an invocation and a general prayer, without an amen, and 
 gives no concluding prayer at all. The fourth is like the third, excepting 
 that even a prescribed invocation is wanting. There are fifteen prayers 
 for Festival seasons. They are not short collects, but long prayers. JV^ot 
 one of them has responses, not even an amen, excepting the second form for 
 Good Friday. Thus far, then, we have seventeen non-responsive, simple 
 forms, to two of the other kind, and one of these two is applicable to but 
 one day in the year. Whose statement, then, is open to the charge of 
 "miserable special pleading" in this matter; mine, in affirming that the 
 Provisional Liturgy was for the most part a book of forms, like those used 
 in past years in the German Reformed Church; or Dr. Nevin, in claiming 
 it as a book predominantly ritualistic in his sense ?, The form for the ad- 
 ministration of the Lord's Supper, and the first form for Baptism, with 
 
 * As this interesting work may be out of print, and but few of our members may pos- 
 sess copies, the desirableness of re-publishing the chapter referred to, and even some 
 other portions is respectfully suggested to the editor of the German lieformed Messen'jcr> 
 and of the Mercerahurfj Review. 
 
26 SPECIAL, POINTS. 
 
 some others for such special occasw7is, have indeed prominent ritualistic 
 peculiarities. But does Dr. Nevin, does the Committee, forget, that when 
 objections were made to these, it was commonly answered: They can be 
 used without those peculiarities, and contain enough that is good even 
 when those are omitted ? And do they not know that they have been al- 
 most generally so used by our ministers ? 
 
 In regard to some doctrinal peculiarities of the book, I have only to 
 say, that if they had been explained and understood, as they now are, I 
 would never have even qualifiedly approved of them. There are members 
 of the Committee who know that I never held the views now believed to 
 be contained in several of the forms of the New Order of Worship. 
 
 Especially does Dr. Nevin know this to have been the case. From my 
 entire course as a member of the Committee, he could not have failed to 
 be convinced that I was at no time committed to his peculiar views, doc- 
 trinal or liturgical. If he cannot recall more than one occasion on which 
 I decidedly objected to those views, his memory is much more treacherous 
 on this point than on some others connected with my course. And he 
 could not have been ignorant of the fact, that my conditional approval 
 of the Provisional Liturgy, was based almost wholly on the correspon- 
 dence of by far the larger portions of that work, with that system of 
 worship known as Grerman Reformed, and upon the supposition that the 
 remaining portions, containing as they did much that was good, might be 
 used without their more ritualistic peculiarities, and objectionable doc- 
 trinal phrases. He and I, it seems, viewed the book in essentially differ- 
 ent aspects. To him, the innovations it contained were the chief thing. 
 To me, its numerous excellencies, wholly separable and apart from those 
 innovations, were the chief thing. My mind and heart were set on those 
 contents of the book which mainly corresponded with our past faith and 
 practice, and might, after some subsequent modifications, be made to serve 
 for the edification of the Church. His heart was set upon its more ex- 
 treme and radical qualities. To a man to whom a piece of poisoned bread 
 or a cup of poisoned wine is offered, the wine and the bread are the at- 
 traction. To him who ofi"ers them, however, the chief thing is the poison 
 they contain. 
 
 But even if this charge of inconsistency could not be thus refuted by 
 the facts in the case, it may be fully met by showing the uncertain charac- 
 ter of the standard by which Dr. Nevin seems to determine a man's con- 
 sistency or inconsistency. That standard is assumed, by his allusion to 
 the articles of 1853, to be himself and his views. But it is an essential 
 quality of a standard in such matters, that it should be somewhat uniform 
 and fixed. It seems altogether proper, therefore, to ask whether, and how 
 far, this quality is found in the case in hand? Let the following few con- 
 
SPECIAL POINTS. 
 
 27 
 
 trasts, selected "from among many wliicli might be given, 
 'answer. 
 
 furnish the 
 
 DK. NEVIN IN 1840-47. 
 "The more zve can be brought to commune 
 familiarly and freely with the spirit of the 
 Reformation, as it wrought mightily in 
 the deeds, and uttered itself powerfully 
 in the words of our ecclesiastical ances- 
 try, the better is it likely to be with us in 
 all respects, at the present time * * * 
 Let us have progress, by all means ; but 
 let it be progress iipivards, ivithin the 
 sphere of the original life of the Church it- 
 self, as a tree unfolds itself in growth, 
 and is the same tree still ; not progress 
 ouiirards, by which the life of the past, 
 together with its for/n, is renounced, and 
 " another gospel introduced in the room 
 of the old." — (History and Genius of 
 the Heidelb. Catech., by J. AV. Nevin, 
 D.D., Prof, of Theology in the Seminai-y 
 of the G. R. Church in Mercersburg. — 
 Ger. Eef. Messenger, Dec. 9, 1840, 
 Revised, &c., 1847). 
 
 DK. NEVIN IN 1862-3. 
 
 "Must our new Liturgy be of one 
 kind in manner and form, iti genius and 
 spirit, with the Reformed Liturgies of 
 the 16th century, having these only for 
 its basis, and following them as its rule ? 
 * * * Let the answer be in favor of 
 a new order of worship, more liturgical 
 in tiie old sense of the term than the Li- 
 turgies of the 16th century, and in- 
 volving a reform of our past practice, an- 
 swerable to the genius and spirit of our 
 Church at the present time. * * * * 
 The Rrovisional Liturgy has not pro- 
 fessed at all to be of one order, simply 
 with the Liturgical practice of the Gex'- 
 man Reformed Church in the 16th cen- 
 tury; * '* it was constructed throughout 
 on another theory altogether; * * it 
 makes common cause with the Liturgies 
 of the ancient Church. * * It is a ques- 
 tion of very material change in our church 
 practice, if not in our church life." — (Li- 
 turgical Question, pp. 61, 62, 69). 
 
 DR. NEVIN IN 1844. 
 "The Second Century shows us the 
 whole Christian world brilliantly illumi- 
 nated with rival systems of quackery, 
 under the name of Gnosticism, which 
 for a time seemed to darken the sun of 
 truth itself by their false but powerful 
 glare. Afterwards, under a less idealis- 
 tic garb, the evil fairly enthroned itself 
 in the Church. The Reformation was the 
 resurrection of the Truth once more, in its 
 genuine original life." — (Anxious Bench, 
 2d Ed., p. 51. See also p. 53). 
 
 DR. N5VIN IN 1866-7. 
 
 "A modern confessionalism in this 
 way made to rule out the sense of the 
 older confessionalism in which, never- 
 theless, it professed to have its own root 
 and ground! Did we not hear this non- 
 sense gravely held forth at Synod? 
 Were we not told there that we are to 
 take the creed only in the sense of the 
 fathers of the 16th century, and not in 
 the sense of the fathers who used it in the 
 second and third centuries, if this last sense 
 should be found not to square exactly with 
 the sixteenth century sense, as it was quiet- 
 ly granted, might be the case? * * * 
 How superlatively absurd ! — (Vindication, 
 &c., p. 74). 
 
28 SPECIAL POINTS. 
 
 DR. NEVIN AGAIN IN 1844. DR. NEVIN IN 1862-3 
 
 ujf * * * ffcnuflcciions and 2^1'os- "Whe]>e the sense of the Liturgical 
 trations in the aisle or around the altar, prevails in this sort * * there must 
 * % * • * * * have no connection be gestures and postures significant of 
 in fact with true, serious religion, * * faith in what the service thus means." 
 * let the fact be openly proclaimed." "Let it be considered a part of reli- 
 "The Romish Church has always de- gion to do bodily reverence, in all pro- 
 lighted in arrangements and services per ways, to the sacramental holiness 
 animated with the same false spirit. In which is felt to inhabit the house of God. 
 her penitential system, pains have been Let all faces, in the time of prayer, be 
 taken to produce cfect by means of out- turned towards the altar. Let there be 
 ■ward postures and dress, till in the end, risings and bowings, where it may seeui 
 amid the solemn mummery, no room to be meet, in token of the consenting 
 has been left at all for genuine peni- adorations of the people."— ("The Li- 
 tence. Yet not a ceremony was ever in- turgical Question," pp. 33, 35). 
 traduced into the system, that did not 
 
 seem to be recommended by some sound ^^- nevin in Ibbb. 
 
 religious reason at the time." — (Anx. B. "I stand tioiv ichere I did ivhile a Pro- 
 
 pp. 28, 39). fessor at Mercershurg.'^ — (Liturgical Dis- 
 cussion at Dayton. See German Ref. 
 Messenger, Jan. 2, 1867.) 
 
 From these contrasted quotations it is very evident tliat Dr. Nevin has, 
 in the course of some years, materially " changed his mind. This he had 
 a right to do; but his testimony of the past is of some value in accepting 
 that of the present." In the face, however, of such marked contrasts, no 
 one, surely, should be held chargeable with unpardonable inconsistency, 
 for agreeing on some points with Dr. Nevin in 1853, and then opposing 
 some of his favorite measures in 1867! The fault or folly of such incon- 
 sistency rests rather on himself, and upon those who so closely follow in 
 his steps, that they adiiere to him through all these variations! "A truce, 
 however, to this pleasantry I" 
 
 A tJiircl unfortunate mistake committed by the offended author of the 
 "Vindication," is that of stigmatising his opponents with ^'factiousness." 
 The delegates from the Eastern Synod, who could not support his extreme 
 ritualistic measures, or endorse those of his doctrinal views which are 
 manifestly at variance with the Heidelberg Catechism, as interpreted by 
 its authors and the early fathers of the Reformed Church, are rather 
 rudely styled a " factious element," "a miserable faction of the Eastern 
 Synod." The "brethren of the Western Synod" are charged with having 
 "joined hands" with that "miserable faction," and so made themselves 
 partakers of its sin. All attempt, therefore, to arrest the progress of the 
 new measures, and prevent their adoption, is denounced && factiousness. 
 
 Now a '^ faction" is an unlawful and disorderly combination against the 
 constitutional acts of a government, civil or ecclesiastical; a party that 
 
SPECIAL POINTS. 29 
 
 seeks, by sucli combination, to excite or promote discord and contention. 
 And Dr. Nevin plainly means to say, by liis application of this term to 
 those who oppose his measures, that they are guilty of being engaged in 
 such an unlawful combination. 
 
 But before there can be any factious combination like this, there must 
 be constitutional acts to be opposed. So before any members of the Synod 
 could be guilty of such factiousness, Synod must have adopted, in the con- 
 stitutional way, the ritualistic peculiarities opposed. The General Synod 
 had, of course, not done so, and did not by its action taken upon the subject. 
 That the Eastern Synod never did, was demonstrated by the official evi- 
 dence presented in that tract, which furnished the advocates of the new 
 measures, with so much matter in their debates at Dayton; and will be 
 shown still more fully under the " historical" section of the present tract. 
 Dr. Nevin's sweeping and unwarranted assumption to the contrary, will 
 then be satisfiictorily disposed of. 
 
 It may be said, however, that the factiousness consisted in the attempt 
 of the delegates accused to foment discord and contention in the Church. 
 That is, t]ien, because their opposition to proposed new measures produced 
 some excitement and controversy, they are to be blamed for any such 
 unhappy effect of that opposition! An effort is made " materially and 
 essentially" to change the Liturgical usages of a Church. There are 
 many in the Church who feel fully convinced that the changes advocated 
 are radically revolutionary, and would prove hurtful. But those who 
 proposed the changes, and who advocate them, are strongly deter- 
 mined to secure ' their introduction, and any attempt to arrest or resist 
 the movement, will produce excitement and dissension. Therefore no 
 such attempt can be made without rendering those who make it liable to 
 the charge of flictiousness ! And hence, the new measure party should 
 be allowed to have their way! — Such seems to be Dr. Nevin's argument. 
 Would any intelligent man, writing or speaking with the calmness of con- 
 scious truth, stake his reputation on reasoning like this? 
 
 But however absurd the logic of an argument like this may be, the 
 policy which it implies is sufficiently clear and ingenious. For it demands 
 just what all innovations, however subversive of established principles and 
 .practices they may be, most need to ensure their success. Only let them 
 alone. Let no one expose their true character, or attempt to arrest their 
 progress. Give them full scope and sufficient time for a trial of their 
 merits, and for educating the Church into their peculiarities. Place the 
 children under their influence. Teach the youth of the Church their ex- 
 cellence. Introduce them gradually and cautiously into the public ser- 
 vices of the congregations. Train candidates for the ministry in the Theo- 
 logical Seminary, and even incidentally during their collegiate course; by 
 
30 SPECIAL POINTS. 
 
 this metliod; to look upon tlio old order of tlie Cliurcli witli contempt, and 
 to regard this new order of things as incomparably superior and more 
 profound. Use largely the papers of the Church in advocating, defend- 
 ing and recommending them, especially by carricature contrasts of the 
 principles and customs which are to be abrogated in favor of the innova- 
 tions. Only allow this, nothing more; and this, too, for but a single 
 generation, say thirty years! Then, after such quiet and peaceful trial of 
 the new system, if it is not liked, it may be set aside! 
 
 Shall an exposure of a policy like this, and opposition to its measures, 
 be stigmatized as factiousness? Shall those who, being zealously and in- 
 telligently attached to the system of faith and worship received from their 
 fathers, and convinced that the new order urged is but the revival of old, 
 exploded and pernicious errors, contend for the maintenance of the es- 
 tablished system, and resist the encroachments of the new system, be de- 
 nounced as seditious troublers in Israel, and indicted for treason? The 
 mere questions must show how preposterous are the demands of the new 
 measure policy, and how unjust are Dr. Nevin's sarcasms and maledic- 
 tions. 
 
 It is, furthermore, to be distinctly kept in mind, that the delegates thus 
 stigmatized, represented , in the General Synod, not the Eastern or Western 
 )Sj/uods, hut the Classes, and the Church. Dr. Nevin, therefore, has erred 
 again in his great -excitement, in designating the members from the East, 
 as "a miserable faction from the Eastern Synod." They were not, 
 properly, the representatives of the Eastern Synod, and were consequently 
 under no obligations to defend or support its measures, even had that Sy- 
 nod adopted and recommended the new system, which it did not. On the 
 contrary, it was their right and their duty to do what they could, in every 
 lawful and proper way, to defeat the desires and policy of the new-measure 
 party. And they may confidently appeal from the unjust condemnation 
 of an angry anathematizer, to the calm and impartial judgment of their 
 constituents, for a reversal of his sentence. 
 
 But the censured faction is also denounced as '^ miscrallc." This term 
 of contempt cannot apply, of course, to the personality pf those referred 
 to; for they were severally, as said before, the equals of Dr. Nevin and 
 his associates, in every essential respect. His contempt for them does not 
 at all abate from their private or official worth, and will, probably, have 
 no disparaging effect upon the estimation in which the Church at large 
 may be kindly pleased to hold them. According to the standard by which 
 he weighs or measures his opponents, they may be set down by him as " a 
 miserable" set, "a clique," "a junto," as dupes of "ultra-montaue jeal- 
 ousy." But that standard has been found somewhat unreliable when ap- 
 plied to the charge of inconsisfc7icies, and possibly may not be admitted 
 here. 
 
SPECIAL POINTS, 31 
 
 It must be noted, also, that this ^'faction," with those Brethren in the 
 "West who more actively joined it, were Dr. Neviu's own pupils, with hut 
 a few exceptions. They were trained for the ministry by his own hands, 
 and taught theology by his own lips. Nay more. While under his tui- 
 tion, they had largely imbibed the doctrines which he then taught, and 
 the precise tenor of which they have better means of knowing than their 
 mere remembrance of them. More than one copy of carefully written 
 notes of his eai'lier lectures is within their reach. To the doctrines then 
 taught, they, in the main, adhere. For the principles of ecclesiastical 
 order and church worship then inculcated, they cherish a cordial regard, 
 and now feel constrained to contend. ^If Dr. Nevin has changed his creed 
 and his views of a truly Christian apostolic cultus, the responsibility of 
 such change rests with him. They do not feel warranted in keeping up 
 with his theological vicissitudes. They stand where he then professed to 
 stand, while a Professor of Theology in the Seminary of the German 
 Reformed Church at Mercersburg. If, for maintaining firmly that posi- 
 tion, in antagonism to his subsequent developments, they are to be stig- 
 matized as a "miserable faction," or abettors of a faction, they glory in 
 the reproach. As for his shamefully contemptuous reference to the 
 Brethren from North Carolina, one of them, former pupil of his, the Rev. 
 Gr. W. Welker, has sufficiently rebuked it in the communication appended 
 to this tract. 
 
 It may, however, be the author's design to apply the term "miserable" 
 to the numerical strength of the so-called faction. Knowing well the 
 power and influence which numbers frequently possess, an eifort is made 
 to produce the impression that those who have felt constrained to oppose 
 the introduction of an extreme liturgical order of worship into the Church, 
 are so few in number, as to constitute only a very contemptible minority, 
 especially so far as the Eastern Synod is concerned. But mark now the 
 method of calculation by which Dr. Nevin struggles to make out his case. 
 First, he asserts that the Eastern Synod "had all along been backing the 
 course of the Committee" (Vindic, p. 39), in regard to these extreme 
 measures. Next, he assumes that all the other members of the Committee 
 but myself, were wholly of one mind in regard to all the peculiarities of 
 the Revised Liturgy, so that they stood "ten to one." In the third place, 
 he appeals to the action taken at York last October, as a full and formal 
 endorsement of the Revised Liturgy. Fourthly, he counts all who voted 
 at York for the resolutions adopted there, as friends of the new Order of 
 Worship. In like manner, fifthly, he counts all who voted for the Re- 
 port adopted at Dayton, by a majority of seven in a vote of one hundred 
 and twenty-one members, as endorsing the new Order. And then, finally, 
 he sets down the fifteen delegates from the Eastern Synod, who voted against 
 
32 SPECIAL rOIXTS. 
 
 the Report adopted at Dayton, as "a miserable faction." Of the first two 
 assumptions, notice will be taken further on. In reference to the third, 
 it will be sufficient, now^ to expose its great unfairness and fallacy, by re- 
 minding the reader of two significant facts which Dr. Nevin has seen fit 
 to ignore or overlook. One of these facts is, that the 3d Resolution of 
 the Report adopted at York, and quoted in the "Vindication," is not the 
 resolution which was originally presented, and which the advocates of the 
 new Order would have been glad to cairy. The original resolution ex- 
 pressed full approval of the Revised Liturgy, and recommended it to the 
 General Synod. Dr. Nevin knew this very well. Why, then, if the 
 York Synod was so strongly in favor of backing the Committee's course 
 all along, was that resolution not passed? Why, if there was only a 
 "miserable faction" opposed to the book presented by the Committee, was 
 that faction not rebuked, by voting them down by an overwhelming ma- 
 jority? And once more, why does Dr. Nevin so carefully conceal the. 
 fact, that after a long debate, the original resolution was so essentially 
 changed into its present form? Is this a specimen of the candor of the 
 advocates of ritualism among, us? "But the preamble of the Report was 
 adopted," it has been said, "and that concedes everything to the Commit- 
 tee." It certainly was an unfortunate oversight in those who had re- 
 sisted the adoption of the original third resolution, to allow that pre^imble, 
 with its approving expression, to pass. The oversight can be accounted 
 for, to all candid minds, only on the supposition that during the interval 
 of a day and a half which had passed after the reading of it (and if my 
 memory serves me, it was not read again, nor was a separate vote taken on 
 it), and in consequence of the excitement of the intervening debate, and 
 the result of that debate securing the change contended for in the third 
 resolution, the precise tenor of the preamble was overlooked. If Dr. 
 Nevin and his party choose to take advantage of this oversight, they may. 
 Such artifices cannot materially help their cause. For it must be. clear 
 that, if the opposition to the third original resolution was so strong that 
 it could secure the modification of it, which they desired, that opposition 
 might have succeeded also, in having the preamble modified, had its ob- 
 jectionable expressions not escaped their attention. 
 
 In confirmation of this, another very important fact must be mentioned, 
 a fact which, like the last named, Dr. Nevin has not thought proper to 
 quote. On p. 98 of the Minutes of the Synod of York^ immediately under 
 the record of the yeas and nays, (which were taken on the third resolu- 
 tion of the Report, not on the Jast^ as the Minutes erroneously say) the 
 following official statement may be found : '■'■In the foregoing action of the 
 Spiod, it was understood^ that the vote on the adop)tion of the Report^ did 
 not commit those loho voted for it, as to the merits of the looJc." How 
 
SPECIAL POINTS. 33 
 
 came Dr. Nevin to overlook that statement ? Why did he not quote it ? 
 It has a plain and direct bearing on the case, and its significance reaches 
 back to the first word of the unfortunate preamble. In words too simple 
 and clear to be mistaken, it exonerates even those of the "miserable fac- 
 tion," who voted for the amended Report, (and all of them including my- 
 self, — all but fourteen^ did so,) from an endorsement of the work of the 
 Committee! One is tempted, in view of such disingeniousness, to stoop, 
 after all, and, picking up one of the foul missiles which have been so freely 
 hurled at us, to fling it back. But it was resolved, that they should not 
 be touched. So let them lie ! 
 
 The next assumption in Dr. Nevin's method of calculating the strength 
 of the ritualistic party is also swept away by this statement in regard to 
 the significance of the action taken at York. The action at Dayton in- 
 volved no more than that at York, hence the rule of the reckoning is at 
 fault in this case again. Consequently, then, the smallness of the number 
 of those Eastern delegates who voted against the Report adopted at Day- 
 ton, does not fairly indicate the actual strength of the opposition to the 
 extreme liturgical measures of the Committee, and Dr. Nevin's "miserable 
 faction" becomes a miserable fiction of his own agitated fancy. 
 
 Assuredly, then^ the attempt to fix odium upon those opponents, by charg- 
 ing them with factiousness, is most unjust, and betrays a sad determina- 
 tion to accomplish by personal abuse what might not be achieved by un- 
 sound argument. 
 
 Passing on to another special point, we find the author of the " Vindica- 
 tion " betrayed by excessive excitement into the grave mistake of charging 
 the objects of his anger, with partizan manoeuvering and intrigue. Rut 
 little need be said, beyond a most explicit denial of the charge, in answer 
 to this unfounded accusation. 
 
 The right to use all fair and constitutional methods to prevent the success 
 of the innovating measures of Dr. Neviu and his friends, will of course 
 not be questioned by any but those whose partizan zeal may lead them to 
 denounce all opposition to their efforts. Indeed it may be unhesitatingly 
 acknowledged, that it was not only the right, but the duty of those who 
 believed that those efibrts involved revolutionary and pernicious changes, 
 to employ all lawful and equitable means of frustrating them. More than 
 this was not done, and Dr. Nevin is challenged toprove the contrary. For 
 his mere assertions amount to nothing. And as for the ungainly epithets 
 and terms with which he chooses to characterize the " political game," 
 they amount to less than nothing, excepting as they again serve to exhibit 
 the acrimonious spirit which seems to have gained such complete posses- 
 sion of his mind and heart. What if my former tract was prepared and 
 published (from full notes written during months before) in the interval 
 3 
 
34: SPECIAL POINTS. 
 
 between the Synod of York and the General Synod at Dayton? The 
 brethren who requested its publication had a right to make the request, 
 and I had a right to comply. And as to the charge of its having been 
 "hastily written," it may be said that in a proper sense that charge is 
 false; and, further, that even if true, the tract need not shrink, either in 
 regard to argument or style, from a comparison with the so-called " Vindi- 
 cation." Of course my tract was prepared for eflFect. Its design is undis- 
 guised. But the design was a just one, and the effect it was intended to 
 produce was one of which all devoted to the established doctrine and prac- 
 tice of the German lleformed Church, to its true historical character, 
 would approve. By the necessities of the case, it could not be published 
 long before the meeting of the General Synod. And yet it did make its 
 public appearance by some days longer than the Revised Liturgy ap- 
 peared before the Synod of York, which was expected to act favourably 
 upon it. 
 
 What all in the way of political manoeuvering Dr. Nevin intends to in- 
 clude in this charge is not known. It may be said, however, in a general 
 way, that so far as I know of, there were no consultations, either in person 
 or by letters, among the Eastern delegates opposed to the Revised Liturgy, 
 by which any common course of action was agreed upon; there were no 
 caucusings on the way to Synod, either at Altoona or at Pittsburg, or at any 
 other point, not even in Dayton; and there were no resolutions of Classes 
 seeking to anticipate and forestall free and intelligent action, by laying 
 their delegates under obligations to vote for the Revised Liturgy long be- 
 fore it was completed or published. If, therefore, the accusation is in- 
 tended to charge the friends of the established doctrines and usages of the 
 Church with any such things, the accusation has been laid at the wrong 
 door. Verbum sat! 
 
 No. If but a small moiety of the policy employed by the advocates of 
 the innovations to secure their success had been used on the other side, 
 the Church would probably not now be in the peril to which she is ex- 
 posed, by the manifest determination to make extreme use of advantages 
 conceded to them in the way of temporary experiment, or of fraternal, but 
 condition:il concessions. As a single proof and illustration of this, it will 
 suffice to direct attention to one or two facts, with reference to the 
 character of most of the eastern delegations at Dayton. The ritualistic 
 side was represented by the President and Vice-Pi'esident of Franklin and 
 Marshall College, by the President of Marshall Collegiate Institute, by the 
 Professor of Theology in the Seminary at Mercersburg, and by the Editor 
 of the German Reformed Messenger, all members of the Old Liturgical 
 Committee, and all carrying with them such influence and power as their 
 official position in the Church may impart. Was this accidental ? Again. 
 
HISTORICAL NOTES. 35 
 
 Some Classes in whicli there are many ministers who are opposed to the 
 ritualistic innovations, possibly one-half, or even more, being of this mind, 
 were wholly, or almost wholly, represented by those who favor tlie new 
 Order of Worship. This may have b^en fortuitous. But does it look so ? 
 How, then, came the author of the "Vindication" to take no note of these 
 significant facts, especially as he did allow his thoughts to be occupied with 
 such "political" aspects of the "game?" 
 
 So far from its being true that those who opposed the innovations had 
 any advantages by manceuvering, the real aspects of the case strongly 
 indicated that such advantages had been adroitly secured by the other 
 side. For reasons, best known to themselves, some of those who may be 
 supposed to have possessed the secrets of their part, boasted most con- 
 fidently of their expected success at Dayton, a success, however, which it 
 was predicted would be far more overwhelmingly complete than it finally 
 proved to be. So that whatever Dr. Nevin's fears may have been, they 
 did not seem to be shared at all by the friends of his measures. And 
 now, on calmly reviewing the case, in this "political" aspect, it seems 
 surprising, that with all the power of influential position in the Church, (a 
 power which those now denounced as "factious," " dupes," and " ciphers," 
 had helped to create, at a time when those who wield it seemed devoted 
 to the German Reformed Church in its true historical character), and with 
 all the use or abuse of that power in the manner displayed at Dayton, 
 that the revolutionary movement should have but barely escaped an utter 
 defeat. 
 
 Let this suf&ce, so far as concerns a few of the odious personalities of 
 the notable tract before us. Our way has now been cleared of the rubbish 
 of those irrelevant points with which the author has labored in his extrem- 
 ity to embarrass the calm consideration of the vital questions involved in 
 the present controversy, and to rescue his cherished scheme from peril. 
 We are prepared, therefore, to examine again, in a summary way, the 
 leading facts connected with the liutory of the neia Order of Worship, and 
 to ascertain through them by what means the ritualistic crisis, with all the 
 dangerous innovations it involves, has been brought upon the Church. 
 
 HISTORICAL NOTES. 
 The great importance of the historical argument seems to have been 
 fully appreciated by Dr. Nevin. It is evident, also, from his violent 
 struggles to escape the grasp of historical proofs demonstrating that the 
 new Order of Worship was not such a Liturgy as the Synod had directed 
 the committee to prepare, how fully he realized the force of those proofs. 
 His manner of disposing of them is most remarkable for a writer of his 
 pretensions, and displays far more skill in the art of Heshiissian logic 
 
36 HISTORICAL NOTES. 
 
 than genuine candor. He deals witli the official records of the Synod, in 
 the historical section of his tract, as he deals with the Creed in the subse- 
 quent part. Into both he arbitrarily inserts a sense to suit his purpose or 
 his theory, and then becomes so entirely the victim of his own artifice, that 
 he seems actually to believe that sense the true one, and violently denounces 
 every other as absurd and false. Resolutions of Synod, most literally and 
 essentially contradictory of his views, as well as positive and plain defini- 
 tions of the Catechism, and expositions of the authors of the Catechism 
 directly antagonistic to his fourth century conceits revived, or rather 
 perhaps adopted from others who have revived them, are all but so many 
 flimsy cobwebs before the besom in this arbitrary historian's hand. The 
 wilful course pursued docs indeed involve the writer more than once in 
 most glaring and ridiculous contradictions. But who shall dare to chal- 
 len"-e such a theologian's contradictions, or to expose the absurd conse- 
 quences to which they lead ? What if he does denounce the accusation 
 of disobedience to Synodical instructions as a slander, and then forthwith 
 acknowledge the fact of the disobedience ? What if he does inveigh 
 most violently against the charge that the Committee did not abide by the 
 obligations assumed in the Baltimore compact, or treat it with sarcastic 
 ridicule, and then tacitly admit that the terms of that compact were not 
 honored ? What if he does incase the Heidelberg Catechism in a gilded 
 casket of eloquent laudations, and wreathe garlands of flowery compli- 
 ments for the brows of Ursinus, and Olevianus, and Frederick III, " of 
 noble, pious memory," and then modify the lofty commendations by cooly 
 ponouncing them "rationalistic," by condemning their Liturgy as '^ pseudo- 
 liturgical at best," "■ a hortus siccus," (i. e., a garden of dead grass), and by 
 perverting some of the fundamental doctrines of their Catechism into errors 
 a"-ainst which that noble and sacred testimony of their faith was lifted boldly 
 up? Self-contradictions, like these, would be perpetrated by other men to 
 the certain ruin of any scholarly reputation they might enjoy. But Dr. 
 Nevin indulges in them so freely, so confidently, that he seems to feel as- 
 sured, from what guarantees it would be hard to say, that all will be received 
 not only with submissive acquiescence, but with loud, partizan applause. 
 
 And yet in this, as in some other things, he may be mistaken. Men are 
 learning to read both history and theology for themselves, and to exercise 
 their own honest, intelligent judgment regarding their testimony and teach- 
 ings. The Church has begun to see, that not every utterance or ukase issuing 
 from this dictatorial source, is in harmony with actual facts, or in accordance 
 with actual truth. There may be no disposition to doubt the integrity of 
 those who make the declarations. No one may call in question that they 
 believe what they say. But their liability to change and error has been 
 too often demonstrated to give their mere unproved assertions the autho- 
 
HISTORICAL NOTES. 37 
 
 rity of law. No stronger evidence of this could be needed than is fur- 
 nished by the history of the Liturgical movement to the completion and 
 report of the new Order of Worship. 
 
 That movement passed through three distinctly marked periods. The 
 first began with the..iSynod of Lancaster, in 1847, and extended to the 
 Synod of Baltimore, in 1852, including the important action of the Synod 
 of Norristown upon the subject. During this period the ruling purpose 
 was, as expressed in the most distinct and unequivocal language adopted 
 as an explicit declaration of the Synod's judgment, that the Liturgy con- 
 templated should contain such "forms as were recognized by our fathers," 
 and that it should be strictly modelled "after the old Palatinate Liturgy as 
 our true ideal." The second period began with the consent given by the 
 Synod of Baltimore, in 1852, to the Committee's proposition to construct 
 the proposed Liturgy upon a broader basis than that which had been ori- 
 ginally adopted. This change of basis allowed of certain important modi- 
 fications of the plan upon which the work had been begun. And yet 
 those modifications were of such a character, and were so carefully guarded 
 by special explanations, that a Liturgy might be prepared in accordance 
 with them, which would involve no material or essential departure from 
 established Reformed principles of worship. The Provisional Liturgy was, 
 in the main, such a book. And yet the Synod of Allentown, at which it 
 was received, did not endorse it, much less adopt it, but simply allowed it 
 to go forth on trial, as an experiment. Even the Committee had so lively 
 a sense of the responsibility of proposing the work, though framed strictly, 
 as Dr. Nevin afiirms, according to instructions given, that they asked for 
 no more than this, and had misgivings even in asking this. Why these 
 misgivings? To what did this cautious legislation refer? Manifestly to 
 those peculiarities in a few of the services of the book, which contemplated 
 some change in the cultus and worship of the Church. Thus far, then, 
 the Committee and the Synod seemed to agree upon the necessity of ad- 
 hering predominantly to the established faith and practice of the Church 
 in a genuine sixteenth century sense. Dr. Nevin regarded it as a matter 
 of formal congratulation, that the work would '^be found in harmony with 
 the theological life and genius of the Church, for whose aiore particular 
 use it had been prepared." (See Report of the Committee to the Synod 
 of Allentown, Minutes, p. 81.) Not a word was then breathed of its '^not 
 pretending at all to be of one order with the liturgical practice of the Ger- 
 man Reformed Church;" not an intimation was then given, that the prac- 
 tice of the German Reformed Church was "from the beginning believed 
 to have been too naked and bald." Assertions like these were reserved 
 for five years later. 
 
 Meanwhile, however, the movement entered the third period of its pro- 
 
38 HISTORICAL NOTES. 
 
 gress and development. This ^yas. the period of the Revision. Most 
 earnestly was the immediate revision opposed by those who now advocate 
 and urge the adoption of the new measures. The only probable, and partly 
 avowed reasons for this opposition, have been given on a previous page. 
 It did not avail, however. The Re\nsion was ordered. The principles on 
 which it was to be made were explicitly stated. They were those of the 
 Baltimore basis. Dr. Nevin himself acknowledges this. Moreover, in 
 connection with these principles, the Committee was directed to have re- 
 gard to the suggestions made by several Classes, in regard to certain 
 changes and modifications of the Provisional Liturgy. Of these, the 
 Classes of Mercersburg and of Lancaster, in whose midst, Drs. Nevin, 
 Schaif, Wolff, Ilarbaugh and Gerhart, all members of the Liturgical Com- 
 mittee, resided, declared with special emphasis their desire that such mo- 
 difications should be made. As an additional guide in the prosecution of 
 their work, the Committee had before it the very significant fact, that the 
 novel peculiarities of that Liturgy had been almost universally repudiated 
 by the Church. With all the influence of Professors and the schools in 
 their favor, with all the strong desires of marfy worthy pastors who had 
 been sedulcus'y taught to admire those peculiarities to introduce them, and 
 with all the careful and quiet efforts made by a few zealous friends to in- 
 troduce them "without observation," they had signally failed to prove ac- 
 ceptable. The book was largely used as a pastor's hand-book, and very 
 much that it contained in this form was admired. But beyond this, it 
 met with but exceedingly limited favor. All this the Committee knew 
 when the work of revision was commenced, and whilst that work was being 
 prosecuted. And from all this it should have been easy for them to de- 
 termine upon the course to be pursued, if they desired to conform their 
 work to the plain instructions of Synod, to the expressed wishes of the 
 Classes, and to the obvious desires of the Church at large. It may be un- 
 hesitatingly affirmed, also, that it v/as the general expectation and hope, 
 even of most of those brethren in the ministry who may have theoretically 
 agreed with the majority of the Committee in their peculiar views, that 
 due regard would be paid to these facts, and that material modifications 
 would be made, both in the form and doctrinal expressions of the more 
 ritualistic services of the Provisional Liturgy. 
 
 To all this, however, little or no regard was paid, as may clearly be seen 
 by simply holding these rules for the revision in one hand, and comparing 
 with them the Order of Worship as submitted to the Synods of York and 
 Dayton. It requires no profound learning; nothing but that plain good 
 sense which every lay member of the Church possesses, to see that the two 
 things do not tally, but are in material and essential disagreement. To 
 exhibit this diversity distinctly to the reader's view, the points of flagrant 
 disagi cement are here placed in parallel columns. 
 
HISTORICAL NOTES. 
 
 39 
 
 THE INSTRUCTIONS OF SYNOD DIRECTED: 
 
 1. That tlie Revised Liturgy should be 
 framed after the pattern of the worship 
 of " the Primilive Church, as far as this 
 can be ascertained from the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, the oldest ecclesiastical writers, 
 and the Liturgies of the Greek and 
 Latin Churches of the 3d and 4th cen- 
 turies." 
 
 2. Synod required that "among later 
 Liturgies, special reference ought to be 
 had to the Old Palatinate and other Re- 
 formed Liturgies of the sixteenth cen- 
 tury." 
 
 3. The Committee was directed to 
 provide "several forms for those por- 
 tions of the Liturgy which are most fre- 
 quently used, as the regular service of 
 the Lord's Day, and the celebration of 
 the Lord's Supper, some shorter and 
 some longer, some with and some with- 
 out responses." 
 
 4. It was most explicitly enjoined 
 that the new Liturgy should recognize 
 and encourage the use of ^^ extempora- 
 neous prayer, ^^ nay, that it should seek to 
 promote the exercise of the gift, by 
 leaving sufficient room for it in the se- 
 veral services. 
 
 5. The Synod of Easton reiterated 
 substantially the directions of the Balti- 
 more basis, laying very special stress 
 upon the necessity of so prosecuting the 
 revision, that the proposed Liturgy 
 should not be " inconsistent with cs^a- 
 blished Liturgical principles and usages, 
 or with the devotional and doctrinal genius 
 of the German Reformed Churchy It was 
 further ordered that due consideration 
 should be given to the suggestions of 
 the several Classes, calling for fewer 
 responses, and for a modification of cer- 
 tain doctrinal expressions in the sacra- 
 mental and some other services. 
 
 THE COMMITTEE ON THE CONTRARY: 
 
 1. Made the Liturgies of the Latin 
 and Greek Churches of the 3d and 4th 
 centuries their ruling pattern, although 
 it is universally known that the worship 
 of the Primitive Church had then become 
 materially modified and seriously cor- 
 rupted. 
 
 2. In the Revised Liturgy scarcely a 
 single trace of such 'reference can be 
 found, excepting in the case of some co- 
 incidence of those Reformed Liturgies 
 with 3d and 4th century services. 
 
 3. The Revised Liturgy or new Order / 
 of Worship, shows that this direction 
 Avas utterly disregarded by the Commit- 
 tee. It contains but one form for each 
 of the services named, and that in the 
 fullest sense responsive. The service 
 for the Lord's Supper, also differs to- 
 tally from anj' known in the German 
 Reformed Church, and much more close- 
 ly resembles the Romish mass. 
 
 4. The new Order of Worship ignores "' 
 free prayer, evidently discourages its 
 use, and contemplates its ultimate, to- 
 tal exclusion. Its reigning spirit is es- 
 sentially incompatible with extempora- 
 neous prayer. 
 
 5. The new Order of Worship shows ,' 
 that instead of following these reiterated 
 directions, the Committee steadily per- 
 sisted in carrying out their own views, 
 interpreting instructions given to suit 
 those views, or wholly disregarding the 
 instructions. There is no diminution 
 of the number of responses, but an in- 
 crease of them, and a multiplication of 
 services containing them, to the entire 
 exclusion of the many non-responsive 
 forms of the Provisional Liturgy. There 
 is no real modificaiion of objectionable 
 doctrinal expressions. And the book is 
 flagrantly at variance with the esta- 
 blished Liturgical principles, and with 
 the devotional and doctrinal genius of 
 the German Reformed Church. 
 
40 HISTORICAL NOTES. 
 
 It will serve to increase the real significance of these strong contrasts 
 between what the Synod directed the Committeee to do, and what has 
 actually been done, if another fact is remembered. The Synod and the 
 Church liad every reason to expect that the Liturgy in the course of 
 preparation, would in all material and essential respects, be truly and 
 genuinely a German Reformed Liturgy. Whatever may have been the 
 thoughts or desires of a few individuals here and there, who held doctrinal 
 and ritualistic views at variance with established historical Reformed 
 standards and principles, there is not the least doubt that the general ex- 
 pectation of those ministers and lay members of the Church who paid any 
 attention to the movement, was, that the Committee would prepare and 
 report a book which would be found in full substantial harmony with the 
 instructions given, and therefore with the prevailing faith and practice of 
 the German Reformed Church. There was every reason for cherishing 
 such an expectation. No intimation had ever been given by the Synod, of a 
 purpose or wish radically to change the old cultus of the Church, or ma- 
 terially to modify any of her fundamental doctrines. She was not known, 
 or suspected even, to be dissatisfied with her peculiar denominational 
 characteristics. More than once, indeed, in years past, when assertions 
 or intimations were made which seemed to charge the Synod with coun- 
 tenancing doctrines or tendencies which involved revolutionary results, 
 those who made them were denounced as false witnesses, and declared to 
 be enemies of the Church. Can it be forgotten, that it was then boldly 
 and unqualifiedly affirmed, that nineteenth-twentieths of the Church re- 
 pudiated the doubtful things of the peculiar views, as an argument sufiicient 
 to silence the tongues of those who were said to be defaming us ? 
 
 Furthermore, the Committee was composed largely of members whose 
 official position in the Church laid them under special obligations of strict 
 fidelity to her traditional genius and spirit. There was good ground to 
 suppose, therefore, that of all her ministers, the}^ would be most zealous in 
 their eiForts to maintain and defend the integrity of all her doctrines and 
 legitimate usages, and that they would be the last to propose or advocate 
 any material or essential modification of either. Even the memorable re- 
 port of 1862 ("The Liturgical question"), with all its strange pleadings, 
 could hardly have then been taken by the Synod of Chambersburg, to 
 mean what it is now seen to have meant. Notwithstanding its very extreme 
 positions and offensive statements, the belief was still cherished, that the 
 Committee would not, could not carry out the principles advocated in 
 that report, to such an extreme degree as is exhibited in the new Order 
 of Worship. Excepting, perhaps, a few more intimate and zealous disci- 
 ples of the radical movement, or a few opponents of that mo"V5ement, who 
 were regarded as false alarmists, who dreamed that the Committee really 
 
HISTORICAL NOTES. 41 
 
 intended to produce a book -wliicli would be so utterly at variauce witli 
 some of the fundamental principles of tlie past faith, and practice, of the 
 Church? 
 
 These are not fictions^ or even facts founded on fictions. They are 
 matters of ofiicial explicit record, and of actual occurrence. Their author- 
 ity, therefore, in the case before us is indisputable and final. If the pur- 
 pose and the desires of the Synod are not to be mainly ascertained from 
 resolutions adopted, and from instructions given, to what source can we 
 look for positive and certain information? Is it not obvious and just, 
 that whatever else may have been done or not done, said, or simply ac- 
 quiesced in, must be interpreted in conformity with such resolutions, and 
 such instructions! The Committee, therefore, has no right to go back of 
 the actual record to find a sense to justify their course, at variance with 
 the plain import of the record itself. 
 
 From this historical review two things are evident : 1. That the Synod and 
 Church at large never contemplated or desired the preparation or introduc- 
 tion of any other system of worship but one which would be in full un- 
 doubted harmony "with the devotional and doctrinal genius of the German 
 Reformed Church," and gave no authority for the preparation of any other. 
 2. That at least during fifteen years of their labors, down to the Synod of 
 Chambersburg in 18G2, the Committee professed and seemed to be pros- 
 ecuting their liturgical labors in full accordance with the expressed wishes 
 and purpose of the Synod. Some things, indeed, were said and done, 
 which foreshadowed evil, and excited apprehensions in the hearts of those 
 who saw in them indications of a purpose to make the liturgical movement 
 a means of introducing serious changes in the " devotional and doctrinal 
 genius" of our Church. But all intimations of the existence of such a 
 purpose were silenced for the time by ridicule or indignant disclaimers, 
 and all the fears expressed were pronounced preposterous. Why should 
 the work be condemned before it was done? How unjust, it was said, to 
 create suspicions against the book, by such unfair charges, before it was 
 completed and could be carefully and calmly examined in all its parts ? 
 Why excite doubts as to the intentions of the Committee faithfully to per- 
 form the work intrusted to them according to instructions given, and given 
 largely in compliance with their own suggestions and recommendations? 
 
 Meanwhile that work was actually progressing with steady, unyielding 
 determination, according to the principles and plan now fully developed 
 in the new Order of Worship. Meanwhile, also, influences and agencies 
 were zealously employed to prepare the Synod and the Church, if possible, 
 for a favorable reception of the work which was thus performed. 
 
 It is in the light of such facts as these, that the true character of the 
 course pursued by the Committee becomes apparent. The " Vindication " 
 
42 HISTORICAL NOTES. 
 
 may defend or extenuate that course as it pleases, all will not avail to ex- 
 culpate the Committee from the charge of disobedience to express Synod- 
 ical instructions. The Synod ordered a certain work to be done in a cer- 
 tain way. The Committee did the work in quite another way, and in a 
 way "materially and essentially" diflFerent from that prescribed. Dr. 
 Nevin may call this what he likes. I know of but one name for it, and 
 that is disobedience to instructions. The endurance by Synod of such 
 disobedience, its patience and forbearance towards it, its occasional seem- 
 ing tacit concessions, may be capable of explanation or not. All this does 
 not change the real aspect of the case, any more than a parent's leniency 
 towards a disobedient child, changes the fact of its disobedience. Absa- 
 lom was none the less blamable for all David's pliancy. The Revised 
 Liturgy is " essentially and materially" a different Order of Worship from 
 that contemplated and called for by the actions of the Synod under whose 
 direction it was to be prepared, and is so because those actions were dis- 
 regarded. And now, as a consequence of this course of the Committee, 
 we are shut up to the dilemma, either of contending earnestly for the 
 maintenance and defence of our long established faith and practice, 
 against radical and subversive innovations, or, of timely and recreantly 
 surrendering evangelical denominational principles, to the sweeping de- 
 mands of ultra-high-church sacramentalism. 
 
 Such, then, is the theory of the course of the Committee and of the way 
 in which the Liturgical movement was carried forward to the present pos- 
 ture of things, which is furnished by a careful and candid consideration of 
 the history of the movement. And this review of the case with its ob- 
 vious lessons and inferences, is the only reply I will make to the distorted 
 caricature drawn by the author of the "Vindication " on pp. 11-13 of his 
 tract. 
 
 But what, now, on the other hand, is Dr. Nevin's account of the mat- 
 ter ? How does he explain the fact, that while the Liturgical movement 
 began with most distinctly avowed purposes of a faithful adherence to 
 Grernaan Reformed principles and usages, it ended with the presentation 
 of a system, devotional and impliedly doctrinal, too, subversive of that 
 system? How does he attempt to justify the course of the Committee in 
 avowedly prosecuting its work according to instructions given, and yet in 
 the end producing a book for which it is not claimed even, that it is in 
 real harmony with those instructions? Let us see. 
 
 1. He begins with an unreserved repudiation of those instructions, so 
 far as their details are concerned. "Let no one imagine, however, that I 
 propose to follow him in the details of his pretended historical argument. 
 That would be, indeed, both time and labor thrown away" (p. 10). No, 
 truly. It would have taken a great deal more time, and a vastly larger 
 
HISTORICAL NOTES. 43 
 
 amouat of labor, thaa Dr. Xeviu could well spare from his maia purpose, 
 to have doae this. Oaly "imagine" that he had attempted to follow 
 " the details of that historical argument." Those "details" were a literal 
 citation of the acts and resolutions of Synod, setting forth, as has been 
 shown, in distinct and unequivocal terms, what the Committee was directed 
 to do in the preparation of the work on hand. The original plan and 
 principles adopted by the Synod of Norristown,. need not be pressed. 
 Allow them to have been superseded by the basis to which the Synod of 
 Baltimore assented by way of expeiiment iu 1852. Only suppose our 
 author endeavoring to show that the Committee had faithfully and 
 strictly adhered to the principles of that basis, and that his new Order of 
 Worship was in full essential harmony with it. He would have found 
 himself called upon to solve some exceedingly vexatious problems, and to 
 answer some very impertinent, annoying questions. Possibly, from some 
 vagueness in the phrase, "worship of the Primitive Church/' employed 
 in the first principle of that basis, the flagrant disagreement of the leading 
 forms of the new system with the spirit and genius of any mode of wor- 
 ship known to Apostolic and strictly primitive times (i. e. during the first 
 century of the Christian era), might have been plausibly and dexterously 
 defended. Possibly it might have been shown, to the -satisfaction at least 
 of those who may be somewhat captivated by the innovations^ or tempted 
 to favor them without fully perceiving or considering what all they involve 
 in the way of surrendering fundamental principles of evangelical Chris- 
 tianity, thatthe term "primitive" covered the third and fourth centuries, and 
 permitted the Committee not simply to ascertain as well as they might 
 through "the Latin and Greek Liturgies," of those centuries such elements 
 of primitive worship as might be culled from them, but to adopt, in large 
 measure, the peculiarities of those later Liturgies. Difiicult as it would be 
 to prove all this, and greatly as the difl5culty might, if possible, increase 
 his mournful irascibility at being balked at all in his "Vindication" by so 
 paltry and contemptible a matter as this, — suppose he be relieved by con- 
 ceding what it might be so troublesome to make out, iu regard to this 
 point. 
 
 But what would he do with the second principle of the Baltimore basis? 
 It requires, as has been seen, that " sjjecial reference ought to he had to 
 the old Palatinate and other Reformed Liturgies of the l%th century." 
 Now, only ^'imagine" Dr. Nevin writing a true historical "Vindication" 
 of the Committee's new "Order of Worship," grappling with this law for 
 the preparation of the work. "Luagine" the author of the "Liturgical 
 question," and of all its calumnies upon such "pseudo-liturgical" "pulpit 
 hand-books" as the venerated fathers of our Church prepared, recom- 
 mended, and used, endeavoring to show how much earnest and respectful 
 
44 HISTORICxVL NOTES. 
 
 reference had been made by him, for instance, to those early Reformed 
 Liturgies, and how largely their scheme of worship, forms and prayers, 
 were used in the preparation of the new ''Order." Imagine him striving 
 to show how fully the forms of that ''Order" for the regular service of the 
 Lord's day, for preparation for the Lord's Supper, and for the Lord's 
 Supper itself, harmonized in their "devotional and doctrinal genius," with 
 the forms of the Palatinate or any other old German Reformed Liturgy for 
 those same services. Imagine him attempting to demonstrate by an actual 
 comparison of their general structure (I do not say details, for Dr. Nevin 
 dislikes "details"), how cordially they harmonize^ and how beautifully 
 they ageeed. 
 
 Or suppose, once more, we picture to our mind this same author, 
 endeavoring to prove the agreement of the "Order," in all essential re- 
 spects with the third principle and t\\% fourth of that same basis. Those 
 principles require provision for nou-responsive forms for all the leading 
 services, and for free prayer. Any " Vindication," worthy of the name, of 
 the Committee's work, must show, therefore, that this law again has been 
 faithfully obeyed; that the new "Order" complies with its demands. 
 Now let us see how astutely, how triumphantly the obedience called for, 
 can be shown to have been rendered. Where will he begin? Where 
 will he end in the demonstration? He takes up the new "Order." He 
 searches for the non-responsive forms required. He seeks for some such 
 recognition of free prayer as is called for, and as may be found repeatedly 
 in the Provisional Liturgy of 1857, — that book which he most earnestly 
 contended was a unit of perfectly harmonious parts. Can he find, what 
 yet must be there, if the book shall be fairly vindicated, against the charge 
 of not being such a Liturgy as the Synod ordered the Committee to pre- 
 pare, and as the Committee has a right to ask the Church to adopt? No, 
 it is not to be found. What! not a single instance? No, not one. 
 These two principles were utterly ignored, boldly discarded in the actual 
 production of the new " Order." They were incompatible with the prin- 
 ciples and system of doctrine and worship which had come to prevail in 
 the third and fourth centuries, through the influence of such ultra sacer- 
 dotal prelatists as Dr. Nevin's great model Cyjyrian (see "Dr. Nevin and 
 his Antagonist," by J. H. A. Bomberger; " Mercersburg Review," Vol. 
 v., 1853, pp. 177-8). 
 
 What a dilemma! A vaunted defence of an "Order of Worship," sup- 
 posed in the course of ^preparation to be proceeding according to principles 
 laid down by the Committee itself, and demanding adoption unless the 
 Sjnod would stultify itself, while that defence dare not bring the work to 
 the test of those very principles ! A defence professedly based upon his- 
 torical evidence, and yet shrinking from a fair application of that evidence 
 
HISTORICAL NOTES. 45 
 
 as derivable only from authentic official records ! No wonder Dr. Nevin 
 lost patience with those "details" — those insolent, audacious details, 
 which from the calm pages of that obnoxious tract, dared to confront him 
 with their quiet but irresistible reproof. The testimony which they bore 
 against a course which had issued in the Revise^ Liturgy, plainly, unqua- 
 lifiedly condemned that course, and the pernicious issue. And there was 
 no way of escaping the fores of the testimony, but by obliterating it. This 
 was the easiest method of disposing of the oflfensive thing. Set the details 
 aside. Or let them be shorn of their force by ridiculing, caricaturing 
 them. If they cannot be met and answered, they may be laughed at, and 
 their testimony may be drowned by the noise of sarcastic derision. 
 
 But by what right, it may well be asked, does Dr. Nevin affect so sum- 
 marily to dispose of what bears against his cause? On what authority 
 does he so arbitrarily rule out the only reliable and official source of proof 
 in the case? Other Committees or members of the Synod have never 
 presumed to claim or to exercise such liberties. When certain duties 
 were assigned to them, they were expected to perform those duties as far 
 as possible in accordance with the spirit, at least, if not the letter of their 
 instructions. And they would have been deemed deserving of censure 
 had they pursued a contrary course. Why then should a matter of such 
 vital moment as the preparation of a Liturgy, and in reference to which 
 there has been so much explicit ecclesiastical legislation, be allowed to 
 form an exception? Why should Dr. Nevin be permitted to claim 
 exemption from faithful compliance with Synodical instructions, and to 
 scatter them as chaff, by tempest of his displeasure? 
 
 2. Thus rid of the annoyance of those historical details, the author of 
 the '' Vindication" proceeds to construct his defensive argument upon 
 quite another basis. This is not done, indeed, in any direct, frank, and 
 comprehensive way, by which the reader might see at a glance the facts 
 or assumptions on which the theory rests, and of which it is made up. 
 If the theory was sound, and in harmony with the record, it would, or 
 should have b'een as easy for the author to put its parts together in a 
 summary way, as it was for him to manufacture the caricature given on 
 pp. 11-13 of his tract. Then it might have been seen in its true charac- 
 ter, and judged according to its merits. It seems, however, to have suited 
 his purpose better in this case, to scatter the assertions or assumptions on 
 which the argument is based, over most of the pages of the historical 
 section of his tract, now in one connection, than in another, and always in 
 such a way as to cover their weakness, and to conceal their inconsisten- 
 cies. Professing to take a broad and profound view of the case, the 
 breadth is found, nevertheless, to be like that on which airy castles rest, 
 and the profundity a shallow depth of thin transparent fictions. And 
 
46 HISTORICAL NOTES. 
 
 yet, all is done in so self-confident and defiant a manner, that less scruti- 
 nizing minds maybe tempted to regard all as real, substantial truth, simply 
 by the unblushing boldness with which it is asserted. 
 
 But let these scattered parts of the pretended argument be gathered 
 together. Let them be fairly considered in their connection, and in their 
 consistency or incompatibility with facts. Subject them to such tests as 
 they must be able to endure if they shall be allowed to stand for what 
 they are given. By this just process, let us see how much, or how little 
 they are really worth, and whether they can, indeed, bear the structure 
 which is so confidently built upon them. 
 
 Four items seem to be comprehended in Dr. Nevin's basis, and these, 
 though given disconnectedly, are so dependent upon each other, that if 
 one fails, all fall through. The first of these points is, that the Synod had 
 a clear and distinct hnowlcdge of the plan and design of the Committee, 
 as those have been executed in the Revised Liturgy. It is asserted, not only 
 by Dr. Nevin, but by others on the same side, that the Synod well under- 
 stood, especially after the assent given to the principles of the Baltimore 
 report, what the Committee intended to do, and was doing, in the prose- 
 cution of the work assigned to them. This was known, it is afiirmed, 
 from the tenor of those principles; from the character of the Provisional 
 Liturgy in which those principles were carried out; and from the avowals 
 of some of the members of the Committee publicly made from time to time. 
 And yet, with all this full knowledge and distinct understanding of the 
 case, the Committee was allowed and encouraged to go forward with their 
 work in the very way in which they executed it. 
 
 What, now, does all this imply? Evidently, either that the Synod 
 started out in the Liturgical movement with the fixed purpose of revolu- 
 tionizing its cultus and worship in the radical way now advocated and pro- 
 posed, or, that, though starting with the design of simply improving its 
 established system in a manner consistent with itself, this purpose was af- 
 terwards made to give way to revolutionary measures, subversive of the 
 established liturgical system and usages of the Church. It is assumed, 
 therefore, that, whatever may have been the original design, the Synod 
 consented, with a full understanding of the case, to the prosecution of a 
 scheme by which the German Beformed Church would be '-essentially and 
 materially" removed from that apostolic primitive foundation, both in 
 doctrine and liturgical practice, on which she had been planted in the 
 16th century, and be relaid upon'a foundation whose chief stones should be 
 gathered from the third and fourth centuries. Ignoring the three hun- 
 dred years of her history since the Keformation, overleaping the Reforma- 
 
HISTORICAL NOTES 47 
 
 tion itself as a sort of illegitimate* birth, closing the eye to the "geueral 
 mass of Romish corruptions" (Anxious Bench, 2ud. ed., p. 9, 10), which 
 "abounded" during the many centuries of Romish dominion preceding 
 the Reformation, the Synod, with full knowledge and apprehension of 
 what was meant, permitted and encouraged the Committee to cast them- 
 selves at the feet of the renowned fathers of the third and fourth centu- 
 ries, and obtain from such as Athanasius, Basil, Cyprian, and Tertullian, 
 not only some suggestions in regard to worship, nor merely some such 
 prayers or collects of universally acknowledged excellence as that of 
 Chrysostom, but the ruling principles of their entire system. 
 
 Could any assumption be more preposterously absurd than this? It 
 seems incredible that Dr. Nevin himself, in calmer hours, can believe it; 
 still more incredible, that he should expect it to be accepted for truth by 
 others. That a Synod, representing a Church whose doctrinal standard, 
 whose spirit and genius, whose constitution, whose entire previous history, 
 and whose actually predominant faith and practice, were a most positive and 
 decided protest against those essential departures from primitive Apostolic 
 Christianity, which characterized the Church of the centuries named, and 
 from which, as poisonous germs and seeds, the still grosser errors and 
 abuses of subsequent centuries sprang; that such a Synod should have 
 been persuaded by the propositions of a single report, read once, or at 
 most, twice, by the published views of Dr. Nevin and two or three disci- 
 ples of his views, or by any other considerations, to give up the liberty 
 wherewith Christ had made the Church free, and to let her become en- 
 tangled again with the yoke of bondage; this is incredible. 
 
 And it is, likewise, so utterly at variance with the facts of the case, that 
 the author of the Vindication repeatedly contradicts himself in trying to 
 make out this point. Unable to defend the course pursued by the Com- 
 mittee, on the ground of special instructions given, he takes refuge to this 
 general view of the case. Hard pressed for sufficient evidence, he boldly 
 assumes that the Synod knew how the work was being done, and approved 
 of the plan."{" And yet, in other connections, he concedes the very point 
 at issue, by confessing that neither the Committee nor the Church foresaw 
 whither matters were tending. On p. 32, 33, of the "Vindication," we 
 read in reference to the tract of 1862-3, entitled, "Liturg. Question," 
 and in which the principles subsequenHy carried out in the Revised 
 Liturgy are set forth: "I hardly exj^ected or wished the Synod to fall in 
 
 *Who cares for rhetorical compliments bestowed, grudgingly, if not from policy, upon 
 the Reformation and the fathers of the Reformed Church of the 16th century, when their 
 principles are denounced, and their practice is discarded ? 
 
 f "The Synod knew perfectly well where the Committee stood in regard to the whole 
 subject." Vind., p. 36. 
 
48 HISTORICAL NOTES. 
 
 with the high view of altar worship preseatsd in the tract." Oa p. 38, 
 below, we read in reference to the Revised Liturgy, that the Committee 
 '■'■felt that they had been snccesa/al in bringing the book into a form suita- 
 ble to the wants of the Church, and likely now to come into general use." 
 On p. 46, however, we read that, to a large extent, the entire Western 
 portion of the Church was "in profound ignorance of the subject." And 
 once more, in strange forgetfuluess of what was said on p. 38, as quoted 
 above. Dr. Nevin says, (p. 48): "how far the work itself, in the form in 
 which it is now before the public^ may prove satisfactory to the Church, rc- 
 mains yet to he seen." What does all this mean? The Synod knew what 
 the Committee was doing. It approved, substantially, of the radical course 
 they were pursuing, and was impatient for the completion of the work in 
 such style and form, that the Church might be led, without delay, into 
 the new Eden which would thus be opened to her. And yet, after all the 
 faithful toils of the Committee, according to the mind of Synod and de- 
 sires of the Church, after all their success in bringing the book into the 
 very form proposed and longed for, a form entirely '^suitable to the wants 
 of the Church," and "likely to come into general use," it "remains to 
 BE SEEN how far it may prove satisfactory to the Church !" 
 
 Nor is this all. Notwithstanding the bold assumptions in regard to the 
 Synod's clear knowledge of the Committee's position and doings, and 
 notwithstanding the Committee's consciousness of having succeeded so 
 satisfactorily in doing their work, as Dr. Nevin is fully persuaded the Sy- 
 nod wanted it done, only see with what extreme anxiety, trepidation even, 
 that completed work is laid before Synod, and what excessively modest 
 and moderate hopes are entertained concerning its acceptableness. The 
 work, we are told (p. 41), came to Synod, "asking barely permission to 
 live, and nothing more." And this is literally true. Whether we turn 
 to the reports of the permanent Committee on the Liturgy, or to the re- 
 ports of special Synodical Committees from time to time, or consult the 
 speeches made and articles written in favor of the work, the same timid, 
 lowly, half-hoping spirit meets us. Like the Pope on Maundy Thursday, it 
 seems to bow as a very servus servorum, and beg the privilege of being al- 
 lowed only some little opportunity of doing some small service for the dear 
 Church of that most incomparable symbol, the Heidelberg Catechism, and 
 of trying, merely by way of experiment, whether it may possibly be able 
 to improve its doctrines and worship, its spirit and life, by a few modifica- 
 tions of these made, in conformity with third and fourth century 
 Cyprianic, Athanasian, and Ambrosian principles! Is this the language, 
 is this the suit of a movement which feels confidently assured that it has 
 been carried forward faithfully according to instructions, and in es- 
 sential harmony with the knowledge and understanding of the Body by 
 
HISTORICAL NOTES. 49 
 
 which that movement was inaugurated, and under the direction of which 
 it professedly reached thejdesired result 5J 
 
 But there is still another ftict, showing how utterly groundiess this as- 
 sumption is. The Committee acknowledged more than once in the course 
 of their work, that tlioy themselves did not foresee where they would end. 
 ''Their studies, conferences, and experimental endeavors, shut them up, 
 in a very slow looy, to this finally, as the only proper conclusion of their 
 work. They were themselves brought more and more under the power of 
 an idea ivhich carried them loith inexorable force its own way ', so that 
 they were compelled to change again and again what they had previously 
 prepared, till all was brought to take at last its present shape." This con- 
 fession may be found on p. 39 of the "Liturgical Question," published in 
 the Fall of 1862. A similar confession is reiterated on p. 21 of the "Vin- 
 dication." Taking these admissions in connection with other hints of 
 like import occasionally given, do they not most clearly prove, that even 
 the Committee was moving forward more or less hap-hazard, and walking 
 uncertainly in dim twilight at least, if not groping in the dark? Do they 
 not concede that Dr. Nevin and his coadjutors, felt themselves at the 
 mercy of a current which, for aught they knew, might carry them, "with 
 inexorable force," up the muddy Tiber, as well as up the limpid Rhine ? 
 And yet, forsooth, we are asked to believe that the Synod knew perfectly 
 well what the Committee was doing, how they were doing it, and where 
 the doing would end; and, with such knowledge, fully approved of all. 
 Will Dr. Nevin reconcile this palpable contradiction? 
 
 For my own part, without laying claim to any greater discernment than 
 belongs to most common men, it has seemed clear to me for at least six 
 years, that the movement was tending towards a result essentially and ma- 
 terially at variance with the original design and expressed desires of the 
 Synod. And I think that Dr. Nevin deludes himself, through excessive 
 modesty, when he says that the Committee, including himself of course, 
 were mere passive instruments in the hands of an inexorable ritualistic 
 power, which carried them, whether they would or no, its own way. He 
 may disclaim the credit, and yet many will give him the credit of sup- 
 posing that the author of "Early Christianity" and "Cyprian," in the 
 3Iercersburg Review^ could hardly have been so much in the dark, as he 
 meekly imagines himself to have been, upon the points involved in the 
 liturgical movement. It is true, that nothing suggested by me, in the 
 Committee, or set forth in the long series of articles published in the Mes- 
 senger in 1862, showing the irreconcilable disagreement between the es- 
 tablished cultus of the Reformed Church, the instructions of Synod, and 
 the radical ritualistic course which the Committee seemed then determined 
 upon pursuing, might give him any light or satisfaction. But it will not 
 4 
 
50 HISTORICAL NOTES. 
 
 be easy to persuade any one that he needed light, or was sailing without 
 compass, in the dark. He saw clearly what ,he regarded as the utter 
 misery ani outrageousness of the free-prayer system, and gave a most 
 forcible exhibition of his views upon that subject, in 1862. At the same 
 time he had gained a perfect insight into what he considered the worth- 
 lessness of "mechanical directory" "pulpit hand-books," such as our 
 Church, and others, had always used, when forms were used at all. And 
 surely, it will be concluded, that he must have seen further into the im- 
 port of the only ritualistic alternative left, than he seems willing to think 
 he did. And yet. as he disclaims this, it may be proper to accept of the 
 concession. But»is it any wonder, that amidst conflicting testimony, and 
 contradictory facts like these, the mind of the Synod should remain un- 
 settled and somewhat confused? Is it not rather far more in accordance 
 with reason, and all the circumstances of the case, to suppose, that Synod 
 took it for granted^ that whatever might be said on the one side, or on the 
 other, the Committee would no doubt, in the end, produce a liturgy in es- 
 sential and material harmony loith instructions, and suited to the histori- 
 cal genius of the Chui'ch, 
 
 It will serve to expose still further, how gratuitous and groundless this 
 assumption is, if one more fact is considered. The Synod, after 1857, 
 possessed a means of ascertaining what seemed to be the mind and purpose 
 of the Committee, which was far more tangible and reliable than mere 
 floating rumors or vague suppositions could supply. That means was 
 furnished in the Provisional Liturgy published that year. In the Pro- 
 visional Liturgy, the Committee gave a full exemplification of the ideal 
 Liturgy recommended in the Baltimore Report of 1852, and of that sort of 
 a Liturgy which they thought "the Church needed, and which wovild 
 satisfy the expectations and wants of the German Reformed Church." 
 (Report of the Committee in the Minutes of the Synod of Allentown, p. 
 80.) Now the Synod had a right to take that Liturgy as a fair exponent 
 of the utmost extent to which the Committee thought the Church should 
 go, in its Liturgical developments. The work, they said, was most care- 
 fully prepared, was the result of mature deliberation, and was declared to 
 be, in the judgment of the Committee, "in harmony with the theological 
 life and historical genius of the Church for whose use it had been pre- 
 pared." Where, then, could the Synod have gone to learn the views and 
 designs of Dr. Nevin and the other members of the Committee, so properly 
 as to that book. But suppose the Synod derived its knowledge of the 
 subject from the Provisional Liturgy, as the best source for obtaining 
 such knowledge. To what conclusion would this lead? Was it calcu- 
 lated to produce the impression that the Revised work would be prose- 
 cuted on a basis essentially different from that on which the Provisional 
 
HISTORICAL NOTES. 51 
 
 work was constructed ? Most assuredly not. If the Provisional Liturgy, 
 therefore, was to be regarded as a declaration of Dr. Nevin's views in the 
 case, nothing could well have been better calculated to mislead the mind 
 of Synod as to the manner in which the work of revision would be carried 
 on, or as to the nature of the result to which that work has come. The 
 material and essential diversities between the two books will be more fully 
 set forth in the next section of this tract.. But they are so broad and 
 deep, that it is not surprising that so many should be disappointed with 
 the result. And this especially in view of the fact, a fact not to be for- 
 gotten, that the result, such as it is, was reached in disregard of the ex- 
 pressed wishes and suggestions of the Classes, as shown on a previous page. 
 
 How evident, in view of these facts, that Dr. Nevin has been deluded 
 by his own assumptions. The " broad exposition," therefore, instead of 
 demonstrating the '"universal falsehood" of my historical analysis of the 
 detailed instructions by which the work should have been governed, proves 
 itself to be most false and deceptive. And so sure am I that he has fallen 
 into error on this point that I appeal most confidently to those brethren 
 who constituted the several Synods concerned, in confirmation of the fact 
 given above. Whatever may have been the impression of a few who de- 
 sired a book like the new Order of Worship, the expectation of the large 
 majority was, that the Committee would prepare and ofi'er a liturgy with 
 less responsive services, and such positive modifications both as to form 
 and doctrinal expressions, as would bring it into closer conformity with 
 the established faith and practice of the Church, than even the Provisional 
 Liturgy was, upon full trial, felt to be. 
 
 A second item in Dr. Nevin's theory seems to be, that the Synod from ^ 
 time to lime approved of the course which the Committee teas pursuing, and 
 thus conditionally committed itself to the adoption of their worhwhen done. 
 After what has been said in exposure of the fallacy of the point just dis- 
 posed of, but little need be added to prove the error of this item. For as 
 it rests mainly upon the same assumptions, it falls with them. The means 
 however, by which it is attempted to fortify this assertion, serve to show 
 how great a mistake was made by the author, in abandoning the substantial 
 ground furnished by official records, and taking refuge to a visionary con- 
 ceit. 
 
 First of all a general appeal is made to the fact that the Synod from 
 time to time adopted the reports made by the Committee of the progress of 
 their work. Such reports were made at MartinsbTirg 1850, Baltimore 
 1852, Chambersburg 1855, &c. A sufficient answer to this is, that in the 
 adoption of such reports, it is never thought or intended that a Synod 
 should commit itself to the endorsement of all the statements they may 
 contain; and then, so far as the reports in question are concerned, there ■ 
 
52 HISTORICAL NOTES. 
 
 is nothing in them to indicate the purpose of the Committee to produce 
 such a work as the Revised Liturgy. 
 
 But, in the next place, special stress is laid upon the action of the Sy- 
 nods of Chambersburg in 1862, and of Lewisburg in 1865. Both those 
 Synods met during the period of the Revision. To save repetition, the 
 reader is referred to pp. 21— 40 of this tract for an account of the action of the 
 former of these Synods upon the report of the majority of the Committee 
 then rendered. But the members of that Synod will no doubt be greatly 
 astonished to learn that the vote finally taken upon the Liturgical ques- 
 tion, then discussed, committed the majority to an endorsement of the ex- 
 treme sentiments set forth in the tract entitled the "Liturgical Question." 
 They will be likely to repudiate this assumption most earnestly, and to de- 
 clare that they were not called upon at all to vote upon the sentiments of 
 the report of the majority of the Committee as set forth in that tract any 
 more than upon the sentiments of the minority report, as presented by 
 Dr. E Heiner, Dr. S. R. Fisher and myself. The truth of the case is 
 that the only point gained by Dr. Nevin and his friends at the Synod of 
 Chambersburg, was that of the indefinite postponement of the work of 
 revision. That the Committee had, indeed, spoken very boldly in their 
 report, no one denies. Nor will any one deny that it was remarkable that 
 some of the views they proclaimed were allowed to pass without some de- 
 cided expression of disapproval. Certainly no Synod of the German 
 Reformed Church could now be induced to endorse those views. But it 
 is a most unwarrantable assumption for Dr Nevin to conclude that because 
 the sentiments of that report escaped formal rebuke, the Synod approved 
 of them, or of the Committee's utterance of them. And just as little 
 was the Committee justified in assuming, that because no such rebuke was 
 administered, they .were authorized subsequently to carry out the work 
 of revision, in accordance with the extreme principles advocated in that 
 report. For to all intents the Baltimore basis was still in full force. 
 
 The reference to the Synod of Lewisburg, in 1865, is of still less account 
 for our author's argument. For that Synod not only expressed no opinion 
 in regard to the work as it was going on, but had no opportunity to do so, 
 as only a few copies of the specimens then completed were circulated, and 
 those privately. 
 
 At most, therefore, all that can be claimed on this point is, that Synod 
 held its judgment in reserve until the whole work should be completed, 
 and a full opportunity should be aff'orded to judge of its real merits. Mean- 
 while the matter was confided to the hands of the Committee, in the hope 
 that it would discharge its duty in faithful conformity with wishes dis- 
 tinctly expressed, and with instructions definitely given. 
 
HISTORICAL NOTES. 53 
 
 If the successive Synods of the Eastern portion of the Church meant 
 by their actions, what Dr. Nevin claims was meant, those Synods were 
 consciously committing themselves to a most serious violation of the Con- 
 stitution of the Church, and to such a fundamental change of some of her 
 essential doctrines and usages as is expressly forbidden by that charter of 
 spiritual right, without the previous consent of the Classes. With the 
 careful, explicit wording of that Constitution before them; with a know- 
 ledge of the jealousy with which the Synod has ever guarded its articles 
 against violation ; with a conviction of the prevailing agreement of the 
 mind of the Church with the principles laid down in those articles, and 
 of her sincere, intelligent attachment to the denominational peculiarities 
 which they exhibit; can it be for a moment really supposed, that the Sy- 
 nod nevertheless meant to clothe the Committee with unqualified, discre- 
 tionary power, to make whatever radical changes they pleased and to give 
 assurances that those changes w^ould be as unqualifiedly approved and ac- 
 cepted ? Who can believe this? Implicit, if not blind, as the confidence 
 of the Church in any of her members might be, it is a reproach upon her 
 good sense, her self-respect, and her obligation to regard her constitutional 
 law, to assume that she could be guilty of such fully. 
 
 But the author of the " Vindication" ventures boldly upon a third as- 
 sumption in support of his historical theory. He interprets the action of 
 the Synods of York arid Dayton last Fall, as a virtual endorsement of the 
 Revised Liturgy. This is indeed not categorically asserted. But the de- 
 clarations made on pp. 40-47, in regard to what was done by the Eastern 
 Synod at York, last October, and on pp. 46-47 in reference to the action 
 of the General Synod in Dayton, last December, are plainly designed to 
 produce this impression. The only evidence in support of the assumption 
 that the Synod of York endorses the Committee's course is derived from 
 the prcamhle of the special report there adopted. But until Dr. Nevin 
 can explain why the original third resolution of that report was stripped 
 of every expression commendatory of the Revised Liturgy, and reduced to 
 the simple form in which it was adopted, this appeal to the preamble can- 
 not help his argument (See p. 32 of this tract.) His inability to explain 
 this is only too manifest from his utter silen^ in regard to it. He would 
 have the reader believe, that the special report in question, was adopted 
 pretty much as it now stands on the minutes of the Synod at York, though 
 he knew how materially it had been amended in what was, for his purpose 
 a vital point. And then to show how little the Synod meant to commit 
 itself to the Revised Liturgy by anything the report in question may con- 
 tain, we find, at the close of the action in the case, the very explicit and 
 significant statement: " In the foregoing action of Synod, it was under- 
 stood, that the vote on the adoption of the report, did not commit those who 
 voted for it as to the merits of the hooJc ?" 
 
54 HISTORICAL NOTES. 
 
 If Dr. Nevin meant to be perfectly fair and candid iu discussing this 
 subject, why did he, not only make no allusion to the change of the third 
 resolution above referred to, but wholly ignore this official qualification of 
 the action of the York Synod? And why, furthermore, does he withhold 
 the fact, that the Report, as so materially amended, was carried, at last, 
 hy the votes of those very members of the Synods who had opposed it in 
 its original form, because in that form the Revised Liturgy was approved 
 and commended ? For in the fifty-three votes found in favor of the Re- 
 port, there are at least twenty-four names which would not have been given 
 for the full adoption of the Revised Liturgy. Is the concealment of known 
 facts, ingenuous or the opposite ? 
 
 How little ground the action of the General Synod at Dayton furnishes 
 for Dr. Nevin's sweeping and boastful assumption, maybe sufficiently seen 
 from the following explanation of the import and intended bearing of the 
 report there adopted, as given immediately before the vote was taken. "It 
 is said that the adoption of the majority report would exalt this Liturgy 
 to an article of faith. We deny this. It is not the case. We do not 
 propose to give it any binding force. The object is simply to let the Li- 
 turgy live. We leant no authority to go with the book. No endorsement 
 is sought. We are not yet prepared for that j^oint. We ask that decision 
 may be postponed — that the book may be made an object of inquiry and 
 investigation, so that when we are called upon to act with reference to its 
 adoption, toe may do so intelligently . There are doctrines apjjertaining to 
 the Liturgy ; there are customs not in present harmony with the Church. 
 The discussion we have had shows that we are not agreed as to the doc- 
 trines contained in it. * * * * Qyp object is simply this, to let it 
 live. A child is born into the family — let it breathe — give it a chance 
 for its life. It may have something wrong in it, but you do not know 
 that it has. So let it run its chances. We ask nothing more; we can 
 ask nothing less." These remarks were made by Rev. Dr. Gans, one of 
 the most intelligent, and at the same time, extreme advocates of the 
 peculiarities of the new measures, made immediately before the vote was 
 taken. Taken in connection with the great modesty and moderation of 
 the majority report prepared«nd thus explained by himself, they no doubt 
 had great weight in securing the adoption of that report. The same sen- 
 timents are reiterated in the '• Vindication/' p. 47. How then can Dr. Nevin 
 appeal to this action, so explained, in support of his broad assumptions ? 
 And how could some friends of the extreme ritualistic movement, on re- 
 turning home from Dayton proclaim in the face of such facts as the above, 
 that the General Synod had virtually endorsed and adopted the new Order 
 of Worship? True, the majority report does allow of it "as an Order of 
 Worship proper to be used/' and much account has since been made of 
 
HISTORICAL NOTES. 55 
 
 this last phrase. But if that phrase was really intended to express the 
 meaning now put into it by some zealous friends of the new Order, must 
 not those, who voted for the report, have been deceived by the explicit de- 
 clarations of Dr. Gans, to the contrary? 
 
 Surely then it is a great misrepresentation to assert that the work of-the 
 Committee as presented in the Revised Liturgy was ever endorsed by any 
 Synod of the Grerman Reformed Church. That Liturgy possesses no more 
 Synodical authority than did the Provisional Liturgy. It has simply been 
 allowed to go forth with a chance for its life. It is put on open trial. 
 All are at liberty to examine and criticise itj any minister, congregation, 
 layman of the Church, may object to its use. Reasons against its intro- 
 duction may be freely expressed. Those who as yet do not know what 
 its doctrinal and devotional peculiarities are, may ascertain them, and then 
 approve or disapprove, according to what is believed to be right and truth. 
 Nor should any one be discouraged against the full exercise of this liberty: 
 The General Synod did not by any means enjoin an actual trial of the book. 
 
 And still less was its action designed to forestall or forbid a thorough and 
 searching dissection of the new system. That action is not absolute and 
 final. It does not say that the book may not contain the very errors with 
 which it is charged, or that it is not open to the ritualistic objections 
 which are brought against it. There is nothing in that action which 
 makes it factious or seditious for any one who believes the new Order to 
 be materially at variance with the life and spirit of our Church, and dan- 
 gerous in its character and tendency, to say so, and to say so, if he chooses, 
 (that would be a matter of taste) in terms as violent and scurrilous as 
 those employed in the "Liturgical Question" against free prayer and such 
 ^'mechanical directories" as the Palatinate Liturgy, or in the so-called 
 " Vindication " against scores of ministers of the German Reformed 
 Church. Why should more leniency be shown to this new " Order of 
 Worship," than its authors show towards the liturgical legacies which our 
 fathers have bequeathed to us ? Upon what grounds can it be thought 
 entitled to greater respect than the Agenda of earlier, and I will add, 
 better days ? Surely, therefore, the General Synod of Dayton could not 
 have meant for a moment to tie the tongue or to stay the pen of earnest 
 and honest criticism. Nor can it be fairly understood to have bound the 
 highest judicatory of the Church never to pronounce decided judgment 
 against the new " Order." The most that can be made out of the lan- 
 guage adopted is, that in the opinion of the Synod at the time, and so 
 far as it had the means of knowing the general character of the book, it 
 might be allowed for use in an experimental way. For satisfactory rea- 
 sons pastors, consistories and congregations may refuse to permit this, be- 
 lieving its doctrines and service subversive of our legitimate faith and 
 
56 HISTORICAL NOTES. 
 
 practice, and likely to do harm wherever they may be circulated. All 
 therefore may enjoy equal freedom to examine the matter and to decide 
 upon it for themselves, and all should be bold to use their liberty, in spite 
 of any bitter denunciations or fierce anathemas to which they may be sub- 
 jected for so doing. No such threats as were thrown out by correspondent 
 A. in the "Messenger" some time ago against the exercise of full freedom 
 of speech and pen in exposing what may be considered a scheme subver- 
 sive of our denominational faith and practice, should intimidate any, or 
 have the force of a puff of a child's breath, in deterring them from the 
 severest criticism and condemnation of that scheme — provided this be done, 
 as it may be, without violating Christian principles or propriety. And if 
 this be thus done, so far from there being reason to fear Synodical reproof, 
 it is certain that in the end the courage and fidelity so displayed will be 
 commended. 
 
 One more point in the historical theory of the " Vindication" remains 
 to be disposed of. It is the assumption that the Church at large was de- 
 veloping lolth the Committee in liturgical views, and demanding some such 
 hook of public devotions as the new " Order of Worship." ("Vindication," 
 pp. 8, 13, 15, 38. Liturgical Question, pp. 63, 71, &c.) It seems to be 
 a favorite delusion of the author to suppose that the Church has all 
 along been not only permitting him and those who may agree with him, 
 to give free utterance to their peculiar opinions, and patiently listening to 
 them, but that she has been cordially imbibing and embracing them. 
 He finds manifest pleasure in cherishing the hope thas -he has not only 
 succeeded in training many pupils placed under his tuition to the belief 
 of those views, but that this success extends widely into the Church at large, 
 so that her membership generally are not only willing, but anxious to ex- 
 change the faith and practice, genius and spirit of the Reformed Church 
 of their fathers, for the new scheme now pressed upon our acceptance. 
 And so confident does he become at times of the correctness of this fancy, 
 that he defiantly asserts that the opponents of the new measures resist 
 their introduction as earnestly as they do, because they are afraid the peo- 
 ple would eagerly adopt them, if they were but afforded an opportuuity of 
 doing so. 
 
 Now this assumption is so flatly contradicted by well-known facts, that 
 instead of feeling called upou to show its absurdity, we are rather led to 
 inquire by what strange hallucination the author of the "Vindication" 
 could have been tempted to adopt it. He knew how anxiously some dis- 
 ciples of his progressive and changeful views desired to secure their gene- 
 ral acceptance, and the adoption of the peculiar measures growing out of 
 those views. He knew how zealously those views and measures had been ad- 
 vocated with more or less variation and confusion, in the press and in many 
 
HISTORICAL NOTES. 57 
 
 of the pulpits of the Church, for years past. He knew that the "■pheno- 
 menal" S. S. Hymn Book of 1860, had been furnished as a most effectual 
 propagandist of those views and measures, by training the pliant minds of 
 unsuspecting youth, ever fond of novelty, to the use and love of them. 
 And yet he must or might have known, also, with how little actual effect 
 all this had been done. Considering the nature of the agencies employed 
 to promote the scheme, he might and should have seen and estimated the 
 true significance of its practical failure. Was he ignorant of the fact, that 
 the new mode of worship, " not after the pattern of our fathers," that is 
 the mode exemplified in the first form of the Provisional Liturgy, had 
 made next to no advance since 1862, when he wrote: "Such as it is, 
 however, the Provisional Liturgy has not come thus far, as we know, into 
 any general use in the Church; * * * has failed to get into any 
 wide use. * * Our congregations generally have refused to go into 
 the use of it?" Did he not know that there were not ten congregations 
 at the time he wrote his "Vindication," in which the full forms were 
 employed, least of all that for the Lord's Supper ? And did he not know 
 that some of those few into which it has been somewhat fully introduced, 
 but without the consent of the Consistories or the people, are not favorable 
 to the innovations, and would gladly see them dropped? It is about three 
 years since I assisted at a communion season in one of those congregations. 
 Dr. Nevin himself was present. From what I had heard, I supposed 
 the Lord's Supper service of the Liturgy would be followed closely. But 
 to my surprise little more than half the service in the book was used, and 
 that half in a manner which made it very strongly resemble one of those 
 pulpit hand-book services on which Dr. Nevin had cast so much ridicule 
 and contempt. Has all this been forgotten — and that by one whose me- 
 mory held so tenaciously what transpired many years before ? It seems 
 incredible. How then shall the self-betrayal into an assumption so utterly 
 at variance with well-known facts be explained ? But one solution sug- 
 gests itself to our minds. It is the fatal error, an error which appears to 
 have gained complete ascendancy over him, of supposing that he and those 
 who more closely follow him, fully represent the Church. This solution 
 may possibly not be the correct one. But until a better is ofi"ered, it must 
 suffice. (See my former Tract, p. 33.) 
 
 There is an easy method, however, of testing this matter in a most 
 practical way. Let those brethren in the ministry, having pastoral 
 charges, who wholly endorse Dr. Nevin's views and measures, try in an 
 open and fair way to introduce the New Order into their congregations. 
 Let them plainly tell the people all the differences between this new mode 
 of worship and that which the German Reformed Church has hitherto 
 authorized and practised. Keep nothing back. Tell all frankly and 
 
58 HISTOEICAL NOTES. 
 
 truly. Ask them whether they desire that henceforth their pastors 
 should be priests in the specific high-church sense ; whether they are 
 willing to consent to the doctrine that there can be no full pardon of sin, 
 until comruon confession be made before the minister, thus converted into 
 a priest, in the Church, and he declares their sins forgiven. Let the peo- 
 ple have intelligent opportunity to say, also, whether they desire these 
 multiplied responses, with enforced forms of prayer to the exclusion of 
 all free prayer. Ask them about '■'■all faces, in time of prayer, being 
 turned toward the altar; about risings and howings, in token of the con- 
 senting adorations of the people." Show them plainly the broad difference 
 between the Lord's Supper and Baptismal services of the new Order, and 
 those handed down to us from the IGth Century, differences which recent 
 developments and explanations now prove to be as broad and as deep as 
 those between the 4th Century '' mummeries " of a corrupted Church in 
 which "quackery in its worst form had enthroned itself," and the pure 
 and simple worship of the primitive Apostolic Church. And having fairly 
 shown them these things, let them choose freely whether they will hold 
 fast to the old, or take instead the new Order of Worship. Does it need 
 prophetic vision to foresee what would be the result of such a submission 
 of the case to the people ? Cannot every layman say what would be the 
 effect, if Dr. Nevin, or any of his more devoted disciples should start out 
 upon a mission thus to reconstruct and renovate the Churches, after this 
 ultra-Mercersburg model? If there be any doubt in his mind, let him try 
 it, and learn by experience what he seems reluctant otherwise to believe. 
 And yet, who but one blinded by his own desires, could have failed to 
 discern that the cause of the practical failure of the ritualistic movement 
 of the past ten years, lay in the extreme innovations it proposed? As a 
 theory, that system of worship might seem very attractive to minds of a 
 certain cast and training. But when it came to putting the theory into 
 practice, it was found to be quite another thing. The people would not 
 have it. Earnestly as they desired the restoration of the proper and legi- 
 timate usages of the Church, their pastors felt instinctively that they would 
 not endure such an overturning of their faith and practice as was aimed at 
 and proposed by Dr. Nevin's new Order. And yet so complete and persist- 
 ent is his self-deception, that the cause of failure is supposed to have been, 
 not that the Provisional Liturgy went too far, was too radical in some of 
 the changes it proposed, hut that it was not radical enough. The conces- 
 sions made in the larger portion of that work to "a mechanical, pulpit 
 hand-book, pseudo-liturgical" style of worship, such as was provided by 
 "the Church of the Heidelberg Catechism" of glorious Tercentenary com- 
 memoration — those unfortunate concessions are supposed to have done the 
 mischief. The way to manage children, is not to humor them. Such hu- 
 
HISTORICAL NOTES. 59 
 
 moriDg only spoils them, and makes them refractory. Hence the remedy 
 must be to recall those concessions in the revision of the work. The new 
 order must be a unit, and that unity must consist in its extreme and ex- 
 clusive radicalism. The Church that will not have a log for its king, must 
 take a serpent. The people that murmur at tasks imposed with straw, 
 must be silenced by being compelled to perform those tasks without straw. 
 So Rehoboam, the foolish son of Solomon, argued that subjects who com- 
 plained of his rule, did so because his demands were too lenient. The 
 reader knows his remedy, and the ruin which that remedy wrought in 
 Israel. 
 
 Summing up, then, in a few sentences, this review of the histoi-y of the 
 Liturgical movement, we get these results. (1.) By the explicit instruc- 
 tions of Sj'nod, and the confession of Dr. Nevin himself, the Revised Li- 
 turgy should have been constructed and prepared, mainly, in accordance 
 with the principles of the Baltimore basis. (2.) Any modifications made 
 of the Provisional Liturgy of 1857, were to combine a simplification of the 
 more ritualistic forms of that Liturgy, especially of those for sacramental 
 and special occasions, with such alterations in certain doctrinal phrases as 
 would bring them in more literal harmony with the standards of the 
 Church. (3.) The Synod and the Church had a right to expect that 
 their wishes in these respects would be complied with, and had no reason 
 to suppose that a course contrary to the instructions given, and to known 
 wishes, would be pursued by the Committee. (4.) The new '■ Order of 
 Worship" is not in harmony with the principles of the Baltimore basis, 
 or with the suggestions of the Classes, but exhibits a material and essen- 
 tial disregard of those principles and suggestions, in containing full respon- 
 sive services only^ in retaining the objectionable doctrinal phraseology of 
 the Provisional Liturgy, in utterly excluding free prayer, and in present- 
 ing a system of worship which shows no proper regard to Reformed Litur- 
 gies of the sixteenth century, and which is not '' consistent with the doctri- 
 nal and devotional genius of the German Reformed Church." (5.) The 
 course of the Committee, as indicat-ed by the result reached, has never been 
 endorsed by the Synod, and their "Order" has not been adopted. To 
 these points may be added — (6.) As an inference fairly warranted by the 
 history of the case, that notwithstanding their prosecution of the work in 
 a way not justified by the instructions given and wishes indicated by facts 
 or expressed in words, the Committee nevertheless hoped, and have most 
 zealously endeavored, to secure a favorable reception for their work, and 
 its ultimate adoption and introduction, by bringing such influences to bear 
 upon the case as circumstances placed under their control. 
 
 And they have so far succeeded in their measures (I mean, of course, 
 those five members of the Liturgical Committee who display special zeal, 
 
60 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 and who at York or Dayton took tlic most active part, in defending and 
 furthering the movement, viz., Drs. Nevin, Wolf, Gerhart, Harbaugh, and 
 llev. T. G. Apple) that the case now stands where the Synod at Dayton 
 left it. An "Order of Worship," so "materially and essentially" differ- 
 ent from anything ever known to the German Reformed Church either in 
 this country or in Europe, and known to be so contrary in some of its 
 leading features to the predominant wish and taste of the Church, that 
 its advocates and friends would not let it come to a fair vote upon its 
 merits, has been allowed to go down to the congregations for examination 
 or use, and thus to become either a means of revolutionizing the consti- 
 tution and customs of the entire Church, or an occasion of dissension and 
 strife, through a most natural and justifiable resistance to such revol- 
 utionary innovation. Historically, therefore, it is a question involving the 
 maintenance of the traditional evangelical life and character by which the 
 German Eeformed Church has been from the first distinguished, or the 
 surrender of all to the extreme and sweeping demands of a system of 
 doctrine and cultus the paternity of which may be traced directly to Dr. 
 Nevin himself For, as shown, already, the new "Order of Worship" is 
 not built upon the Baltimore basis, as mainly prepared by Dr. Schaff, 
 but upon a very material modification of that basis. And that modifica- 
 tion was- made chiefly in accordance with the views of Dr. Nevin, and 
 through the force of his personal influence over ardent disciples of those 
 views. What all this new scheme involves, the radical revolution in the 
 devotional usages of the German Reformed Church which it purposes to 
 effect, and its essential disagreement with her established principles of 
 public worship, next claim our attention. 
 
 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 Amidst the din and confusion of the present controversy, there is great 
 danger that the main point at issue may be forgotten, or be made a mat- 
 ter of secondary moment. It is one of the frequent attendants of warm 
 and exciting discussions, that side issues, raised incidentally or with, de- 
 sign, and pressed with violence and bitterness, produce so much distrac- 
 tion, that the minds of those concerned are diverted from the interest 
 really at stake, and become absorbed with other matters. Such distrac- 
 tion and diversion have, no doubt, been caused in the case before us, by 
 the manner and style in which the debate has been largely conducted 
 by the leading advocates of the new Order of Worship. Dr. Nevin, es- 
 pecially, both at York, at Dayton, and in his '-Vindication," has helped, 
 whether intentionally or unintentionally to produce this result. Among the 
 objections urged against the new scheme, the objectionable character of some 
 of its doctrinal expressions has been exposed, and pressed as a reason why it 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 61 
 
 should not be adopted by the Synod, or recommended to the Church. This 
 objection, however, has been raised and argued as one involved simply in a 
 subordinate way, in the Liturgical movement. Its great importance has in- 
 deed been admitted, but it has not been set forth so as to lessen the primary 
 question of the proposed revolution in our entire mode of worship. But now 
 an attempt is made by those favoring that revolution, to treat the matter of 
 such radical Liturgical changes as something of comparatively small ac- 
 count, and to make the whole controversy turn chiefly upon doctrinal 
 points. It is quite easy to see what would be gained by effecting this 
 change of base. Doctrinal points are more or less abstruse, and can be 
 discussed in such a manner that those not familiar with the subtleties of 
 scholastic or mystical theology, are unable to discern their real import, or 
 to detect the sophistries and errors which they involve. Those errors 
 may even attempt to vindicate their orthodoxy by texts of Scripture, 
 and by quotations from standard Church authorities which, in sound and 
 in superficial form, may seem to substantiate their evangelical preten- 
 tions. Why then, should they be denounced or rejected ? Who will 
 undertake to pass judgment upon them as subversive of true evangelical 
 faith? If they can thus defend themselves by the same Scriptures and 
 standards of Church doctrine from which proofs of their falsity are drawn, 
 how shall the Church at large, or any representative Synod of the 
 Church decide who is wrong or who is right? Although, therefore, the 
 doctrinal objections made to the movement now agitating our Church, 
 are believed to be as obvious as they are serious, — a point which will be 
 taken up in the concluding section of this tract, — it may be found more 
 easy to confuse the proof of those objections by such means as adroit de- 
 baters are mostly skilled in using. 
 
 Sometimes theological phraseology is ambiguous, or lacks precision. 
 Certain terms employed may have one sense in one connection, and a dif- 
 ferent sense in another. An author, consequently, like Calvin or Ursinus, 
 whose system, taken as a whole, is clear and definite enough, may make 
 statements which, taken alone and out of their proper connection, may 
 seem to furnish grounds for doctrines diametrically opposed to those which 
 they really held. That their writings should be liable to such perversions, 
 will, of course, not surprise those who remember that Papists and Pusey- 
 ites, as well as Phrygian Montanists and Gnostics, all quote the Holy Scrip- 
 tures for their purpose, and pretend to prove by inspired testimony that 
 their condemnable heresies are most heavenly truths. But this very liabi- 
 lity of all writings, inspired or not inspired, to such misuse, can be made 
 the occasion of misleading the minds and disturbing the judgment of men, 
 and of thus securing, perhaps, a temporary ascendancy of error over truth. 
 
 But whether this be so or not, it is simply a matter of fact, that the 
 
62 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 Liturgical Question, in the proper sense of the term, is of primary im- 
 portance in the present instance, and claims the most earnest consideration 
 of the Church. The movement began professedly as a liturgical move- 
 ment. The changes which are now most urgent in asking for ecclesiastical 
 sanction, and in seeking to become predominant, are liturgical changes. 
 The revolution which is striving to establish its ascendancy, is a revolution 
 in our mode of conducting public worship. Even, therefore, if not a sin- 
 gle doctrinal point of any moment were at stake, it is a matter sufficiently 
 serious to justify an earnest challenge, and to demand most careful con- 
 sideration, whether such a mere liturgical or ritualistic revolution should 
 be allowed to prevail. Taking the question as amounting simply to this : 
 Shall the Grerman Reformed Church adhere substantially to the mode of 
 worship by which she has been distinctively characterized for three hun- 
 dred years, or shall that mode, with the principles on which it rests, be 
 abrogated, discarded, and another mode '^ essentially and materially," in 
 principles, and in form," different from it, be substituted in its stead? it 
 may well be expected that the Church would hesitate long before giving 
 an affirmative answer, if she did not promptly and indignantly reject the 
 very proposition. 
 
 A Liturgy may exert greater influence than a formal Creed, not only 
 upon the moral character, but upon the doctrines of a Church. The 
 moulding power of national poetry is proverbial. What is said or sung, 
 in prayer and praise, at least by those who take any devout and earnest 
 part in both, must, in the very nature of the case, possess vastly greater 
 power. Such prayers and hymns are most potently educational, and soon 
 insinuate the truths or errors they may contain into the worshipper's in- 
 most life. Whatever, therefore, may be the import of the articles of their 
 Creeds, people really, heartily believe what they sincerely sing and pray, or 
 practice in any other form in their private and public devotions. No re- 
 ligious system better understands this than the Romish papacy. There is 
 scarcely an error in that monstrous perversion of Apostolic Christianity 
 which did not gain currency, and secure final adoption, in this way. The 
 dreadful idolatry of the mass can be historically traced to this source. It 
 was by gradual changes in the mode of celebrating the Lord's Supper, by 
 introducing a peculiar phraseology into the liturgical forms used in its 
 administration, and by adding one ceremony after another to the service, 
 that the mind and heart of the Church, during the third and fourth cen- 
 turies, were slowly trained to those views of the Sacrament which soon 
 developed into the abominable error which siihsequently became a leading 
 article in the heretical Creed of Rome. This is certified by all evangelical 
 Protestant Church Histories, and is most convincingly demonstrated in 
 Ehrard's Dogmengeschichte I., 186-197. And what history shows to have 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 63 
 
 been thus effected in regard to the error of the mass, it also proves was the 
 actual course of development and adoption in reference to the veneration 
 paid to saint's relics, the worship of the Mother of our Lord and of saints, 
 prayers for the dead as associated with a purgatory, and well-nigh every 
 other false doctrine peculiar to the Romish Church. Those errors were 
 not primarily taught in the preaching, or proclaimed by the Creed. They 
 were inculcated by means of the liturgies and ritualistic ceremonies, which 
 became more numerous and complicated as the Church was carried fur- 
 ther off from Apostolic times and allowed herself, through the influence of 
 such men as Cyprian, Cyril, Ambrose and Gregory of Nyssa, (A.D. 384,) to 
 be led away from the spiritual simplicity of Apostolic worship. (Beside the 
 Church Histories above referred to, see Dr. Nevin's " Anxious Bench, pp. 
 9, 10, 29, 39, 50, 51, 53. Also the articles, Anglican Crisis, Early Chris- 
 tianity, and Cyprian, Mercersburg Ileview for 1851, 1852.) 
 
 All this too, let it be most distinctly noted, possibly took place without 
 any previous design or preconcerted plan on the part of those who first 
 introduced those liturgical and ritualistic changes, into the services of 
 their respective churches (for they wei;e mostly introduced in an inde- 
 pendent and limited way.) Greatly as Dr. Nevin may overrate Cyprian 
 and others of like spirit in that early age, not only in regard to their 
 learning, but also other qualities — and who does not know that distance, 
 and darkness too, often magnify objects long gazed at through them — it 
 may be admitted that they were at least ordinarily devout and honest men. 
 W-hen they made figurative and rhetorical allusions to the oblation, (obla- 
 tio) as the bread and wine were called, which members of the churches 
 presented for use in the Lord's Supper and the attendant ''love-feast," 
 and where they spoke of the duty of renewed self-consecration to the 
 Lord, in the sense of Rom. 12 : 1, in connection with the offering (obla- 
 tion) thus presented ; and when, to enforce this exhortation they appealed 
 to the propitiatory offering which He voluntarily made of Himself, once 
 for all, and which they were assembled solemnly to commemorate, and as 
 they did so lifted up the plate (a custom first practised in the fourth cen- 
 tury,) containing the sacramental bread ; they may not have most distantly 
 thought of inculcating the idea of even a symbolical reenactment, an anti- 
 typical repetition of the atonement. And yet the impression produced 
 in this way upon the popular mind, especially as such modes of represen- 
 ting the matter were amplified by their successors, resulted in that false 
 contemplation of the sacred service which soon perverted the sacrament 
 into a sacrifice, and the sacramental sign and seal of the believing spiritual 
 union with the Lord Jesus Christ, into a means and channel of the literal 
 communication of His substantial flesh and blood to all who participated 
 in the sacramental ordinance. 
 
64 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 Whilst, therefore, the few ritualistic changes which, by slow degrees, 
 were admitted into the Church duting the latter part of the third, fourth 
 and immediately succeeding centuries, may have been originally designed 
 to promote the spirit of true devotion, and so to serve for the better edi- 
 fication of her members; they proved a most perniciously efficient means 
 of sowing error, and propagatiog corruptions of the primitive Gospel faith 
 and practice. And the mischief thus wrought, possibly by a gross abuse 
 of the original design of those changes, was greatly increased and inten- 
 sified, by the multiplication of liturgies in later centuries, characterized by 
 those changes in their most objectionable form, and by '' improvements" 
 even upon them, for which greater currency was gained by ascribing their 
 authorship to some famous Church fathers of earlier times. Such, for in- 
 stance were the Coptic Liturgies which bore the names of Basil, Gregory 
 of Nazianzen, and Cyril, though they were certainly not produced earlier 
 than the Seventh century. (See Ebrard's D.-Gesch.) 
 
 With such proofs before us of the educational power of liturgies, it 
 would not be easy to overrate the doctrinal significance of the ritualistic 
 movement, into which the desire and effort of our Church to provide her- 
 self with an order of worship suitable to her historical character and spi- 
 ritual wants, have been turned. Let us, therefore, not permit our atten- 
 tion to be diverted from the extreme and radical nature of this movement 
 in its primary ritualistic aspect, by any doctrinal discussion which may be in- 
 cidentally associated with it. The first question now before the Church is 
 whether this new ritualistic scheme of worship, prepared in disregard of 
 the plan and purpose of the Synod, and confessedly at variance with any 
 style ever known in the German Reformed Church, shall be allowed to 
 usurp the place of worship in its legitimate evangelical Reformed type 
 and spirit. After having for three hundred years maintained an order of 
 worship possessing as much authority and entitled to as sincere regard as 
 the Heidelberg Catechism, with which that order stands in the closest af- 
 finity, shall we let the Church be exposed to all the hazards involved in 
 such a ritualistic experiment as Dr. Nevin and the more zealous advocates 
 of the new scheme would persuade us to makei' This, assuredly, is a 
 matter which should be weighed with great deliberation. Especially must 
 it be admitted that the Church should pause a long time before giving her 
 consent to changes so radical, that they would make her entirely different, 
 not only in her outward dress, but her in\nost spirit from what she now is. 
 Does the new scheme guarantee to her any certain adequate compensation 
 for changes which would wholly sunder her historical relation to her past 
 life, and attach her to the peculiar life of the third, fourth, and subsequent 
 centuries ? 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 65 
 
 When the real design of this movement became manifest more than six 
 years ago, and its extreme tendencies were then exposed, it was common for 
 its advocates to deny that it involved the radical innovations charged upon 
 it. In reply to whatever was said or adduced, in proof of its revolution- 
 ary nature, efforts were made to show that the extreme peculiarities of the 
 more ritualistic portions of the Provisional Liturgy, were in essential har- 
 mony with authorized Reformed antecedents! Zwingli's Liturgy of 1525 
 was appealed to in a most disingenuous way, as justifying the use of numer- 
 ous responses, and even the strong phraseology which occurs in the sac- 
 ramental forms of the Provisional book. By this means it was hoped not 
 only to furnish an excuse for the extreme course which some members of 
 the Committee were then bent on pursuing, but to reconcile the Church 
 to that course, and secure its formal approval. (See Ger. Ref. 3Iessevgey 
 for April 1862.) 
 
 Soon, however, it was felt that such appeals could not be fairly sustained. 
 Whatever seeming countenance might be given to the extreme forms ad- 
 vocated, by the first Swiss order of services, the Committee were conscious 
 that the resemblance was mainly external and superficial, and also that no 
 peculiarities of those early Swiss forms could be honestly pressed as of 
 authority for the German Reformed Church. Hence this line of argument 
 has been almost entirely abandoned. Occasionally some feeble pen endea- 
 vors to take it up, and reecho what was erroneously asserted five years 
 ago, at least in a modified form. But the disagreement, not to say antag- 
 onism, between the New Order of Worship, and that mode which is dis- 
 tinctively German Reformed, is too broad and obvious to be denied. Hence 
 in the notable tract of 1862, the Committee summoned courage, frankly to 
 confess, that if the Synod or the Church had been expectingthat the New 
 Order would be in essential harmony with the historical cultus of the Ger- 
 man Reformed Church, they were greatly mistaken. Thus they (including 
 Dr. Harbaugh) acknowledged that all attempts to vindicate the peculiar- 
 ities of the new Order, as then proposed, on the ground of their being in 
 unison with the spirit and genius of the historical Reformed Church, such 
 attempts as Dr. Harbaugh and one or two others had made during that 
 very year (1862) in the " Messenger," were in contradiction of facts, and 
 calculated to deceive the people. No such agreement between the new 
 Order proposed, and our old mode of worship, was claimed. The new. 
 Order, it was then avowed, " made no such profession or pretence." 
 
 But now to suit this very significant change of front on the part of the 
 leading advocates of the new measures, a new line of defence or assault 
 must be established. And this is immediately done. Hence we hear no 
 more of any " material or essential " agreement between the ruling spirit 
 and structiire of the new Order and our old cultus ; but, along with con- 
 5 
 
66 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 cessions of" material and essential" disagreement, we have arguments, la- 
 bored and specious, to justify this disagreement. And what is the burden 
 of these arguments ? Why that the age of the Reformation was unfavor- 
 able to the pi'o duct ions of true liturgies, and that the fathers of our Church 
 7cere not qualified for the work. 
 
 Thus one of the main points in the controversy is changed. Instead of being 
 required any longer to prove that the cultus which Dr. Nevin's advocates is 
 " materially and essentially " at variance with any recognized German Re- 
 formed cultus, it becomes necessary to vindicate the qualifications of the 
 Church, and of her leading theologians of the sixteenth century, to provide 
 a liturgy worthy of the name, and suitable to the wants of her members. 
 Happily, the opponents of the ritualistic innovations have as abundant 
 means of vindicating their Church, and the founders of that Church, 
 against this accusation, as they had to show the radical diversities of the 
 new style of worship from that approved and practiced by the Church. 
 
 In their allusions to worship as distinctively characteristic of the German 
 Reformed Church, the advocates of the new measures frequently involve 
 themselves in contradictions which are very absurd and irreconcilable, but 
 which are nevertheless calculated to confuse and mislead the minds of some 
 who may read their statements upon the subject. At one time they ac- 
 knowledge that our Church has had from the beginning a true system of 
 worship. That ^^ worship is not a new thing in the Reformed Church," is 
 most graciously admitted. Nay, they go farther, and, with at least, im- 
 plied approbation, confess that the "prescribed forms" used in such wor- 
 ship, were consistent with a true idea of worship. Indeed, to serve the 
 purpose of a certain line of argument, the faith and practice of our eccle- 
 siastical ancestors is sometimes warmly commended, and set in most flat- 
 tering contrast with the usages of later times. Even the old Palatinate 
 Liturgy comes in for a share of compliments in sucli connections, and in 
 comparison with it, the forms said to he used by our ministerial fathers* 
 of the last century, here in America, are pronounced "jejune formularies." 
 
 On the other hand, however, when the advocates of the new "Order" 
 come to descant upon their own theory of worship, and wish to exhibit its 
 superior merits, their whole tone is changed. Then both the Liturgies, 
 and the worship of the Church conducted more or less fully according to 
 the order of those Liturgies, are spoken of not only in terms of disappro- 
 bation, but of sarcastic disparagement and strong contempt. Such direc- 
 tories for public worship, as were originally provided for our Church, are 
 freely denounced as "a bastard conception of what a liturgy means," as 
 
 *Dr. Nevia should ccrtain4y have known that the earliest ministers of our Church in 
 ■this country, almost invariably brought the Palatinate Liturgy with them and used its 
 .forms in worship. 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 67 
 
 "an outward fixation of forms which must almost* necessarily seem to be 
 formal only, and therefore slavish also and dead." Or they are sneered at 
 as "dry forms," "mechanical helps," and altogether "not worthy of re- 
 spect." And in full harmony again with the contumelious style of criti- 
 cism we find apt imitators speaking or writing of our old established Order 
 of Worship in the most disparaging terms, and comparing its peculiar ser- 
 vices to "beggarly elements" which should be promptly forsaken, and 
 cheerfully cast out to the dogs. (See Liturg. Question.) 
 
 In the same contradictory way Dr. Nevin puts face to face, on directly 
 opposite pages of his remarkable tract, a commendation and a condemnation 
 of the Liturgy prepared by Dr. Mayer. Thus on p. 8 he refers quite ap- 
 provingly to that book as " the respectable work of a truly respectable man." 
 And yet on almost parallel lines of p. 9 we read in reference to this same 
 work: "But what have we here ? Dead forms only, bound together in a 
 dead way ; from which it was vain to expect, therefore, that the breath of 
 life should be kindled in the devotions of the sanctuary." That in this 
 case, as in his allusions to the earlier Liturgies of the Church, the censure 
 should be expressed in so much stronger terms than the praise, may be 
 perfectly natural. Only as the Liturgy of Dr. Mayer had been adopted by 
 the Synod, and is still so far as formal official action goes, the Liturgy of 
 the Church, Dr. Nevin should have alluded to it in more decorous terms, 
 and not have so rudely denounced it, under cover, too, of the honored name 
 of a departed friend. 
 
 But through all these contradictions, it is the manifest aim of the writers 
 to excite disgust and prejudice against that mode of worship which for 
 three centuries has been distinctively Reformed j and to create a taste and 
 desire for that style of Liturgy which has now, in the latter half of the 
 nineteenth century of the Christian era, been discovered to be the only one 
 worthy of respect, and for which the Christian Church is indebted to Dr. 
 Nevin and his more active associates in the work. To put the argument 
 in a favorite logical form, it furnishes the following significant syllogism: 
 
 No book of devotional forms for public use, which does not correspond 
 in its principles and structure with the new Order of Worship, can be con- 
 sidered a true Liturgy, and worthy of respect. 
 
 The earlier Liturgies of the Reformed Church do not thus correspond 
 with the new Order of Worship. 
 
 Therefore such Reformed Liturgies are no true Liturgies, and have no 
 claim to our respect. 
 
 To this scandal upon the character and reputation of the Reformed 
 Church has the Liturgical movement been driven by the anti-Reformed 
 spirit to which, as to an "inexorable force," the advocates of the new 
 m^isurcs have been aurrandorlnir themselves. Dr. Nevin uses all the in- 
 
68 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 fluence with which a confiding Church has been investing hira^ to produce 
 in the heart of her members feelings of disgust, aversion, contempt for her 
 own historical character, and legitimate peculiarities of worship. With 
 all his profound "respect for the sixteenth Century," he not only sees no 
 reason to be bound slavishly by all its opinions, but tells too patient listen- 
 ers that the Reformers of that period "had no proper insight into the true 
 conception of a Liturgy, regarded as an organic scheme of worship; and no 
 active sympathy therefore with the idea of worship in any such form." 
 Who will thank him for his frigid professions of respect for the Church, 
 after such condemnatory criticisms upon the labors of her devout and 
 learned fathers? He may pour with lavish profusion harsh and ribald 
 accusations of slander, libel, and whatever else comes freely to a vitupera- 
 tive pen, upon obnoxious individuals, and no one will be seriously dis- 
 turbed, excepting for the prosecutor's reputation. But when a man called 
 into the Church from another denomination to aid in maintaining and 
 defending the established faith and practice of that Church; one most 
 warmly welcomed to her inner sanctuary, and long honored with more 
 than moderate regard and homage, allows himself to assail and ridicule 
 that Church in matters pertaining to her inmost life and most sacred 
 usages, it may well excite deep indignation in the breast of every member 
 of that Church to whom her true character and reputation are of more 
 account thanthe fitful Theological vagaries of a comparative stranger. It 
 may be safely asserted, that there is not another minister in the Reformed 
 Church, whether in this country or in Europe, who would have written a 
 tract so defamatory of Reformed Liturgical principles and usages as that 
 of 1862, now again endorsed in this "Vindication." And it is more than 
 doubtful whether another Synod could be found which would so patiently 
 endure such presumptuous defamation. Considering this endurance, ma- 
 nifested in the face of the provocation given for & severe rebuke, it is hard 
 to suppress feelings of burning shame for the seeming want of self-respect 
 evinced. And there is good reason to believe that the time will come, 
 before many years have passed, when the lenient toleration displayed on 
 the occasion referred to, will excite not only amazement but regret. Fu- 
 ture generations will not know the circumstances under which all took 
 place, and which may now serve to palliate if not to justify the forbearance 
 of the Church. 
 
 Inasmuch, however, as Dr. Nevin and his school so freely indulge in 
 such reproachful animadversions upon the mode of worship originally 
 established and more or less faithfully maintained in the Reformed 
 Church, especially in the German branch of that Church, it becomes 
 necessary to inquire somewhat carefully into the matter, and see whether 
 those animadversions are just or unjust; whether they spring from ignor- 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 69 
 
 ance, or from a worse source. Such an inquiry, we may feel assured, will 
 lead to a very different judgment as to the respectableness of the Liturgi- 
 cal legacies bequeathed to us by our ecclesiastical fathers, from that passed 
 upon them by the author of the "Vindication." 
 
 Among the first things which claimed the attention of the Reformed 
 Church, whether of Switzerland, the Palatinate, or of other countries, was 
 the importance of making suitable provision for the observance of public 
 worship. Dr. Nevin perpetrates an inexcusable mistake, when he afiirms 
 that the leaders of the Reformation, especially of that section of the great 
 and glorious work which received the specific designation Reformed^ in 
 distinction from the Lutheran, were too much occupied with the adjust- 
 ment of doctrinal matters, to give proper attention to the cultus of the 
 resuscitated Church. He may have been betrayed into this strange error 
 by the fact that doctrinal questions were discussed more publicly, and so 
 came out more frequently and boldly into open view on the arena of con- 
 troversy. Or he may have allowed himself to be misled by the absence of 
 much strife on points pertaining to the cultus of the purified and reno- 
 vated Church, and thus to conclude falsely, that the subject received but 
 little earnest attention. But, in regai'd to the former of these points, it 
 was perfectly natural, that doctrinal contentions, as affecting the public 
 confessional life of the Church, should place themselves in the foreground, 
 and occupy a more prominent and observable position. And in reference 
 to the other point, an entirely satisfactory explanation of the comparative 
 absence of strife is furnished by the fact of the substantial agreement of 
 all the leading Reformers, both of the first and second period upon the 
 principles and order of public worship. 
 
 It is far from being true, therefore, that but imperfect limited attention 
 was paid to the subject of worship by our Reformed fathers. AH the 
 more thorough Liturgies of that period concur in testifying that the oppo- 
 site was the case. The rupture with the Church of Rome had no sooner 
 become a fact, than immediate provision was made for Liturgical services 
 suited to the new state of things. Such forms as were deemed needful 
 for properly conducting public worship were at once prepared. Liturgies 
 appeared almost simultaneously with Creeds and Catechisms. And quite 
 as much attention was bestowed upon the preparation of the one as of the 
 other. Neither was the product of a single year. To both, and perhaps 
 equally, diligent and prayerful study was devoted! The Heidelberg Ca- 
 techism and the Palatinate Liturgy were published, as is well known, 
 during the same year. And yet it is just as well known that both were 
 the result of several years antecedent labors. Those bestowed upon the 
 Liturgy were of course prosecuted more quietly, and their results when 
 made public attracted less exciting observation. But it would be very 
 
70 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 wrong to conclude from this that they were less earnest and thorough, and 
 therefore " not entitled to our respect " as fully as the confessional pro- 
 ductions of that period. 
 
 And any one who duly considers the points which were involved in the 
 Reformation, and the condition of those portions of the Church which be- 
 came separated at that time from Rome, can readily see why such imme- 
 diate and special attention should have been given to liturgical matters. 
 The corruptions of the Romish apostasy pertained fully as much, to say 
 the least, to its cultus as to its creed. Its system of worship, root and 
 branches, was as degenerate as its faith; indeed, the departure of the 
 former from primitive Gospel spirituality and simplicity had largely led, 
 as was shown on a previous page, to doctrinal defection from Apostolic 
 truth. It was not simply the article of justification by faith, for the per- 
 fect restoration of which the Reformers contended; but that article as in- 
 volving a purification of the Church of ritualistic abuses, which had been 
 multiplied in proportion as Rome had profanely substituted justification 
 by works for the true Gospel doctrine, or as the growing tendency of Ju- 
 daizing Galatian self-righteousness developed more and more into the pre- 
 valence of those anti-Apostolic ritualistic services, which, by their natural 
 influence, wrought such doctrinal defections. It was not simply for the 
 restoration of the supreme authority of the Sacred Scriptures as the high- 
 est rule of faith, that the Reformers contended; but for the abrogation of 
 those abuses in practice, and most especially in worship, which had been 
 introduced simultaneously with the elevation of human traditions to a po- 
 sition of authority equal with or superior to that of the Sacred Scriptures, 
 and which were vindicated by appeals to such traditions. 
 
 For it is a most significant fact, corroborated by the entire past expe- 
 rience of the Church, that a lowering of the standard of evangelical faith 
 in regard to these two cardinal doctrines, is uniformly associated with the 
 advocacy and prevalence of extreme liturgical or ritualistic conceits and 
 observances. There seems to be an inseparable natural aflanity between 
 the two evils. High-Churchism, hierarchal sacerdotalism, and compli- 
 cated, multiplied ritualistic services, including the scrupulous outward ob- 
 servance of numerous saints' days, "aesthetic" rites and ceremonies, are 
 commonly, so commonly that it might be truly said always, found abiding 
 together, and locked in the most cordial embrace. Neither appears to be 
 compatible with the grand and blessed theme of Apostolic preaching and 
 teaching, or with the unreserved recognition of the Bible as a supreme 
 rule of faith and practice. It was so in Galatia. It was so in most of the 
 seven churches, addressed and warned in the Apocalypse. It has been so 
 in the Greek and Romish Churches. It is so with the high ritualistic 
 portion of the Anglican Church. And why should not like causes pro- 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 71 
 
 duce like effects elsewhere ? But matters pertaining to the doctrinal sec- 
 tion of this tract must not be anticipated. 
 
 Such, then, being the actual state of things in the Church as separated 
 from Rome, it was most obviously one of the first necessities to provide for 
 pure worship, as well as for a pure faith. And it is equally manifest that 
 the importance of making this provision in the most careful manner, must 
 have been fully realized by the leaders of the Church, It may be safely 
 assumed that they had quite as earnest a sense of this, and fully as pro- 
 found a conviction of the significance and solemnity of the work, and of 
 the vast spiritual interests it involved, as Drs. Nevin, Harbaugh, and others 
 of their mind, as that mind is expressed in the unjust and disparaging cri- 
 ticisms of the Liturgical Question (pp. 40 — i2). If proof of this is de- 
 manded, the history and the results of their liturgical labors, as those re- 
 sult3 are set forth in the Agenda of that period, may be triumphantly ap- 
 pealed to. Lst the various services of those Agenda be tried by a fair 
 and reasonable standard of criticism; let them be examined, not through 
 glasses borrowed from fourth century fathers, but through a more Apos- 
 tolic medium; let them be judged, not by fanciful Christocentric conceits, 
 but by the light of New Testament principles, and of genuine primitive 
 practice; and they will be found to bear the most convincing testimony to 
 the diligence and care with which they were prepared. 
 
 But the framers of our early Reformed cultus, and authors of our first 
 Liturgies, had not merely a due sense of the importance of the labors thus 
 imposed upon them. They possessed eminent personal qualifications for 
 the work; and they had at their command ample means, and abundant 
 opportunities for performing it in a worthy and acceptable manner. Of 
 their personal qualifications it ought not to be necessary to speak in this 
 controversy. But they have been directly or indirectly assailed and dis- 
 paraged, and this imputation of the comparative unfitness of the Reformers 
 for satisfactory Liturgical duties, must be repelled. No proof need be 
 given, of co,urse, of their literary and theological qualifications. These are 
 not only admitted by our opponents, but are in part appealed to in evidence 
 of their lack of proper fitness for Liturgical labors. It is assumed that as 
 theological combatants, and champions of Grospel orthodoxy against errors 
 of all sorts, they must have been necessarily disqualified, by the very ex- 
 citement and animosities connected with their sharp conflicts for the pro- 
 duction of suitable devotional services. They were mighty men of valor, 
 it is insinuated, and potent controversalists, on the field of theological war- 
 fare. They wielded pens like sharp two-edged swords, in hewing giant 
 heresies to pieces, and fighting for the faith once delivered to the saints. 
 But for this very reason, it is argued, were they unsuccessful in other 
 offices. They lacked, it is affirmed, the calmly devout and quiet spirit 
 which is most especially indispensable to those who would provide the 
 
72 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 Church with uactious forms of worship. Furthermore, it is broadly sug- 
 gested, they were too much under the influence of opposition and aversion 
 to the ritualistic practices of the Papacy, and were too anxious to get away 
 as far as possible from those practices. Hence the extreme, radical, bald 
 simplicity of their Agenda; their lack of decorous and impressive "ritual 
 action in worship" (Liturg. Ques., p 60); hence also the absence of all 
 ritualistic "risings and bowings, and turning of all faces towards the altar 
 in time of prayer" (Liturg. Ques., p. 35). Hence, again, their inability 
 to perceive that only such "life like worship" (in distinction from their 
 own dead "mechanical productions" Liturg. Ques., p. 61), was "comely 
 and most becoming at the same time to the Lord's house." And hence, 
 finally, their " opposition to the constraint of fixed religious rites and cere- 
 monies'' (such for instance as began to prevail from the fourth century 
 onwards, and with which some brethren of our day have become so warmly 
 enamoured) "which could hardly fail to exert an injurious influence on 
 any work of this sort" (L. Q., p. 40). 
 
 For assumed reasons like these. Dr. Nevin would persuade us to believe 
 that the founders of the Reformed Church particularly, were constitution- 
 ally unfitted for the work they undertook, and which they handed down to 
 posterity, with the same authority with which they transmitted the Heidel- 
 berg Catechism. He seems to know of no other cause as more power- 
 fully operative in their minds and hearts; he can assign no other reasons 
 for what he regards as the predominant characteristic defects of such pulpit 
 hand-books as the Palatinate Liturgy. So carelessly and so one-sidedly 
 has the history of the case been studied, or so "hastily" has judgment 
 been formed and "written" in reference to it, that no more complimentary 
 account of the matter could be given. It is the deliberate decision of this 
 ritualistic censorship, 1. That the Liturgies of the 16th Century, especially 
 those of the Reformed type, are mere "mechanical directories," not de- 
 serving of respect, etc., etc. 2. That they are so because their authors, 
 such men as Ursinus and Olevianus, — in high praise of whom neverthe- 
 less so much is said in Dr. Nevin's introduction to the Commentary on the 
 Heidelberg Catechism, and in the Ter-Centenary Monument, were not 
 qualified to produce any thing better. 3. Therefore the German Reformed 
 Church in this country should ignore those Liturgies, repudiate the prin- 
 ciples on which they were constructed and the sort of worship they present, 
 and should adopt the new "Order of Worship" which is in all respects, 
 and naturally enough, so incomparably superior to those original " pulpit 
 hand-books !" 
 
 But the premises on which all those objections to the Palatinate and 
 other Reformed Liturgies of that period, as well as the suspicions raised 
 against the proper qualifications of their authors for the work, rest, are 
 utterly at variance with facts, and must consequently be rejected as false. 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 73 
 
 Those Liturgies were indeed prepared during a period of exciting conflicts, 
 and tlie men who performed the task were often involved in severe theolo- 
 gical contentions. But the ecclesiastical strifes and agitations aiiidst 
 which the Reformed Agenda of Germany, Switzerland and Holland were 
 brought forth, were not more unfavorable to the proper execution of the 
 work, than the dissensions and conflicts which disturbed England when the 
 "Book of Common Prayer" was in course of preparation. And the 
 authors of the former were not more deeply or violently involved in the 
 ecclesiastical warfare which agitated the Churches of the Continent, and 
 therefore more unfitted for the work of providing a suitable order of worship, 
 than were Craumer, Ridley, and their associates in the preparation of the 
 Episcopal Liturgy, during the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. 
 And yet the Book of Common Prayer is recognized as answering very fully 
 to Dr. Nevin's idea of a true Liturgy, and has been honored by a remark- 
 ably close imitation in the new Order of Worship urged upon the acceptance 
 of our Church ; the chief points of difi'erence between the two being, that 
 the latter outdoes the other in its extreme high-church tone and preten- 
 sions. 
 
 It is equally erroneous to assert that the authors of the Reformed Litur- 
 gies of the 16th Century were too much influenced by extreme and fana- 
 tical aversion to the peculiarities of Romish worship, to be duly competent 
 for their work. This was indeed charged against them by their Popish 
 opponents; and for them to bring the accusation may have been perfectly 
 natural. But the charge has been so often refuted, that it may well excite 
 indignation to have it reiterated in our day; and that, too, in our own 
 Church, and by those who should not only know that it is unfounded, but 
 promptly repel it whenever an enemy might attempt to revive it. It is 
 not true that the acknowledged leaders of even the first period of the Re- 
 formation, were swayed by such extreme and fanatical opposition to Rome. 
 Still less can those of the second period, and most especially the fathers 
 of the German Reformed Church, be convicted of it. Eoen Zwingli icas 
 no radical, if the facts and arguments set forth in a long article published 
 in the Mercersburg Review of 1849, and of which Dr. Nevin is the author, 
 may be regarded as correct. And the representatives of the Reformed 
 Church who lived and labored after the first excitement of the Reforma- 
 tory struggle had subsided, proved themselves to be still more conservative, 
 in a true sense, than the Reformation hero of Switzerland. 
 
 That they earnestly and zealously opposed and denounced the errors 
 and superstitions of Rome, is freely admitted. They are to be honored 
 for it, not reproached. It is to their great praise, that regardless of all 
 personal consequences to themselves, they laid bare the gross idolatrous 
 corruptions which defiled the apostate Papal Church, and had especially ac- 
 
74 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 cumulated in the service of the mass. And no less are they to be com- 
 mended for having labored so faithfully to purify not only the creed but 
 the cultus of the Church of all those vile corruptions, sparing none of 
 them, — not even the exorcism and unction which Zwingli had retained in 
 his Baptismal service. But in all they thus did they were animated, not by 
 a spirit of mere fanatical opposition to Romish practices as Romish, but 
 by their conviction that those practices were utterly opposed to the Word 
 of God, to Apostolic order, and to the pure primitive customs of the 
 Church. And unless the rebuke and abrogation of errors and usages 
 which are flagrantly irreconcilable with the doctrines of Christ and His 
 Apostles, and with that pure worship which He instituted, can be stig- 
 matized as radical fanaticism, the fathers of the Reformed Church are 
 not liable to this reproach. Unless the earnest and faithful endeavor to 
 liberate the Church from the bondage of degrading hierarchical supersti- 
 tions, and to restore to it freedom to worship God as the Apostles and 
 earliest Christians worshipped Him, can be branded as extreme spiritual- 
 istic bigotry against the rites and ceremonies of the Romish Church, 
 those fathers deserve better at our hands than to have their reputation 
 tarnished by such damaging reflections as have been cast upon them by 
 some of the more ardent advocates of the ritualistic measures. Not only 
 the Heidelberg Catechism, but its most intimate fellow the Palatinate 
 Liturgy, prove by their pervading spirit and tone, by what they say as 
 well as by their silence, that those condemnatory criticisms are most un. 
 warranted and unjust. 
 
 So far from there being any real ground for such charges or imputa- 
 tions, it is only necessary to know the history of those men, their life and 
 character, their aims and works, to be coavinced that they not only were 
 free from such prejudices and revolutionary radicalism, but that they 
 possessed the most important and desirable qualifications for the particu- 
 lar duties which the times and wants of the Church imposed upon them. 
 By their pure Christian spirit as well as by their entire course of train- 
 ing, education, habits of thought, and studies; they seem to have been 
 specially prepared for the oflaces they were called to perform. It need 
 not be regarded as an invidious disparagement to say, that the German 
 Reformed Church in this country has not now two men as fully fitted for 
 the work of preparing a truly evangelical Reformed Liturgy, as were 
 Ursinus and Olevianus. They had always been accustomed to liturgical 
 worship, that is to what all but extreme ritualists have ever been willing 
 to recognize as such. There was no period in their history when they 
 were not liturgical. Hence there was no necessity for their conversion 
 in this respect. Hence, also, they were less liable to be carried to such 
 unwarrantable extremes as are frequently run into by new converts, whose 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 75 
 
 zeal is apt to outstrip knowledge. For tliera the subject was not one 
 whose captivating novelty overpowered their judgment and " carried them 
 by an inexorable force " its own way. In this, already, it must be admit- 
 ted that they possessed a great advantage. Very susceptible, and especi- 
 ally unsettled minds are likely to be overwhelmingly impressed by a 
 first attendance upon an elaborate ritualistic mode of worship, conducted 
 in Romish style. And persons of this temperament and peculiar frame, 
 particularly if they were under the influence of a morbid dissatisfaction 
 with the simpler and less sensuous services of an evangelical Church, 
 would be in danger of quite losing their heart and reason both amidst 
 the gorgeous ceremonial, the chorals and antiphonies,the sacerdotal chant- 
 ings and intonations, and all the multiplied aesthetic accompaniments 
 calculated to delight the eye, to ravish the ear, and bring their entire 
 sensational being under a spell of enchantment. 
 
 But the ruling spirits of the Reformed Church during the latter half 
 of the sixteenth century, were men of quite a different character. From 
 childhood they had been familiar with Romish worship in all its most ela- 
 borate ritualistic arrangements. Some of them had often personally offici- 
 ated, or at least participated in it all. The antiphonies, the litanies, the 
 Gregorian chants, they knew by heart. With the order of the Romish 
 mass they were perfectly acquaioted. But they also had learned to know 
 that for none of the distinctive parts of this elaborate ceremonial wor- 
 ship, could there be found any warrant in the New Testament, or in the 
 practice of the Apostles and the primitive Church. They were the sad 
 witnesses likewise of the many pernicious moral consequences which, as 
 bad fruit from a corrupt tree, had sprung from those extreme ritualistic de- 
 partures from the simplicity of original Apostolic worship. And they had 
 carefully and honestly traced all those mischievous departures to those 
 innovations upon primitive worship which had gained ascendancy during 
 the third and fourth centuries; that period when, already, the Church 
 had begun to delight in arrangements and services %cliich were designed 
 and calculated to produce effect hy outward means, ^'till in the end amidst 
 the solemn mummery no room was left at all for genuine piety ^ Whilst, 
 therefore, they were not so blinded by prejudice or animosity against the 
 Romish system, that they fanatically abolished every thing, simply be- 
 cause it might stand in some connection with that system; they were able 
 to discern its errors and corruptions, and had both courage and intelli- 
 gence to reject them. They could prove all things; they held fast 
 only to that which was good. There were fanatics in those times who 
 pursued a more destructive course; '' Grnostics, Phrygian Montanists," &c. 
 But our Reformed fathers were in no sympathy with any such wild fana- 
 tical revolutionizers. What they attempted and accomplished, was un- 
 
76 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 dertakea in the spirit of a calm, dispassionate conservative faith in the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Church as He established it; and was car- 
 ried out with a docile conservative determination to restore His Church, 
 as far as lay in their power, to original order and purity, in faith and 
 practice. 
 
 There is yet another fact to be emphasized in this connection. Those 
 who were commissioned to provide the original Order of Worship for the 
 German Reformed Church in the sixteenth century, had access to many 
 Protestant Liturgies then already in use. And it is known that in the 
 pi;eparation of the Palatinate Liturgy, of 1563, those earlier Ordersof Wor- 
 ship were carefully consulted. With the distinctive characteristics of the 
 more strictly Lutheran mode of worship they were perfectly familiar. 
 They knew, especially, how closely its service for the Lord's supper ad- 
 hered to the Romish mass, including the major and minor doxologies, the 
 litany, and a certain amount of ritualistic ceremonial. With the peculi- 
 arities of the Episcopal services in England, as set forth in the Book of 
 Common Prayer, as then in use, they were also acquainted, and probably 
 were well aware of the alterations which had been made in those services 
 at the suggestion of Bucer and Peter Martyr, such as the omission of the 
 use of oil in Baptism, the unction of the sick, the prayers for the souls of 
 the departed, the invocation of the Holy Ghost in the consecration of the 
 Eucharist, the prayer of oblation, and some other things which seemed to 
 savor of Romish superstition. In a word, they were thoroughly informed 
 in regard to the entire liturgical literature and labors of their times, and 
 had all at their command in the preparation of their work. 
 
 How unjust, therefore, to represent them, whether by assertions or 
 insinuations, as lacking the requisite means and qualifications for such a 
 work ! And how wholly unwarranted the disparaging criticisms passed 
 upon the Liturgy which they furnished for their Church, on the assump- 
 tion of their want of qualifications Surely such criticisms are not entitled 
 to much weight, and should not be allowed to prejudice our minds against 
 the Reformed Agenda of the sixteenth century, or to lessen our estimate 
 of the competency of their authors for the liturgical labors performed by 
 them. On the contrary, the facts above stated, and of which we defy 
 contradiction, prove them to have been abundantly fitted for the work, and 
 to have possessed ample means and op'fortunities for its faithful perform- 
 ance. Of course, no reasonable critic will lay stress upon any peculiarities 
 of style or phraseology which may be found in Liturgies prepared 300 
 years ago, and in which the main thing is the matter they contain, and 
 the principles on which they are based. 
 
 To those who are aware how often and vehemently the author of the 
 " Vindication," and a few who have followed his unhappy example, have 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 77 
 
 ■written and spoken in terms of disapproval and depreciation of some of 
 the more distinctive features of Evangelical Prote-tantism, this defence 
 of the qualifications of such men as Olevianus, Ursinus, and their more 
 active associates, will not seem superfluous. Confidence in their ability to 
 do well what they were required to do, is indispensable to a due estimate in 
 the results of their labors, and to confidence in those results. To shake 
 this confidence, efforts have been made to exhibit them as disqualified for 
 what they undertook, especially in the department of Church cultus. 
 Their Liturgy is condemned because they are affirmed to have lacked the 
 ability and the means for such a work. That this mode of argument has 
 been honestly employed, may not be questioned. No one may doubt for 
 a moment that Dr. Nevin and Dr. Harbaugh really believe that Ursinus 
 and Olevianus, as well as Farel and Calvin, were not competent to prepare 
 ♦'true liturgies" for the Reformed Church; that they had no proper 
 idea of liturgical worship ; that their whole education and all their circum- 
 stances were insuperable barriers in the way of their rising to the true 
 celestial height of a genuine Christian cultus. But whilst the sincerity 
 with which this opinion is held by them may not be challenged, we beg 
 leave to pronounce the opinion itself erroneous, destitute of all founda- 
 tion in facts, and not very modestly entertained or avowed. 
 
 This point then being settled, we can, with unbiased minds, enter upon 
 an examination of the manner in which the fathers of the Reformed 
 Church proceeded with their liturgical labors, and will be able to form a 
 more correct and impartial estimate of the character and merits of the sys- 
 tem of worship which they established. And I think that the system will 
 not be found that bald thing, " collection of dry forms," of miserable 
 " mechanical helps," which Dr. Nevin has the presumption and irrever- 
 ence to style them now again, after four years' reflection, in this misnatned 
 " Vindication." 
 
 A very remarkable fact meets us at the outset of this particular inquiry. 
 Let us approach it by way of supposition. It will be admitted now, that 
 the authors of the first liturgy of our Church, in 1563, would be likely to 
 avail themselves of all the helps within their reach. As earnest, honest, 
 thoughtful men, they would seek counsel of all the pious and learned men 
 of their day in sympathy with the Reformation, and above all would care- 
 fully study any existing liturgies at hand. What, then, if among the 
 liturgies of that particular period there was one closely resembling in spirit 
 groundwork, and special structure, the new "Order of Worship," for 
 whose success Dr. Nevin struggles so desperately? What if they not 
 only knew of a service-book of this character, but also its authors or 
 compilers ; and what if they were well acquainted with all the arguments 
 employed in " Vindication " of its peculiar character ? Would it not be 
 
78 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 very significant /or us if, though well acquainted with such an order, with 
 its nuraeroas responses, its alternating recitation of the Psalms, its Lord's 
 supper service, so closely patterned after the Romish Mass, &c. &c., — they 
 should have totally discarded its type of worship, and have adopted another 
 onl// " materially and essentially" different from it ? 
 
 Such, however, was exactly the case, and that is precisely what they 
 did. In 1550, bp. Cranmer, the primate of the Church of England, 
 yielding to some objections made against the Liturgy then in use, under- 
 took a revision of the work. The book thus revised was adopted in 1551. 
 This early Episcopal Liturgy, as intimated above, must have been known 
 to Frederick III., and to his favorite theologians, Ursinus and Olevianus. 
 Bucer and Peter Martyr had assisted in the Revision, and it was pub- 
 lished, as shown by the date, twelve years before the Palatinate Liturgy. 
 Moreover, there was frequent correspondence between the Reformed 
 Churches of the Continent and the chief theologians of the Church of 
 England. And yet Ursinus and Olevianus did not follow the Book of 
 Common Prayer, either in its general plan or in any of its details. It is 
 true it had not then yet attained to its present form. Notwithstanding the 
 important modifications of the first edition, procured by Bucer and Martyr, 
 in the way of purging it of some Popish superstitions, not all of these were 
 removed. Here, then, was an " Order of Worship " which came strongly 
 commended to the consideration of the Palatinate Reformers. Outwardly 
 considered, there might seem to have been many reasons for adopting it 
 as a model. Men of great learning, influence and renown had labored on 
 it. The adoption of its scheme would have served to promote ecclesiasti- 
 cal unity, and would have won favor for the little Church of the Palatinate 
 with men of high position and great power in England. But none of these 
 things moved our fathers. They were so blind that they could not discern 
 the superior beauties of a cultus whose model Dr. Nevin extols as the 
 only one deserving the name. They were so foolish as to discard the 
 opportunity afforded them of escaping the scorpion lash of his sarcasm, 
 and of being regaled with the nectar of his benign approbation. Had 
 Ursinus and Olevianus but enjoyed the light which, after so long and 
 mournful an eclipse has now at last illumed the wretched " pulpit hand- 
 book," ''mechanical dictionary," " hortus siccus," worship of the poor 
 misled, benighted Reformed Church ! But, alas, they lived and died 
 three centuries too soon ! Or else, it might be suggested, the radiance of 
 that light was too long withheld. Too long, especially, for the generations 
 of our fathers and brethren deprived thus of the privilege and joy of wor- 
 shipping their God and Saviour in the only fit and decent way, the only 
 acceptable and edifying way. Only imagine Dr. Nevin's estimate of their 
 mode of worship to be corrc )t, and then think of that estimate applying 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 79 
 
 to all wlio have gone before us in our Church back to the days of 
 Frederick III., and to the time when our fathers worshipped in their 
 sanctuaries in Heidelberg ! Without a vicarious priesthood, (for it must 
 be kept in mind that Dr. Nevin holds in derision the declaration of pardon 
 used by our fathers), without an altar of propitiatory sacrifice, without 
 grand services like those in the new " Order of Worship," they are set 
 before as objects exciting our deepest commiseration. Wretched Pala- 
 tines ! What had they done that those set over them for instruction and 
 guidance should only prove blind leaders of the blind, causing both to 
 plunge into the ditch ! For what Dr. Nevin says of that style of worship, 
 which was adopted by our Church in 1563, involves all this. And he 
 himself makes no exceptions. (See Liturgical Q., and " Vindication" p. 
 51). Doubtless, it is a grievous ofi"ence to " slander " the living, and no 
 one should be excused for wilfully committing it. But is it not a vastly- 
 more heinous thing to cast dishonor on the dead ? To speak lightly or 
 contemptuously of a brother is reprehensible. But what is it to hold up 
 a Church to mockery ? 
 
 Still another fact of similar import must be noted. Besides having the 
 Anglican cultus before them, the fathers and founders of the Reformed 
 Church were perfectly familiar with the cultus which prevailed in strictly 
 Lutheran Churches. Many considerations would prompt them to copy 
 closely after the Lutheran pattern. The Reformers of the Palatinate, es- 
 pecially, might feel themselves urged to do so. Their country had just 
 rejected extreme or rigid Lutheranism, and might even have been regarded 
 as in some sense Lutheran still. By their national and ecclesiastical rela- 
 tionships to Lutheran German States around them, as well as by a desire 
 to conciliate as many friends as possible, they would no doubt be inclined 
 to avoid all diversities in the mode of worship not deemed essential. 
 Furthermore, though in some of the leading forms the Lutheran Liturgies 
 bore a strong resemblance to those of the Book of Common Prayer, both 
 having followed the same model, they were more simple, and so far 
 approximate more closely to the primitive practice. That considerations 
 like these would have prevailed, had not stronger convictions of truth and 
 right prevented it, there can be no doubt. If Ursinus and Olevianus, and 
 other Reformed theologians of that period, could have incorporated in 
 their Liturgies a Lord's Supper service like that practised in strictly 
 Lutheran Churches in their day, they would have done so. Their adop- 
 tion of an order "materially and essentially" different, proves how deep 
 and strong their convictions must have been, that the Lutheran cultus 
 even was not in accordance with the only pattern and principles which 
 should rule in the case. And it must be acknowledged by all whose mind 
 and heart are not so wholly prepossessed against the plain testimony of 
 
80 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 fiicts, that this refusal to follow a model, by the adoption of which they 
 might have escaped contumely and reproach as bitter as that now heaped 
 upon thos3 who are striving to vindicate their course and to keep their 
 Church from repudiating the principles which they adopted, is of very 
 great significance in the present controversy. 
 
 Let these two facts then be distinctly borne in mind. The fathers of 
 the German Reformed Church were perfectly familiar with an order of 
 worship similar in all essential respects, though in some important points 
 less objectionable, on evangelical grounds, to that so vehemently advocated 
 by Dr. Nevin. But although so familiar with it, and with all the 
 considerations which might be urged in its favor, they unqualifiedly re- 
 jected it. 
 
 Having thus seen how inconsistent with historical facts, and therefore 
 how unjust and indefensible the disparaging criticisms of Dr. Nevin upon 
 the authors of our primitive Liturgy are, we are ready to inquire more 
 particularly into the precise character and basis of that cultus, and to 
 estimate its merits with unprejudiced minds. Why did the fathers of the 
 Reformed Church, not only in the Palatinate, but in all other countries, 
 refuse to adopt a mode of worship like that of the Anglican and strictly 
 Lutheran Churches? And why did they prefer one of a more simple, less 
 ritualistic type ? 
 
 The first thing that arrests attention in the inquiry is, that the same fun- 
 damental principle teas adopted in providing an Order of Worship for the 
 Church, as in drawing up a system of doctrine. Both were made to rest 
 upon divine authority, and to be in essential, and as much as possible, in 
 formal harmony with the Sacred Scriptures. The testimony of tradition 
 was not discarded. But it was of secondary authority, and strictly tried 
 by that touch-stone of truth, which tradition itself declared to be the stand- 
 ard. Even the Romish Church acknowledged the divine inspiration of 
 the Bible, and admitted its authority, though not its sole authority, in 
 matters of faith and practice. But if the Holy Scriptures were what the 
 Church had all along declared concerning them, an inspired revelation of 
 the grace and will of God, it was legitimately assumed that their authority 
 must be supreme in reference to all matters pertaining to religion. And 
 as the true meaning of the Scriptures must be the same in the sixteenth 
 century as in the first century, and that meaning could as well be ascer- 
 tained, at least in regard to all essential points, in the later as in the earlier 
 period, it was fairly assumed by the founders of the Reformed Church, 
 that it was possible for them to discover what doctrines and customs of 
 their time were in harmony with the Word of God, and what were not. 
 They maintained also, and with equal propriety and justice, that true sub- 
 mission to Church authority did not require them to accept of any arbi- 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 81 
 
 trary interpretation wliich might be put upon the acknowledged divine 
 standard of faith and practice, in manifest contradicti£»n to the plain and 
 obvious import of that standard. If, in the course of time, the faith and 
 practice of the Church had degenerated through perversion or corrupt ad- 
 ditions, the Reformers held that they were not only not bound by such 
 departures from the truth, but that it was their duty to expose, and, as far 
 as possible, to correct them. Hence, in matters of doctrine, they went to 
 the fountain-head, and derived directly from the Word of God those truths 
 and facts which were deemed necessary to Christian faith. Even whilst 
 accepting of the Apostles' Creed, and of the Nicene and Athanasian sym- 
 bols, they refused assent to the errors which pretended to be based upon 
 those symbols, and contended for such an interpretation of their several 
 articles as was warranted by the Scriptures, and by the primitive faith of 
 the Church. In like manner in matters pertaining to public worship, they 
 made the Word of God their rule, and held that it furnished instructions 
 and examples in accordance with which the worship of the Christian 
 Church should be regulated and arranged. They did not arbitrarily and 
 radically discard the testimony and practice of the ages immediately suc- 
 ceeding that of the Apostles and primitive Church. But instead of taking 
 the traditions of those later ages as a rule for determining the principles 
 and mode of Apostolic worship, they reversed the process, and made the lat- 
 ter the test of what should be rejected or allowed in the former. With 
 such subordinate helps as the second, third and fourth centuries might 
 furnish, they endeavored to ascertain the true Apostolic order. But in 
 pursuing this investigation they did not allow themselves to be blinded or 
 captivated by the garish attractions of those false systems of worship which 
 met them on their way. They ever kept in mind that the true object of 
 their search was, not a cultus which might be vindicated by appeals to the 
 third and fourth century, or commended by a "highly cultivated ajsthetic 
 taste," but that order of Christian worship which was originally instituted 
 in the Church, and which had the sanction of apostolic and primitive pre- 
 cept and example. 
 
 Guided by this just and safe rule, a rule furnished and approved by the 
 infallible Word, if not by an arbitrary and arrogant but fallible church, 
 our ecclesiastical fathers soon and easily found what they sought for. Not 
 only did they discover some broad and general basis of worship, which by 
 its very breadth and vagueness might justify the exercise of a great 
 variety of taste in rearing a superstructure upon it. In numerous decla- 
 rations of the Lord Jesus Christ, such as those in Matth. vi. 5-18; xviii. 
 20; Luke iv. 16, etc.; i. 43; vi. 6; John iv. 19-24, and in many direc- 
 tions and incidental statements recorded in the Epistles, such as 1 Cor. i. 
 21; xiv. 15; Gal. i. 6, etc. ; Eph. v. 19, 20; Col. iii. 16; Heb, x. 25; 
 6 
 
82 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 xiii. 15, as well as in fr3quent illustrations furnislied of the actual prac- 
 tice of the primitive Church, such as are met with in the account of the 
 services connected with the institution of the Holy Supper, and in pas- 
 sages like Acts i. 13, 14, 24; ii. 1, etc., 46; iv. 23, etc.; vi. 4; xviii. 4, 
 and wherever allusion is made to the mode of •public worship, they found 
 both in the form of precept and example, distinct and explicit intimations 
 in regard to what the Head of the Church and His •immediate Apostles 
 wished to be considered essential to true Christian worship. 
 
 Above all, they saw the very marked distinction at once established and 
 made prominent between the formal ritualistic character of the Jewish 
 cultus and the freedom, spirituality (Dr. Neviu might call it " spiritualis- 
 ticism"), and great simplicity (Dr. N. would condemn it as '■' baldness ") 
 of primitive Apostolic worship. They saw not only that the latter was not 
 modelled, in any respect, after that of the Temple, but that even so far as 
 it adopted the usages of the synagogue, it was done in a free way, and not 
 in exact slavish imitation of those usages, done also at the time to a large 
 extent in the spirit of accommodation to the habits and prejudices of Jewish 
 converts. In the early Christian Church they saw no visible altar of pro- 
 pitiatory sacrifice, no visible sacrifice of propitiation, no priestly caste to 
 •mediate with such offerings between the Lord and His people. The peo- 
 ple themselves were freely admitted into the Holy of Holies, in a deep 
 spiritual sense, by the blood of Christ shed once for all. Instead of the 
 altar of atonement and bloody sacrifices of the Old Testament, they sav^ 
 the ^^ Table of the Lord" established as a place of sacred commemoration 
 of Him who had given His life a ransom for many, and of hallowed com- 
 munion by faith with Him who was their Life, "whom not seeing they 
 loved, and in whom * * believing they rejoiced." And in that sacra- 
 mental (not sacrifcial) table they saw the Church supplied with what 
 was a most abundant compensation for the removal of the ancient bloody 
 altar of atonement (Heb. xiii. 10-16, not verse 10 alone as Dr. Nevin 
 takes it). In the early Christian Church they saw that " the Word of the 
 Lord " read and preached was the spiritual centre around which the ser- 
 vice revolved, and which was used as the chief means of common edifica- 
 tion. " Christ crucified and risen was the luminous centre whence a sanc- 
 tifying light was shed on all the relations of life. Gushing forth from a 
 full heart, the preaching went to the heart; and springing from an inward 
 life, it hindlcd life, a new Divine life, in susceptible hearers. It was re- 
 vival preaching in the purest sense." (Schaff's Hist, of the Chr. Church, 
 I. 119.) This they found illustrated beyond all contradiction by the ex- 
 ample of all the Apostles. Wherever the Apostles went they made 
 " preaching the Gospel " their chief work. And this not only in their 
 labors among unconverted multitudes, but in the assemblies of believers. 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 83 
 
 In the Acts of the Apostles, in the Epistles, whether of Paul, of Peter, of 
 James or John, they found the Word, the truth as it is in Jesus, con- 
 stantly and unqualifiedly represented as the chief, the most efficient means, 
 as well of regeneration as of sanctification. And although our fathers 
 knew well by what specious arguments the Papists attempted to explain 
 away these plain facts, and endeavored to bind all saving grace to such 
 acts as tied the conveyance of that grace to sacredotal functions ; they 
 knew also that those arguments were utterly without Scriptural foundation. 
 Otherwise how could St. Paul have said in language which hyper-churchism 
 tries in vain to explain away : " I thank God I baptized none of you, * * * 
 for Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel " (1 Cor. i. 
 14-18) ? How could have St. Peter have written : " Being horn again, 
 not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which 
 liveth and abideth forever. ''"' * * And this is the word which by the 
 Gospel is preached unto you." " Wherefore, * * * as new-born babes, 
 desire the sincere milk of ^/te Word that ye may groio thereby?^' How 
 could St. John and St. James both have written epistles, which through- 
 out assume this great and blessed truth, that the Word, the Gospel of the 
 grace of God in Jesus Christ, is the chief Divinely appointed means, first 
 of awakening then of promoting the life of God in the soul? Thus it 
 was manifest that however Divine, sacred, supernatural the character of 
 the Holy Sacraments, and however important and essential their office, 
 they were not, neither was the table on which one of them, the Holy Sup- 
 per, was spread, '^the Shehinah'" from which light and grace was radiated 
 and diiFused through all the place where primitive believers worshipped. 
 
 Next to this our ecclesiastical fathers learned the important and note- 
 worthy fact, that the rigid enforcement of prescribed forms of worship by 
 the Romish Church, though in harmony with fourth Century principles 
 and usages, was not in accordance with the primitive practice. For in the 
 Apostolic Church they found that while some such forms may not have 
 been despised, there loas no certain evidence that they were statedly used; 
 on the other hand, however, there was incontrovertible jiroof that fre<i 
 prayer icas the more common practice. (See passages referred to above 
 Also Schafi"'s Hist, of the Apost. Church, p. 562, and Hist, of Chr. Ch., 1. 
 120). Indeed they had abundant reason to believe that whatever forms 
 may have to a limited extent been recognized and used by the early Church 
 they ivcre long regarded as subordinate to Christian freedom. (See 
 Ubrard, Kirchen-u., Dogm.-Gesch., I., 40-42). Putting all these facts 
 together, therefore, the order of early Christian worship, as indicated in 
 the Sacred Scriptures, furnished a full and adequate model according to 
 which the worship of the Church as Reformed might be patterned. That 
 model, in preference to any of those doubtful improvements which the 
 
84 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 fancy or the folly of possibly well-meaning but presumptuous men, had 
 added to it, was the model adopted in the spirit of docile Christian liberty 
 by our ecclesiastical fathers. And we may challenge the advocates of the 
 new Order of Worship to show any material or essential disagreement 
 between the mode of worship exhibited in the old Palatinate and kindred 
 Liturgies, and that of the primitive Apostolic Church. 
 
 With the distinctive features of this mode of worship, it may be pre- 
 sumed that the members of our Church generally are sufficiently 
 acquainted. Besides, the great point at issue in the case is conceded by 
 the advocates of the .new Order of Worship. It will only be needful, 
 therefore, to keep the simple outline in view. The regular Lord's day 
 service was opened with an evangelical salutation^ then a hymn was sung; 
 next followed an exhortation to prayer, and a prayer which while the 
 Liturgy contained a prescribed form which was at first commonly, if not 
 always used, yet might be firee, and which in the course of some years, 
 through the legitimate operation of the Reformed principle and spirit 
 actually yielded to free prayer. As to the j^lace occupied by the minister 
 during these devotional services^ the old Liturgy contains no direction. 
 But the impression left by what is said concerning the sermon in connec- 
 tion with the directions concerning prayer, is that the minister occupied 
 the pulpit during all the services. And so far as I can learn, this was the 
 common early practice in the Reformed Churches, strictly so called. 
 After the prayer the sermon was preached, and in connection with it a 
 portion of the Scripture read as a text. No lessons were prescribed, the 
 minister being left free in the choice of his text, excepting that he was 
 directed to adapt himself to special occasions. 
 
 The sermon was followed by the public confession of sin, which took the 
 place of auricular private confession in the Romish Church, and the com- 
 f or ting assurance of pardon, which took the place of sacerdotal absolution. 
 The confession was spoken by the minister, who included himself in it, the 
 congregation following heartily in silence, ("let every one say with me in 
 his heart," is the phrase used) as the language plainly implies, and as 
 universal practice, so far as known, shows was the case. During this part 
 of the services the people stoo(J. In the '^comforting assurance" pro- 
 nounced by the minister, every expression was carefully avoided which 
 might lead people to think that the forgiveness of sin was in any way de- 
 pendent upon the formal announcement made. On the contrary, the 
 declaration clearly implied, went on the assicmption, that pardon had 
 already been granted, and that the declaration of it was made not as some- 
 thing necessary to the conveyance of such pardon, but only as a proper 
 means of confirming the hearts of timid, troubled penitents in the posses- 
 sion of it. In a word, and this is a fact worthy of earnest consideration in 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 85 
 
 tlie present ease, the Confession of sin, and accompanying declaration of 
 pardon, in tlie Reformed Churcli wholly and most designedly excluded the 
 idea that there loas any thing sacramental in the act, in the specific sense 
 of that term. And as a consequence, the peculiar form of this part of Re- 
 formed worship, served, and was undoubtedly intended to serve, as an 
 emphatic practical repudiation oi\)Ot]x ordination sindi pennance as Romish 
 sacraments. 
 
 In regard to this form of confession, etc., it is proper to add, that while 
 it was commonly used every Sunday at the morning service, at least during 
 the earlier years of our Church, the rubrics of the Liturgy seems to have 
 allowed some option in regard to its use, requiring, however, ^'^ especially'^ 
 that it be used at the service preparatory to the Communion. 
 
 The Confession was followed by singing, and the whole service^closed 
 with a benediction. 
 
 The Preparatory and the Communion services are constructed upon the 
 same principles, and pervaded by the same simplicity as that for the Lord's 
 Day. In the former, after an appropriate sermon (mark that), the com- 
 municants rising in their seats, and sometimes even gathering around the 
 chancel, in which the communion table stood, were addressed in reference 
 to the three points laid down in the answer to the second question of the 
 Heidelberg Catechism, viz.: their sense of and sorrow for sin, their hearty 
 faith in Jesus Christ, and their sincere purpose to lead a godly life. Upon 
 each of these they were required to give an audible answer.* Then 
 followed the confession and declaration of pardon, in the form and sense 
 above named. Thus most emphatic prominence was given to a '■'sidj- 
 jective," that is, inward personal preparation, by subjective repentance, 
 faith, and a solemn purpose to lead a holy life, as of the first importance 
 to fitness for celebrating the Lord's Supper. 
 
 In full accordance with this were the ruling spirit and tenor, and all 
 the parts of the order for administering the Sacrament itself. The service 
 immediately preceding the Communion proper, consisted of an address in 
 which the commemorative design and import of the Sacrament were set 
 forth in succinct, earnest and solemn statements, combined with a tender 
 
 * Because answers are also in one sense responses, some advocates of the new order 
 liave appealed to the above custom as an evidence that "responses" were used in the 
 early Reformed Church. The sophistry is too transparent to deceive any one. It is not 
 even smart. All can see that there is an essential difference between a simple " Yes " in 
 answer to a question, and such " responses " as abound in the services of the Revised Li- 
 turgy. To make the attempt to confound the two things still more manifestly absurd, a 
 recent writer in the interest of the new Order of Worship, has very gravely undertaken 
 to prove that the German Reformed Church has always been a "responsive" Church, 
 from the fact that the Heidelberg Catechism has questions and answers, i. e. responses ! 
 Oranges and crab-apples are fruit; therefore, crab-apples are oranges! 
 
86 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 and impressive exhibition of the passion of Him in '' commemoration " * 
 of Whom it was celebrated, and an exhortation to partake of the ordinance 
 in its true spirit. Then followed a prayer "/or true faith, sanctijication, 
 and patient endurance under sufferings'' closing with " Our Father/' and 
 the Apostles' Creed. In regard to the Creed, the wording of the Liturgy 
 may be understood to require the congregation to unite aloud ('• mit 
 Herz und Mund") in repeating it. If, however, actual practice rule the 
 import of the language used, the Creed was not commonly repeated aloud 
 by the people. The prayer and Creed were followed by a brief exhorta- 
 tion, which, being very significant, is here given in full : 
 
 " That we may now be fed with the true heavenly bread of Christ, let 
 us not cleave with our hearts to this external bread and wine, but lift our 
 hearts and faith above themselves unto heaven, where Jesus Christ, our 
 Advocate, is at the right hand of His Heavenly Father, whither also the 
 articles of our Christian faith direct us, not doubting that our souls 
 shall be fed with His body and blood, through the operation of the Holy 
 Ghost, as certainly as we receive the sacred bread and wine in remembrance 
 
 of Him." t 
 
 In the administration of the elements, the sentences used were : " The 
 Bread which we break is the communion of the Body of Christ." " The 
 cup of blessing (thanksgiving) with which we bless (give thanks) is the 
 communion of the Blood of Christ." 
 
 After all the communicants had participated, the service was closed 
 with a prayer of thanksgiving of inimitable beauty. 
 
 Thus this service, again, shows throughout how much importance was 
 attached to the subjective element in the public devotions of Christians. 
 Indeed the entire Reformed type of piety, and consequently the entire 
 cultus of our Church, assumes the fact of the immediate personal relation 
 of the believer to Grod in Christ. Hence public worship, all the divinely 
 appointed means of grace, are designed as helps to promote this immediate 
 personal union. The lay believer is as i-eallij a priest as the officiating 
 minister. Hence also the indispensableness of a proper frame of mind 
 and heart, in order to secure the benefits of the means of grace. And 
 it is simply as absurd, according to the principles of our cultus, to speak 
 of the objective efficacy of the Sacraments whenever they are administered, 
 independently of subjective, (personal) preparation and fitness, as it 
 would be to speak of the nutritive properties of bread independently of 
 the capacity of the stomach to take up such nutriment. For a stone bread 
 has no more nutriment than another stone. The property is consequently 
 relative. Bread needs a stomach as much as a stomach needs bread. The 
 
 «■ In using tho terms, "commemorative" and "commemoration," I follow strictly the 
 language of the old Palatinate form. 
 
 t The original has been designedly rendered as literally as possible. 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 87 
 
 objective is tlierefore, so far at least, dependent for its efficacy upon the 
 subjective. This is also ia full harmony with the marked subjective spi- 
 rit of the Heidelberg Catechism. Let this be called what it may, let Dr. 
 Nevin stigmatize it unrestrainedly as pietism, spiritualisticism, or even 
 Puritanism, its prominence in our cultus cannot be denied. Such sub- 
 jectivism, in which, however, the objective is by no means ignored or even 
 under-rated, is a marked distinctive characteristic of the German lleformed 
 cultus. And it is so^ as has already been shown, because that cultus was 
 closely modelled after Apostolic precedent and practice. 
 
 How much store was set by this conformity to the Apostolic pattern of 
 worship, by the fathers of our Church, may bo further seen in the ruling 
 resemblance of all the other forms of the Old Palatinate Liturgy to those 
 for the Lord's Day and Communion services. Such as they were, also, 
 they were found efficient in serving all the purposes of common edification. 
 They had, indeed, no responses; not a single one is found in any of the ser- 
 vices, unless, indeed, the confession of sin, and the Creed, were said aloud 
 by the congregation, which has been shown to be improbable. There 
 were no "ritualistic risings and bowings," there were no " antiphonal con- 
 certs of praise." That is true. But there was worship, deep, earnest and 
 devout; such as is mirrored forth in the devotions of the primitive 
 Church, and such as our Lord declared was most acceptable to Him 
 " Who is a Spirit." There were no attempts at reviving or imitating the 
 ceremonials of the abrogated Jewish ritual worship ; but there is manifest 
 a sincere and successful purpose of having worship conducted with the 
 spirit and with the understanding also. 
 
 And such, furthermore, as that early order and those original forms of 
 worship in our Church were, in 1563, such they continued to be during 
 succeeding periods. For among all the inexcusable errors which Dr. Nevin 
 commits in his turbulent "Vindication," it is altogether inexplicable how 
 he should have fallen into the mistake of saying that the old Palatinate 
 service soon ceased to be regarded or used, either in Euiope, or by the 
 fathers of our Church in this country. There are scores of old European 
 Hymn-books, of that very period, during which especially the forms in 
 question are represented as having fallen into decay, which contain those 
 very forms. In my own possession there are three such books, the oldest 
 an edition of 1716, published at Marburg; the next dated 1746, published 
 at Leeuwarden; and the third dated 1784, Marburg and Frankfort, all of 
 which contain these very forms, as forms then still used. So that what- 
 ever other Liturgies may have been brought forward from time to time 
 (See Liturg. Question, p. 42), the old Palatinate maintained its place and 
 its predominance in the Church. 
 
88 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 lu regard to the practice of the fathers of our Church io this country, 
 it might have been supposed that every tyro in her history knew: that 
 those fathers uniformly brought the old Palatinate Liturgy with them, and 
 uniformly used it; that even when what may have seemed like private 
 forms were used, they were mostly, if not always, copied from the old Pala- 
 tinate or abbreviations of its services; and that our early Hymn-books in 
 this country, like that now before me, published by Saur in Grermantown, 
 1753, as well as the first English Hymn-book used among us, that of the 
 Ref. Dutch Church, contained those same old Falatinate forms ^ and tisually 
 in connection with the Heidelherg Catechism. Nor have they been thus 
 only contained in the Hymn Books, but they have also been used to the 
 present day. Those forms were never objected to on the ground of not 
 being sufficiently ritualistic, and where they were set aside, it was not 
 owing to any inherent deficiency in this respect. And Dr. Nevin might 
 have known this, and thus escaped the blunders into which his oversight 
 or neglect of f\icts has precipitated him. The old Palatinate forms were 
 not objected to in the first place, because they served the purpose of merely 
 a pulpit Liturgy, or because they did not provide for enough active par- 
 ticipation, on the part of the congregation. No one, at first, said a word 
 about repudiating that Liturgy or the theory of worship upon which it was 
 constructed. The chief and, indeed, only modifications 'proposed {for 
 modifications only were talked of ^ had reference to the length and the style 
 of its forms. Having been written three hundred years ago, and that in 
 the German language, it was believed that some improvements could be 
 made without disturbing the general structure, or violating the spirit of 
 the services. This seemed especially necessary, in order to meet the views 
 and wishes of those of our Churches which had become English. And 
 the reason why the Liturgy of the Piev. Dr. Mayer did not prove generally 
 acceptable was, not, as Dr. Nevin says, because "it was the same thing in 
 fact" as our older services, but because it was prepared in an independent 
 way, or because a feeling of entire indifference or opposition to Liturgical 
 forms of all kinds had become predominant in large portions of the Church. 
 The truth is, that excepting as Dr. Nevin and his school endeavored to 
 produce aversion to our old and simple mode of worship, and have suc- 
 ceeded in disseminating dissatisfaction with German Heformed character- 
 istics of faith and practice, and in exciting a desire for something neiver 
 or older, no such aversion, dissatisfaction or desire ever existed or even now 
 exists. He tells us that he has been laboring to produce this result ever 
 since his professorship at Mercersburg; for he says, he "stands now where 
 he stood then." It is true, many of us did not so understand him then, 
 but rather supposed that his theory and measures contemplated the res- 
 toration and confirmation of true historical German Reformed character- 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 89 
 
 istics. Many of us were unsuspicious, and, I may add, simple enough, to 
 indulge a fond but, as it now seems, silly delusion, in regard to the true 
 import and design of the Mercersburg system. Our misunderstanding and 
 delusion, however, did not hinder the process. And that with the con- 
 fidence of a Church and the influence of a Theol. Sem. and a College to 
 back him, he should succeed in twenty-five years in efi"ecting some change in 
 our prevailiog ecclesiastical sentiment, is not to be wondered at. The 
 foundations of Unitarianism in New England were laid in less time than 
 that. But partial success in disseminating such views in a Church does 
 not prove that the Church wished them to be disseminated, or desired to 
 reap such a harvest as they promise to yield. 
 
 Such, then, is the ruling spirit, and such are the characteristic features 
 of the cultus established by the fathers and founders of the German Re- 
 formed Church, or rather restored by them to the people of God, long de- 
 frauded of their spiritual rights by the ritualistic bondage of Rome. And 
 what fault have Dr. Nevin and brethren of his mind in regard to the new 
 measures, to find with this system of worship, so carefully prepared and 
 devoutly introduced in the 16th Century, and so distinctively German Re- 
 formed in all its chief characteristics? Is it not faithfully modelled after 
 the ApostoUc and primitive pattern ? Dr. Nevin will not venture to deny 
 that it is, or that any minor points in which it may not literally correspond 
 with the earliest and purest practice, are not in essential harmony with 
 that practice. Is it not in all its several services earnest, solemn, deeply 
 devout, and are these services not calculated to promote the spirit of true 
 worship in the hearts of all who sincerely participate in them ? Let the 
 influence and eff"ect of the system upon the Church in which it has 
 obtained, answer this question. The tree is known by its fruits. And 
 the fruits of this tree may boldly challenge comparison with those of any 
 system which prevailed from the third Century down to the period of the 
 Reformation. If worship is designed to promote true piety ^ as well as to 
 be a medium for its devout expression, and if the merits of any system of 
 worship are to be measured by its fitness to serve this purpose, then the 
 cultus of our Church may triumphantly appeal to the enlightened judg- 
 ment of all evangelical Christians for a verdict in its favor, against Dr. 
 Nevin's attempts to bring it into disrepute, and to secure its formal rejec- 
 tion and abrogation. 
 
 What fault, then, can be found with it? It restored to the people their 
 full Christian rights in public worship. Rome had established the inva- 
 riable use of the Latin language, as peculiarly sacred to the Church, and 
 thus deprived the laity of the power of uniting intelligently in the services. 
 Our fathers ordained that all public worship should be conducted in the 
 language of the people among whom it was celebrated. Rome had robbed 
 
90 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 the people of their right to praise the Lord iu psalms and hymns and 
 spiritual songs, and allowed a vicarious priesthood the exclusive exercise 
 of this prerogative. Our fathers condemned the robbery, and restored to 
 the people their right in this respect to share the common privilege of the 
 only universal priesthood in the Christian Church. Rome had, in the 
 same exclusive and tyrannical spirit, deprived the people of their common 
 inheritance in the Word of God, and refused even to allow them to hear 
 the glorious Gospel read in the public services of the sanctuary, and ex- 
 pounded and applied for the edification of the people. By. the Apostolic 
 system of worship reclaimed from the bondage of a Babylonish captivity, 
 the free Word of God, together with the preaching of the Gospel accord- 
 ing to that Word, was reinstated in its legitimate prominent place, so that 
 the people had unrestrained access to it, and might again be " fed with 
 the sincere milk of the Word, that they might grow thereby." Rome 
 claimed that the forgiveness of sins was bound to the formal confession 
 made to her priests, and to their formal sacerdotal remission of those sins, 
 grossly perverting one of the most comforting declarations of our blessed 
 Lord, and one of the most consoling assurances connected with the pro- 
 clamation of Gospel grace. By the cultus of our Church, as instituted in 
 the 16th Century, the hearts and consciences of sincere penitent believers 
 in the Lord Jesus Christ were rescued from this cruel subjection to sacer- 
 dotal usurpations of a Divine prerogative, and assured for their joy and 
 peace, that He who alone hath power to forgive sins, had most certainly 
 pardoned them, if they had truly repented and fully trusted in His merits. 
 The Romish Church had taught the people to rely upon the sacrifice of 
 the mass, for the salvation of the living and the dead, to attach to its 
 celebration such opuss operatum efficacy, and to believe that their salvation 
 here, and deliverance from a fictitious purgatory hereafter depended upon 
 the sacerdotal administration of the mass. To quite another source did 
 the cultus of our 16th Century fathers teach believers to look, upon quite 
 another foundation to rest their hope of salvation, as they celebrated the 
 Holy Supper of our Lord after the mariner and spirit of its original institu- 
 tion. 
 
 Is it with these distinctive peculiarities of our early Reformed worship 
 that Dr. Nevin and some others find fault ? Possibly not. But he tells 
 us what he considers their fatal defects. It ions not modelled after the 
 Liturgies of the third and fourth centuries! It lacked ritualistic action. 
 It was too spiritualistic, ran into extreme simplicity. And all this " over 
 against the irorship of the Catholic " (Roman, of course, must here be 
 m^ant) " Church," which " stood in the way of its producing a full Litur- 
 gical cultus, in the proper sense of the term." (Liturg. Ques. pp. 40-1, 60-1). 
 But what is a still more serious defect, in the opinion of those who find 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 91 
 
 fault with our old order of worsliip, is, that it wholly abolished the sacri- 
 ficial altar of the Romish style, with an officiating specific priesthood, and 
 substituted in its place the sacramental table of the Lord. This was sufii- 
 cient to condemn the Liturgies of the sixteenth century, if they had been 
 marred by no other defects. Even the Book of Common Prayer, con- 
 sidered so superior in all other respects to any acknowledged Reformed 
 Service of that period, lacked in this respect an essential element of a true 
 Liturgy. Like the rest it had no altar, in this sacrificial sense, and recog- 
 nized no specific priesthood as a separate caste. Although, therefore, the 
 new "Order of Worship" so closely follows the Episcopal Service in most 
 of its details, often even literally, that " Order" could not endure the ig- 
 noring of the altar and sacerdotal character of the ministry. Consequently 
 we find in the new "Order" that the altar in a propitiatory sacrificial 
 sense is openly restored, and that although the minister is not called a 
 priest, it virtually invests him with priestly functions, as well in the regu- 
 lar and sacramental services, as in the form of ordination. And now, be- 
 cause in the Reformed Liturgies of the sixteenth century, especially that 
 of the Palatinate, there is no such altar of '^sacramental holiness inhabit- 
 ing the house of Grod," to which worshipping assemblies might " do hodiJi/ 
 reverence ;" because though they breathe a truly sacramental spirit, they 
 do not "breathe tJiroughout a sacrificial spirit^' (Liturg. Ques. p. 51) in a 
 propitiatory sense; and because they allow no place to a mediating specific 
 priesthood, they are to be discarded. These, substantially, are the objec- 
 tions urged against what has ever been the Reformed type of worship. 
 Again, it may be allowed that these objections are honestly entertained.^ 
 For myself, I confess my conviction that Dr. Nevin and his disciples be- 
 lieve most heartily that our Glerman Reformed style of worship is not as 
 good as the style they advocate. But that does not make ours bad or 
 theirs better. Their judgment may err. Their tastes may be false. They 
 may apply a wrong standard to the case. The constitutional character of 
 the Reformed Church may not have " carried in it a tendency to what we 
 call extreme simplicity and spiritualism." (Liturg. Ques. p. 41). It may be 
 much nearer the Apostolic type than "the constitutional character" of 
 the Revised Liturgy. And that Liturgy, rather than those of the old 
 Reformed type, may not only be " materially and essentially different from 
 any thing known to our fathers," but may be radically and fatally defec- 
 tive in all that pertains to the ruling characteristics of Christian evan- 
 gelical worship. 
 
 After the severe animadversions cast upon the older cultus of our 
 Church, and the disdaioful manner in which our earlier Liturgies are 
 spurned, it is both natural and reasonable to expect that those who indulge 
 in such criticism and contempt have a substitute to furnish, which shall, 
 
92 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 in every sense, be above reproacb, and altogetlier worthy of acceptance. 
 And possibly, if we could only get into the right position for securing a 
 fiivorablc view of it, it would commend itself to our approbation. As Dr. 
 Nevin says, in the striking astronomical illustration on p. 56 of his trea- 
 tise, veiy much depends upon position in contemplating things. It is, 
 therefore, no doubt very unfortunate for ourselves, if not for the Revised 
 Liturgy, that our habit of looking at such things from a Protestant evan- 
 gelical, i. e., from a Scriptural Apostolic stand-point, is so confirmed, that 
 in spite of every effort to get into a Cyprianic or Glregorian position, we 
 are constantly viewing the remarkable work in quite another light. The 
 true touch-stone by which to test its merit is Apostolic precept and prac- 
 tice, as revived and established again by our Church in the sixteenth cen- 
 tury. Not Dr. Nevin, nor a thousand like him at his side, should be 
 allowed for a moment to shake our confidence in the work wrought by our 
 Reformed fathers, as directed and guided by the Spirit of God. And 
 until it is proven beyond all contradiction, by Scripture and Apostolic 
 testimony, that they did their work badly; or until it is proven that the 
 compilers of the Revised Liturgy have done their work better, in the true 
 Apostolic sense, we should not let ourselves be tempted to barter our ancient 
 birthright. The very first thing we have a right to demand of this new 
 aspirant for fame and authority in our Church, is, whether it is honestly and 
 thoroughly Reformed? We have a standard of worship which we should 
 not suffer to be removed or altered, until it is proven false by a stronger 
 kind of evidenc'e than the denunciations and sarcasms of Drs. Nevin, 
 Harbaugh and others. Does the Revised Liturgy come up to tha 
 measure of that standard? 
 
 With the distinctive features of the book, the readers of this tract 
 may be supposed to be familiar. By the confession of its advocates, it 
 does not pretend to be German Reformed in any true and historical sense. 
 They say that the great defects of the Provisional Liturgy were the large 
 concessions it made to the system of worship known to our Church, and 
 which alone can be harmonized with its true spirit and genius. It was 
 by far too much of a pulpit Liturgy; could be, and, with three or four 
 exceptions, was used as a pulpit hand-book. "The Revised Liturgy is 
 now relieved of its first defects, and brought into easy working form," 
 says Dr. Nevin. Hence to be made perfect in his judgment, the Pro- 
 visional Liturgy had to be purged most thoroughly of every element 
 which it possessed in common with old Reformed Liturgies. And this 
 we find done to the extremest degree in the new "Order of Worship." 
 In every respect it is made to differ as widely as possible from the Re- 
 formed type of worship. Spurning the very order which our fathers 
 adopted and estaUished it takes up that order which theij knowingly and 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 93 
 
 designedly rejected, and even "im2)rove" upon it by sundry additions and 
 variations. Under pretence of elevating the cultus of the Church, and 
 this in compliance with her own instructions, this new Order seeks wholly 
 to subvert the true cultus of the Church, and to force itself upon her 
 members and congregations by the use of unworthy means. For what 
 Dr. Nevin says about freedom, liberty &c., in regard to the introduction 
 of the new Order, is too manifestly one-sided, to deceive any cautious 
 reader. He means that there ought to be full liberty to introduce the 
 booh, to laud and commend it, and to use whatever methods "cautious 
 and prudent pastors" may think best suited to secure its success. But 
 he is intolerant of liberty to expose and resist the movement; to tell the 
 people fairly and candidly that it involves a complete metamorphosis of 
 their Church; the utter forsaking and, repudiation of her past history; 
 a change from all that is distinctive of us as a Church, into what would 
 convert us, not indeed, into a genuine Episcopal Church, for true Epis- 
 copalians whom we highly esteem denounce the new Order of Worship 
 as inconsistent with evangelical Protestantism, but into what would con- 
 vert us into a Church whose closest affinities would be with what the 
 Reformers condemned as the harlot of Rome. Dr. Nevin may say what 
 he pleases, and others may take up and reiterate his words, in misrepre- 
 senting and decrying the spirit and genius of our Church; for doing this 
 full liberty is claimed. But when the nakedness of his^views or schemes is 
 exposed ; when the reproach put upon the fathers is repelled, and reasons 
 are urged why the Church should not accept of or allow the innovations, 
 'then the cry is raised: you deny us our liberty. Because men, awaked in 
 time to a sense of the evil threatening our heritage, resist the attempt 
 to sow tares over the field, and endeavor to let others know the danger, 
 those men are enemies to congregational liberty! If Dr. Nevin were a 
 pastor, and the Rev. C. Gr. Finney should pass along, would he throw 
 open the doors of his church to the renowned revivalist, and let the 
 stranger have fair play for a year or two? Or would Dr. Nevin think it 
 an infringement upon the liberty of his congregation, not to let them 
 have the opportunity, and enjoy the privilege of hearing Mr. Finney, 
 and seeing whether his views might not be thought more acceptable, or 
 more '^live theology," than those of their old Pastor? 
 
 Talk of liberty! Is it not a well-known fact that in the majority of 
 cases, where the responsive and other peculiarities of the New Order are 
 used, they were introduced without the consent of the congregation, and 
 are used to the oflTence of many members ? And is not Dr. Nevin per- 
 fectly familiar with at least one illustration in point? Or apart from that 
 illustration, so near home, is it forgotten that an attempt made by an elder 
 at Dayton to protect the people against having the New Order forced upon 
 
94 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 them against their desire and will; was at once frowned down ? Why, if all 
 this cry for liberty is sincere, not require every pastor and consistory to 
 submit the question to the congregation in full assembly (not with but 
 fifteen or twenty members, out of two hundred, present, as is said to have 
 been the case at Jonestown not long ago), instead of permitting the inno- 
 vations to be introduced "on the sly?" This, however, by the way. 
 As we have already stated, the new "Order of Worship " is freely ac- 
 knowledged to be "materially and essentially different from any mode of 
 worship known to the Reformed Church." And yet the real extent of 
 this diversity is probably not fully realized, even by those who have given 
 some attention to its peculiarities. But before we consent to the endorse- 
 ment or adoption of a book marked by such peculiarities, their true na- 
 ture and effect upon our personal and denominational life should be most 
 carefully pondered, and, if possible, correctly ascertained. Sometimes, it 
 is true, in entertaining strangers, angels are entertained unawares. But 
 whilst the counsel of one Apostle should be heeded, we should not forget 
 that another admonishes us against opening the door to all strangers in- 
 discriminately, or giving them comfort and encouragement. We most 
 cordially accept of Dr. Nevin's rule, as taken from the advice of this 
 same second Apostle. The spirits must be tried. Only he and we differ 
 as to the standard. He says, the fourth century; we say, the first. He 
 says, by patristic authority; we say, by Apostolic authority. He says, by 
 the Creed in the third and fourth century sense; we say, by the Creed as 
 explained in our Heidelberg Catechism, which gives, in all essentials,- the 
 true Gospel sense. He says, by the test, has Christ come in the tiesh; we 
 say, the cunning spirits have long since learned to mimic this Shibboleth, 
 and whilst saying most glibly. We believe that Christ has come in the» 
 flesh, have glided into the Church and filled her with most abominable 
 God and Christ dishonoring corruptions. For tea centuries before the 
 Keformatioa, Papal Rome said this, and yet she was an apostacy, the har- 
 lot of the book of Revelation. Hence we plant ourselves upon this divine 
 test: not evert/ one that sayetli Lord^ Lord, i. e., not every one that avows 
 faith in the incarnation, &c., is to be welcomed as sincerely of the truth, 
 and entitled to our hearty God-speed. 
 
 There is more to be done, therefore, before the new Order is adopted 
 as the order of worship for our Church, than merely to contemplate its 
 exterior features. It can be shown by the declarations and admissions of 
 its advocates, that it not only varies in some material respects from the 
 established cultus of our Church, but that it is utterly irreconcilaUe toifh 
 it. To how great an extent this is true, may be clearly seen in the follow- 
 ing points of disagreement. 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 95 
 
 A general proof of the fact that the new Order is not simply different 
 from our denominational cultus, but utterly irreconcilable with it, is found 
 in those assertions of its advocates which declare our established cultus 
 unliturgical, and pronounce such Liturgies as the Old Palatinate no true 
 Liturgies. Upon this point no men could speak more plainly, to say no- 
 thing of justice or modesty, than they have done. But, however success- 
 fully the claims of our ancient cultus may be maintained against such re- 
 proaches, is it not evident that in the estimation of those who plead for 
 the new Order, it and our old order are in radical and fundamental hosti- 
 lity to each other? And so they unquestionably are. They rest upon to- 
 tally different theories of Christianity and the Church. They do not pre- 
 tend even to be based on the same foundation. The cultus of the German 
 Reformed Church rests upon the Apostolic type of worship ; that of the 
 new Order upon the fourth century patristic type; the former appeals to 
 the word of the Lord and His Apostles ; the latter to the word and ex- 
 ample of the fathers of the third, fourth, and, if Dr. Nevin were perfectly 
 candid, he would acknowledge, the fifth and later centuries. To set aside 
 our old order of worship, therefore, and to adopt this new system, involves 
 a repudiation and abandonment of the Apostolic foundation on which our 
 old mode of worship rests. For be it remembered that the advocates of 
 the innovations do not pretend at all to support or to justify them by an 
 appeal to the true original source of authority, but solely to the practice 
 of the Church in the third and fourth centuries. They do not claim that 
 their cultus is Apostolic, excepting so far as it is Patristic. And yet I 
 may have written too fast. I call to mind that Dr. Nevin does appeal in 
 one place (so does Bishop Hopkins in his late defence of Ritualism) to 
 something said in one of the Psalms about all the people saying: Amen. 
 Did he forget what is said in another Psalm about 'Upraising the Lord 
 with the timbrel and dance ?" Or has he become such a literalistic and 
 indiscriminate interpreter and applier of Holy Writ, that he would 
 justify the dancing Quakers (notwithstanding his dislike of Quakers in 
 general) on the ground of this latter exhortation of the Psalmist? The 
 unfortunate irrelevancy of the few appeals, like that to Hebrews 13 : 
 10, in justification of the propitiatory altar, made by the vindicators of 
 the new Order, to the Sacred Scriptures, only serve to show how lit- 
 tle store they set by inspired precepts and examples in such matters. 
 
 But this general irreconcilable diversity between the two schemes of 
 worship, becomes more manifest if we look at the constituent elements of 
 the cultus of both. 
 
 1. The most prominent disagreement between the two systems, that 
 diversity which is likely first to strike the mind, is found in the rcsjwnses 
 of the new Order. It is not said that this is the most important and serious, 
 
96 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 by any meau3. We readily accept the statement, that the great question 
 before us is not a mere matter of '' responses" or "no responses." None 
 of the opponents of the new measures ever said it was. At the same time 
 this extremely responsive feature of the new "Order" is not to be flip- 
 pantly set aside with a sneer or a laugh. In the thing itself of congrega- 
 tional responses in public worship, but little may be seen that is seriously 
 objectionable. At any rate we would not ridicule it, or try to make it 
 seem intolerably absurd, as the Liturgical Committee have done with the 
 cultus of the Reformed Church. We have no fault to find with the Epis- 
 copal Church, because their Common Prayer is marked with this peculiar- 
 ity. In that Church there are both clergy and laymen whom we cordially 
 esteem, and are happy to enjoy their regard. Especially has the evange- 
 lical portion of that Church the sincere sympathy of those of us who are 
 learning by sad experience how fierce and reckless a foe the spirit of 
 hyper-ecclesiasticism is. But while responses jj<'r se may be set among 
 things indifferent, and while other Churches which have them may not 
 be denounced or discarded on that account, we must remember that they 
 are not offered to us pe?- se, in themselves alone, in the present case. The 
 advocates of the innovations would no doubt confess that they are an 
 essential part of their system as at present developed. So the introduction 
 of such full responses, choral antiphonies, and so fortli^ into the fourth 
 Century Church, was the budding or flowering of a theory, a system, " an 
 organic process" which by and by surprised the world by its fruit, as much 
 as the first discoverers of some vegetables were to find that the blossoms on 
 the stem indicated fruit under ground. 
 
 In these responses, then, as incorporated into the Revised Liturgy, we 
 discover a purpose and a scheme, to sever completely all historical connec- 
 tion hetwcen our Church of the present and our Church of the past and, 
 also hetween our section of the Reformed Church, and other branches of 
 the Reformed family. When some conquerors desired wholly to absorb 
 their captives and to destroy their national identity, they forbid their 
 speaking their native tongue, or singing their national songs ; and re- 
 quired them to learn and speak the language, and to practice the manners 
 of their new master. It was the very perfection of craft, but no less the 
 refinement of heartless cruelty. In some cases the craft succeeded, and 
 cruelty in progress of time rendered the captives or their children callous 
 and indifferent to the destruction of their nationality. 
 
 Thus, in a figure, those who are seeking to gain the assent of our Church 
 to be brought under the dominion of this new order, propose, as one of 
 the first things, that we worship the trod of our fathers in a form and 
 manner so entirely different from their mode of worshipping Him, that by 
 the adoption of the new scheme, our ecclesiastical affinity with them, and 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 97 
 
 with the descendants of their nearest and dearest ecclesiastical kindred, 
 would wholly and forever cease. And let us remember here, that whilst 
 our legitimate ecclesiastical relationship would thus be severed, there are 
 other features distinctive of this new Order of Worship, which would pre- 
 vent our finding congenial fellowship in any other denomination of evan- 
 gelical Christians. For much as we all should regret to lose our deno- 
 minational identity by being absorbed by the Episcopal Church (and 
 I think that many intelligent and liberal members of that Church, who, I 
 am happy to know, would join in the regret), our greatest peril from the new 
 measures is not that they may lead our Church into evangelical Episcopacy, 
 but into that element of the Episcopal Church which many honest and 
 earnest Episcopalians themselves justly and unqualifiedly condemn. And 
 in corroboration of this truth I may state, that without exception, so far 
 as I know, all the ministers who have, during the last years, abandoned 
 our Church, and united with the Episcopal Church, belong to the extreme 
 high-church party there. Much, therefore, as we have reason to object, 
 on the ground of a commendable regard for our denominational existence, 
 that our mode of worship should be changed into such conformity with 
 that peculiar to another Church, as might lead to denominational loss — 
 there is still greater cause for opposition to suc-h change on the other 
 ground indicated. 
 
 It is further to be noted, that the new order not only diff"ers in the use 
 and multiplication of responses from our old mode of worship, but also 
 from the Provisional Liturgy, upon which it is off'ered as an improvement. 
 In the Provisional Liturgy there are simple non-responsive services. In 
 the Revised Liturgy all such are excluded. It has the merit, at least, of 
 being now unique, though for that reason more radically anti-Reformed. 
 For it will hardly be called in question, that such a studied, persistent ex- 
 clusion of forms, resembling those to which the Church had ever been 
 accustomed, and the sole use of a new mode of worship, implies irreconci- 
 lable antagonism. If not, why did not the Committee propose to the 
 Synod the propriety of dissolving our ecclesiastical organization, and of 
 merging our denominational existence into that of another Church? 
 
 Upon this ground then, chiefly do we maintain that the responses* of 
 the new Order present an insuperable objection to its adoption and place 
 
 ■•■■A correspondent (A.) of the G. E. Mceeengei; for whom I still cherish great esteem, 
 seems so bent upon throwing stones at me that he goes far out of his vfAy to pick them. 
 Thus he persists in arguing that bccaufe I am willing to allow the Creed to be recited in 
 the S. School (he might have added in the congregation, also, on special occasions), the 
 whole point of responses is surrendered. Surely the Brother is too old to indulge in such 
 puerile sophistries, with any hope of misleading people by them. Because a congregation 
 may occasionally recite the Creed, there/ore, it should not object to the Revised Liturgy ! 
 What a leap to reach the rock ! 
 7. 
 
98 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 it iQ essential hostility to the historical cultus of the Keformed Church. 
 It is not only our privilege but our duty, to preserve and perpetuate our 
 identity. The introduction of a full responsive scheme of worship like 
 that of the new Order strikes at the root of that identity, and must prove 
 Its destruction. Are we willing to submit to such an issue? With all our 
 liberality, our lamentations over the divisions of Zion, and our strong desires 
 for the day when there maybe "one fold and one Shepherd," are we 
 prepared, can we think ourselves required, to oifer so partial and one- 
 sided a sacrifice to an experiment so unreasonable, so visionary, so un- 
 likely to serve the end of true and sacred unity as this? We hope, we 
 believe, that the day of the general unity of the Church, is not far off. 
 But Ritualism, instead of hastening is retarding it. It is not by zeal to 
 have men say with the lip: "Amen! the Lord's name be praised," and 
 the like; but by the spirit which seeks to have them animated with true 
 inward devoutness, and deep heartfelt aspirations, that the desired result 
 is to be achieved. 
 
 2. But if the responses of the new Order of Worship place it in rather 
 an external and superficial antagonism to the cultus of the Reformed 
 Church, that Order is strongly marked by another characteristic, and 
 ruled by another principle, which does not constitute a merely outward 
 and " insignificant" objection, but is one which affects the inmost life of our 
 evangelical system. 
 
 It was shown, some pages back in the statement made concerning the 
 basis upon which the fathers of the Reformed Church reconstructed her cul- 
 tus, that the iinmediate personal relation of each believer to God in Christ, 
 and of the free personal access of each directly/ for himself to God, was a 
 cardinal doctrine or principle of their system. Hence in the order for 
 public worship which they restored, the congregation does not approach 
 the mercy-seat through the minister (as though he were a mediating sacer- 
 dos), does not pray through the minister for pardon, and such blessings as 
 may be desired. Rather are minister and people considered as one com- 
 mon priesthood, and the people as praying in and with the minister as their 
 mouth-piece (not sub-mediator). Their doing this silently, and breathing 
 at the close of the prayer a silent Amen, no way diminished, but rather 
 was calculated to increase, the sincerity with which it was done. But the 
 main point is, that the people themselves had access, in common with 
 the minister, by one and the same Spirit, to the Father. This was espe- 
 cially the case in the service of the Holy Supper. The minister did not 
 stand before them as a mediating priest, offering up on their behalf a me- 
 morial propitiation for their sins. It was not to a sacrifice in such sense, 
 but to a spiritual supper they had come, and to full, direct personal parti- 
 cipation in all the benefits of that Holy Supper, they had all an equal 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 99 
 
 right with the minister. This, then, was a fundamental distinctive cha- 
 racteristic of the Reformed cultus. Dr. Nevin and the Committee them- 
 selves acknowledge this, even whilst condemning what they regard as a se- 
 rious unchurchly defect. To deny this prerogative to the individual 
 Christian, to setup a cultus, one of whose chief corner-stones is the princi- 
 ple of some sort of sacerdotal mediation, as indispensable to popular 
 worship, is most undeniably, therefore, to set up a system which must be 
 in irreconcilable antagonism both to a ruling characteristic of our Re- 
 formed cultus, and to the Reformed evangelical doctrine of the universal 
 priesthood of Christians. 
 
 But this is one of those points in which the new Order of Worship dif- 
 fers so "materially and essentially" from all our old Reformed Liturgies. 
 Of course, we find no explicit formal statements to this efiect in the book. 
 It is not a text-book of theology. But the principles on which it rests may 
 nevertheless be ascertained, from its ruling spirit and tone, and from the 
 known sentiments of its authors in reference to the points involved. Thus, 
 examined and judged, the Revised Liturgy is plainly seen to be in open 
 conflict with established Reformed principles. 
 
 Happily we are relieved of the necessity of sustaining or illustratin"- 
 this point by elaborate argument. The Committee, speaking throu"-h Dr. 
 Nevin, tell us most distinctly that they utterly discarded the Reformed 
 idea of the immediate spiritual relationship of the believer to God, and 
 of his right of direct personal access to the gracious Hearer of prayer and 
 Source of all grace. This is expressed, indeed, in language which might 
 seem ambiguous to those not familiar with ecclesiastical phraseology. But 
 to others, the import of their language is obvious enough, as it was doubt- 
 less meant to be. Thus they unhesitatingly declare in the manifesto tract, 
 to which we have so much occasion and such full right to refer in proof 
 of their views and designs, — that a true Liturgy " must bear a certain 
 priestly character, determined by a proper regard throughout to the idea 
 of a Christian altar." Now, as the terms ^^ priest" and '■'■altar" have a 
 familiar inoffensive sense, a sense in which they are altogether proper and 
 allowable, this quotation may seem to contain nothing objectionable. But 
 those very terms, so evangelical as they are commonly employed by Chris- 
 tians, have also a signification which is utterly incompatible with the Gos- 
 pel idea of "altar" and "priest," and which renders both virtually syno- 
 nymous with their import under the dncient Levitical dispensation, and 
 those modern mongrel imitations of it found in the Romish, and Puseyite 
 portion of the Episcopal Churches * Have they this sense in the new 
 "Order of Worship ?" Undoubtedly they have, if thfe following passage 
 
 * What Dr. Nevin says about a "ridiculous fuss," and what his feeble echo sajs about 
 "Spooks in the garret," and "nigger in the cellar," will receive some little notice by and 
 by. 
 
100 TOE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 can be regarded as meaning what the words plainly imply. "We feel at 
 once what the Liturgical means, in this view, in the old prieUly services of 
 
 the Jewish few^jfc, WHERE THE TRANSACTION OF THE ALTAR SERVED TO ME- 
 DIATE OBJECTIVELY BETWEEN THE HeARER OF PRAYER AND HiS WOR- 
 SHIPPING PEOPLE. In THE SAME WAY, it is held, the true Christian Lei- 
 tourgia, the suhstance of which that older service was only a type, must ever 
 circle as a system of offices, round the Christian altar, as something always 
 mystically prcseiit in the Christian Church." Here, then, it is frankly 
 declared, though with some mental reservations, that the design of the new 
 " Order" is to restore sacerdotal functions to the Gospel ministry, and a 
 " mystical" propitiatory significancy to the altar. For let it be noted that 
 the language emphatically declares that the Christian altar must be a real, 
 substantial, visible centre, corresponding as a full antitype to the altar of 
 the " old services of the Jewish temple, where the transaction (i. e., the 
 sacrifices of atonement, propitiation, &c.) of the altar served to mediate ob- 
 jectively between the Hearer of prayer and His worshipping peojile." It 
 is true that after the phrase " Christian altar," as after the word '' altar " 
 in the preceding sentence, no mention is made of ^'■priest." But this is 
 merely an ellipsis, and the word is so clearly implied that it will suggest 
 itself to every reader's mind. 
 
 By this new theory of worship, therefore, the old Levitical idea of 
 worshipping God through a visible propitiatory sacrifice offered upon 
 an altar, and through a mediating priesthood, is to be actualized in full an- 
 titypal form, in the cultus which Dr. Nevin and his disciples hope to per- 
 suade the German Reformed Church to accept. If the declarations of 
 the author and endorsers of the " Liturgical Question " do not mean this, 
 there is no sense in their language. And although the author of that 
 tract may often have said things which were not understood, he seems to have 
 written lucidly enough in this case. To the same effect is the theory of 
 the Church upon which Dr. N. says, the Revised Liturgy rests. Accord- 
 ing to this theory, the order of salvation is as follows : To be pardoned 
 and saved, and worship God acceptably, men must 1. in the Church, 2. 
 through the minister, 3. be forgiven and 4. have access in the worship 
 of the Church as mediated by the minister (this title has not yet been 
 dropped, though its incompatibility with the rest of the theory is obvi- 
 ous) to God. No one, therefore, can be forgiven, until he has come to 
 ithe minister at the altar, there confessed his sins, and thus obtained par- 
 don. In proof of this doctrine, the advocates of the theory appeal, just 
 as Episcopal ritualists like Pusey, and Roman Catholics do, 1. to the 
 order of the articles in the Creed, where we have a., the Church, b., the 
 Communion of saints, and then c, the forgiveness of sins. (Is it not 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 101 
 
 the acme of philosophical sagacity!); and 2. to the much abused pas- 
 sages about loosing and binding, and remitting and not remitting sins. 
 
 With great propriety might Dr. Nevin acknowledge, in view of this 
 very mai-ked peculiarity of his new scheme as it has now been developed, 
 that it involves a question of very " material change in our Church life." 
 How decided and how hopeless the antagonism between a system of wor- 
 ship which encourages every believer to feel that his access to God, Ilis 
 reconciled Father in heaven, is immediate, direct, free, spiritual, through 
 the one and only High-priest Jesus Christ, by the Holy Spirit; a cultus 
 which seeks to cultivate in every believer's heart the assurance of his own 
 priestly prerogative before the spiritual throne of grace, and spiritual al- 
 tar of praise and prayer, and to embolden each one to draw confidently 
 near to that throne, even as into the. lioUest of all^ as that is to he found in its 
 true spiritual sense wherever two or three are gathered together in the name 
 of Jesiis Christy even though the Lord's Supper should not be each time 
 celebrated; and a system which says to God's people that they may not 
 worship their Lord thus siihjectivelt/^ thus spiritualisticallij , thus Gnosti- 
 calli/, but that they must approach him through the visible altar and its 
 mediating priest ! 
 
 "Ridiculous fuss," says Dr. Nevin, "Spooks in the garret," echoes the 
 classic Dr. Harbaugh. But let them mock and ridicule. Only we will 
 not be thus laughed and derided into a surrender of "the liberty where- 
 with Christ has made us free," and into renewed subjection to the "yoke of 
 bondage" cast oif by our fathers. I have not forgotten the disingenuous- 
 ness with which Dr. Harbaugh sought at York to evade the charge that 
 the new "Order" involved the virtual restoration of a propitiatory altar 
 and a specific mediating priesthood. Nor am I insensible how hard it is 
 to get the Church at large to believe that any such radical revolution in 
 our doctrines concerning worship, the Church, and the ministry, is really 
 contemplated and pressed. But I persist in the charge, and the more 
 earnestly as none of the leaders of the new measures have dared cordial- 
 ly to meet it, and still less squarely to deny it. There is indeed a pre- 
 tence of restoring to the dear people their rights in public worship : to 
 let them orally participate, and so forth. But it is to be hoped, and may 
 well be believed, that the dear people will be altogether too sagacious to 
 be caught by any such specious bait as that. They know too well the old 
 story of sacerdotal aggressions, and the bribes by which they succeeded, 
 in the great Apostasy; they know too well by what gracious concessions 
 to the people, the arrogant priesthood of that Apostasy still contrives to 
 maintain its spiritual supremacy over them. 
 
 3. The RITUALISTIC character of the new Order is another element 
 which renders it hostile to the legitimate cultus of the Reformed Church. 
 
102 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 As this charge has been pronounced groundless and absurd, it will be 
 well to "-ive it special attention. The first point to be settled is the mean- 
 ing of the term ritualistic. 
 
 Although the words "liturgy" and "ritual," with their derivatives, are 
 often used interchangeably in common language, they are not really syno- 
 nymous. The former refers to the act of worship, in the use of suitable 
 forms or without such forms; while the latter refers to the outward man- 
 ner the rites and ceremonies which may be associated with that worship. 
 All worship must, of course, be rendered in some form, and that form 
 might be called a rite, or ritual ; and hence it might be said that all wor- 
 ship, even liturgical, must be ritualistic. But this is not the exact and 
 proper import of the term. It refers strictly, to some sj^ecial ceremonial, 
 artistic or aesthetic, superadded to those forms or acts which are indispen- 
 sable to the performance of worship at all. This is, indeed, conceded in 
 the Liturg. Question (pp. 18, 60). A Ritualistic style of worship is, there- 
 fore, clearly distinguishable from a simply Liturgical mode of worship. 
 The latter is characterized by the use of only such forms and actions as are 
 indispensable; the former invests these forms and services with extra 
 drapery and ceremonies, for the purpose, avowedly, of making those ser- 
 vices more interesting and impressive. The number and character of 
 these additions may vary. The ritualism of the Greek and Romish 
 Churches varies, and that of the ultra high-church Puseyism by which 
 the Episcopal Church is now being so sorely vexed, differs somewhat from 
 both. It is not necessary, therefore, that an " Order of Worship," say 
 like Dr. Nevin's, should minutely prescribe what vestments the "priest" 
 should wear, how the " altar " should be decorated on certain "high days," 
 or go into nice details about the '■'■risings and howings^" and the "turn- 
 ing of all faces towards the altar," as the '■'■ shekinah fortJi from icliicli must 
 radiate continually the ENTIRE GLORY OF God's HOUSE." (Liturgical 
 Question, p. 29). The "Order" may be exceedingly reserved upon all 
 such minute things. And yet it may be essentially and unqualifiedly 
 ritualistic. 
 
 For this term, again, has a relative sense. What might hardly be 
 termed ritualism for another Church, may be decidedly ritualistic for ours. 
 That the new "Order," therefore, can not be fairly called ritualistic in 
 comparison with the Book of Common Prayer, may be readily granted. 
 This, however, is no criterion for our Church. The true measure by 
 which we must try the new " Order," is not the Episcopal, but the Re- 
 formed standard of worship. 
 
 Tried by this standard, our judgment upon it will be found correct, and 
 this, too, by the concessions of Dr. Nevin and his immediate assistants in 
 completing the work. Only let the contrast they themselves have drawn 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 103 
 
 between the legitimate Reformed type of worship, and that which they 
 have adopted, be carefully pondered, as set forth in the following quota- 
 tions from their own tract: 
 
 "It is to be freely admitted that there lay in the distinguishing spirit 
 of the Reformed Confession, as such, from the beginning, a tendency in 
 opposition to the constraint of fixed religious rites and ceremonies. It 
 belongs, as we all know, to the Reformed Church, to represent that side of 
 the Christian li/e^ in which the jnward, the free, the spiritual in religion, 
 are asserted against the authority of the merely outicard in every view. 
 Such is her historical vocation; such is her genius. While we honor* 
 then the constitutional character or the Reformed Church, in the general 
 view of which we are now speaking, we ought to be willing to admit that 
 it carried in it a tendency to what we may call extreme simplicity and spi- 
 ritualism, over against the worship of the Catholic Church," etc. (Liturg. 
 Question, 40, 41). 
 
 "The Reformed Confession from the beginning, if we except the Epis- 
 copal portion of it in England, for reasons which it is not now necessary to 
 consider, 7ias not heen favorahle to much outward form or ritual action in 
 worship." (Liturg. Ques. p. 60). 
 
 Although this does not tell the whole truth in regard to the great sim- 
 plicity and spirituality of Reformed worship, and although it does not 
 delineate it fairly even as far as the statements go, the picture fully answers 
 our purpose. A man of Dr. Nevin's deep and bitter "prejudices" against 
 the essential and material characteristics of Reformed practice, and one of 
 his strong partialities for a very different style of piety and worship, could 
 hardly be expected to describe fairly and truly the cultus of the Reformed 
 Church, or to estimate properly the principles on which that cultus rests. 
 And yet any attempt to do this at all, could hardly fail to let out enough 
 historical truth to answer our end. According to his own admission, then, 
 every thing ritualistic in worship, was most alien and contrary to the dis- 
 tinguishing spirit of the Reformed Church. 
 
 What now is the distinguishing spirit and character of the " Order of 
 Worship" which Dr. Nevin would persuade this extremely simple and 
 spiritualistic Church to substitute for Ber old, historical and legitimate 
 mode ? 
 
 Again we let the advocates of this Order describe it in their own words, 
 that all who are willing to be convinced may see that it is not charged 
 
 * " The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart; his 
 words were softer than oil," etc. Is it by such bland flatteries that Dr. N. seeks to 
 manipulate the Church into acquiescence in the revolutionary scheme? "And Joab said 
 unto Amasa, Art thou in health, my brother? And Joab took Amasa by the beard to kiss 
 him. But Amasa took no heed to the sword that was in Joab's hand ; so Joab smote him 
 therewith in the fifth rib ; and he died." 
 
104 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 unjustly with being ritualistic, and that in a very strong sense for a Church 
 Jike ours. 
 
 According to Dr. Nevin and those who adopt his peculiar views upon 
 this subject, every ''true liturgy" must possess such characteristics as 
 are indicated in the following statements : " It must be confessed, how- 
 ever, that mere forms of prayer are not enough of themselves to mahe the 
 services of the sanctuary what they ought to he in the view now brought 
 into notice. * * There must be gestures and postures significant of 
 faith in what the service thus means, ACTS of bodily avorship fitly 
 suited to corresponding acts of the spirit, responses of the 
 tongue to seal and confirm the silent responses of the heart." (Lit. 2, 
 pp. 32, 33.) 
 
 What particular "acts of bodily worship," &c., should accompany, 
 precede, or follow the " responses of the tongue," &c., we are left to sur- 
 nlise. It is perfectly easy, however, to discern the direction in which such 
 things point. Among ritualistic practices which high-church Episcopa- 
 lians are introducing into their services, there is one called " Orientation.'^ 
 That is, whenever the name of Jesus Christ is used in the services, the 
 worshipper, no matter how he may have been standing, turns quite 
 around with his face to the East (the Orient) and makes one or three low 
 hows.^ This, then, to some minds, seems a " bodily act of worship fitly 
 suited to a corresponding act of the Spirit." 
 
 '■ It will not do to call these things the idle mummery of superstition." 
 (Will the reader please refer to one of the quotations from Dr. Nevin's 
 views in 1844, as given on p. 27 of this tract.) " If they seem mummery 
 to any, it can only be, most assuredly, because they have themselves no 
 lively sense of the true nature of Christian worship in the view just de- 
 scribed. * * * Devotional forms, then, the outward actings and 
 utterings of worship on the part of the people are not only to he tolerated 
 in the services of the sanctuary, they are to BE ENJOINED as the 
 necessary condition of worship in a truly spiritual form. * * Let the 
 outward and the inward here go hand in hand togetjier. Let it be con- 
 sidered a part of religion to do hodily reverence, in all j^^'oper ivays, to 
 the sacramental hohness, which fe felt to inhabit the house of God. Let 
 there be rising and hawing, where it may seem to be meet, in token of the 
 consenting adorations of the people." 
 
 So much, then, for the verbal declarations of Dr. Nevin and others in 
 regard to their ideal of worship. They seem explicit enough, and quite 
 frank. And, taken in connection with the circumstances under which 
 they were made, interpreted by the contrast which they are intended to 
 
 * Not long ago, a student of ritualistic fancy in an Evangelical Divinity School, left 
 the institution because such superstitious " mummery," as Dr. Nevin once called this sort 
 of thing, would not be tolerated by the Faculty! 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 105 
 
 esliibit between this new sort of cultus and that of our Church in past 
 years, they plainly indicate the reigning spirit and certain tendency of the 
 new system. For when they speak of doing " bodily reverence," of com- 
 bining the outward with the inward, of the superiority of a worship not 
 purely spiritual, &c., it is clear that something different is meant from the 
 mode of worship, which has all along, with more or less regularity, pre- 
 vailed in our Church. In a very real and true sense, we have always 
 heen accustomed to unite the soul and hody^ the outward and inioard form 
 with spirit in our worship. Our fathers and their ecclesiastical de- 
 scendants always attended bodily upon the public means of grace; united 
 bodily with their mouth as well as heart, in singing the praises of the 
 Lord ; and stood up bodily doing such outward reverence in the house of 
 God. It is true, they did not look to the visible Lord's Table, or outward 
 altar, as. in an evangelical sense, it may be called ; they turned their eyes 
 heavenward, and their hearts too, as our fathers beautifully and truly say 
 in their old Order of Worship, on which Drs. Nevin and Harbaugh have 
 cast such scorn. But still, they rendered bodily service as far as they 
 thought it necessary and fit. 
 
 This, then, is not what is meant in the extracts above quoted, by 
 " rising and bowing," and such like things. But if those expressions 
 mean something more, something very significantly different, is it not 
 perfectly plain that they involve the very essence of ritualisyn in the 
 true and exact sense of that term ? For ritualism, as shown already in 
 distinction from worship (leitourgia) in the stricter sense, consist precisely 
 in the addition of such rites and ceremonies to that worship. And this, 
 DOW, is the style of worship found in the revised Liturgy. The above 
 extracts furnish the basis, the principles on which they say that work was 
 constructed, as well as the author's vindication of the work thus formed 
 and fashioned. 
 
 It will, moreover, help us to estimate aright these peculiarities of the 
 new Order of Worship, if we remember another significant fact. While 
 the style of worship adopted as the model after which the new Order was 
 fashioned, difiiers so "materially and essentially" from our old mode of 
 worship, its very striking resemblance to another style cannot fail to arrest 
 attention and produce a bewildering impression.* That style is not Re- 
 formed, not Lutheran, not Evangelical Ejyiscopalian, not Moravian; in a 
 word, you search for it in vain among any who care to call themselves 
 Protestant Christians. What is it then ? Where may an illustration of 
 it be found ? Let me answer as gently as possible, by pointing out again, 
 in its own phrases, a few of the most prominent features or this new 
 
 * Dr. Nevin will please prepare again to say : "Ridiculous fuss !" And Dr. Harbaugh 
 will get ready to echo, with classic variation: "Spooks in the garret!" — The reader will 
 please remember that I quote their own words. 
 
106 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 thing in the Reformed Church, and then by asking two or three simple 
 questions. 
 
 1. "^'Ae altar, and not the pulpit, is to he regarded as the central object 
 of the sanct^iary — THE place op the Christian shekinah forth from 
 which MUST radiate continually the entire glory of God's house. 
 
 2. " Do bodily reverence in all proper ways, to the sacramental holiness 
 which is felt to inhabit the house of God. Let all faces be turned in time 
 of prayer toxoard the altar." 
 
 3. " Let there be risings and bowings * * in token of the consenting 
 adorations of the people." 
 
 Now take these three marks of what Dr. Nevin and his friends call true 
 worship, and which they proclaim essential to true worship, marks without 
 which nothing ought to pretend to be worship — take these marks, the im- 
 portance of which Dr. Nevin and others unhappily involved in his delusion, 
 magnify so greatly, take them, and go around among the Churches and 
 tell me where do you find them realized? Where do you find the altar 
 made the central part of the sanctuary, the place of the Christian sheki- 
 nah forth from which must radiate continually the entire glory of God's 
 house? Where do you think Dr. Nevin saw the "beautiful" picture 
 which suggested this brilliant figure of speech? Can you say? And 
 where, again, do you find the congregation doing bodily reverence, to the 
 sacramental holiness in the house of God, all faces being turned toioard 
 the altar? And where, finally, do you witness numerous " risings and bow- 
 ings in token of the consenting adorations of the people " (still turned with 
 earnest gaze toward the altar)? Does not every reader, who lives within 
 reach of a Roman Catholic Church, or who has ever read of their style of 
 worship, know where these things are to be found ? 
 
 Will any one deny now that this new Order, embodying such elements as 
 its essential constituents, and marked so broadly by such inseparable charac- 
 teristics, '\% properly called ritualistic ? Let a church edifice be built ac- 
 cording to its ideal, and the inner structure and arrangements will be 
 found in harmony with that model which makes the Lord's table an altar, 
 sets that altar on high, in some most prominent central place, and locates 
 the Word, or its symbol, the pulpit, below and aside. Enter a church in 
 which the services are conducted according to this new "■ Order," and you 
 will find the forms and movements all in harmony with the demands of 
 ritualistic action. And now, when we remember that the end is not yet; 
 that the new " Order" bears internal proofs of being but a partial deve- 
 lopment of the theory it involves; that to carry out the system to its 
 legitimate end, it demands arrangements far more artistic and jesthetic 
 than any thing now openly indicated in the book, we need not shrink 
 from any of the raillery or indignation which may be excited by pro- 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 107 
 
 nouncing the new cultus extremely ritualistic for a Church like ours, and 
 therefore strongly antagonistic to the genius and spirit of Reformed wor- 
 ship. That these ritualistic elements and characteristics may not protrude 
 themselves very boldly, or that many who have looked into the Revised 
 Liturgy, or even been present when portions of its services were used, may 
 not have discovered them, is not evidence that they are not inherent in 
 the system, and essential to it. In order to judge aright in this case, it is 
 necessary to see the thing in full operation, to be present when the 
 service, especially the Lord's Supper service, is performed exactly ac- 
 cording to the book. This I have never yet seen done, and I suppose 
 that few, if any of our members, have been present at any public service 
 when it was done. At Dayton there was a good deal of it, so much that 
 all but the zealous disciples of Dr. Nevin in this matter, felt that it was 
 extreme and offensive. And yet the whole Communion Service was not 
 used at Dayton, and in that which was used, as far as I saw the "risings 
 and bowings " did not appear. It is often said, indeed, that the full ser- 
 vices are used here and there, strictly according to the rubrical directions 
 of the book, and in such instances the people suppose that they have seen 
 the whole of it. And yet I know some congregations in which this is 
 supposed to be done, in which it is not done. So the people are under 
 the impression that they have seen the entire service, when they have 
 really witnessed but a part of it. The " prudence " of this course is not 
 questioned. For those who are intent upon introducing the innovations 
 without exciting too violent and open opposition, without letting the peo- 
 ple scarcely know what the design is, it is wise, no doubt, to introduce the 
 thing gradually. They may thus by degrees become accustomed to it, 
 and gradually be able to bear more. Church history, especially from the 
 third and fourth century onwards, furnishes abundant illustrations of the 
 success of such policy. But the "wisdom" of this "policy" is not in dis- 
 cussion just now. The point is, that in this way there may be a great 
 many things pertaining to the system of cultus contained in this book, 
 which the people may not discover. I repeat, therefore, that the cultus 
 of the Revised Liturgy is essentially and really ritualistic, and that so far 
 as its ruling principles are concerned, in an extreme degree; especially in 
 contrast with the legitimate Liturgical worship of the Reformed Church. 
 
 4. A ybi(?-^7i distinguishing characteristic of the new " Order of Wor- 
 ship," which places it in irreconcilable antagonism to our historical Re- 
 formed cultus, is exhibited in the extreme significance and virtue which it 
 assigns to the objective element in worship, to the implied disparagement 
 and repudiation of the subjective element. In one sense, this may be re- 
 garded as the root of the ritualistic peculiarities. Practically and popu- 
 larly, however, it is the fruit and effect of those peculiarities 
 
108 TIIE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 It will be observed that the point is not, that true objective virtue or 
 efficacy is assigned to the means of grace, but that this is done in an ex- 
 treme way^ in a manner -which involves a virtual setting aside of the im- 
 portance of personal qualifications, or, to use a favorite Mercersburg ex- 
 pression, subjective conditions. That the means of grace are invested by 
 God with supernatural virtue in themselves, and do not receive their vir- 
 tue or efficacy from the persons (subjects) using them, is a doctrine held 
 by all evangelical Christians. And when Dr. Nevin, or any brethren who 
 permit themselves to reiterate his views without duly examining them, say 
 that this is denied by any evangelical Church, the Lutheran, the Mora- 
 vian, the Presbyterian, the genuine portion of the Episcopal, or even the 
 Methodist, Churches, it is simply bearing false witness against sister deno- 
 minations. It may serve very well to amuse Dr. Nevin and his unqualified 
 adherents and admirers, to display their skill in casting down and hewing 
 to pieces men of straw thus shrewdly set up. Our unhappy friend seems 
 to have found special delight in this sort of gladiatorship for many years. 
 But all will not avail in the end. We who dare to diifer from Dr. Nevin 
 on some important points, hold just what we hold, and not whatever erro- 
 neous or absurd views he may impute to us. His mere declaration cannot 
 make heretics out of those who cleave honestly and firmly to the essential 
 doctrines of all the Evangelical Reformed Confessions, any more than he 
 can make those Confessions of faith harmonize with and justify the high- 
 church, sacerdotal ritualistic theology, in whose knotty meshes he has al- 
 lowed himself to become entangled, and by which he has unfortunately en- 
 snared so many who trust unsuspectingly to his guidance and follo'w with 
 docile obedience his footsteps. 
 
 But whilst all evangelical Christians believe in an objective virtue in 
 the means of grace, they hold to this in full harmony with what the Holy 
 Scriptures teach, and what the true. Church has always maintained, con- 
 cerning the corresponding necessity for suitable personal qualifications. It 
 is at this point, now, that the new " Order" betrays a departure from the 
 faith of the Evangelical Church, and a strong bias towards a doctrine which 
 is essentially inimical to that faith. This doctrine is usually designated 
 by the phrase opus operatuvi. the literal meaning of which is a loork worJced, 
 or a deed done; that is, that there is such inherent absolute efficacy in 
 the means of grace, that the mere outward attendance upon them, or for- 
 mal participation in them, will work their eS"ect upon the subject, without 
 regard, or at least without much regard to personal fitness. According to 
 this theory, then, a certain magical efficacy is ascribed to the means of 
 grace, especially to the Holy Sacraments. Taking sophistical advantage 
 of the fact, (which no evangelical Christian denies'), that the means of 
 grace, and especially the Sacraments, do not derive their virtue from the 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 109 
 
 pious tliinhrng and feeling of the persons luho use them, or have efficacy put 
 into them hi/ human subjects to luhom thei/ may he administered, (an error 
 lohich all evangelical theologians and Christians would repudiate^^^ this sys- 
 tem inculcates the doctrine that they are ohjectively effcacious — that is, ah- 
 solutely so, in themselves, to work the end of their institution, upon those 
 who participate in them or receive them. Of the inconsistency of this doc- 
 trine with the Holy Scriptures, and of its pernicious moral effects, it is not 
 necessary to speak. It is sufficient for our purpose to know that it is not 
 the doctrine of our Church. 
 
 In proof, now, that the Revised Liturgy favors this error, is more or 
 less pervaded by its bad spirit, and rests upon this theory of the absolute 
 objective efficacy of the means of grace, and especially those which are 
 inseparably connected with the office of the ministry, the following facts 
 present themselves : 
 
 1 . The chief authors and advocates of the new " Order " manifest extra- 
 ordinary zeal against the prevalent evangelical doctrine upon this subject. 
 They have long displayed great dissatisfaction with what they stigmatize 
 as subjective Religion, that is, a religion which makes account of personal 
 piety, of personal repentance, faith, love, peace and joy in the Holy 
 Ghost. Of course, they dare not very openly denounce these "graces," 
 but they mostly speak quite ungraciously of them, seem to hold them in 
 comparative contempt. Because some fanatics or religious enthusiasts 
 have run to extremes in this way, advantage is taken of the fact to bring 
 all such personal piety into discredit. Pietists and Puritans are especially 
 obnoxious to Dr. Nevin and his disciples, and on this account. All this, 
 of course, is significant. The meaning is, that this way of thinking is 
 supposed to detract from the objective efficacy of the Church and Church 
 ordinances. And the strong and often exceedingly bitter dislike of this 
 so-called subjective pietism, shown by Dr. Nevin and others of his mind, 
 should be particularly significant for a Church which has had to bear re- 
 proach and calumny from the start on this same ground. Both blind 
 Papists and bigoted ultra Lutherans (of the Hesshuss school) were accus- 
 tomed to apply precisely such epithets as these to our Reformed fathers 
 in the sixteenth century. Whether Dr. Nevin and his confederates 
 borrowed the phrases from thoes foes of evangelical piety and Church- 
 liness, I cannot say. But the resemblance is so close as to suggest such 
 an origin. The bearing of the case is sufficiently obvious. What they 
 
 *" It has often been impliedly or directly charged by Dr. Nevin and his more zealous 
 disciples, that Protestant theologians teach this error, at least in substance. I deny the 
 charge, and challenge Dr. Nevin to prove it, allowing him to appeal even to Dick or 
 Dwight, or any theological writer of note or authority. Of course, he would not refer to 
 such men as Pd,rker or Emerson ; for only Papists call every one a Protestant who does 
 not kiss the Pope's toe. 
 
110 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 denounce is not a subjectivism whicli denies a supernatural character to 
 the means of grace, or that Grod uses them when He pleases for the con- 
 veyance of supernatural grace ; for they know full well that those whom 
 they reproach hold no such view. What they denounce, or mean to 
 denounce, therefore, is that sort of subjectivism indicated above, which 
 insists upon the equal necessity of personal qualifications or conditions, in 
 order that the blessings promised thr ough the means may be secured, a 
 doctrine which has the entire Scripture for its foundation. And the 
 theory on which the new '■' Order " rests, can only be understood or 
 possess any such significance as is claimed for it, on the ground that it 
 teaches a doctrine squarely opposed to that which its advocates denounce. 
 But there is only one doctrine in that direction, and that is the opus 
 operatuin error. * 
 
 2. Other facts which indicate the same thing are found in the distinc- 
 tive peculiarities of the Sacramental services and other special offices. As 
 illustrations, take the regenerative efiicacy of Baptism taught in all the Bap- 
 tismal forms ; the propitiative efiicacy of the Lord's Supper, considered in 
 the sacrificial aspect which characterizes the service for that Sacrament ; 
 the power claimed for the Church in confirmation ; and the extremely 
 high, if not sacramental virtue, claimed for ordination, in the service for 
 the ordination of ministers. If anything can be found in Evangelical 
 Protestant authorities to justify the ascription of such virtue or objective 
 efiicacy to the means of grace, it has yet to be produced. Certain it is, 
 that any acknowledged standard of worship or doctrine in the Reformed 
 Church will be searched in vain for arguments favoring that view. I do 
 not say that it is unqualified opus operatumism. But I do afiirm that if 
 it is not, it is a marvel of close resemblance without sustaining blood 
 relationship. And, furthermore, if the doctrine of the book on this point 
 is not the error named, it is so very much like it that no one can be 
 censured for mistaking the one for the other, or for supposing them to be 
 twin sisters. 
 
 3. This judgment receives confirmation also, from the Church theory/ upon 
 which the new "Order" is acknowledged to rest; and, finally, from the 
 remarkable depreciating manner in which some of the leading advocates 
 of the "Order" occasionally write or speak of that particular means of 
 grace which seems more than any other to appeal to subjective co-operation 
 for its due efi"ect. It will be understond at once that reference is had to the 
 Word written or preached. For it has unhappily come to be a painfully 
 distinguishing characteristic of this new "Order" school founded by Dr. 
 Nevin and animated by his peculiar spirit, virtually to lower the authority 
 and power of the Gospel by an unscriptural over-exaltation of the sacra- 
 ments. Taking the system, therefore, at its own avowed repugnance to 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. Ill 
 
 the prevalent evangelical view of the relation of object and subject in the 
 use of means of grace; and judging it from its self-chosen resemblance in 
 form and speech to what is held by all evangelical Confessions to be a per- 
 nicious error, as well as from the company which it theologically prefers; 
 we are justified in charging it with a strong bias, if not full committal to 
 the opus operatum heresy. But if the facts in the case justify this charge, 
 as I greatly fear they do, the new " Order" must, on this ground again, 
 be declared irreconcilably antagonistic to the faith and cultus of the Re- 
 formed Church. 
 
 4. The last leading characteristic of the new " Order " by which it 
 stands in hostility to our legitimate Reformed cultus, is its exclusion of free 
 prayer. That this is done will not be denied by any ingenuous advocate 
 of the system. The very theory of worship on which the .whole "Order" 
 rests, is necessarily intolerant of fi-ee prayer. It is true that Dr. Har- 
 baugh and one or two others try to husli tlie complaints likely to arise upon 
 a discovery of this part in the programme, and promises that the fetters 
 shall not be suddenly imposed. The system will deal gently with the 
 Churchy and only by degrees enforce its principles. And then to justify 
 this prospective withdrawal of our inherited Gospel liberty, Dr. Harbaugh 
 by a slight historical mistake tried to prove that a certain French Protes- 
 tant enthusiast, Labaddie, had introduced free prayer into the Reformed 
 Church, and had been deposed for so doing. But Dr. Schaff set his er- 
 ring pupil right at York in regard to this point, so that we shall probably 
 have no more appeals to the case of Labaddie as a justification of the repu- 
 diation of free prayer by the new "Order" and its chief vindicators. 
 
 Dr. Nevin knew better than to make any pretence in favor of free 
 prayer. After the wholesale condemnation of the practice in which he 
 had indulged in 1862, and especially after having been reminded of that 
 vehement tirade against the believer's great prerogative, as I took the 
 liberty of doing in my former tract, it would hardly have done to deny the 
 charge in any direct and positive way. And it is simply a fact which 
 cannot be denied, in the face of the full and explicit exposition which the 
 Committee has given of the theory of worship upon which the new 
 "Order" is avowedly constructed, as well as in the face of the book itself. 
 Where can free prayer come in, if the directions of the book are followed? 
 There is no place for it in any of the services. This constitutes a very 
 material difi'erence between it and the Provisional Liturgy. Will any 
 advocate of the system say, "you can substitute a free prayer as often as 
 you please for one of the prescribed ones ;" then we answer that this is 
 begging the question. For that matter something else might be, and it 
 is trusted will be substituted for the whole book. But the real point is, 
 howcloes the system view free prayer, and xchat does it propose to do toith 
 
112 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 it? And to these questions the answer must be that tlie system regards 
 free prayer with abhonnce, and desires to have it wholly abolished from 
 our Church. 
 
 That this is utterly at variance with the genius and spirit of Ptef'ormed 
 worship, will not be questioned by any one who cares for his reputation as 
 a scholar. vVs shown on a previous page, the earliest Liturgy of the 
 Church leaves room for free prayer. But even if no such specific provi- 
 sion for it had been made, even could we not show by documentary evi- 
 dence that this was the fact, and the practice, we have what some of the 
 advocates of the new '' Order " seem at times to regard as superior to the 
 written Word, we have the testimony of tradition in evidence of the fact. 
 Free prayer has been so long authorized and practised, in connection with 
 the occasional use of prescribed forms — for so long a time, that Dr. Har- 
 baugh, in his great zeal to prove it a modern (puritanic?) innovation, 
 over hastily seizes upon a phantom supposed to be discovered in the case 
 of an erratic French Brother (Labaddie was Reformed, and probably more 
 so than some who affect the name now, and under its cover seek to revolu- 
 tionize the Church as poor L. is charged with having done). And 
 having made this supposed discovery, it is employed to demonstrate that 
 free prayer is a modern innovation upon the law of our Church, introduced 
 only two hundred and tweniy-Jivc or thirty years af/o^ that is, 'dhoMi fifty or 
 sixty years after the founding of our Church ! The point must be quite 
 apparent. We have two centuries and a quarter of Reformed practice 
 certainly for free prayer, to a half a century, or three-score years doubt- 
 fully against it. And this by the reluctant acknowledgment of the ene- 
 mies of free prayer ! 
 
 Nor is this all. It is universally conceded — indeed, the fact is too 
 patent to be denied, that the fathers of our Church aimed at establishing 
 her cultus on the Apostolic basis. Now, free prayer was more common 
 in the primitive Church than the use of prescribed forms. Consequently, 
 the adoption of free prayer in connection with the occasional use of pre- 
 scribed forms, was a natural and legitimate development of the genius and 
 spirit of the Reformed Church. And why should she not develop '-for- 
 ward rather than backwards, and upward rather than outward ?" (See 
 extract fiom Dr. Nevin on p. 27 of this tract.) 
 
 As a further proof of the original recognition and practice of Free 
 prayer in the Reformed Church, it might be legitimately argued, that if 
 the unvarying use of prescribed forms was, from the first, enforced, and 
 was in harmony with the principles of our early cultus, it is not likely that 
 those forms would ever have been partially supplanted by free prayer. It 
 has not been so in the Anglican or Episcopal Church ! And in the case 
 of Continental Reformed Churches there was as much civil and ecclesiasti- 
 
THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 113 
 
 cal autliority to effect the observance of prescribed forms^ as in the case 
 of the Anglican Church. 
 
 lu every view of the matter, therefore, the recognition and practice of 
 free prayer, in combination with the use of prescribed forms, must be re- 
 garded as a legitimate and distinctive characteristic of the Reformed 
 cultus. This is a legacy which those who, by blessed experience, have 
 learned to know its value, will be loath to surrender. It is a trust com- 
 mitted to the custody of our Church to which she will most assuredly not 
 prove unfaithful. She will not permit her children' to be deprived of a 
 prerogative guaranteed by the Lord himself, rescued from the grasp of 
 hierarchical and sacerdotal tyranny by our Reformed fathers, and to which 
 they now have a birthright title. She will preserve and transmit to her 
 spiritual posterity this precious privilege of free access to the throne of 
 grace wiih such burdens of prayer as may from time to time oppress the 
 heart. Suitable forms of prayer will not be discarded ; a Liturgy to aid 
 in the decorous observance of public worship, and to furnish appropriate 
 services, especially for special occasions, will be provided. But no such 
 prepared forms will be allowed to eradicate free prayer whenever the 
 Holy Spirit, who is as really the Spirit of grace and supplication for the 
 Church of the nineteenth century, as he was for the Church of the fourth, 
 may prompt to a devout and believing use of the privilege. And the 
 " Order of Worship," which aims at the abrogation of this precious 
 Christian right, is an enemy to the spirit and genius, and a subverter of 
 the legitimate cultus of the Reformed Church. 
 
 These, then, are the broad diversities, the irreconcilable antagonisms 
 which exist essentially between the two systems of worship, brought now 
 into open collision, through the attempt of Dr. Nevin and his associates 
 to force the new Order of Worship upon the German Reformed Church. 
 Should not good, unanswerable reasons be furnished by its advocates be- 
 fore they ask for or press it3 introduction ? Should they not show by 
 overwhelming arguments, that the past cultus of the Reformed Church, 
 of all the Protestant Churches but one, (and that a qualified exception), 
 is unscriptural, at variance with Apostolic and pure primitive practice, 
 incompatible with the spirit of devout worship, and of far less moral 
 power than the kind they have devised, and for which they seek 
 adoption ? But do they urge any such considerations, or sustain what 
 they offer as argument or plea by any solid proof? Not at all. We look 
 in vain for any other or better reasons for accepting this innovation of 
 theirs upon our whole life and practice, than that it was so dome io the 
 third, fourth or fifth century, or that it is based upon the theology of the 
 CreeAl, as that was interpreted in the centuries named. For I will not 
 insult Dr. Nevin by supposing that the two or three appeals made to the 
 8 
 
114 THE LITURGICAL QUESTION. 
 
 Old Testament, and the one made to the New (Hebr. 13 : 10) were in- 
 tended as true Scriptural authority for the special peculiarities of the new 
 " Order." 
 
 Our Church is, consequently, asked and urfjed to repudiate a cultus 
 which rests upon inspired authority, upon Apostolic principles and primi- 
 tive practice, — a cultus carefully prepared by her fathers and founders^ and 
 adapted by them to her true genius and spirit ; and in its stead to adopt 
 one which its principal authors do not pretend is German Reformed, nor 
 even constructed after an Apostolic pattern, but which theij hold, in their 
 own private judgment (other people must be cured in the employment of this 
 dangerous weapon) to be vastly better, more beautiful, grand, impressive, 
 and what not, than any produced since long before the Reformation ! Had 
 ever five men such presumption before? Does the history of the Church, 
 replete as its pages are with narratives of strange things, furnish any ap- 
 proximate analogy to this case? A Church coolly asked and expected to 
 let herself be quietly revolutionized in faith and practice, in doctrine and 
 cultus, in soul and body, to be "transmogrified" from a true Evangelical 
 Church of the Reformation, into a sort of semi Cyprianic and semi-Gre- 
 gorian Church of the centuries during which, according to Dr. Nevin in 
 1841 (and the facts of ancient history have not changed since then), all 
 sorts of Romish quackery had gained complete ascendency in the Church! 
 (See back to p. 27). 
 
 This, then, is the true issue now before the German Reformed Church. 
 It is not a question of Liturgy or no Liturgy. And when Dr. Nevin says 
 it is, he must be consciously misrepresenting the case. I know well that 
 he pretends to deny that the Agenda used in our Church were true Li- 
 turgies. But he knows that that is an assumption of his own, and not 
 justified either by history or the prevalent judgment of the Church. The 
 old Palatinate and similar directories for public worship were true Litur- 
 gies, and I -venture to predict that in honorable remembrance, and even 
 in the actual imitation of their essential principles, they will survive this 
 attempt to resuscitate, with sundry modifications, the long since defunct 
 and buried ritualism of the fourth and fifth centuries. For as the Apos-' 
 tics were greater than the Church fathers of the degenerate ages named, 
 so a cultus patterned after the model of Apostolic worship should possess 
 higher authority and be held in more sacred remembrance than one 
 avowedly constructed in imitation of third and fourth century models. 
 
 Again. The issue is not, whether such material of the period named 
 as may be in harmony with a true evangelical spirit, ma}' be appropriated 
 or not, in the preparation of a new cultus to be framed in accordance with 
 Apostolic and Reformation principles. In this whole controversy no one 
 has denied, that amidst the mass of superstitions which had accumulated 
 
CHRISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. 115 
 
 during that period, precious Gospel gems of prayer might be found, and 
 no one has objected to a judicious appropriation of them. So that Dr. 
 Nevin again misrepresents those who oppose his extreme measures, when 
 he says that tliey insisted upon an exclusive limitation of the work to Re- 
 formation Liturgies. But the point is, as Dr. Doruer intimates in one of 
 the letters from Berlin appended to this tract, whether Reformation Li- 
 turgies shall be wholly ruled out and ignored, as is virtually done in the 
 new Order of Worship. In my former tract I was especially explicit on 
 this point, and made what some advocates of the innovations, even, re- 
 garded as very liberal propositions in the way of a fraternal compromise. 
 So that the accusation of Dr. Nevin in regard to this matter is doubly un- 
 jiist; and we are consequently no longer bound by the terms proposed in 
 that compromise. But whilst the merits of some of the legacies of the 
 centuries named are cheerfully acknowledged, and their title to a place in 
 any new Liturgy is freely admitted, it is not believed wise or proper to 
 allow them to usurp or even lessen the claims of Reformation works. 
 
 This, then, is the true state of the Liturgical question now before our 
 Church. Let its merits be fairly weighed. No side issues on theological 
 points alone should be allowed to divert the most earnest attention from the 
 vast interests involved in the movement, considered in its ritualistic as- 
 pects. It is a question touchitig the preservation and perpetuity of our 
 very life as a Church. The adoption of the new " Order" is necessarily 
 the end of the Reformed Church of the sixteenth century. The three 
 hundred years of her past life may not, indeed, be wholly lost. But she 
 will become a Church of the past. Though falsely retaining the ancient 
 name, her character, faith and practice will be as different from what it 
 has been hitherto, as the Church of the Reformation was diifurent from 
 that of Rome. She will be a new sect, deceitfully clinging to an old and 
 honored title, in order thereby the more successfully to conceal its true 
 schismatic character, and the more effectually to accomplish its sectarian 
 schemes. 
 
 Having thus designedly given special attention to those points involved 
 in this controversy which relate to the cultus of our Church, and which 
 present the practical question now to be settled, it will be the less neces- 
 sary to spend much time in considering the remarkable theological deve- 
 lopment, to the exhibition of which Dr. Nevin devotes the second half of 
 his "Vindication." 
 
 CHRISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. 
 
 By this newly-coined title has it pleased the author of the " Vindication 
 of the Revised Liturgy, Historical and Theological," to designate the pe- 
 culiar theology upon which that Liturgy is based, and by the spirit of 
 which it is s.iid to be parvadsd and ruled. The novelty of this term, 
 
116 CHRISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. 
 
 is in full keeping with the strange and foreign character of the peculiar 
 cultus with which it is associated. That cultus, as has heen seen, is an 
 extreme innovation upon the legitimate Apostolic worship of the Reformed 
 Church. It does not pretend to hear any essential relationship to any- 
 Reformed precedents; it is not justified at all hy an appeal to Reformed 
 practice. Why then should there not be an equally novel and alien theo- 
 logical system to match it? Such a system is avowedly delineated in the 
 second part of the notable "Vindication." 
 
 When the theological objections to the Revised Liturgy, and even to 
 some things in the Provisional Liturgy already, were first broached, it was 
 done somewhat hesitatingly and hypothetically. It was felt to be a very 
 serious thing to charge a book of which Professors in our Church Institu- 
 tions, and especially in the Theological Seminary, were the chief authors, 
 with containing doctrines at variance with the doctrinal standard of the 
 Church. When some of those very expressions and phrases which now 
 furnish ground of doctrinal accusations against the book, were challenged 
 in the Committee, even before the publication of the Provisional Liturgy, 
 one or another af those Professors labored to show that those challenged 
 phrases did not mean what they were supposed by the objectors to mean, 
 and tried to prove that they were in harmony with the doctrines of our 
 Church, and the faith of our fathers. There was still a conscience at 
 work on the subject which said: i/ou as Professors and ministers of the 
 German Reformed Churchy who are under a solemn oath to maintain 
 and defend the particular doctrines of that Churchy dare not introduce or 
 advocate doctrines antagonistic to her accredited, historical faith. Nay^ 
 yoxi cannot consistently use the influence of your position.^ and of the respect 
 entertained for you,, in endeavoring to persuade the Church to exchange 
 some fundamental articles of her faith for new and strange doctrines. 
 
 That day, however, is past. All sensitive conscientiousness on this 
 subject has yielded to zeal or ambition to be the founders of a new era in 
 the Protestant Church. Timid intimations or hesitating charges of doc- 
 trinal error against the book, are met, not by an earnest attempt to defend 
 it against those charges, but by a bold, defiant effort to show that the pe- 
 culiar theology of the book is correct, whether Reformed or not Reformed. 
 That it should be in harmony with our standard of fliith, and with the 
 doctrines ever maintained by our Church, is treated as a matter of little 
 or no account. And this, indeed, seems to be a favorite notion of the 
 leading advocates of the new ritualistic measures. Did not Dr. Harbaugh 
 virtually assume this position in his inaugural address at Reading, the ori- 
 ginal copy of which was unfortunately lost. And has it not been reite- 
 rated more than once of late, over his signature, and that of others in the 
 G. Ref. Mcssevger? It is now a prominent part of the policy of this 
 
CHRISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. U7 
 
 school to ignore our denotaiQational rule of faith, and have it so far set 
 aside, that if, and the acknowledged authoritative interpretation of it, may 
 no longer impede the progress of the "new measures." And why should 
 they not aim at this? They have maligned and spurned our standard of 
 worship* in the most indecorous manner. Why should they not at least 
 sli(/ht or repudiate the doctrinal authority of the Heidelberg Catechism? 
 
 "Have we a pope?" they ask. That is, have we an authoritative ex- 
 pounder or exposition of doctrines? Must Mercersburg be bound by any 
 such exposition? Of course the meaning of all this is plain, however con- 
 tradictory of the theory of Churchliness of which that school sometimes 
 can seem to make so much account. Dr. Nevin and his disciples wish to 
 be hampered by no denominational system of faith. They claim the pre- 
 rogative of making a system of their own, and they wish that to become 
 binding. " No pope," therefore, in Dr. Harbaugh's sense, means no doctrinal 
 standard by which to restrain the development of Mercersburg Christo- 
 centricities. Old Dr. Mason said somewhere, long before Dr. Nevin launched 
 his anathemas against the "sect system," that whenever you hear a man 
 denounce sects very violently, you may be sure he would like to start one 
 himself. So it seems that this recently manifested Mercersburg zeal 
 against a theological Pope, indicates too plainly to be mistaken, an aspira- 
 tion of its own after autocratic power. One can hardly help saying to all 
 this sort of pleading, and from such a source : " thy speech betrayeth 
 thee." 
 
 But how "superlatively absurd" for a school which has affected such 
 profound contempt of private judgment, and poured such burning male- 
 dictions upon it, now to ask that the private judgment and "subjective 
 vagaries " of its leader's, should be made a standard of orthodoxy among us, 
 a balance in which to try the faith not only of dissentient brethren, but of 
 the fathers of the Church. Olevianus, Ursinus, all the earlier theological 
 authorities, must be in error, rather than that Dr. Nevin's conceit should be 
 condemned. Nay, the Catechism itself must be modified to suit the view 
 of those new reformers! 
 
 No one can peruse the doctrinal pages of Dr. Nevin's tract, without 
 getting the impression that, in the writer's estimation, the doctrinal stand- 
 ard of the Church is of no account, in comparison with the new Christo- 
 centric revelation he makes, and the profound theology which he teaches. 
 He silently assumes that as '■' denominniiono.l theology is nothing to him," 
 it is as little to the Church of which he is a nominal member. He takes 
 
 * If the Editor of the Messenger ventures to deny this, as he ha.s most disingenuous!}' 
 denied some other facts, or allowed them to be denied without any of those Editorial 
 seholias he seems so zealous to append to articles on the other side— then I challenge him 
 to republish pp. 36, 37 and 62 of the "Liturgical Questiou," and the luinority report to 
 the Synod of Chambersburg, to which he seems to forget that his name is affixed. 
 
113 CHRISTOCENTRIO THEOLOaT. 
 
 it for granted, it would seem, that at sea himself, theologically and eccle- 
 siastically, the Church also has torn loose froHQ her ancient, sacred moor- 
 ings, and is floating about in search of a harbor. And in all this he pro- 
 fessedly speaks not for himself only but for others. 
 
 And is it possible that in these bold and revolutionary assumptions the 
 leadin"- advocates of the new " Order" are right? I cannot believe it. It 
 is not true that the Church has tamely placed her faith as a lump of wax 
 into the hands of three or four men, to be moulded and shaped to suit 
 recently discovered Christocentric conceits. It is not true that the authors 
 of the Revised Liturgy were commissioned and employed to use it as a 
 means for insinuating strange, and, if our past creed has been true, most 
 false and pernicious doctrines into the Church. The peculiarities of 
 Mercersburg Theology and Philosophy may be good enough for those who 
 like them, but I deny that they have ever been recognized as the doctrines 
 of the Reformed Church, or that any Committee was ever authorized to 
 substitute them for those doctrines. 
 
 No, we have a denominational standard of faith and doctrine, invested 
 with as full authority now as ever. That standard, under the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, is the Heidelberg Catechism, which is believed to contain the doc- 
 trines of the Holy Scriptures as held by the German Reformed Church. 
 Dr. Nevin and all his associates are bound by it, as really and entirely as 
 any minister or member of the Church. Nay, the Church herself is 
 bound by it, and by her own organic life and law, cannot essentially 
 change that doctrine, or even her Order of worship, without forfeiting her 
 claim to the property she now holds. It will not avail, as the civil 
 statutes in such cases now stand, to pretoid to adhere outwardly to the 
 Heidelberg Catechism, and yet really teach doctrines opposed to the 
 obvious and traditional sense of that standard. A professor, or minister 
 of our Church, may not teach Unitarianism, or Puseyism, or any other 
 ism essentially and materially at variance with our standjrd, and yet 
 shield himself beneath the Heidelberg Catechism, and so escape censure. 
 Every such doctrinal standard has a definite historical sense, a sense fixed 
 by traditional authority, and by that sense the teachers of the Church are 
 bound. No attempted evasions will avail. And even though the judicial 
 authorties of the Church should themselves so come under the power of 
 the leaders of innovations as to change doctrines and customs to suit the 
 views of those leaders, the Church should remember that the civil law will 
 come to her aid against any such ecclesiastical usurpations, and shield 
 her against being wrested from her true foundations by the power of a revo- 
 lutionary majority. 
 
 Beyond all available contradiction, therefore, we have a fixed standard 
 of doctrine, the true import of which can be definitely ascertained. And 
 
CHRISTOCENTRIG THEOLOGY. 119 
 
 thi^ Revised Liturgy must be tried by that standard before it can receive 
 valid ecclesiastical endorsement. If it contains doctrines at variance with 
 those of the Church it must be rejected. The Church even is not at 
 liberty to retain a name which stands for a historical character and 
 distinctive doctrines, and yet, fundamentilly change both. We cannot 
 become Baptists, or Episcopalians, in fact, and yet claim in form, to be 
 German Reformed. We cannot adopt a Liturgy containing Unitarian, 
 Swedenborgian, Puseyite, or Popish doctrines, and yet call it a drermau 
 Reformed Liturgy. In regard to the case before us, therefore, it is evident 
 that the point to be settled is, whether this new "Order" contains doc- 
 trines which are at variance with those of the German Reformed Church. 
 If it is admitted that it does, or if it can be proven that it docs, that must 
 settle the point of its rejection. 
 
 All this seems clear enough. It is equally clear, therefore, that any 
 valid doctrinal vindication of the Revised Liturgy should aim chiefly at 
 showing that its reigning doctrinal spirit, as well as its special phraseology, 
 was in full essential harmony with the standard faith of the German Re- 
 formed Church. And I feel persuaded that the general e.-rpectation of 
 the more devoted friends of the new" Order" was, that Dr. Nevin would 
 furnish a lucid, elaborate argument, strongly fortified by appeals to the 
 Heidelberg Catechism, and to standard doctrinal authorities, to prove 
 most ineontrovertibly, that the doctrinal spirit, and particular utterance of 
 his Liturgy was in complete harmony with the authorized confession of 
 the German Reformed Church. IIow great must have been the disap- 
 pointment at finding that the author of the defence scarcely deigns to 
 make any appeal of this sort. He seems hardly to know that there is 
 such a book as the Heidelberg Catechism, or that we have any certain 
 evidence of what its authors regarded as the true sense of its language. 
 In 1847, Dr. N. could, in his "History and Genius of the Heidelberg 
 Catechism," write in language of high laudation of the superior excellence 
 of that standard of our faith under the word of God. In 1851, he could 
 furnish, in a preface to Dr. Williard's Ursinus, a glowing eulogy upon the 
 chief author of the Catechism, and the author of the Commentary on the 
 Catechism. Speaking of the value of the Commentary, he says in that 
 preface, among other commendatory things : " No other, at all events, can 
 have the same weight as an exposition of its true meaning." Why, then, 
 are the Catechism, as well as the Commentary on it by Ursinus, so utterly 
 ignored ? Was Dr. Nevin so fully conscious of the essential incompati- 
 bility of his Revised Liturgy Theology with the Catechism and the Com- 
 mentary, that he felt it to be most expedient not to place the two in very 
 close comparison ? 
 
120 CHRISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. 
 
 What, then, is this theology of the new "Order," which is heralded by 
 its advocates as a sort of latest revelation dawning upon the Church ; as 
 the only "live theology" of the present day; as a system to which the old 
 theology of the Reformed Church, and indeed of all Churches, should 
 most cheerfully give place ? Dr. Nevin declares himself so confident of 
 its superiority, of its carrying with it overwhelming evidence in its favor, 
 that he is sure that " the people only need a fair opportunity to judge its 
 merits for themselves," to be induced to accept it. Let us, then, look in 
 for a few moments upon this great masterpiece of modern genius. 
 
 At the very outset, however, of this inquiry, some perplexing difficulties 
 meet us. This remarkable theo-logy, by which the Revised Liturgy is 
 said to be animated, is, Jirst of all, presented to ris only in detached puits, 
 in broken sections. It claims, indeed, to be a system, and a very tho- 
 roughly organized system at that. And yet, strange to say, it has never 
 yet assumed an organized form. How is this ? For years we have been 
 told that Dr. Nevin has had a manuscript system of Moral Philosophy, and 
 manuscript Lectures on Theology so far prepared, that with a little labor 
 they might be ready for the press. Why have these not been published 
 long ago? I contend that if the philosophy and theology of this new 
 school arowhat its unreserved disciples declare they are (and no men 
 have more unblushingly trumpeted their own praises, and more nauseatingly 
 boasted of their own superiority and vast erudition than the leaders of 
 this school have trumpeted and commended theirs), if then this self-praise, 
 however disgusting, is yet founded upon real superior merit, I contend that 
 Dr. Nevin should long ago have favored the Church and the world with a 
 full and complete deliverance of his doctrines. If the Christocentric theo- 
 logy comprehends the panacea for all the theological ills which now afflict 
 a confessionally distracted Christendom ; if it holds in its mighty grasp the 
 key which opens the gates of a theological paradise for a universal Church, 
 a Holy Catholic Church, now torn and mangled by its wretched wanderings 
 through the thorny mazes of a " geocentric " theological desert; then it is the 
 extreme of cruelty in Dr. Nevin to lock up this potent panacea in the " cham- 
 bers of his own imagery," and to keep those gates bolted against a poor, strug- 
 gling, fainting, Protestant Church (for be it noted, it is only Protestamism 
 which is commonly supposed to be in so pitiable a plight). Surely there is 
 something inexplicable or inexcusable in this Mercersburg theology as 
 headed by Dr. Nevin, claiming to be the only live theology, the only pro- 
 found theology, the only genuine orthodox theology, at least in the Protes- 
 tant Church; and yet this wonderful theology is, after all, not a theology 
 at all, but only a collection of theological essays on a few vexed questions, 
 published now here, now there, without order, without connection, and 
 sometimes with but little coherency 1 How will the great vindicators of 
 
CHRISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. 121 
 
 the system reconcile all this with the lofty and loud pretensions of their 
 system ? And how can they ask the world's acceptance of a system not 
 yet systematized — of an organic development not yet organically developed ? 
 New'ou and Kepler, after the great Italian astronomer, fully and unre- 
 servedly proclaimed their discoveries. Each published his system in full. 
 So with all truly great men, sure of their theories. Why has Dr. Nevin 
 been so reserved, or at most so negative in the communication of his creed ? 
 Is he not yet quite sure of it ? Has he not yet fully recovered his equi- 
 poise after the theological dizziness of 1850-55? With all his seeming 
 intrepidity, does he still shrink from letting the Church know his real 
 views upon all the important points involved in a true theological system? 
 But if he is, what right has he to ask that others shall implicitly follow 
 him in his Japhetic search for an ecclesiastical father or mother; and 
 aliove all, what right has he to ask a whole Church to commit herself to his 
 but partially developed and extremely unsettled Creed? 
 
 This is not the first time these questions have been asked, silently or 
 openly. There ai-e many brethren in the Church who, from a natural re- 
 gard for preceptors and their Alma Mater, have struggled even against in- 
 ward reluctance to adhere to Dr. Nevin and what seemed his theory. At 
 the same time, however, they have often been perplexed by this very 
 thing. If Mercersburg theology is what It claims to be, why does it 
 not publish its entire system ? A like question has been asked by good 
 and earnest men of other Churches, and in Europe. My own belief has 
 been, for seven years at least, — that is, ever since I saw the evidence of 
 a determination to push these extreme ritualistic measures through, — that 
 Dr. Nevin is afraid to publish his whole system ; either because he would 
 have to speak very doubtfully or ambiguously upon some important points, 
 and thus lay himself open to ecclesiastical censure — or because to do so 
 would involve him and his system in an open rupture with the Church. 
 
 Here, then, is a very grave difficuhy in the way of any thorough attempt 
 to judge of the merits of Dr. Nevin 's theology as it is said to rule and per- 
 vade the Liturgy. We have no certain means of knowing what that 
 theology is. Its author has, for reasons best known to himself, if those 
 above premised are not the correct ones, thus far refused to publish it. 
 Detached essays, or disconnected pronunciamentos issued on the field of 
 ecclesiastical controversy, — and especially when these severally do not 
 quite agree among themselves, — give but poor satisfaction. One is con- 
 stantly told that they are misunderstood, or misrepresented. And so there 
 is nothing definite and positive to lay hold of. This is remarkably the 
 case in the present instance. No one, I am sure, could tell from the theo- 
 logical pages of this "Vindication," where Dr. Nevin stands, what he holds, 
 ia regard to some of the fundamental points of our evangelical faith. For 
 
122 CHRISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. 
 
 all that we find here, Dr. Ncvin might be as much of a Papist as Bossuet, 
 or believe in purgatorial salvation as fully as Cardinal Wiseman. In vain 
 do you look for any thing distinctively evangelical Protestant. Until, 
 therefore, this system develops itself fully and consistently in all its parts, 
 it has no right to complain of misrepresentation. Men must judge of the 
 animal by the bones furnished, if the entire form is not before them. The 
 bones of this Mercersburg system indicate its affinity with a known, well- 
 known, species of ecclesiasticism. And until it proves, by a full exhibition 
 of itself, that though some parts of the structure bear such a resemblance, 
 the complete organism is a very different thing, it must endure the name 
 of the species to which it seems to be most nearly related. To call a wolf 
 a sheep does not. change its nature; neither is every turtle a dove. 
 
 Great as this difficulty is, however, it is not the only one which con- 
 fronts us, in any effort to ascertain what this wonderful theology is, which, 
 as the soul of the Revised Liturgy, makes it so admirable a work. Another 
 serious obstacle in our way is the great diversity of sentiment which is 
 found between the different expounders of this new system. Dr. Nevin 
 says this is a new thing in its essential features. Dr. Wolff blandly seeks 
 to allay any anxieties or dissatisfaction which this confession may excite, 
 and softly assures the people that it is not so new after all. When any 
 one, taking the system at its own word, condemns it as an innovation upon 
 the German Reformed Church, the editor of the Messenger, eager to seize 
 every opportunity of proving the sincerity of his recent conversion to the 
 new faith, takes up the condemnation as though it were an assavilt and 
 insult upon the German Reformed Church in her corporate capacity. 
 The Rev. Samuel Miller, of Pottsville, some years ago a minister of one 
 of the German Methodistic sects, but now a minister in the German Re- 
 formed Church, and an ardent admirer of Dr. Nevin's system, is prompted 
 by his zeal in the cause to write a book on "JMercersburg and Modern The- 
 ology Compared." This was naturally supposed to be a reliable exposition 
 of the sys'em. and somewhat authoritative. But just when we are con- 
 gratulating ourselves on having at last gotten hold of something tangible, 
 the Mercershurg liev-'ew, (revived,) edited by Dr. Harbaugh, frankly tells 
 us that this affair of Mr. Miller's is not to be taken at all as a fair expo- 
 nent of Mercersburgism. This is perplexing indeed. For Calvinism we 
 have Calvin, and for Arminianism we have Arminius. But how si, all 
 we ascertain certainly and beyond a doubt what this Mercersburg theology 
 is? 
 
 And yet this half developed system — this theology which is, and yet 
 again seems not to be— which, like some illegitimate birth, has half a do- 
 zen fathers, all claiming to be one and the same, and yet, in some cases, 
 denying each other's true paternity, — this wonderful prodigy of these last 
 
CHRISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. 123 
 
 days, which Mr. Miller of Pottsville attempts, as by authority, carefully to 
 delineate, and whose delineation the Editor of the Messeng'r endorses, 
 whilst the Editor of the Revv-w, and, I think, one of the special contribu- 
 tors to the Messenger, delicately disown it, — this organism, a few only of 
 whose bones and ligaments have been exhibited to view, and a little only 
 of whose life has been revealed, and that little mostly of a terribly nega- 
 tive and rfe-structive character, — this piecemeal thing comes up intre- 
 pidly and asks a Church to adopt it soul and body, with all its known 
 and unknown truths or errois, with all its obvious and hidden conse- 
 quences! This system, confessing itself an innovation, and not denying 
 that its adoption will be the abrogation of the legitimate confessional cha- 
 racter of the Church, has the oflFrontery to demand ecclesiastical sanction 
 and endorsement! And because the plea is presented and ur^'cd by the 
 leader or leaders of a school, because Dr. Nevin favors and defends it, 
 many seem ready to yield unquestioningly to the demand. 
 
 Under these circumstances the difficulty of ascertaining the true cha- 
 racter of the but partially developed theology must be m.ct, and we must 
 make the best of such detached and disconnected revelations of its pro- 
 found mysteries as have thus far been made. Following the plan of the 
 "Vindication," so far as it may be suitable to our purpose, we shall pay 
 attention first to what the author calls the general scheme of the theology 
 of the new " Order," and then to the doctrinal specialties of the book. 
 
 Of the " general scheine" we cannot allow ourselves in this place to 
 take quite as " broad " a " view " as Dr. Nevin proposes to himself And 
 this for three reasons: (1 ) We are not latitudinarians, either by taste or 
 education. ^Without a blush, we confess ourselves to be so Churchly, and 
 so much under the control of the "objective," that we find no pleasure in 
 any theological or speculative view ieyond the limits of the evangelical 
 tradition'- of our fathers, that is, therefore, of the Word of God itself, from 
 which they learned their faith. (2.) In the nest place, we will not a'low 
 ourselves to be diverted from the consideration of the specially obnoxious 
 doctrines of the ne^r '■ Order." (3.) Finally, it will require but little 
 space t) show that in those general points in which the new theology dif- 
 fers from the evangelical faith of our Church, it is either of very doubtful 
 value, or wholly unworthy of credence. 
 
 1. It will not fail to arrest the notice of the critical reader of the " Vin- 
 dication," that the author quietly and speciously assumes some doctrines 
 as peculiar to his system, which quite as rea ly belong to every system of 
 evangelical theology. This is done evidently for the purpose of deceivng 
 and misleading those to whom he appeals. For it is simply impossible 
 that, with all his extreme prejudices against evangelical Protestant theo'o- 
 gians (and I do not believe that there is one whom he can endure), and 
 
124 CHRISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. 
 
 Lis aversion to tlic commonly clierished faitli of evangelical Christians, he 
 should really believe that they deny the Lord JesUs Christ, as he openly 
 or impliedly charges them with denying Him. But if the iufatuated au- 
 thor hoped ti.) succeed by any such artifice, he presumed far too much 
 upon the ignorance of our people. They are, indeed, for the most part, a 
 single minded, unsophisticated people. Confiding, deferential to men in 
 high positions, they may for a time be imposed upon. Those whom they 
 trust as teachers may mislead them and cause them to err. But they are 
 not ignorant. Neither are they indifferent to the interests of truth and 
 the Church. And in this case, as in similar attempts made in other forms 
 by servile imitators of their professor, it will be of little avail to repre- 
 sent all- who do not endorse Dr. Nevia's notions, as anti-Christian he- 
 retics. 
 
 It is, then, no peculiarity of Nevinistic theology, that Goil in Christ is 
 its centre, and that all Christian doctrines find their root in Him — in His 
 person and in His life; and to claim it as such is simply a gross defama- 
 tion of the entire theology of the Evangelical Church. And if the calumny 
 came from a more creditable and authoritative source, it mi"ht deserve 
 some extended refutation. As it is, nobody believes it, excepting those 
 under the spell of the master's delusion, and it is harmless. Only as be- 
 traying the insolent anathematizing spirit of the fal.'^e accuser of his bre- 
 thren, is it calculated to excite our deep indignation. Dr. Nevin should 
 know that Christ our Lord, incarnate for the salvation of men, was 6rmly 
 held and faithfully taught in the German Reformed Church (other 
 branches of our common evangelical Protestantism may, and can, defend 
 themselves) long before his name was known in her bordep. No one, 
 therefore, will be likely to be deceived by the unfair but artful massing of 
 all who reject his anti-Reformed and false conceits, with Ebionites, Gnos- 
 tics, Socinians, Anabaptists, and metaphysical Calvinists.* There would 
 be more reasons for charging his theory with the denial of the first article 
 of the Creed, the doctrine of God the Father, than he can fairly give for 
 accusing his opponents with a denial of the centrality of the doctrine con- 
 cerning God in Christ. And it is noteworthy that whilst Dr. Nevin makes 
 these bold assertions, he does not in a single case attempt to prove them. 
 Here, again, he expects his mere domineering declaration to be accepted 
 without a challenge. Why did he not furnish at least one illustration in 
 proof of the accusation? The reason is obvious. He could not. When 
 
 * It may be noted here, as well as any where else, that so far as Calvin suits Dr. Nevin, 
 or seems to suit him, he can boldly cite him as authority for the new doctrine. But true, 
 legitimate Calvinism, the spirit of which pervades the Heidelberg Catechism as expounded 
 by Ursinus, Dr. Nevin most cordially hates. I may add that Calvinism is the antipode 
 of Puscyism and Popery. 
 
CHRISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. 125 
 
 those who differ from this new theology charge it with error, they support 
 their charge by evidence derived from the writings of its vindicators. Dr. 
 Nevin must do the same before he can convict the objects of his bitter 
 animosity of the false doctrines he says they hold. 
 
 Much, therefore, of all he so vauntingly sets forth on many of the pages 
 of this part of his tract, as though the credit of giving prominence to those 
 Christological truths in these last days, were due to him, really amounts 
 to nothing for his vindication. Our Church believed in all that is not 
 strictly peculiar to his system, including the "objective and historical" in 
 the Christocentric scheme, and even including the Creed long before Dr. 
 Nevin was born, and before he favored the Church by subscribing to the 
 Professor's oath contained in Art. 19 of our Church Constitution. The 
 author of the "Vindication," therefore, has simply made his effort ridicu- 
 lous by assuming the contrary, and indulging in such sweeping charges of 
 gross heresy against each one in particular, and all in general, who refuse 
 to bow to his Christocentric dogma. 
 
 He occupies his imaginary heliocentric position, like some theological 
 autocrat, and dictates doctrines or anathemas to all the world. It is not 
 simply the author of the " Criticism on the Revised Liturgy," nor the 
 "clique" around hkii ; not simply the 'f Professors at TitRn " (all of them 
 his former pupils), the victims of "ultra-montane jealoufy" (sic), and the 
 despised "Cyphers" from North Carolina, that become obnoxious to his 
 censure He pronounces sentence against the entire Protestant world, at 
 least in America, and regards all as lying in the bondage and night of 
 error, who do not view things as he views them, or accept of hU particular 
 Creed. '^ Whoever refuses to come and stand where I stand," he seems 
 • to cry, "in this only true central position, must see things in a false light, 
 and be involved ' in boundless error and confusion.'" 
 
 What "boundless" self-complacency! Shall it be most derided or con- 
 demiaed. And all this assumption, too, in one who quite forgot some most 
 important points in the very "novel" astronomical illustration on p. 56. 
 One is, that our sun is not the centre of the physical universe, and so Dr. 
 Nevin's conception of the Person of Christ, and the purpose of the incar- 
 nation, may be false. Another is, the practical difficulty for an inhabitant 
 of earth o^ securing a position in the sun. But a third, and the most fatal 
 defect of the illustration is, that while it professes to place an observer in 
 the best position for contemplating things, it fails to provide for his vision. 
 A blind man would see nothing, though he stood in the sun; and a man 
 with eyes would not see things aright from the most favorable position, 9/ 
 he looked at them through a telescope with cracked, crooked, or colored 
 lenses. Dr. Nevin flatters himself that he at least, and those standing at 
 his side, are in the only right position. That is exceedingly doubtful.' 
 
126 CnRISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. 
 
 But that he and they are viewing them throuiih distorting media, is too 
 painfully certain. Let them look after their glass, as well as their posi- 
 tion. Now, they think they see, and that they see aright. But so did 
 some whom the true Son of Righteousness pronounced self-deceived and 
 blind, notwithstanding their pretensions to clearer religious vision than 
 their despised neighbors enjoyed. (See John ix. 39-41). 
 
 2. Correctly to ascertain the cliaracferistic peculiarities of tliis self-styled 
 Christocentric theology, those doctrines and sentiments which are common 
 to genuine evangelical theology, must be deducted from the description of 
 it given by its discoverer. Thus we must take from it the Christological 
 features, in the proper sense of that term. It must be stripped of much 
 of its arrogant usurpation of the Greedy as its own exclusive property. Its 
 boastful assumption of being entitled to the sole credit of ascribing super- 
 natural efficacy to the means of grace, the Word, the Sacraments, Prayer, 
 must be considerably softened. 
 
 True churcaliness, or faith in the Church as a truly Divine institution, 
 or even an organism, a body, "the body of Christ," in the true Apostolic 
 sense, the sense always held by the lioJy and legitimate Catholic Church 
 heresy, must be deducted from the Christocentric scheme, as something 
 peculiir to it. And so of all other articles of evangelical faith, which 
 Dr. Nevin, iu his vague, ''broad" way of writing, seems to claim as be- 
 longing to his theology in an exclusive sense. But after all these deduc- 
 tions, what is left? Enough, alas, to furnish occasion for regret and 
 alarm. Enough, also, to warn the Church against adopting a cultus 
 which is now openly declared to be built on this false basis, and to be per- 
 vaded by the spirit of these novelties. 
 
 For the charge that our prevalent evangelical theology, and especially • 
 that of the Reformed Church, is heretical upon the doctrinal points above- 
 named, proceeds wholly from the fact that in Dr. Nevin's scheme those 
 doctrines are invested with a peculiar phase, stand under certain signifi- 
 cant modifications. These phases or modifications constitute their party 
 distinction. How far they involve serious departures from the acknow- 
 ledged and stanJard faith of the R<formed Church, is the only point 
 which concerns us now. Their abstract merits or faults, do not concern 
 us in this tract. And if the author of the " Vindication" has for a moment 
 supposed that he could mislead or confuse us by his "broad" sweep amidst 
 seemingly vast, profound, or lofty theological speculations, so that in this 
 way the real issue might be lost sight of, he was wholly mistaken. What- 
 ever interest the opponents of his ritualistic and dogmatical innovations mny 
 find in ajrial or subterranean excursions of this kind, or whatever aversion 
 they may feel to the bold adventures of speculative curiosity into fields not 
 open by Divine revelation, they remember that the important question now 
 
CHRISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. 127 
 
 demanding adjustment, is, ■whether the doctrinal basis and distinctive 
 doctrinal features of the Revised Liturgy are in accordance with evange. 
 lical Keformed standards of faith, or are contrary to them. We believe 
 that what Dr. Nevin, speaking for his associates, declares to be the doc- 
 trinal basis of the new "Oi'der," as well as the peculiar phase of the spe- 
 cial doctrine named, can easily be shown to be in direct conflict with the 
 acknowledged historical faith of our Church. To prove this will require 
 no lengthened or labored argument. 
 
 Followi.:g Dr. Nevin's own order, the theology of the Revised Liturgy 
 may be considered 1. As to its Christocentric character ; 2. As to its re- 
 lation to the Creed; and 3. In regard to its objective and historical -^xetQn- 
 sions. 
 
 First of alJ, then, what is this strange theory for which the author 
 could i3nd no suitable name in our extensive theological vocabulary, and 
 which is presented to us under the somewhat mysterious and yet assump- 
 tive tide of Christocentric? Its distinctive peculiarity may be discovered 
 in the almost exclusive prominence which it gives to the incarnation of 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, and "the mysterious constitution of His blessed 
 Person." As the careful author of the " Vindication " throws out his 
 views iu the form of questions, rather than in any direct statements, we 
 cannot quote his sentiments in a positive form. But taking the sum of these 
 questions and geueral hints, there is no difficulty, with due care, in getting 
 at the doctrine. It is, that the great purpose of the incarnation of the Son 
 of Grod, was to furnish a substantial basis of a new organic oider of life; 
 so that our human nature, which is corrupt and depraved by virtue of its 
 relation to the first Adam, may have a vivifying portion of the real personal 
 life of Christ infused into it, and thus be regoneratec!, justified and saved. 
 Hence the Lord Jesus Christ becomes as actual historical a basis of this 
 literally infused divine human life, as Adam was the basis of the first or 
 Adamic life of man. In the doctrine concerning the person and work of 
 Christ, the chief thing, the only really essential factor, is His incarnation 
 and the mysterious constitution of His person. All else pertaining to 
 Him, — His humiliation, passion, death, burial, is but incidental and ac- 
 cessory. By virtue of this "mysterious constitution of His person," — oiot 
 hy virtue of His atoning passion and death, He penetrates the Church 
 with His own real,, substantial personal life, so that it is but the continual 
 repioduction and perpetual remanifestation of His incarnation; and this, 
 it must be remembered, not in a dynamic spiritual way, but in a manner, 
 which, while it is claimed to be supernatural, really lies wiihin the sphere 
 of the natural as much as any other operation of nature. Fur accoiding 
 to the Chri;?tocentric theory this real, substantial personal life of Christ, 
 of the actual literal substance of His glorified nature, is as reallt/ trans- 
 
128 CHEISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. 
 
 mitted through Baptism, consequently by the physical, or at most, psy- 
 chico-physical act of the minister (for the theory denies that the absence 
 of intention on the part of the minister would render the sacrament void), 
 as the natural seed of human life is transmitted in human generation. 
 Hence the life of the individual Christian, as of the whole body of Chris- 
 tians, or the Church, is in the only proper sense, according to this theory, 
 a process and result of supernatural generation affected by such diffusion 
 or conveyance of a portion of the actual, literal substance of the glorified 
 humanity of the Lord .Jesus Christ through a sacrament administered by 
 a human agent as a medium of such convejanoe. 
 
 Now, as said above, we have nothing to do in this place with the philo- 
 sophical as well as theological absurdities which seem to us to be mani- 
 festly involved in ibis speculation. It claims, indeed, to rest upon a pro- 
 found system of theologiqal psychology of which Calvin and the other 
 Keformers were unhappily ignorant. How utterly groundless all such 
 claims are, may be fully shown some other time, and in some other form.* 
 Meanwhile it will suffice to say, that as Dr. Nevin makes no appeal to any 
 Protestant evangelical authorities in support of his theory, it is unneces- 
 sary to prove that none such could be found, unless, indeed, R. Wilber- 
 force and his peculiar school should be claimed. (Those who have oppor- 
 tunity and leisure may refer to Haf/enbach, Hist, of Doctrines I, 202-3; 
 380-81; II, 279-80, 454. Ubrard, K. u. Dogm.-Gesch. I. 99-115; 
 203-320; II. 241 &c.; III. 224 &c. The value of the author's appeal to 
 the Apostle's Creed will be noticed below. 
 
 But contrast with this Christocentricity the true Scriptural Christology 
 of the Heidelberg Catechism. Ask the Church as testifying through it, 
 what is the chief doctrine concerning the Person and Work of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ ? • Ask her why He became incarnate ; why God was thus 
 manifested in the flesh? And at once you are told that the incatnation 
 was in order to something else; that the mysterious theanthropic constitu- 
 tion of His wonderful Person, had reference not to any such speculative 
 psychological scheme as is assumed in the Christocentric theory of Dr. 
 Nevin and his Liturgy, but to quite another necessity. What this is, is 
 affirmed in the answers to the 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th 
 questions. Let us take but the 16th and 17th: — 
 
 "Why must He be very man, and also perfectly righteous ? Because the 
 
 » Hardly, however, in the Mereersburtj Review. For I should have stated before, that 
 a request made for the privilege of inserting the Liturgical and Theological portions of 
 this reply to Dr. N. was first refused on the ground that the 7?ei';cio "could not be allowed 
 to fight itself;" then partly granted, but under editorial conditions, to which no gentle- 
 man could submit. But yet Dr. N. was allowed to traduce Brethren in the part of his 
 " Vind." published in the Review. So much for Mercersburg Theology Liberty. 
 
CHRISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. 129 
 
 Justice of God recpiires that the same human nature which hath sinned, 
 should likewise make satisfaction for sin: and one who is himself a sinner 
 cannot satisfy for others." 
 
 " Why must He in one person be also very God ? That He might by 
 the power of His Godhead sustain in His human nature the hurden of 
 God's xoralli^ and might obtain for and restore unto us righteousness and 
 . life." 
 
 How " materially and essentially" different this representation of the pur- 
 pose of the incarnation, of the necessity of it, of the end to be accomplished by 
 it, from that of the Christocentric theory ! So different indeed that the 
 two conceptions are irreconcilable, not only formally but materially; not 
 only in their explicit doctrines, but in what they necessarily involve. It is 
 hardly possible, if indeed at all possible, to conceive of a point of harmony 
 between the two. If human nature is redeemed and saved from its fallen 
 and lost condition, not by the atonement of Christ, but by the incarnation 
 of Christ. — if the former was simply an accessory consequence of the latter, 
 merely necessary in some mysterious way to render it perfect and com- 
 plete (and Dr. N's. disciples are prone to appeal to such misapprehended 
 passages as Heb. ii. 10 : " Make the Captain of salvation -perfect through 
 suffering") then men are declared by the Christocentric theory to be 
 saved, humanity to be delivered from the curse and power of depravity, 
 and to be restored to adoption in the family of God, in a very different 
 way from that taught in our standard, and proven true by the Word of 
 God. For according to the evangelical doctrine, the Son of God assumed our 
 human nature (sin excepted) that by union with it He might 1, enable 
 it to endure the penalty of sin, and 2, give infinite, divine value to the 
 • penalty thus endured. But Dr. Nevin has discovered, or revived, and 
 proclaims a very different doctrine. And now he asks that the German 
 Reformed Church, by adopting his new Liturgy, shall substitute this new, 
 and at the very best speculative and doubtful notion, for her old Scriptural 
 doctrine concerning the true purpose and end of the incarnation ! Will she 
 do it? Will she permit herself to be shaken in her old Apostolic faith, 
 by the hand of one who has thus ventured, under the "irresistible force" 
 of a new idea in doctrine, as he was under the power of a similar fatality 
 in regard to cultus, to disturb the "faith once delivered to the saints?" 
 Mark, as before so I say now, that I do not hold Dr. Nevin responsible 
 for doing this under the conviction that it is not true Scriptural doctrine 
 which he seeks to inculcate and scatter abroad. But his thinking it truth 
 does not make it cease to be error; and his holding the commonly received 
 doctrine for error does not make it cease to be truth. I believe that the 
 doctrine of our Catechism and Church is "the truth as it is in Jesus," and 
 that Dr. Nevin has allowed himself to be betrayed by his own venturous 
 9 
 
130 CHRISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. 
 
 speculations, and especially by his unhappily cherished dislike of evangeli- 
 cal Protestant theology, into a very pernicious, though possibly not fatal 
 error. This error, it is gratifying to know, is not shared by all who are 
 supposed to agree with ultra Mercersburg theology. Thus in the "Cate- 
 chism for Sunday-schools, &c., by Dr. Schaff/' in answer to the question, 
 (p. 177) "Why did the eternal Son of God take up our human nature 
 into fellowship with His divine person?" we are told: "In order that He 
 might live, suffer, die, and rise again for us, and thus accomplish in our 
 nature the redemption of man." 
 
 To prove that this has ever been the doctrine of the Reformed Church, 
 by citations from theologians of acknowledged authority, would require us 
 to copy scores of pages from the writings of the early fathers of our 
 Church, as well as from numerous historians of the Reformation. But as 
 Dr. Neviu does not at all pretend that he is teaching Reformed doctrine 
 on this point, evidence in refutation of his views from Reformed authori- 
 ties would be superfluous. 
 
 In the second place, then, the claim which this Cliristocentric theory 
 lays to Jjeivg foxinded on the '■'■Apostles' Creed" demands consideration. 
 Were one utterly unacquainted with the Christian Church, to read the 
 " Vindication," or to hear Dr. Kevin's School speak as it does about the 
 " Creed," he would certainly be led to believe that it was some precious 
 treasure hidden or despised for ages, now first brought to light again and 
 raised to its true position of honor and esteem in the Church. To those 
 who know the facts in the case, all this blustering talk must seem not only 
 ridiculous, but false. If thousands of us had not been taught the Creed 
 in our childhood — if we had not heard it repeated time and again in our 
 Church — if we had not known it to be taught faithfully and earnestly by 
 hundreds of pastors in our Church, whom Dr. Nevin can unhesitatingly 
 traduce, but whose hard labors he has never laid hold of, — we might possibly 
 be deceived by such sweeping assertions as he makes. So far as these 
 assertions are grossly detractive of other Churches, as the Lutheran and 
 Episcopal, I leave them to answer for themselves. 
 
 But where so much is professedly made of the Creed, we naturally and 
 justly expect that it will not be arbitrarily interpreted, according to pri- 
 vate judgment or the fancies of some favorite theory. How great our 
 disappointment, therefore, to find that instead of going to the Creed for a 
 faith, this Christocentric theology goes to it icith a faith. For nothing is 
 more painfully manifest in all the appeals made to the Creed by Dr. Neviu 
 and his School, that their partiality to it is mainly to be attributed to the 
 fact that its articles are sufficiently general to allow of such a construction 
 as any speculative theologian may put upon them. In this case a theory 
 of Christianity and the Church is adopted — adopted on what are claimed 
 
CHRISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. 131 
 
 to be profound philosophical grounds. This theory seeks in vain for justi- 
 fication in the current evangelical faith or theology ; still less in the Scrip- 
 tures. But there is the Creed! Is it not a remarkable coincidence, that 
 its articles indicate that very system of organic development which Dr. 
 Nevin and his School adopt ? See the beautiful generic development ! 
 First Christ (so Dr. Nevin says — and I am not responsible for his asser- 
 tions) j then the Holy Spirit; then the Church, the continuous incarna- 
 tion, &c. True, the Heidelberg Catechism, whilst greatly to be honored 
 for honoring the Creed (though it does not take it alone, as Dr. Nevin 
 says), gives no intimation of any such organic structure. But then the 
 authors of the Catechism had not sat at Dr. Nevin's feet ! And are we 
 to interpret the Creed according to the Catechism, or not rather the Cate- 
 cJiism accordinrj to the Creed ? Do we not read such nonsense in Dr. Ne- 
 vin's "Vindication" — and did he not give utterance to it at Dayton ? And 
 have not some incautious disciples, too heedlessly following their vaulting 
 teacher, run into the same ditch ? 
 
 Let me say to Dr. Nevin, that, simple-minded as we native German Re- 
 formed people are, we are not so dull as to be deceived by such gossamer 
 sophistry as this. "We understand very well that the choice he presents 
 layS; not as he ivoidd put it, between the Creed of the ancient Church, or no 
 Greed, hut between Dr. Nevin^s Apostles' Creed, or that Si/mbol as our 
 fathers understood it, in all^essential points. This is the true tssue, and no 
 confusion which the author of the " Vindication " attempts to produce, 
 shall hide it from our view. 
 
 According to thfe system, then, the Creed, not as interpreted by the 
 Evangelical Church, nor even as it may be Scripturally explained, but the 
 Creed as it is to be explained according to itself, or its own inner structure 
 must be our rule of faith, and is the ruling spirit of the new '^ Order." 
 And yet this Creed did not complete this organic structure until more 
 thany?ye hunched years after Christ and His Apostles. Note the following 
 significant facts in regard to the several Articles : 
 
 Art. I. The_ phrase ^^ maker of heaven and earth," was introduced no- 
 body knows when, but as far as is known, not before the seventh or eighth 
 century. 
 
 Art III. "What was conceived by the Holy Grhost, born of the Virgin 
 Mary?-" This did not receive its present form until after the Council of 
 Constantinople, A. D. 381. 
 
 Art. IV. Underwent great changes in the course of ages, and especially 
 by the very late addition of the clause : "i/e descended into hell." Pear- 
 son, to whose work on the Creed we are chiefly indebted for all these facts, 
 says of this part of Art. IV.: "It is certain, therefore, that the Article of 
 the descent into hell, was not in the Roman or any of the Oriental Creeds." 
 
132 CHRISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. 
 
 The earliest date to which its use can be traced, is about four hundred 
 years after Christ, and then in but a single Church, and not with any ge- 
 neral acknowledgment. 
 
 Art. VI. This Article at first read : " He ascended into heaven and sit- 
 teth at the right hand of the Father." It did not, probably, receive its 
 present form until some time during the 5th century or later. 
 
 Art. IX. This Article, so important to the Christocentric theory, both 
 as to its form and position, has been unsettled in both respects. As to its 
 form, it received much addition in the course of time, the latter part, 
 "■ Communion of Saints," being icholly added, and the former part being 
 augmented. For the article originally stood simply: "/ helieve the holy 
 Church" the word '•'• Catliolic" not having been added until the foufthor 
 fifth Century. 
 
 But what is still more noteworthy, the Article instead of holding its 
 present place, immediately after those concerning Jesus Christ and that of 
 the Holy Ghost was often placed last in the Creed. 
 
 Into what confusion this fact throws the theory of Dr. Nevin and his 
 too docile disciples ! How suddenly a house, however captivating in its 
 outward splendor, but built on sandy assumptions^ may be swept away by 
 the flood of a few simple, undeniable facts. 
 
 Of the other clause in this Article, Pearson says: '•'•It heareth a some- 
 thing later date than any of the rest." It was " not in the Oriental or 
 Roman Creed, nor in the African Creed expounded by St. Augustine," 
 and so Pearson goes on enumerating where it was not to be found, until 
 we are lost amidst the deepening gloom of successive centuries. 
 
 Art. X. Concerning the "forgiveness of sins," appears to have been 
 always contained in the Creed, but as is implied in what was said above, 
 it often preceded the Article concerning the Church, and was not fixed 
 relatively in its •present place .^until after the full development of ecclesiastical 
 hierarchy and sacerdotalism and ritualism. 
 
 Such is the foundation upon which the Christocentric ritualism is based ! 
 Not the Creed, remember; our Church has always held to the Creed; but 
 that Greed interpreted rigorously^ not by the light of the unchangeable 
 "Word of God, which abideth forever," but by the law of its own inner 
 organism. What organism ? That which it acquired or developed during 
 the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth hundred years after the time of Christ 
 and His Apostles ! And yet this same Dr. Nevin told us a few years ago 
 that the roots of all the abominations of Rome could be traced to the ear- 
 ■liest of these centuries'! 
 
 i 
 
 Fortunately for the cause of evangelical truth, this 4th and 5th century 
 creed theory is not even specious enough to deceive the considerate mind. 
 It is too obvious to escape detection, that Dr. Nevin, quite unconsciously, 
 
CHRISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. 133 
 
 no doubt, is laboring under the delusion of his own fancy. Bewitched by 
 his own seemingly profound philosophical scheme of faith, he has snatched 
 at some imaginary analogy to it, or confirmation of it in the structure of 
 the Creed. And the system seems so infatuated with its own conceit, that 
 it really thinks it can carry a Church which for three centuries has held 
 another faith, with it, though that faith rests " not in the wisdom of man, 
 but in the power of God." 
 
 Here then we have a system whose advocates have been most loud in 
 crying down private judgment, based in fact upon the exercise of private 
 judgment in the most arbitrary way. A whole Church says — the Creed 
 must be interpreted according to the analogy of faith in the Word of God. 
 Dr. Nevin says: away with your stupid nonsense. Will you allow a 
 modern Confessionalism to rule out the sense of the older Confessionalism? 
 etc. (Vind. p. 75, etc.). Does the author of this sophistry suppose we are 
 all silly children or fools, to be misled by such a begging of the ques- 
 tion ? 
 
 The point is not — shall the Confessionalism of the 5th Century be 
 ruled by that of the 16th? And I cannot but think that he knows it is 
 not. The point is, shall we be ruled by an arbitrary sense of the 5th 
 Century Creed, put into it by Dr. Nevin, or shall ice be ruled hy the Holy 
 Scriptures? Our fathers said: By the Scriptures. Shall Dr. Nevin be 
 allowed to persuade their sons to deny their faith ? The controversy is not 
 between us who are opposing these encroachments, and those who ax'e 
 making them, but between these, as lead off by Dr. Nevin and the Ger- 
 man Reformed Church. He sets up his own private sense of the Creed as 
 its only true sense; he says it must be its sense, and denounces as Monta- 
 nists, Gnostics, Muzzletonians, all who dare to differ from him. This sense, 
 however, is wholly different from that which it bears in our Church stand- 
 ard, and which that standard supports by the Word of God. Thus the 
 conflict by Dr. Nevin's own concession, is between him and the Church. 
 We stand by the faith of the Church. Dr. Nevin thinks us very self- 
 willed, very stubborn, — compares us (in imitation of his pupil, putting 
 the cart before the horse, or whatever the proverb is) to the lonely but 
 headstrong juryman, etc. We confess the crime, if crime it be. Dr. Nevin 
 may remember it was said to his face in York, that he and his whole Mer- 
 cersburg system were less than nothing to us (I speak for my brethren as 
 well as myself) in comparison with our Church. And when the arrogance 
 of this pretentious thing is duly considered, one may well indignantly ask, 
 who is Dr. Nevin, or what is his theory, that he should dare to ask a 
 Church like ours to modify her faith in accordance with his views ? 
 
 He says, "twenty-five years ago the Creed had become almost a dead 
 letter in our Reformed Zion." Never was an author more egregiously 
 
134 CHRISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. 
 
 mistaken in his supposed facts. But this error may be committed like some 
 others, because Mercersburg is regarded as the Church. And yet he flat- 
 ters himself beyond all measure of truth, if he for a moment imagines that 
 he is the father of the Creed in "our" Reformed Zion. He must think 
 that we native members of the Reformed Church, whose fathers and an- 
 cestors found their spiritual home in her fold, are callous indeed, if he 
 supposes that we can listen in quiet patience to such reproaches upon her 
 earlier ministry and membership. Twenty-five years ago ! That was in 
 1842; and that would be just a year or two after Dr. Nevin became a 
 member and Professor in the Church ! Ask the old men in the Church 
 of which they heard first and oftenest — Dr. Nevin or the Creed. 
 
 It is plain enough then, what all this ado about the Creed means. Our 
 Church is a Church of the Creed — has always been so in a true Gospel 
 sense. But Dr. Nevin would take advantage of this attachment to an an- 
 cient and venerable symbol of the Church, and use it as a means of intro- 
 ducing a new and strange doctrine among us. Mark the logic! 1. Bring 
 private judgment into full implicit obedience to the Church. 2. Make the 
 existing doctrines of the Church bend to the organic significance of the 
 Creed. 3. Determine that significance by the genius and spirit of the 
 fifth century. 4. Let Dr. Nevin say what that spirit and genius are. 
 With such a scheme no wonder that Dr. Nevin is greatly off'ended at a 
 habit many persons have, as he sai/s, of "following their own nose." He 
 would thibk it far more decorous in them to follow his. 
 
 But following neither his nor ours, we prefer the experienced guidance 
 of our Church, and her tried and true teachers, until their doctrines are 
 proven erroneous, by far better evidence than is furnished by any arbi- 
 trary, unnatural, unphilosophical, and above all, unscriptural interpretation 
 of the Apostle's Creed. 
 
 As a third characteristic of the theology which underlies the new " Or- 
 der," we are told that it is ^'objective and historical." These qualities are 
 assumed to be peculiarly distinctive of Dr. Nevin's system. It is very 
 easy, as we have often seen, for the advocates of the innovations to arro- 
 gate things which do not properly belong to them, and then press their 
 claims to consideration by derogating from others in a most fraudulent way. 
 I claim that our genuine Reformed Theology is truly objective and histori- 
 cal, and that those characteristics of the innovating system which are called 
 objective and historical, are really but mechanical, material, or magical. 
 
 It will not be necessary to repeat here what was said a few pages back 
 on the relation of the objective and subjective. Let it be remembered 
 that we hold, and have ever held, in accordance with the teaching of our 
 Church as that harmonizes with the Word of God, that the means of 
 grace have supernatural virtue and come to men invested with true objec- 
 
CHRISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. 135 
 
 tlve power. We also hold that these means have served to maintaia the 
 true historical and spiritual organic continuity of the Church from age to 
 age, and will do so to the end of time. 
 
 But what is the nature of this objective and historical character? And 
 how is this real historical organic process maintained? Here it is that 
 Dr. Nevin departs from the faith of evangelical Protestantism; and here, 
 therefore, it is that we part from him. 
 
 Taking all he says, and all that has at different times been said by others 
 of his mind, together, the '' objective and historical" in this new (I mean 
 of course new for the Reformed Church) system amounts to this: Christi- 
 anity, or the Church, starting substantially, one might almost say materially, 
 in the incarnation, is carried forward, developed, applied for the salvation 
 of men, not by preaching to them the Gospel, not by their being thus cen- 
 vinced and converted, or led to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, but by having a vitalizing portion of the glorified humanity of 
 Christ (Christ incarnate glorified) transmitted to them. This is done in 
 the first place through Baptism, which, they say has been " ordained for 
 the communication of such great grace." The life thus begotten, by an 
 actual implanting in the soul of a literal portion of the glorified humanity 
 of the Lord, is nourished, "objectively," is kept up and carried on "his- 
 torically" by the conveyance of the literal life-force, an actua! portion of 
 the same glorified humanity to the soul in which it already exists, through 
 the Lord's Supper. In natural human life, it is argued, the process is 
 thus "objective," that is independent of any conscious personal co-opera- 
 tion of the subject. Thus the life of the first Adam is propagated 
 "objectively," by an objective force, power, energy, in the constitution of 
 the race, which operates through instruments indeed, (parents) but yet is a 
 law, a potency above those instruments. This is claimed as an analogy of 
 what holds in the supernatural sphere, in the process of the kingdom of 
 grace. And it is by being thus objectively carried forward that it can 
 become a historical or organic development. 
 
 Now we do not deny at all, but readily admit, that things in earth are 
 made after heavenly patterns. But as the heavens are higher than the 
 earth, so are heavenly things far exalted in their mode of existence and 
 operation above all terrestrial copies or symbols. And Dr. Nevin errs 
 egregiously not merely in assuming that his theory of the matter is the 
 only correct one, but still more, we think, in adopting a theory which is 
 so gross, carnal, material in its idea and constituents. Are then the "ob- 
 jective" powers of the kingdom of heaven bound down to such material 
 instrumentalities as these? Is the Church produced, perpetuated from age 
 to age by such communication through the Sacraments of the literal, sub- 
 stantial humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ? Is the life of the Lord Jesus 
 
136 CHRISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. 
 
 Christ in the soul only a blind force, an unconscious energy operating on 
 the mind and heart of the subject, in a manner precisely analogous to that 
 in which the law of our physical life works physically without any consen- 
 tient co-operation or consciousness of the moral subjects in whom it is 
 lodged ? And is this life nourished and sustained by continually repeated 
 communications in the same form and of the same kind; just as physical 
 life is sustained by a process of unconscious inhalation and exhalation, re- 
 spiration and absorption, digestion and circulation? The theory we are 
 combatting lays claim, it is true, to being very profound, and philosophi- 
 cal. Indeed I am persuaded that it is so warmly embraced by its disci- 
 ples, not because it comes with any true Church authority, for their arbi- 
 trary dealings with the Creed have been exposed, but because it seems to 
 them so deep and so novel, or else because it seems to justify other peculi- 
 arities of their scheme. But is it really profound ? Does -it not rather 
 seem, in the view in which it has now been presented, to be dark indeed, 
 but nat deep; to be speculative, but not sustained by the only source of 
 true knowledge in regard to divine things. 
 
 And it is to be noted here, again, that no appeal is made either to the 
 Holy Scriptures, or to any evangelical Confession, in proof of this phase 
 of the objective and historical. Dr. Nevin finds it more convenient to 
 fall back on his Creed — that is, on the Apostles' Creed, as he sai/s it must 
 be interpreted. Of course, it is easy for him to prove any thing, in this 
 way, to his own mind. Others, however, may not be so easily con- 
 vinced. 
 
 How strong the contrast in this case, also, between what Dr. Nevin pro- 
 nounces the true import of the '^objective and the historical," and the 
 conception of these two factors or qualities of true theology or Christianity 
 in the doctrinal standard of our Church ! Here we have both, but in a 
 really higher and deeper, because more Scriptural, manner. Here, too, we 
 have the Church begotten and perpetuated by the communication of the 
 life of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is our life; but this in a vastly higher, 
 deeper, and more spiritual sense and form. It is not a power transmitted 
 to the believer and working in him like a nixus, an infetinct, wholly apart 
 from his own consciousness and co-operation. The kingdom of grace is 
 designed for moral, intelligent beings, and all its means and provisions, 
 are strictly adapted to such: they are moral, rational means as really as 
 supernatural. Dr. Nevin errs when he says that in its application the 
 Divine act goes before the Divine Word. It was not so with the first 
 great promise — with the entire history of the Incarnation, unless a forced 
 figurative sense is put upon it. It is not so in any normal case of salvation 
 recorded in the Scriptures. The Word is ever first, and then actual sal- 
 vation. " Zaccheus, come down" precedes the "salvation in his house." 
 
CHRISTOCENTRIC THEOLOGY. 137 
 
 Peter preaches before the three thousand are brought to repentance and faith 
 in Christ. The "Word is the seed" of regeneration, i. e., Christ Jesus 
 received in a spiritual way through a spiritual moral medium. The 
 "Word" is made the "life" of Christ to the soul apprehending Him 
 through it. The "Word" is ''■milk for babes, and meat for strong men." 
 Excepting from the controverted sixth chapter of St. John, no passages can 
 be produced which teach that Christ as " the bread of life" is communi- 
 cated primarily and chiefly through the holy Sacraments, half as plain and 
 strong as those which declare that he is communicated through the Gos- 
 pel. Dr. Nevin appealed to the Psalms in vindication of some of his ritu- 
 alistic views. Suppose we should appeal to the same inspired authority 
 for proof of the above statement! But why should any attempt be made 
 to cite such proofs? The Old and New Testament are full of it. We 
 read it in the parable of the sower and the seed; in the parable of the 
 tares ; in the Sermon on the Mount ; in the avowed purpose of all the 
 parables and teaching of the Lord; in the terms of the great Commission ; 
 in every chapter of the Acts of the Apostles; and find it scattered pro- 
 fusely through the remaining portions of the New Testament. The new 
 life in Christ, they all say, is begotten by the Holy Grhost through the 
 Word, proclaiming and conveying Him to the soul, or taking and grafting 
 the inmost centre of man's moral spiritual life in Jesus Christ. As it is, 
 primarily, man the living soul which needs redemption, and the body 
 participates in redemption as a result of the psychical redemption, the 
 great instrument through which the grace is received, is of a like nature. 
 Even the Holy Sacraments are unmeaning except as the Word reveals 
 their nature and design. This, therefore, is the divinely appointed super- 
 natural means for disseminating Q'- the seed is the Word ") the vitalizing, 
 saving grace which is alone in Jesus Christ. And in this way, also, there 
 is secured that presence of an "objective" power in divine form, through 
 which the organic historical growth and advancement of the Christian 
 Church, the spiritual body of Christ, \s most efiectively carried on. 
 
 This is the doctrine of the "objective, historical qualities" of the true 
 Church, which underlies the Heidelberg Catechism. Dr. Nevin, after 
 quoting (p. 86) what he calls the "soul-shaking!" answer concerning the 
 necessity of regeneration in order to deliverance from natural depravity 
 and condemnation, makes this astounding remark : '■'■How this new birth 
 by the Spirit is brought to pass, is not here of any account." Strange, 
 indeed! The '■'■how" is the very point at issue in this part of the contro- 
 versy. And when it is remembered that the means and manner in which 
 this is afiiected are mentioned, only a few questions further on, it is very 
 significant that those questions should have escaped the author's atten- 
 tion. Thus in answer to question 20: "Are all men then as they per- 
 
138 ■ DR. NEVIN ON THE OFFENSIVE. 
 
 ♦ 
 
 ished in Adam, saved by Christ?" We are told: "iVb, only tJwse who are 
 ingrafted into Him, and receive all his benefits hy a true faith." And 
 then immediately after this we are told that this true faith, by which we 
 are "-ingrafted into Christ" is wrought in the heart "by the Holy Ghost, 
 through the Gospel." Some say, however, that the Gospel here means, or 
 at least includes the Sacrament. That it does not, is clearly proven by the 
 answer to question 65, where the Grospel and the Sacrament are placed 
 in antithesis to each other; and where the phrase "by the preaching of 
 the Gospel" makes it still clearer that the Word is meant. Indeed the 
 entire system set forth in our Catechism is based on this principle. The 
 Catechism was taught to youth in the abbreviated form, or compendium. 
 The complete Heidelberg Catechism, (Catechesis Falatina,') was not de- 
 signed for youth, but for ripe Christians. (See Ebrard, K. u. Dogm. 
 Gesch. iii, 215.) In the compend the first question asked is: "What is 
 necessary for man to know in order to be saved ?" (See Old Palat. Liturgy, 
 translated, Mercershurg Review, 1850, pp. 266-7). But it ought to be 
 superfluous to appeal to such evidence. And yet, in sppport of this new 
 theology, appeals have been made to the Heidelberg Catechism, as furnish- 
 ing evidence, that it assumed a theory of Christianity favorable to that 
 theology, whilst the fact just stated in regard to the compendium always 
 used in the instruction of youth, has been denied or ignored. 
 
 By these three characteristics, therefore, as claimed by Dr. Nevin to be 
 distinctive of the ritualistic theology, it stands condemned before the 
 standard of evangelical doctrines in the German Keformed Church. Our 
 theology, our faith, is not Christoeentric, in Dr. Kevin's sense ; it does 
 not spring from his version and interpretation of the Creed; it is not 
 "objective and historical" in his view of those qualities. On all these 
 important and fundamental points he and the Church differ materially and 
 essentially. And they differ thus, because the Church derives its faith 
 from the Word of God, whilst he makes fifth century theology his rule of 
 faith, and does so by his own confession. 
 
 On liturgical as well as theological grounds, therefore, we must refuse 
 to adopt the Revised Liturgy as the Liturgy of the Church. Unless we 
 are willing radically and fundamentally to change our faith, as well as our 
 worship, we must reject the ritualistic Cultus which Dr. Nevin and his 
 associates are endeavoring by all the means at their command to introduce 
 into the German Reformed Church. 
 
 DR. NEVIN ON THE OFFENSIVE. 
 
 Under a seeming sense of having failed in his sophistical attempt to 
 exhibit the theology of the new order in an acceptable light, and so as to 
 convince his impartial readers, the author of the "Vindication," by a sudden 
 
DR. NEVIN ON THE OFFENSIVE. 139 
 
 manoeuvre, adroitly turns from a defensive position to one of offence. 
 Weary of striving to parry the hard blows of fact, documentary evidence, 
 "stupid" details, he concludes to try an assault. With some of the hard 
 names he applies to the luckless Brethren who differ from him, most per- 
 sons were probably unacquainted. Let it suffice to say, that they are terri- 
 ble indeed. It is bad enough to be a Montanist, and a G-nostic, but to be 
 called a Muggletonian, and that by so august a judge as the Rev. Dr. 
 John W. Nevin, former Professor of Theology in the G-erman Eeformed 
 Church, and who "stands now where he stood then!" 
 
 But let it pass. If the unhappy author of those overwhelming epithets 
 thought he could harm those at whom he threw, on whom he poured 
 them, by such stuff, his credulity must excite compassion. And if he 
 supposed for a moment, that, by calling tis unlitiirgical^ who used Liturgi- 
 cal forms long before the swathing bands of ritualistic drapery were wound 
 around his loins; if he thought by charging us with denying or having 
 no actual faith in the Incarnation, because we discard his half ubiquita- 
 rian and half-pantheistic Christocentric conceits ; or if he supposed by 
 accusing us of denying sacramental grace, because we reject his baptismal 
 regeneration and sacrificial-altar notions ; I say, if by levelling such in- 
 dictments at us, he expected to disturb our peace, destroy our name, or so 
 excite us as to make us forget his errors in trying to defend ourselves, 
 never wa^ a man more mistaken. The artifice does not succeed. 
 
 There is but one point in this portion of his tract which I will notice. 
 That is the outrageous rhisrepresentation of what Professor Rust said at 
 Synod in connection with the subject of infant Baptism. Dr. Nevin pro- 
 nounces it rank Pelagianism. He knows this is not true. He knows that 
 Professor Rust did not deny original sin, any more than Ursinus does 
 when he says; "Baptism does not make our children Christians, 
 THEY ARE SUCH BEFORE BAPTISM." Professor Rust was opposing the 
 unscriptural doctrine of that Revised Liturgy which Dr. Nevin does not 
 pretend is German Reformed, viz., that the children of believers are as 
 "much under the power of the devil as the children of tinbelievers. 
 
 This doctrine stands intimately related with Romish exorcism in Bap- 
 tism ; and in opposing that error he made the remarks which have been so 
 grossly perverted. When I think of the bad design of this perversion, 
 and consider that Dr. Nevin must have known that he was grossly misre- 
 presenting a brother, in order to screen himself from the sharp edge of the 
 sword of truth, I feel tempted to apply to him two Latin words which he 
 once cast at one who differed from him, and against whom he was ashamed 
 to use such language in plain English. This is all I have to say of tho 
 author's offensive strategy. 
 
140 SPECIAL POINTS. — CONCLUSION. 
 
 SPECIAL POINTS. 
 
 As this tract has already extended beyond the limits originally set for 
 it, I will not follow Dr. Nevin in what he says with regard to the special 
 points of objection raised against the Revised Liturgy. Indeed, he does 
 not attempt at all to deny the charge, that the Revised Liturgy rests 
 upon a theology and a conception of the Church, which make the ministry 
 a priesthood; which ties the forgiveness of sins to the declaration of par- 
 don by the minister;* which teaches Baptismal regeneration, and that the 
 Holy Supper is a kind of sacrifice ofi'ered on a propitiatory altar unto the 
 Lord. (No wonder, now, that Dr. Nevin hates the 80th Question of our 
 Catechism). Should it be deemed necessary, however, these points may 
 be taken up at some future time. It will suffice, meanwhile, to remind 
 the reader that they are all involved in the three characteristics of the 
 Christocentric theology, and therefore fall with them. For if it is 
 virtually admitted that the Revised Liturgy is open to the serious doctri- 
 nal objections which were urged against it in my first tract, why should it 
 be necessary to repeat the proof of those objections here? 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 1. By the explicit concessions, then, of the advocates of the new Order, 
 as well as by what is manifestly involved in that work, it is made evident 
 that the Church is called upon to decide the following vital points: 
 
 a. Shall we maintain our distinctive form of Liturgical worship, or shall 
 we adopt one which would destroy our denominational identity; subject 
 us again to a yoke of ritualism , essentially like that cast ofi" by our Re- 
 formed fathers; barter our free and yet duly restrained liturgical character 
 for rigidly imposed ritualistic formalities; and sunder the bonds of spiritual 
 fellowship with our nearest ecclesiastical kindred. 
 
 h. Shall we cleave to the true Apostolic faith, delivered to us by our 
 fathers, in that incomparable standard, the Heidelberg Catechism, — to the 
 doctrine of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ therein set forth, — 
 to the doctrine that regeneration is wrought by the Holy Ghost through 
 the Word of the Grospel, — to the doctrine of the universal common 
 
 * Lest this should be thought an extreme statement, I will give the doctrine held and 
 taught in the carefully written language of one of the leading abettors of the innovation. 
 
 "A SINNER MAY BE PENITENT FOR HIS SINS, BUT UNTIL HE HAS RECEIVED BAPTISM AS God'S 
 ACT OP REMISSION TO HIM, HE HAS NO TRUE ASSURANCE OF REMISSION. AND AVHEN 
 
 AFTER BAPTISM HE SINS THROUGH INFIRMITY, HE CANNOT BE SURE OP 
 PARDON TILL HIS ABSOLUTION IS SPOKEN, SIGNED AND SEALED BY 
 CHRIST, BY T HE MEANS OF A DIVINE ACT THROUGH THE CHURCH." 
 
 Do any ask : is it possible that this is the doctrine taught those who are being trained 
 for the ministry in the Reformed Church? I answer that it is. how blessedly diflFerent 
 from this is the doctrine set forth in the Answer to the 56th Question of our Catechism. 
 
CONCLUSION. 141 
 
 priesthood of all Christ's people, in opposition to a specific sacerdotal caste 
 in the ministry, — to the doctrine of a true mystical personal union of the 
 believer with the Lord Jesus Christ, in a higher, more spiritual and po- 
 tential form than the semi- physical, carnal-psychological view which 
 Dr. Nevin teaches, — to the doctrine of the Holy Sacrament as signs and 
 seals of grace already possessed, and so far invested with sacramental 
 grace, in opposition to that theory of this new Order which makes every 
 thing to be effected by the sacrament in a magical or mechanical way, — to 
 the doctrine that the penitent believer in Jesus may feel certainly assured 
 that his sins are pardoned by the Lord, in opposition to the doctrine now 
 taught by the advocates of the new Order that " when after Baptism he 
 sins through infirmity, he can not be sure of pardon till his absolution is 
 fpolcen^ signed and sealed, by means of a divine act through the Church," 
 thus making repentance or penance a sacrament, and putting the peace of 
 the contrite, broken-hearted sinner in the power of the priest. 
 
 Shall we then cleave to our old evangelical faith which is tried and 
 true, or shall we be tempted to exchange it for a system for which no bet- 
 ter ground is furnished than a fanciful, speculative construction and inter- 
 pretation of the Creed somewhat in accordance with its fifth or sixth cen- 
 tury sense ? 
 
 Only let the Church duly realize these facts, be convinced that our very 
 life as a Church, in all the important characteristics of that life, is at 
 stake, and I am persuaded that this extreme ritualistic innovation will be 
 repelled. 
 
 2. This controversy has been forced upon the Chiirch by those who are 
 striving to introduce the innovations. They were intrusted with an im- 
 portant work. Great liberty was granted in its execution. A Liturgy 
 prepared under the liberal instruction given would have done its authors 
 honor, and have served to promote the best interests of the Church. But 
 under the unhappy influence of a theory of worship and doctrine acknowl- 
 edged to be at variance with the faith and practice of the Church, they 
 allowed themselves to transcend or falsely construe their instructions. The 
 result is the Revised Liturgy, or new " Order of Worship." This they are 
 seeking by the use of all the means in their power to have adopted by the 
 Church. Its adoption, as clearly shown, would involve the most fatal con- 
 sequences. And must we sit still, and see the evil progressing, without 
 interposing our protest, without raising decided opposition? A man con- 
 cludes to renovate his house. It is a goodly mansion, reared many gene- 
 rations back by his honored ancestors. But in the course of time it has 
 grown somewhat gray and fiided, and needs refreshing. The owner em- 
 ploys an architect — tells him what he wishes, but especially provides' that 
 the general plan and foundations of the structure be not disturbed. The 
 
142 CONCLUSION. 
 
 arcliitect begins his work; after a little, proposes some modification in the 
 plan of renovation, but agrees that if they do not suit, they need not be 
 accepted. The work goes on accordingly; and, after some time, is finished. 
 It is found, however, that the modifications have not been fairly followed ; 
 that the alterations are of the most radical kind; that from the foundation 
 up the whole old homestead has been changed. Many of the household 
 complain, object, and beg that the building be preserved in its original 
 plan. Then comes the conflict. The architect raves and denounces- 
 Had he not told them what he was going to do? Had they not known 
 what he was about? And now, after all his toil and trouble, will they 
 dare to throw the work on his hands ? 
 
 What is to be done? Either we must lose our home, or contend for its 
 preservation. Can we, should we be reproached for engaging, and en- 
 gaging earnestly in this struggle ? We believe the Church had no idea of 
 the extent and bearings of the innovations proposed, nay that by far the 
 greater part of the Church even now has no clear conception of their na- 
 ture, and of the consequences of their adoption. And shall we be blamed 
 for speaking out? I say again, what I may have in substance said be- 
 fore, that for my part, the Church of my fathers as they gave her to me; 
 the Church in which under Grod I was born and brought up, is more, be- 
 yond all computation more to me, than Dr. Nevin and all his theories, 
 highly as I may have regarded him in other days. And I can say, even 
 now, after all the unjust and indecorous calumny with which he has 
 tried to overload me, that I have no personal controversy with him, ex- 
 cepting as he is using his influence to rob me and my brethren of my 
 Church. For if the German Reformed Church is once shaped and mo- 
 delled after the pattern of this new "Order" she ceases to be the Grerman 
 Reformed Church, however tenaciously she may still cleave to the name. 
 
 The fault of this controversy, therefore, rests not upon those who are 
 contending for their ecclesiastical inheritance, but upon those who are 
 seeking to deprive us of that inheritance. And this very fact gives the 
 former an immense advantage in this conflict. They are struggling to 
 preserve the Church ; the others are seeking to subvert her practice and 
 her principles. 
 
 Many sad fruits of this ritualistic innovation have been already pro- 
 duced. 
 
 The theory and principles which underlie and pervade it, have caused 
 many of our ministers to leave the Church. Most of these have gone 
 either to the Romish Church or have become high-church Episcopalians. 
 It is of no avail for Drs. Harbaugh or Nevin to try to turn these things into 
 ridicule. Every honest, intelligent advocate of the theory involved in the 
 new " Order," will confess that such defections are a legitimate eff"ect of 
 
CONCLUSION. 143 
 
 the theory. Mr. Stewart of Burkettsvill e may, as they say, be of small 
 account. They did not say so years ago. And it is simply disingenuous 
 and deceitful in any of them to deny that the natural tendency of their 
 scheme is in the same direction in which Mr. Stewart went. Two most 
 estimable brethren, who, I supposed, would be among the last to be so far 
 carried away from a firm evangelical faith, have said in my own hearing : 
 either this new Order system^ or Rovie! 
 
 Another, who was once sorely entangled by the theory he had been 
 taught at Mercersburg, but who seems to have escaped the meshes, told 
 me: Dr. Harbaugh need not call this charge, and the fears felt in regard 
 to the tendency of these things "humbug," "spooks in the garret," etc. It 
 is not true. There is more reality in the complaint than many suppose. 
 It was no humbug in the case of poor Snively ; it was no humbug with me 
 
 in ; it is even now no humbug with , and , and , whom 
 
 I know to be unsettled and disturbed in their minds in regard to some 
 fundamental points of Evangelical Protestant faith and practice. 
 
 More than a year and a half ago, consequently more than a year before 
 Mr. Stewart's apostacy, a prominent minister of our Church had a conver- 
 sation with him on the whole subject. He was in sore difiiculties on 
 account of having introduced the Liturgy (Provisional in its extreme 
 forms), and expressed great regret that he had done so, or allowed him- 
 self to be ensnared by the system. In not very elegant terms, but yet in 
 a style which seems to be authorized by his former Professor, he said : 
 " If I could kick the miserable thing to where I would never see it again, 
 I would do so." 
 
 But not only is this extreme movement an occasion of harm in this way. 
 It causes dissensions and grief in congregations, and at this time there are 
 scores of members of our Church who are sincerely attached to her, who 
 are driven for the time to the shelter of other Churches by the ofFensive- 
 ness of these ritualistic measures, forced upon the congregations without 
 their consent. More are, for the sake of peace, enduring with silent grief 
 these mournful departures from the mode in which our fathers worshipped 
 God. 
 
 Are we prepared, then, as a Church, to endure these unavoidable results ? 
 I know that all the defections are not in one direction. The new measures 
 are a wedge which splits in many pieces, and cause the parts thus sun- 
 dered to fly indiscriminately on every side. And the worst has not yet 
 come, if the innovations are allowed further sway. 
 
 If, then. Dr. Nevin and his chief disciples, think they have a new revela- 
 tion,'have discovered a faith and cultus better than that of our fathers, let 
 them go like upright, brave men, and build a house for themselves on that 
 basis. Why seek so to remodel an existing Church so as to make a wholly 
 
144 CONCLUSION. 
 
 new tiling of her. When John Winebrenner supposed he found a more 
 excellent way than that of our fathers, he left us, and started a sect of his 
 own. We condemn his schismatic notions ; but if he would not give them 
 up, it certainly was commendable in him to try to carry them out in his 
 own way. Why, then, if this theory has a new creed, does it not venture 
 boldly forth with its creed as a basis? Who knows but it might become 
 the honored foundation of that great Church of the future in which all 
 the " disjecta membra " of both Protestantism and Popery should find their 
 unity and strength. Why should it seek to make a new sect of an old 
 Church, and under cover of an ancient, honored name, cover its revolu- 
 tionary character, and strive to accomplish its really schismatic scheme ? 
 
 4. As we love the Church of our Fathers, therefore, and desire to have 
 her true Apostolic faith and practice handed down to her posterity, let us 
 stand up firmly and unfalteringly against these ritualistic innovations. We 
 are not the only Church disturbed by this evil spirit. On every side of 
 us we hear the clangor of a similar conflict. To brethren of other evan- 
 gelical denominations we owe it to be strong and unyielding in this con- 
 test. The oldest daughter of the Reformed family must not be the first 
 to surrender her virtue to the enticements of this old seducer. Seeing 
 how manfully the true-hearted portion of the Episcopal Church, with the 
 learned, undaunted, venerable Bishop Mcllvaine at their head, are strug- 
 gling against the encroachments of a similar evil — and how, in other 
 branches of the true Protestant family, they are fighting manfully for the 
 faith of their ancestors, — let us give proof both of our ability to distinguish 
 the merits of truth from the meretricious attractions of error, and of our 
 being worthy of the inheritance of truth bequeathed to us, by cleaving to 
 the Church as our fathers gave it to us. 
 
 And" why should we not ? The friends of that Church are the friends 
 of genuine Apostolic truth and worship. But who are they that look with 
 approbation upon Dr. Nevin's unhappy scheme? The Presbyterian 
 Church, of whose very close affinity with ours he spoke so warmly in his 
 inaugural address at Mercersburg, disowns him. The Dutch Church, 
 of whose tender consanguinity with ours, he descanted so lovingly 
 at one of the Triennial Conventions, discards his vain anti-Protestant 
 conceits. Even the great theologian of Germany, Dr. Dorner, writes re- 
 gretfully of this Mercersburg defection from the genuine evangelical ftiith. 
 And Dr. Nevin himself, with a dark, gloomy consciousness of having 
 proven recreant to the faith of his fathers, and of all his former brethren, 
 seeks comfort in holding them up to derision and contempt. He has a 
 harsh anathema for every one of them — and, in turn, is sorely reproached 
 by all hut one ! And shall we suff"er his scheme so far to prevail that our 
 beloved Church shall become as marked an Ishmaelite amona; other evan- 
 
CONCLUSION. 145 
 
 gelical Churches, as he has made himself, and is making inconsiderate 
 followers, a^ong evangelical theologians ? 
 
 That Dr. Neviu will ever return to the evangelical ground he has for- 
 saken, I think there is no room to hope. But why should he be allowed 
 to draw a whole Church after him ? 
 
 We do not oppose progress and development in our Church life. That 
 progress, however, should not be revolutionary, destructive? There are 
 many reasons why, for the sake of evangelical Christianity, we should 
 earnestly strive to maintain and improve our distinctive denominational 
 life. But this may and should be done in harmony with our true genius 
 and character, and not in violent subversion of them. 
 
 I close with words which expressed the sentiments of Dr. Nevin as he 
 once thought and felt, and which, though he would now discard them, ex- 
 press as important a truth as when they were first uttered : — 
 
 "7/^ the original distinctive life of the Churches of the Reformation he 
 not the object to he reached after in the efforts that are made to huild up 
 the interests of German Christianity in this country^ it ivere hetter to say 
 so openly and plainly. * * * W/iy keep ^ij) the loalls of denominational 
 partition in such a case, with no distinctioe sp)iritual heing to uphold or 
 protect?" 
 
 '•'•Let this system prevail and ride with permanent sway, and the result of 
 the religious movement which is now in progress toill he something widely 
 different from what it woidd have heen under other auspices. The old re- 
 gular organizations, if they continue to exist at all, will not he the same 
 Churches. Their entire complexion and history, in time to come, will he 
 shaped hy the new course of things." (Anxious Bench, pp. 10, 19.) 
 
 Cansiderations like these moved us to oppose what were called Metho- 
 distic New Measures in 1843 to 1847. Those same considerations constrain 
 us to resist the encroachments of the Uigh Church ritualistic new measures 
 now. 
 
 For three centuries the Reformed Church has, with slight exceptions, 
 maintained her distinctive life, and endeavored to work out her pro- 
 per mission. The Lord has prospered her labors, and rewarded her 
 zeal. Shall she now be allured by a new Grospel. which is not, even, a 
 Gospel, proclaimed by one who sneers at devout usages taught us by our 
 fathers, and brands as heresy, doctrines which those fathers derived from 
 the Woi'd of Grod, and so faithfully handed down to us, to abandon our 
 sacred inheritance, and embrace his innovations? Never, no never! It 
 cannot be that the Church of our fathers has been preserved to this day, 
 to be now subverted by the Christocentric cultus or theo'ogy of the author 
 of the " Vindication." 
 10 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY ARTICLES. 
 
 In accordance with what seems a just and reasonable request, the following- 
 three papers are appended to this tract. 
 
 The first is a reply of the Rev. G. W. Welker, of North Carolina, to a most 
 uncalled-for aspersion of the delegates of his Classis by Dr. Nevin. It needs no 
 words of mine to commend it to careful consideration. The editor of the Messen- 
 ger refused to admit it into the columns of that general church paper. It seems his 
 rules forbid the admission of personalities — that is, when they bear against the 
 leading advocates of the innovations. This, therefore, was the only medium of 
 self-defence for the Brethren whom the author of the "Vindication" had so un- 
 kindly stigmatized. 
 
 The second is a letter from a member of our Church now completing his 
 studies in Berlin. It is especially interesting for the opinion it reports, by au- 
 thority, of the Rev. Dr. Dorner, the eminent theologian of the Berlin University. Dr. 
 Dorner has sometimes been claimed as an endorser of Dr. Nevin's views. This 
 letter will correct that mistake. It will be noticed that whilst he is favorable to 
 the German Reformed idea of a Liturgy, he does not endorse " responses," and 
 insists upon maintaining free prayer. The brother who received this letter requested 
 the editor of the 3Iessenger to insert it, but for prudential reasons he declined to 
 do so. It too strongly confirms the reasons urged against the innovations. 
 
 The third is a letter from another member of our Church, also completing 
 his theological studies in the Berlin University. It speaks so clearly and ear- 
 nestly for itself that it needs no comment. 
 
 Both these letters are from gentlemen who enjoyed the vei-y best opportunities 
 for becoming fully acquainted with the subtleties of modern Mercersburg theo- 
 logy. We only ask for these documents a calm and candid perusal. 
 
 I. 
 
 [For the German Reformed Messenger,] 
 Dr. Nevin vs. the Classis of North Carolina and her Delegates. 
 A valued friend has just sent me a copy of Dr. Nevin's "Vindication." The 
 attack on the Classis of North Carolina and her Delegates to the late Synods in- 
 vited my attention. It should not have been a surprise, and yet it was altogether 
 ijnexpected. I do not propose to write a vindication of this unfortunate Classis^ 
 '^Historical, Theological," or otherwise, for it is only quackei-y that usually needs 
 either puffing or Vindication. It is not so certain but that the results of the Litur- 
 gical movement and the Mercersburg theology to the Church will be her most 
 effectual vindication. Indeed, it seems that a part of the Church already feels 
 
148 SUPPLEMENTARY ARTICLES. 
 
 that lier protest against these novelties was timely and just. Besides this, it is 
 possible that the Classis will speak for herself at her next meeting. Neither is it 
 proposed to review Mc "Vindication," for that would be presumption entirely 
 insufferable in a cipher. The attack is found on page 47, in these words, viz: — 
 ." Two of these colleagues (of Dr. Bomberger) besides were the delegates from the 
 Classis of North Carolina, which has been in a state of ecclesiastical secession 
 from the Synod ever since the present Liturgical movement commenced, and 
 whose representatives therefore allowed themselves, with very bad grace cer- 
 tainly, to be brought North at this time for the purpose of meddling with it in any 
 such factious way. Aside from these ciphers the clerical vote on that side stood 
 next to nothing." In this three points are made: 1. That the Classis of North 
 Carolina, owing to her previous bad conduct, had no business to be in the Synod 
 at this time. 2. That her delegates showed themselves factious by their conduct 
 in Synod, and meddled in matters when good manners forbid. 3. That they 
 were brought North by others to be used as tools in the warfare on his bantling 
 of a Liturgy. 
 
 I shall not copy the example of Dr. Nevin, nor quote his own epithets as 
 applicable to the character of these charges. I trust to be preserved from his 
 spirit, while it is shown how great wrong he has done this Classis, her delegates, 
 and the whole German Preformed Church. However wrong the action of the 
 Classis in respect of the Liturgy and the Mercersburg theology (and no infalli- 
 bility has ever been claimed) may have been, and whatever rights that conduct 
 may have forfeited, her appearance in the Synod was not of her seeking. She 
 was there on the reiterated invitation of Synod, from whose roll her name had 
 never been erased, and that year after year elected of her ministers as members 
 of the Board of Domestic Missions. Almost every Synod made efforts to secure 
 the return of her delegates. The Synod of 1857 appointed commissioners, of 
 whom one visited the Classes, to seek a reunion of the severed Classes. The Synod 
 of 1858 passed the following resolve, without a dissentient voice, viz: " Resolved, 
 That this Synod is gratified at the presence of the Commissioners from the Classis 
 of North Carolina, and cordially invites the Classis, through them, to resume its 
 former relation to Synod." When the great rebellion was over the Synod of 1865, 
 in a letter addressed to the Classis, expressive of its affection and wishes, by the 
 President of Synod, says: "While therefore we sincerely regret that adverse cir- 
 cumstances have prevented you from sending delegates to meet with the brethren 
 in Synod assembled regulaidy during the last four years, we now express the hope 
 that, with God's blessing, you may, etc., — and hereafter send delegates to mingle 
 with us in our Synods." On such invitations, so full and without reserve, thus 
 repeatedly and pressingly made, it was, that Classis, with great and anxious de- 
 liberation, determined to appoint delegates to the Synods of 1866, and thus 
 " resume her /ormc?- relations to Synod." There never had been any conditions 
 even hinted at. Not any guarantee was demanded. It was an unconditional 
 reconstruction. We resumed our former relations to Synod. We were jjlaced on 
 a perfect equality with every other Classis, as it respects rights and privileges in 
 the Synods. Her delegates had the right to participate in the discussion of all 
 matters, and to vote on every question. To this, no doubt, the Church North wel- 
 comed her. Or was all this persistent demand for re-union only a sham? Were 
 all those greetings at York and Dayton only a mockery ? Was it not a cordial 
 welcome of the Classis to her former relation? Dr. Nevin implies that she was 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY ARTICLES. 149 
 
 expected very penitently and gracefully to sit by and wonder and admire, but be 
 silent. Doubtless the Synods of Frederick and Lewisburg gave lionest expression 
 to the desire of the Church. And the letters of the sainted Father Helfenstein 
 and of Drs. Porter, Zacharias and Fisher, intended no reserve in their hearty 
 invitation to return. At York and Dayton, excepting Dr. Nevin and a very few 
 spirits as intolerant as himself, never was so kind and loving welcome given per- 
 sonally to the delegates of a Classis as those of North Carolina Classis received, 
 as well by those who admire the new Liturgy and hold the Mercersburg theology 
 as by others. It is not credible that Dr. Nevin speaks the mind of the Church, 
 and he has no doubt grievously wronged her spirit, and cast an unjust imputation 
 on her candor and honesty. 
 
 What was the conduct of the delegates of the Classis of North Carolina? In 
 what were they factious? In what were they guilty of meddlesome impertinence? 
 Were they guilty of any act at York or Dayton not warranted by their age or service 
 in the Church, or as the representatives of a Classis that was in the full enjoyment of 
 all her rights, in. virtue of having resumed former relations ? The appeal may be 
 safely made to all the members of those Synods in proof. Did they officiously ob- 
 trude themselves or their views — if ciphers are permitted to have views in a German 
 Reformed Synod ? No ! their crime was voting with "Dr. Bomberger and his com- 
 pany." Doubtless this was done, but quietly and honestly as they hold the truth. 
 Synod was fully aware of the views of Classis when urged to resume her /ormer re- 
 lations. But they are the " ciphers" in this "miserable faction." But even ciphers 
 may fill uplace — for them, too, there is an office, and if they fill it well they have 
 done all that good ciphers can do, be it at the right or left of the significant figures. 
 It is claimed for them that they fairly represented the views of their Classis as 
 well as their own. It was their right and their duty to vote as they did, for the 
 rules of Synod required them to vote. This is their offence — no more! They 
 made no speeches — ciphers should not ; they abused no one for difi'ering from 
 t'hemselves. They, I suppose, treated all men courteously; made no effort to per- 
 vert justice or the truth. But then, they were wanting in not instinctively dis- 
 covering the transcendent merits of the new Order of Worship. They did not 
 gracefully choose an orbit about the ceaitral sun of Mercersburg theology. What 
 crimes! How well merited the assault on them. It is true such dolts are not 
 able to grasp the profound questions involved in this controversy — they had not 
 sat at the feet of Drs. Angelic and Seraphic, and been taught the beauties of the 
 new Liturgy, or the depths of the theology of Mercersburg. Would not this have 
 been reason for sparing the harmless creatures such a castigation? They unto 
 whom little is given, of them the just one requires but little. They do humbly 
 own that they are not able to harmonize the doctrines of the New Liturgy with the 
 teachings of the Heidelberg Catechism, or to discover the superiority of its order 
 of worship over that received of the fathers. 
 
 This is not all the crime of the silly representatives of this Classis. They al- 
 lowed themselves to be made the tools of that "miserable faction " who oppose 
 what they consider the insidious errors of Dr. Nevin, and which pervade the new 
 Liturgy. When the delegates were chosen, there was no thought had of this con- 
 troversy. They purposed to go to Synod, because Classis had resolved by them to 
 resume her former relations. There never was any hesitation about their going, 
 unless it were from the inability of Classis to meet the expense growing out of 
 their attendance. It is true, they were written to, but never a word was written 
 
150 SUPPLEMENTARY ARTICLES, 
 
 to the writer of this about the Liturgy question in this connection. The invita- 
 tions were alike for its friends and those who oppose its adoption. Ciphers as 
 they are, it is not characteristic of them to be the tools of others, or that bribery 
 or aught else could affect their conduct. If this imputation be true, they are ut- 
 terly unfit for the ministry that they would thus have disgraced; and Synod 
 should exclude so corrupt a Classis. It is to be hoped, however, that it is the 
 lonely preeminence of Dr. Nevin to attempt to revive prejudice against the Classis 
 by the allusion to the past — and to insinuate corruption and bribery. 
 
 These are the facts. They place Dr. Nevin before the Church as a false 
 ACCUSER of the brethren. Why should the attack be made ? It was not needful 
 to the argument. Neither the Classis nor its delegates had in any way assailed 
 him, or been wanting in respect toward him. Can it be that his ambition is so in- 
 satiable that this Mordecai at the King's gate so stirs the heart within him that it 
 destroys his peace? Can it be that this "Secession" Classis, with its ciphers, re- 
 fusing to bow to his dictations, so vexed his soul, that it thus boiled over with re- 
 dundant bitterness? or had the events of the two Synods^-the well-directed 
 thrusts from the "miserable faction" — so surcharged his soul with rancour, that 
 the preceding forty-six pages of the "Vindication" had failed to afford him space on 
 which to discharge it, and that the dregs were poured out on the hapless Classis 
 of North Carolina? She can bear it. Her members have had very significant 
 training from the same manner of spirits during the war, and their past experience 
 enables them to bear the cruel contempt of Dr. Nevin. But it is not the Spirit of 
 the Master, and it may yet appear that these despised men are owned of Him who 
 says, — "Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these, the least of my disciples, ye did it 
 unto me." 
 
 There is yet one other fact in this connection that demands notice. On page 
 three of this "Vindication" is the request of twenty-one Elders for its preparation. 
 These, doubtless, are worthy men — Christian gentlemen. Personally we have 
 knowledge of but two or three of them. Does Dr. Nevin also wrong them in this 
 unprovoked attack upon their brethren, or was it for such purpose they invoked 
 his pen? We hope — we believe not, and yet it is under the cover of, and in com- 
 pliance with, their request, that these gratuitous wrongs are done to the Classis 
 of North Carolina and her representatives. Why should these brethren involve a 
 pen so potent for abuse upon us? Surely their partizan spirit did not so preju- 
 dice them. We do admit the idea. Their confidence has been abused, and they 
 are needlessly and recklessly made responsible for what their souls abhor. It is 
 not to be credited that these Elders, representing twelve or thirteen Classes, 
 would consent to wound a sister Classis, now crushed to the ground with great 
 sorrow and suffering, or that they are a party to these great wrongs until they 
 avow it. 
 
 It cannot be forgotten that the author of this "Vindication" is the controlling 
 mind and pervading spirit of the Liturgy it seeks to vindicate. As we read its pages 
 we were struck with the stream of undiluted gall that coursed through them. His 
 opponents only deal in ^'icholesale slander of the vilest sort" — '^wholesale misrep- 
 resentation" — "jyAo/fsaic falsification," etc. Their productions are "sheer non- 
 sense," "botched stuif," "blind unreserving prejudice," etc. They are "a mis- 
 erable faction," "ciphers," etc. There is no desire to detract one iota from his 
 reputation, nor would we, if we could, abate the admiration of his friends ; 
 but we must be allowed in all frankness to say that the abuse of these pages is 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY ARTICLES. 151 
 
 more effective than their logic, and that his opponents are more likely to be 
 driven from the field by bitter denunciation, and by the aspersion with wicked 
 motives than by invincible argument. It is a matter of regret that one occupying 
 his position cannot but use a style that is more violent than chaste, and ofien 
 borders on the vulgar and ferocious. Whoever may dare to dissent from his 
 views, cannot be better than a fool, a slanderer, a rationalist, or a puritan. Put 
 forth what plea you may, all we would reply is, that out of the abundance of the 
 heart the mouth speaketh. Our great pattern was gentle. The greatness of Dr. 
 N. and that of Christ do not appear under the same form. He may be great on 
 the '■'■Christocentric" but perhaps it were well to bestow a little elFort on the Christ- 
 like. But this is the Spirit that moulded and animated the Liturgy ! If such a 
 spirit lurks beneath their forms — if it breathed its life into them, then may all 
 unite to pray fervently— from such a spirit good Lord deliver the Church. It must 
 go far to destroy respect for the Book, to read such a "Vindication." As a work 
 of art it may be surpassing, — the claims of a Church-like spirit cannot be so well 
 made out. When we take up the book, our devotional frame is gone the moment 
 the remembrance of the flow of Synod and the turbid stream of vindictive abuse 
 that rushes through this "Vindication " forces itself unbidden on our thoughts. We 
 ask ourselves, can a fountain thus send forth at the same time both bitter and 
 sweet waters? Indeed the author has not yet entered into the spirit of the Ger- 
 man Reformed Church. In his emigration from his ancestral church he brouglit 
 with him that one great blemish of the Covenanter — intolerance. Perhaps it had 
 been better for the church of his choice if he had brought with him rather that 
 simple, grand and Scriptural Creed he now reviles, and left behind him this ex- 
 crescence on a noble faith. To those North and South, East and West, who, with 
 the Classis of North Carolina, are rudely and rancourously assailed in this "Vindi- 
 cation," I would say: "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firm- 
 ness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the 
 work we are in." So to act toward those that revile, ridicule and acrimoniously 
 assail us, that let the result be what it may, we shall have no regrets — that our 
 enemies can point to no line or word that dying we should wish to blot. Life is 
 too short, our work too grand, the day of the Lord too near, to allow us to waste, 
 in attempts at vindictive triumph, the few sands that remain Let us not 
 forget that not only for idle words and wicked deeds, but for bitter and wrongful 
 words we shall be brought into judgment, and also that he who says to his bro- 
 ther thou fool, shall be in danger, etc. Cipher. 
 
 IL 
 
 Berlin, March 20th, 1867. 
 
 Dear Brother, 
 
 Am much obliged to you for sending me a copy of 
 the Revised Liturgy, together with Dr. Nevin and Dr. Bomberger's Pamphlets, 
 and those numbers of the 3Iessenger which contain the discussions at the General 
 Synod. You know I have always been in favor of a Liturgy, and I have looked 
 forward with the deepest interest to the final decision of our Church on the 
 Liturgical question. It was not to be expected, therefore, that we should remain 
 indifferent with regard to this late liturgical movement. The new Liturgy, 
 strongly recommended on the one hand, and with no less earnestness rejected on 
 the other, challenged all for approval or disapproval. We, too, felt it our duty to 
 
152 SUPPLEMENTARY ARTICLES. 
 
 decide, whether we ought to be for it or against it ; to pretend to hold a neutral 
 ground, or to have no opinion on a question of such vital importance to the 
 church, is impossible for any Christian be he ever so humble. There was, how- 
 ever, but little hope for me to come to a proper understanding of the whole mat- 
 ter. The subject is sufficiently deep and broad for the best theologians of the 
 present day. Yet I could not rest satisfied with the mere consciousness of this 
 fact. Serious charges had been made against the Revised Litui-gy ; against some 
 of its doctrine, and, at the same time, against some of the most prominent men 
 of our church. Whether these charges had any foundation in the Liturgy itself, 
 or in what had been said in defence of it, I thought I could best learn by giving 
 the Liturgy, with all the writings relative to it, together with a copy of " Mercers- 
 burg Theology" into the hands of Professor Dorner, a man who is known to be 
 neither onesided Lutheran or Reformed, but strictly Evangelic, and who, in our 
 own church, is regarded as the greatest theologian of Germany at the present 
 day. Abovxt three or four weeks ago I handed him the different articles, and 
 yesterday I went to him, to see if he had formed any opinion on the subject, and 
 whether he would communicate his views to me. I will here report to you the 
 few plain statements he made, as nearly in his own words as I can : " I look upon 
 Dr. Nevin as a pious and able man ; his doctrine of the Lord's Supper, as set 
 </ forth in his ' Mystical Presence,' is the pure Calvinistic doctrine ; he is right in 
 his zeal for a Liturgy, over against free worship, fcTr though I believe the so-called 
 revivals have done much good, and are not to be condemned ; yet they are liable 
 to degeneration [ausarten), and there must be order in the congregation. It is 
 true also that in the use of a Liturgy the congregation is more free in its worship 
 than when it is made to depend upon the free prayer of the minister. The peo- 
 ple can better pray with the minister when they know beforehand what is coming. 
 Not all ministers can pray well. But after &\\, free prayer must have a place. More- 
 over, Dr. Nevin was right, when, for the preparation of a Liturgy, he went back 
 to the Church of the third and fourth centuries, and gtudied their Liturgies. 
 Some of the old Greek liturgies of those times, although not pure in doctrine, 
 contain most beautiful prayers, for instance those of Chrysostomos, and there 
 ought to be room to depart in some points at least from the old Palatinate Litur- 
 gies. But it was not right for Dr. Nevin to go back to the ancient Church, in 
 such a way as to set aside the Church of the Reformation. There is a Romaniz- 
 ing tendency underlying his thinking ; he seems to see truth only in the old 
 Church ; the material principle of Protestantism, Justification by Faith, is to a 
 great extent set aside [iriU sehr in den Hintergrund.) He has not, however, under- 
 stood the ancient Church. It cannot be shown that she had Dr. Nevin's view of 
 the ministry. This view of the ministry belongs to the Anglican Church. The 
 Liturgy makes ordination a sacrament, which is not in harmony with Protestant 
 doctrine. "Mercersburg Theology" is not clear; it is hard to see what its exact 
 views are ; it is, however, not what it claims to be, namely, German Evangelical 
 Theology. German Theology is not its basis. I do not know to what German 
 Theologian Dr. Nevin would appeal for his views. He speaks of Ullinann ; but 
 his views are not those of Ullmann ; he has not understood Ullmann. The doc- 
 trine of the Person of Christ, as laid down in " Mercersburg Theology," is not 
 in harmony with my views ; indeed I have been charged with holding such a 
 view ; but I have refuted the charge in the second edition of my work on the Per- 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY ARTICLES. 153 
 
 son of Christ. Dr. Nevin will hardly .appeal to me in support of his views after 
 he has read my late work! '• Geschichte der Protestantishen Theology, 1867." 
 
 This, then, is the opinion of Professor Corner on the " Liturgy," on " Mercers- 
 burg Theology," and on Dr. Nevin's thinldng in general. It may .surprise you, 
 as it did me, yet would it not be well to make these things known to the Church 
 at large. I think it would give a fresh impulse to all for a more thorough investi- 
 gation of the whole subject, than has hitherto been made. It is very probable, 
 too, that before long, you will see something from Professor Dorner himself on 
 this question. 
 
 III. 
 
 Berlin, March 28, 1867. 
 Dear Friend : — * * * * * * «- -x- ******** * i^ 
 more weighty reason for my writing just now, may be found in our mutual rela- 
 tion to the Church in the great conflict which is now going on in her bosom; for 
 as it was a source of great comfort and encouragement to us to hear on which side 
 you stand, so it m<ay possibly be to some degree strengthening to you to know that, 
 though far removed from the scene of conflict, we are, with heart and soul, with 
 you and with all those who like you are standing up against the tide of innovation 
 which is rolling in upon the Church and threatening to sweep away everything 
 before it. At such a time it is important that the friends of the truth should know 
 each other's views, and take counsel together for their own mutual strengthening 
 and consolation. I say this not from any sense of my own importance in the 
 matter, for, unhappily, I feel myself as yet insufficient for the work and responsi- 
 bility involved in coming forth in public defence of the most vital doctrines of the 
 Church against error in high places; yet, because I am aware that some are 
 accustomed to think and speak of us who are here, as belonging exclusively to their 
 party (the Mercersburg school), I think it important to make it known as far as 
 possible to all whom it may concern, and especially my friends, that such is not the 
 case.' For however little our opinion may be worth, however slight an influence 
 it may exert, be it but the small dust of the balance, it is nevertheless a matter of 
 conscience with us to have that little cast into the right side of the scale. Hence, 
 although we lay no claim to learnedness much less authority, yet for this reason if 
 for no other, we may, in this momentous crisis, venture to express our opinion 
 to our friends, viz., that we may be comforted together in and for the defence of 
 that Gospel which has made us free. We would give our mite towards strengthen- 
 ing you who on the broad principle of evangelical truth, in the spirit of Christian 
 love, and free from dogmatic quibblings, are giving your labor and your 
 substance for the building up of the blessed Redeemer's kingdom, and whom we 
 consider to be one of the pillars of the Church, in a truer sense than those theolo- 
 gians are, who, in love with their own notions, theories and speculations, are 
 consciously or unconsciously to themselves, distracting the Church and leading it 
 from the right way, the plain path of Scripture. 
 
 I have been compelled, against my will and prejudices, to change to a great ex- 
 tent my views in regard to Mercersburg Theology, and consequently tlie new Liturgy 
 too, — I say compelled, because it was not without a struggle that I could be brought 
 to give up that which ivom natural preference and education, I had so long 
 ardently admired and firmly held for truth, and on the other hand to adopt views 
 which .are in principle and of necessity diS'erent from and in ^omz points in direct 
 
154 SUPPLEMENTARY ARTICLES. 
 
 opposition to those I formerly entertained. This, according to the Rev. T. G. 
 Appel's late exposition (in the German Reformed Messenger), would have to be pro- 
 nounced heresy and schism. But it occurs to me that the symbols of the German 
 Reformed Church are the law according to which it must be judged and decided 
 whether a member of the Church is guilty of heresy or not, not the theology of the 
 Mercershurg school. The conception " Mercersburg Theology" is too narrow to 
 answer to the idea of the German Reformed Church, and it implies no small degree 
 of presumption for it to make such claims. It is scarcely known here, except 
 among theologians, that such a theology exists. It would seem, therefore, as if it 
 had no right to arraign members of the German Reformed Church, on the charge 
 of heresy, because, forsooth, they may not believe in Mercersburg Theology, or 
 may even go so far as to speak against it. But however this may be, in our ear- 
 nest endeavors to find the truth, we have felt ourselves constrained to change our 
 position with reference to some of the cardinal doctrines of the Mercersburg 
 school theology. Should this turn out to be heresy, we are ready to abide the 
 consequences unless it can be shown that we are in error. Of course it is not 
 possible within the narrow limits of a letter to give you a full and satisfactory ac- 
 count of our views and thinking, on such wide and important subjects; yet I must 
 endeavor briefly to say something. I have been brought to see things as I now 
 do, by means of the clearer, stronger light which, from the minds of the learned 
 and pious men of this Protestant land, beams in upon the field of theology, and 
 enables one to perceive more fully the extent of the science as a whole, as well as 
 more correctly to estimate the character of its particular branches, schools, etc. 
 Having, as we hope through the lectures of such distinguished theologians as Dr. 
 Doi-ner and others, gotten a somewhat wider and clearer view of the whole sub- 
 ject, in particular of the relation and difference between Roman Catholicism and 
 Protestantism, we think we are better able to understand and appreciate our 
 Mercersburg Theology, than we could ever have been had we remained entirely 
 within its sphere. The thinking of men in the sphere of Christianity, whether 
 clear or dark, is not to be received as absolutely true at once, but must be closely 
 examined — must be tried by the Symbols of the Church, and above all by the in- 
 fallible Word of God. To speak in the most general way, I have been brought to 
 believe, indeed am most firmly convinced, that our Mercersburg Theology is 
 seeking something which does not, and in the nature of the case cannot exist, viz., 
 a middle position between Roman Catholicism and Trotestantism. This I believe 
 to be its aim, its most general and distinguishing characteristics, consequently, 
 although it claims to be something "nezy," "aw advance upon any thing that has 
 preceded it," "the latest development," "the only live theology," etc., etc., it is in 
 reality the renewal and fuller "development" of the same old Romanizing ten- 
 dencies and errors which have before appeared at diiferent times in the Anglican 
 Church, especially in Puseyism and Irvingism. The most general distinction 
 between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism is this: Catholicism jjlaces between 
 the individual believers and Clirist, a consecrated order (consisting of Pope, Bishops, 
 Priests, etc.), essentially different from all other Christians in that they possess extraor- 
 dinary gifts, powers, etc. (,Y«p'ff/'ara), and upon this order in various ivays the indivi- 
 dual is made to depend for salvation, because only through it and through faith in its 
 mediation is it possible for him to come to Christ! Protestantism on the contrary ad- 
 mits of no such priestly intervention in any sense. According to its principle the 
 individual stands in an immediate personal relation to Christ, and is justified 
 through faith in Him. 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY ARTICLES. 155 
 
 Just here, it seems to me, is the fundamental radical error of Mercersburg Theo- 
 logj) ^^ error which, if persisted in, must, of logical necessity, carry its follow- 
 ers over to Rome, viz.: it wants to have a consecrated order — the Apostolic succession 
 and the Priesthood. Men may persuade themselves that there is no harm in this, 
 may try to explain it away or deny it, but it is true, nevertheless, that the idea of 
 such a consecrated order involves a third sacrament, is an interference with the di- 
 rect personal relation of the believer to Christ, and an attack upon the very life 
 pri7iciple of Protestantism. The idea of a priesthood involves at least three things : 
 1. Something which out of common Christians, makes priests, i. e., an anointing 
 or communication of peculiar and specific supernatural gifts or powers [xaqiov- 
 axpo.), or, in other words, a sacrament. 2. A sacrifice to be offered before God, or 
 mediating intercession to be made with Him by the priest in behalf of needy men. 
 3. Persons who are themselves in need of a priest to intercede for them with 
 Christ. It is easy to see from this, not only that the Evangelical Church has no 
 need of any mortal priesthood, but that it is in conflict with what she holds to be the 
 teaching of the Holy Scriptures. She can have no such sacrament, because the 
 Lord has instituted no such sacrament. She needs no sacrifice beyond the one 
 great sacrifice offered once for all. She teaches that all true believers are 
 priests, which of itself, does away with a special order of priests. We have one 
 Great High Priest who has passed into the heavens, and who has made us all 
 kings and priests unto God, and to whom we offer ourselves as living sacrifices of 
 thanksgiving in love, and we need no other priest. 
 
 Mercersburg Theology lays much stress on an "objective Church" and an 
 "objective Christianity." Indeed, it goes so far in this direction as to make but 
 small account of the inward experience of the Christian, the Holy Spirit witnessing 
 with our spirits that we are the children of God, which is, after all, the most di- 
 rect and convincing evidence we have. But it is to be feared that its objectivity, 
 like that of the Roman Church, is, notwithstanding, subjective; for that which 
 owes its existence to the thinking and invention of man, and has not its ground in 
 the Divine Word, is, however objective it may claim to be, in the end purely sub- 
 jective. Such an objective Christianity we have in the Roman Church: let us not 
 incline too much that way, but rather seek that objective Christianity which is of 
 the Lord, which is in perfect harmony with His written Word, and which, more- 
 over, becomes at the same time subjective. Could we all find this I am inclined to be- 
 lieve we would not dispute so much about matters of minor importance. 
 
 Mercersburg Theology is not clear on many points. For instance, as to its 
 idea of the Church. At one time it says "the Church is an organization," etc. 
 Very vague: so is a tree. Again: "our Church" (meaning the German Re- 
 formed Church) "is the Church of the Creed." Have you ever found out what 
 they mean by this expression "Church of the Creed?" I wish they would, once 
 for all, tell plainly what it may signify. On this point they are all the time soar- 
 ing among the clouds ; will they not, for once, descend to the regions of commoti 
 comprehension? I can see that we are a Church of the Creed in the sense that 
 other churches are who profess the same faith in the use of the same Creed, but 
 as to what further is meant I am all in the dark. 
 
 These objections against Mercersburg Theology apply ivith equal force to the new 
 Liturgy, because the principle I have before mentioned underlies it. It is the le- 
 gitimate, though I believe not the last nor the worst fruit of that system of think- 
 ing; and, however excellent it may be in some respects, yet, on account of its prin- 
 
156 
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY ARTICLES. 
 
 rAple, the Church, if it will remain Reformed and true to the written Word and to 
 its own symbols, must reject both it and the doctrines which underlie it. 
 
 It is true this error has become wide-spread in the Church. Yea, it even 
 claims that it is itself the doctrine of the Church ; but this need not surprise you, 
 knowing that the schools have, for so long a time, been in the hands of the de- 
 fenders and propagators of this doctrine. I know from experience how a student 
 is accustomed to feel and think after he has passed through a College and Semi- 
 nary where the cardinal aim of all religious instruction was, to make the subject 
 sound in Mercersburg Theology. But let us be of good cheer. Though the error is 
 so wide-spread that it seems there is but one man left who has courage to raise 
 his voice in defence of the truth, yet I firmly believe the day is near at hand when 
 the Protestant consciousness of our people will be aroused, and when the now slum- 
 bering Church will awake and hurl from her troubled bosom this foul incubus. 
 
 Yours in the Lord. 
 
 Marienslrasse 29, Ztu Stage Rechts^ 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 E^i:ui>'i]::»u 
 
 jMMiMM*' 
 
 
 
 mmm^ 
 
 r«».: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 E,;" 
 
 
 
 €A'^^^'^f' 
 
 
 
 
 ^-ff*******^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^^^ Hi igj 
 
 k 
 
 
 
 ''""'**^"«««. 
 
 
 
 
 f ^ 'Wi 
 
 mm^' 
 
 
 
 l\l^ 
 
 wm^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S A. 
 
jylora oros. 
 
 Makers 
 
 Ivracuse, N.Y. i_ 
 
 Pat. No. 877188