■J  IT< 
 
 1, 
 
 !liT: 
 
 8?m 
 
 "T"F 
 
 llUllllUilillliilliiiUi[lliiUlllLiiiilill-^':'LLJ.,; 
 
WOV   6   1911      *) 
 
 Division  BXS565 
 Section     .&G4  5 
 
"  iHt  Swamp  College  "  of  Rev.   Dr.  Herman. 
 See  Pages  15-18. 
 
 Rev.  Thomas  WrNTERS  Private  Theological  Seminary,  (Jermantovvn,  Ohio. 
 
,^v^^  !!r^ 
 
 HISTORY      L 
 
 of  the 
 
 Reformed  Church  in  the  U.   S. 
 
 NOV  6  i9i: 
 
 in 
 
 the  Nineteenth  Century 
 
 By  y 
 
 REV.   PROF.  JAMES  I.  GOOD,  D.D. 
 
 Author  of  ^'Origin  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  Germany  "  "History  of  the 
 
 Reformed  Church  in  Germany,"  "History  of  the  Reformed  Church 
 
 in  the   U.   S.    (1723-17Q2)  "    "Famous   Women  of  the 
 
 Reformed  Church,"  "Famous  Missionaries  of  the 
 
 Reformed  Church,''''  "Famous  Places  of  the 
 
 Reformed  Churches,''"'  etc. 
 
 New  York 
 
 THE  BOARD  OF  PUBLICATION  OF  THE 
 
 REFORMED  CHURCH  IN  AMERICA 
 
 MCMXI 
 
Copyright,  1911 
 
To  the  Memory  of  my  father, 
 
 REV.   WILLIAM  A.  GOOD, 
 
 who  loved  the  Old  Reformed 
 
 doctrines  and  worship 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 This  work  brings  the  author's  series  of  histories  up  to  the 
 present  time.  Although  it  is  named  after  the  nineteenth  cen- 
 tury, yet  it  includes  a  little  more  at  each  end  of  the  century 
 (1793-1910).  It  has  been  a  difficult  task,  because  of  the  com- 
 parative absence  of  materials  during  the  first  half  of  the 
 century  (up  to  1840)  and  the  excess  of  material  during  the 
 last  half.  For  the  first  period  he  has  been  compelled  to  seek 
 information  from  all  conceivable  quarters ;  for  the  second  he 
 has  tried  to  state  the  liturgical  controversy  fairly  and  fully. 
 But  his  standpoint  is  that  of  the  Old  Reformed  or  low-church.  >• 
 It  could  not  be  otherwise  as  a  historian.  For  the  Old  Re- 
 formed party  represented  the  old  views  of  the  Reformed 
 Church  from  her  beginning.  And  yet  he  has  tried  to  be  fair 
 in  giving  the  opinions  of  the  Mercersburg  theology,  letting  its 
 adherents  speak  as  far  as  possible  in  their  own  words.  He  has 
 even  given  unusually  large  space  to  them,  so  that  their  posi- 
 tion might  be  fully  understood.  He  feels  that  the  controversy 
 was  a  great  movement  by  great  men  who  were  honestly  con- 
 tending for  what  they  believed  to  be  the  truth.  He  has  pre- 
 ferred to  let  the  facts,  articles  and  discussions  speak  for  them- 
 selves rather  than  give  his  own  summary  of  them.  This  has 
 made  the  book  much  larger,  but  it  better  enables  the  reader  to 
 see  things  as  they  came  up  and  enter  more  fully  into  the  spirit 
 of  the  past.  The  less  important  parts,  as  the  book-con- 
 tents and  discussions  are  in  smaller  type,  so  that  the  general 
 reader,  who  does  not  care  to  enter  into  details,  can  get  a  fine 
 summary  of  the  history  from  the  large  print.  But,  of  course, 
 there  are  many  valuable  facts  hidden  away  in  the  fine  print. 
 In  giving  the  discussions  there  are  sometimes  inaccuracies 
 which  he  has  not  corrected  because  it  would  spoil  the  discus- 
 sion as  it  appeared  at  the  time.  Any  remarks  of  his  own  in 
 the  midst  of  a  book-contents  or  discussion  he  has  marked  with 
 
 V 
 
vi  Preface. 
 
 an  A.,  meaning  the  author.  While  there  is  much  in  the  con- 
 troversy that  we  would  gladly  have  left  out,  yet  we  felt  that 
 the  truth  should  be  told,  so  that  later  generations  might  under- 
 stand its  significance.  A  controversy  is  not  always  pleasant 
 reading,  but  God  overrules  it  for  his  glory.  Any  corrections 
 the  author  will  be  glad  to  place  in  the  second  edition,  as  also 
 any  reply  to  criticisms  made  on  the  book. 
 
 He  desires  to  express  his  indebtedness  and  gratefulness  to 
 the  many  friends  who  have  given  him  infomiation  and  whom 
 he  fears  he  has  often  wearied  with  inquiries  in  order  to  find 
 out  the  facts.  He  regrets  that  the  already  large  size  of  the 
 book  precludes  the  mentioning  of  them  by  name. 
 
 James  I.  Good. 
 
 May  6, 1911. 
 
TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 
 
 PART  I. 
 
 The  Early  Church   (1793- [844.) 
 
 CHAPTEE    I. 
 
 The  Early  Synod. 
 
 Section    1.     The  first  Meeting  of  the  Synod,   1 
 
 ' '         2.     The   Conflict   of   Languages,    7 
 
 ' '         3.     The  Schools  of  the  Prophets,   12 
 
 CHAPTER  II. 
 
 The  Free  Synod. 
 
 Section  1.  The  Causes  that  led  to  the  Free  Synod, 21 
 
 ' '  2.  The  Separation  of  the  Free  Synod,    30 
 
 ' '  3.  The  Controversy  Between  the  Two  Synods,    37 
 
 ' '  4.  The  History  of  the  Free  Synod,   46 
 
 ' '  5.  The  Religious  Agitation  of   1829,    49 
 
 ' '  6.  The  Return  of  the  Free  Synod,   52 
 
 CHAPTER  III. 
 
 The  Early  History  of  the  Theological  Seminary  and  the  College. 
 
 Section    1.     The  Founding  of  the  Theological  Seminary,    56 
 
 "         2.     History  of  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Carlisle    (1825- 
 
 9),   63 
 
 "         3.     The  Theological  Seminary  at  York  and  the  Organiza- 
 tion of  the  Classical  School    (1829-1835),    72 
 
 "         4.     The    Theological    Seminary    at    Mercersburg    and    the 
 
 Founding   of  Marshall   College    (1835-44),    76 
 
 ' '         5.     Rev.  Prof.  Lewis  Mayer,  D.D.,    82 
 
 ' '         6.     Rev.  Prof.  Frederick  Augustus  Rauch,    91 
 
 "         7.     The    Early   Years    of   Rev.    John    Williamson    Nevins' 
 
 Professorship     (1840-4),     107 
 
 "         8.     The  Attempt  to  Found  a  Theological  Seminary  in  Ohio 
 
 (1838),     117 
 
 vii 
 
viii  Table  of  Contents. 
 
 CHAPTER    IV. 
 
 Revivals. 
 
 Section  1.     Early   References   to   Revivals,    124 
 
 '  *  2.     Revivals  During  this  Period,    130 
 
 "  3.  The   Support    of   Revivals   by    the    Institutions    of    the 
 
 Church,     136 
 
 ' '  4.     Approval  of  Revivals  by  the  Classes  and  Synods, 139 
 
 ' '  5.     The  ' '  Anxious  Bench, ' '  by  Dr.   Nevin,    141 
 
 ' '  6.     The  Effect  of  the  Revivals  on  the  Church,   150 
 
 CHAPTER  V. 
 
 The  Doctrine  and  Cultus  of  the  Church  (1793-1844). 
 
 Section    1.     The   Doctrine,    153 
 
 "         2.     The  Private  Catechisms  of  Our  Early  Church,    161 
 
 ' '         3.     The  Cultus  or  Worship  of  the  Church,   168 
 
 CHAPTER  VI. 
 Union  and  Disunion. 
 
 Section    1.     Union  and  Disunion  Within  Our  Church,   178 
 
 ' '         2.     Union   with    Other    Churches,    ; 179 
 
 CHAPTER  VII. 
 
 Missions. 
 
 Section    1.     History   of    Domestic   Missions,    189 
 
 ' '         2.     Various  Mission  Fields,    192 
 
 PART  II. 
 
 The  Liturgical  Controversy  (1844- 1878). 
 
 Book  I.    The  Theological  Preparation. 
 
 CHAPTER  I. 
 
 The  Controversy  About  ' '  The  Principle  of  Protestantism.  ' ' 
 
 Section  1.  Preparatory    Tendencies,    202 
 
 ' '  2.  The  Call  of  Prof.  Schaff  to  America,    -^   203 
 
 "  3.  Dr.  Nevins'  Sermon  on  "Catholic  Unity"  (1844), 210 
 
 "  4.  "The  Principle  of  Protestantism,"  by  Prof.  Schaff,  ..214 
 
Table  of  Contents.  ix 
 
 ' '         5.     The  Attacks  on  ' '  The  Principle  of  Protestantism, ' '  by 
 
 the  Different  Church  Papers,    219 
 
 ' '         6.     The  Action  on  it  Within  Our  Church,   225 
 
 "         7.     The  Action   of  the   Eastern   Synod  on   "The  Principle 
 
 of  Protestantism"    (1845),    227 
 
 CHAPTER  II. 
 
 The  Dogmatical  Preparation — the   Formulation   of  the  Mercers- 
 burg  Theology. 
 
 Section    1.     "What  is  Church  History?"  by  Schaff,   232 
 
 "         2.  "  The  Mystical  Presence, ' '  by   Nevin,    234 
 
 CHAPTER  III. 
 
 The  Second  Controversy  About  Prof.  Schaff — His  A^iews  on  the 
 
 Middle  State. 
 
 Section    1.     The  Attack  in  the  ' '  Christian  Intelligencer, "    243 
 
 ' '         2.     The  Eastern  Synods  of   1846-7,    245 
 
 CHAPTER  IV. 
 
 Significant  Events   (1847-50). 
 
 Section    1.     Dr.    Nevins '    Controversies,    251 
 
 ' '         2.     The  Controversy  About  Dr.  Krummacher  's  Letter,   .  . .   255 
 "         3.     "The    History    and    Genius    of    the    Heidelberg    Cate- 
 chism, ' '  by  Nevin,    256 
 
 "         4.     The  Dissolution   of   the   Triennial   Convention   Between 
 
 the  Dutch  and  German  Reformed,    259 
 
 "         5.     "  Antichrist ' '    or   the    ' '  Spirit    of   Sect   and   Schism, ' ' 
 
 by   Nevin,    263 
 
 ' '         6.     The  First  Years  of  the  Mercersburg  Review,   266 
 
 "         7.     "  Early    Christianity, ' '    by    Nevin,    271 
 
 CHAPTER  V. 
 The  Resignation  of  Dr.  Nevin. 
 
 Section    1.     His  Reasons  for  Resigning  and  the  Events  Prior  to  the 
 
 Synod    of    1851,    277 
 
 ' '         2.     The  Synod   of   1851,    279 
 
 "         3.     "  Cyprian, ' '   by   Nevin,    282 
 
X  Table  of  Contents. 
 
 CHAPTER  VI. 
 
 The  Uprising  Against  Mercersburq  Theology. 
 
 Section    1.     The  Departure  of  Rev.  Dr.  Berg  to  the  Dutch  Church,  286 
 
 ' '         2.     The  Synod  of   1852,    291 
 
 "         3.     The  Uprising  of  the  German  Students  at  Mereersburg, .  .   293 
 
 "         4.     Organization  of  Franklin  and  Marshall  College,   295 
 
 "         5.     The   Withdrawal   of   North   Carolina   Classis   from   Our 
 
 Church,     298 
 
 "         6.     The  Withdrawal   of  the  Reformed  Church   of  German- 
 town  and  of  Rev.  Jacob  Helffenstein,  D.D., 303 
 
 ' '         7.     The  Sj-nod  of   1853,    307 
 
 "         8.     The  Rumors  of  Dr.  Nevins'  Going  Over  to  the  Cath- 
 olic   Church,    310 
 
 ' '         9.     Review  of  the  Controversy,   313 
 
 BOOK  II. 
 The  First  Liturgical  Controversy  (1854- 1863). 
 
 CHAPTER  I. 
 
 Liturgical  Preparation  for  the  Controversy. 
 
 Section  1.  The  First  Request  for  a  Liturgy,    322 
 
 ' '  2.  The  Early  Position  of  Dr.  Nevin  on  the  Liturgy, 327 
 
 ' '  3.  The  Synods  of  1850-1852,    329 
 
 '  *  4.  The  Revulsion  Against  the  Liturgy  in  the  West, 333 
 
 "  5.  The  Attack  on  Mereersburg  Theology  by  the  Reformed 
 
 of    Germany,     336 
 
 ' '  6.  The   Synods   of    1853-1855,    339 
 
 ' '  7.  The   Mereersburg  Review    (1854-55),    342 
 
 CHAPTER  II. 
 
 The  Adoption  op  the  Provisional  Liturgy  and  Its  Results. 
 
 Section  1.  The  Adoption  of  the  Provisional  Liturgy   (1857),    .  . .  347 
 
 "  2.  The  Early  Discussion  About  the  Liturgy  (1857-8),  ...  352 
 
 ' '  3.  The  Liturgical  Events  of    1859,    360 
 
 ' '  4.  The  Office  of  Bishop,    369 
 
 ' '  5.  The  Liturgical  Discussion  and  Events  of  1860, 373 
 
 "  6.  The  Tiiturgical  Discussion  and  Events  of  1861, 377 
 
 ' '  7.  The  Liturgical  Discussion  and  Events  of  1862, 385 
 
 ' '  8.  The  Synod  of  1862  and  its  Antecedents, 394 
 
Table  op  Contents.  xi 
 
 CHAPTEE  III. 
 
 The  Observance  of  the  Tercentenary  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism 
 
 (1863). 
 
 Section    1.     The  Preparation  for  the  Tercentenary,    404 
 
 "         2.     The  Tercentenary  Convention    (1863),    407 
 
 ' '         3.     The  Addresses  at  the  Tercentenary,    409 
 
 "         4.     The  Organization  of  the  General  Synod,   418 
 
 "         5.     The  Closing  Convention  of  the  Tercentenary  at  Bead- 
 ing   (1864),    420 
 
 BOOK  III. 
 
 The    Second    Liturgical    Controversy    (The  Contro- 
 versy about  "The  Order  of  Worship"). 
 
 CHAPTEE  I. 
 
 The  New  "Order  of  Worship." 
 
 Section    1.     The  Preparation   of   the   New  Liturgy,    424 
 
 ' '         2.     The  ' '  Eevised  Liturgy, ' '  by    Bomberger,    426 
 
 "         3.     The  General  Synod  of   1866,    428 
 
 "         4.     "Vindication   of    the   Liturgy,"   by    Nevin   and    "Ee- 
 
 formed  not  Eitualistic, ' '  by  Bomberger,   431 
 
 CHAPTEE  II. 
 
 The  Action  of  the  General  Synod  of  1869  on  Both  Liturgies, 
 
 Section  1.     Liturgical  Events  in  the  East   (1866-9),   436 
 
 ' '  2.     Lay-baptism,    442 
 
 ' '  3.     The  Liturgical  Events  of  1866-7  in  the  West,   444 
 
 ' '  4.     The  Myerstown  Convention   (1867),   452 
 
 ' '  5.     The  Eastern  Synod  of   1867,    456 
 
 ' '  6.     Controversy  on   Infant  Baptism,    463 
 
 ' '  7.     The  Preparation  of  the  Western  Liturgy,   467 
 
 "  8.     The   Corner    Controversy    (1868),    471 
 
 ' '  9.     The   High-Church   Movement,    475 
 
 "  10.  Constitutional  High-Churchism  or  Church  Authority,    .   477 
 
 ' '  11.     The   Eastern  Synod  of   1868,    484 
 
 ' '  12.     The    Iowa    Controversy,    488 
 
 ' '  13.     The   Eastern   Synod  of   1869,    491 
 
 ' '  14.     The  General  Synod  of   1869,    495 
 
 "  15.  The  Mercersburg  Eeview  and  the  Western  Liturgy,  ...   501 
 
xii  Table  op  Contents. 
 
 CHAPTER  III. 
 
 The  Endorsement  of  Ursinus  Theological  Department  by  General 
 
 Synod   (1872). 
 
 Section    1.     Liturgical   Events    (1871-2),    504 
 
 ' '         2.     The  Priesthood  of  the  Ministry,    506 
 
 ' '         3.     The   Eastern   Synod   of   1870,    510 
 
 ' '         4.     Fritschel  's  Review  of   Mercersburg   Theology,    512 
 
 "         5.     The  Perversions  to  Rome  and  to  the  Episcopal  Church 
 
 (1870-3) 517 
 
 ' '         6.     The  Eastern  Synod  of  1871,   525 
 
 "         7.     Union  with  the  Dutch    (1871-2),    528 
 
 "  8.  The  Charge  that  Ursinus  College  Grew  Out  of  Disap- 
 pointed Personal   Ambition    (1872),    532 
 
 9.     The   Eastern   Synod  of   1872,    534 
 
 ' '        10.     The  General  Synod  of  1872,   539 
 
 CHAPTER  IV. 
 
 The  Liturgical  Discussion  up  to  the  General  Synod  of  1878. 
 
 Section    1.     Liturgical   Events    ( 1873-8),    545 
 
 ' '         2.  The  Messenger  and  the  Old  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement 
 
 (1872),   549 
 
 ' '         3.     Rev.  Dr.  Rupp  Charged  with  Pantheism,   550 
 
 '  *         4.     Another  Perversion  to  Rome,    555 
 
 ' '         5.     The  Synods  of  1873,   559 
 
 * '         6.  Rev.  Dr.  Schneck  's  Book  on  ' '  Mercersburg  Theology, ' '  561 
 
 ' '         7.     The  Synod  of  1874,   567 
 
 ' '         8.  The  Semicentennial  of  the  Theological  Seminary,   .  . .   569 
 
 ' '         9.     The  General  Synod  of  1875,    570 
 
 10.     The  Synods  of  1875-8,  574 
 
 ' '       11.     The  General  Synod  of  1878,  578 
 
 PART  III. 
 Events  After  the  Liturgical  Controversy  (i 878-1910). 
 
 CHAPTER  L 
 
 Important  Events. 
 
 Section    1.     The    Peace   Movement,    581 
 
 "  2.  Summary  of  the  Liturgical  Controversy  and  Contrast  of 
 the  Two  Theologies  (Mercersburg  and  Old  Re- 
 formed),         587 
 
 ' '         3.     The  Worship  of  the  Church,   595 
 
Table  of  Contents.  xiii 
 
 ' '         4.     The  Government  of  the  Church,    595 
 
 ' '         5.     Recent    Theological    Developments,    598 
 
 ' '         6.     Revivals,    606 
 
 CHAPTER  II. 
 Union  and  Disunion. 
 
 Section    1.     Union  Between  the  Eastern  and  Ohio  Synods,   610 
 
 2.  Union  With  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church,    612 
 
 3.  Correspondence  and  Union  with  the  Presbyterians,  ....  614 
 
 4.  Correspondence  with  the  Lutheran  Church,   616 
 
 5.  Alliance  of  the  Reformed  and  Presbyterian  Churches,  .  616 
 
 6.  Correspondence  with  Foreign  Bodies,   617 
 
 7.  The  Evangelical  Alliance,    619 
 
 8.  The  Independent  Synod  of  Ohio,  621 
 
 9.  The  Stiely  Synod  of  Pennsylvania, 623 
 
 CHAPTER  III. 
 
 The  Activities  of  the  Church. 
 
 Section    1.     The  Society  for  the  Relief  of  Ministers,   625 
 
 2.  The  Home  Missions  of  the  Church,    626 
 
 3.  The  Foreign  Missions  of  the  Church,   632 
 
 4.  The  Educational  Institutions  of  the  Church,   636 
 
 5.  The  Publication  Work  of  the  Church, 638 
 
 6.  The  Orphans '  Homes  of  the  Church,  643 
 
 7.  The  Sunday  School  Work  of  the  Church,    644 
 
 Appendix  1.     The  Re\aval   at  York,    648 
 
 "  2.     Letter  of  Rev.  Samuel  Helffenstein,  D.D.,  about  the 
 
 Liturgy,    651 
 
 * '         3.     The  Reformed  and  the  Evangelical  Association, 653 
 
LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 The  ' '  Swamp  College ' '  of  Eev.  Dr.  Herman,  Frontispiec* 
 
 The  Early  Theological  Seminary  of  Eev.  Thomas  Winters,  German- 
 town,  Frontispiece 
 
 Eev.  Samuel  Helffenstein,  D.D., 18 
 
 Eev.  Prof.  Lewis  Mayer,  D.D.,    83 
 
 The  House  in  which  Prof.  Eauch  was  Born,   92 
 
 The  Church  in  which  Prof.  Eauch  was  Baptized,   93 
 
 Portrait  of  Prof.  Eauch,   101 
 
 Eev.  Pres.  John  W.  Nevin,  D.D.,   108 
 
 Heidelberg   College,    123 
 
 St.  Matthews  Arbor  Lincoln  Co.,  N.  C,  140 
 
 Eev.  Prof.  Philip  Schaff,  D.D.,   206 
 
 Eev.  Joseph  F.  Berg,  D.D.,   220 
 
 Marshall   College,    231 
 
 Carawba   College,    ,  300 
 
 Eev.  Pres.  J.  H.  A.  Bomberger,  D.D.,  426 
 
 Eev.  Prof.  H.  Harbaugh,  D.D.,   440 
 
 The  Mission  House  at  Franklin,  Wis.,   445 
 
 Eev.  F.  W.  Kremer,  D.D.,  453 
 
 Eev.  Pres.  G.  W.  Williard,  D.D.,   469 
 
 Eev.  Pres.  E.  V.  Gerhart,  D.D.,   496 
 
 Eev.  Prof.  Jeremiah  H.  Good,  D.D.,    508 
 
 Eev.  Pres.  T.  G.  Apple,  D.D.,  525 
 
 Eev.  Prof.  Henry  Super,  D.D.,   538 
 
 Frsinus   College,    541 
 
 The  Peace   Commission,    581 
 
 XV 
 
PART  I. 
 
 The  Early  Church  (1793- 1844). 
 
 CHAPTER  I. 
 
 The  Early  Synod. 
 Section  1.    The  First  Meeting  of  the  Synod. 
 
 In  1793  the  coetus  of  the  Reformed  Churches  of  Pennsyl- 
 vania was  transformed  into  a  synod.  From  being  a  church 
 subordinate  to  and  dependent  on  the  Reformed  Church  of  the 
 Netherlands  in  Europe,  it  now  becomes  an  independent  body. 
 As  early  as  1791  the  coetus  began  officially  to  show  signs  of 
 independency  by  claiming  for  itself  the  right  to  ordain  min- 
 isters without  asking  or  waiting  for  permission  to  do  so  from 
 Holland.  In  1792  they  went  a  step  farther.  Whether  they, 
 at  the  beginning  of  this  movement,  intended  that  it  should  be 
 a  breach  with  Holland  is  not  clear,  but  it  resulted  in  that. 
 They  appointed  a  committee  consisting  of  Pomp  and  Hendel 
 to  prepare  a  new  constitution.  This  decision  to  prepare  their 
 own  constitution  was  a  virtual  declaration  of  independence 
 on  their  part,  especially  as  the  Church  in  Holland  was  talking 
 of  preparing  a  constitution  for  them,  and  this  fact  may  have 
 led  them  to  take  the  step  they  did. 
 
 The  first  meeting  of  what  proved  to  be  the  synod  was  held 
 at  Lancaster,  April  27,  1793.  There  were  13  ministers  pres- 
 ent and  nine  are  noted  as  absent,  making  22  in  all.  This, 
 how^ever,  does  not  include  all  the  Reformed  ministers  in 
 America,  as  some  were  independent.  The  ministers  present 
 were  Hendel,  Helffrich,  Runkel,  Pauli,  Rahauser,  Faber, 
 Mann,  Wagner,  Winckhaus,  Wack,  Stock,  Ilautz  and  Gobrecht. 
 
 1 
 
2  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Those  noted  as  absent  were:  Dellicker,  Otterboin,  Troldenier, 
 Dubendorf,  Weber,  Pomp,  Gueting,  Bliimer  and  Herman. 
 The  statistics  of  the  church  at  the  time  of  the  organization  of 
 the  synod  were  78  congregations  (of  them  55  were  vacant), 
 and  about  15,000  communicants,  representing  perhaps  about 
 40,000  adherents.*  The  congregations  were  mainly  in  eastern 
 Pennsjdvania  and  IMaryland,  though  tliere  were  a  few  in  west- 
 em  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  North  Carolina  and  even  in  Nova 
 Scotia.f  • 
 
 Domine|  Winckhaus  opened  the  session  with  an  edifying 
 sermon  on  1  Cor.  15:58.  On  the  next  day  (Monday)  they 
 went  to  the  schoolhouse  of  the  congregation,  where  they  held 
 their  business  sessions.  "Winckhaus  was  made  president,  and 
 Wack,  secretary.  Blumer,  Pomp,  Otterbein  and  "Weber  sent 
 excuses  for  their  absence.  Dellieker  started  from  Falkner 
 Swamp  for  the  meeting,  but  was  prevented  from  attend- 
 ance by  the  rains.  Troldenier  Avas  known  to  be  sick.  What 
 caused  the  absence  of  Herman,  Dubendorf  and  Gueting  is  un- 
 known. The  items  of  the  synod  were  mainly  of  a  routine 
 character.  Their  special  acts  were  in  regard  to  a  liyinn-l)ook,  a 
 catechism  and  also  their  independence  from  Holland. 
 
 A  committee  was  appointed  to  prepare  a  new  hymn-book 
 consisting  of  Hendel,  Helffrich,  Blumer,  Wagner,  Pauli  and 
 Mann.  Winckhaus  also  promised  that  he  would  do  some- 
 thing toward  an  arrangement  of  the  catechism  and  distribute 
 it  among  the  members  of  the  synod.  There  seemed  to  have 
 been  no  thought  of  preparing  a  liturgy,  as  it  is  not  mentioned. 
 The  synod  took  the  following  action  on  its  relations  to  the 
 mother  church  in  PTolland  :    , 
 
 1.  "Inasmuch  as  we  have  not  received  a  reply  to  our  last 
 letters  and  procedure,  it  was  resolved  by  a  majority  of  votes 
 that  for  the  present  we  will  transmit  to  the  Fathers  in  Holland 
 only  a  letter  and  not  our  proceedings." 
 
 *Soe  Buhb'a  American  Church   History,  Vol.  8,  page  324. 
 
 fWhere  Eev.  Bruin  Uomcas  Coniingoe  labored  in  six  congregations  till 
 1820  and  was  succeeded  by  Eev.  Mr.  Moschell.  When  he  resigned  in  1840 
 the  congregation  went  into  the  Presbyterian  denomination. 
 
 |They  still,  after  the  Holland  fashion,  called  the  minister  "Domine. " 
 
The  Early  Synod.  3 
 
 2.  It  also  completed  its  independence  and  organization  by 
 the  adoption  of  its  own  constitution.  Tliis  had  been  prepared 
 and  was  submitted  to  the  synod  by  Hendel  and  Blumer,  the 
 latter  having:  for  some  reason  taken  the  place  of  Pomp  on 
 the  committee.*  The  adoption  of  this  constitution  made  the 
 coetus  a  self-governing  body  and  changed  it  into  a  synod. 
 
 The  cause  of  this  separation  from  Holland  was  therefore 
 not  on  account  of  any  difference  in  doctrine.  The  Reformed 
 ministers  in  Pennsylvania  agreed  with  those  in  ITolland  in 
 their  adherence  to  Calvinism.  Every  minister  that  the  Dutch 
 had  sent  over  had,  before  coming,  signed  his  adherence  to  the 
 Belgic  Confession  and  the  Canons  of  Dort,  both  creeds  being 
 strongly  Calvinistic  on  predestination,  etc.  From  their  theo- 
 logical works,  some  of  which  we  have  seen  in  manuscript,  we 
 learn  that  Helffrich,  Weyberg,  Winckhaus  and  Herman  were 
 predestinarians,  Helffenstein  and  "Weyberg  belonging  to  the 
 Federal  School  of  Holland,  which  emphasized  the  Covenants. 
 Winckhaus  was  somewhat  more  liberal,  but  still  strongly 
 Calvinistic,  and  Herman,  though  trained  under  the  rational- 
 istic Mursinna,  yet  was  also  Calvinistic. 
 
 There  had  already  been  differences  between  the  Pennsyl- 
 vania coetus  and  the  church  in  Holland  mainly  on  two  points : 
 
 1.  The  right  of  ordination.  This  the  Holland  Fathers  had 
 been  slow  to  grant.  The  coetus,  however,  after  waiting  for  a 
 sufficient  length  of  time  and  getting  no  answer,  would  ordain. 
 as  in  the  case  of  Rahauser  and  Stock.  Or  if  it  were  considered 
 a  necessity  (as  in  the  case  of  Gueting),  they  would  do  so.  In 
 1791  they  took  action  affirming  their  right  to  ordain  without 
 waiting  for  permission  from  ITolland. 
 
 2.  A  second  difference  of  opinion  had  arisen  in  regard  to 
 education.  Our  Church  felt  the  need  of  a  school  at  which 
 young  men  could  be  educated  for  the  ministry.  In  1785, 
 Helffrich   in   a  letter  avsked   the   Holland   Fathers  that  the 
 
 *Blunier  evidently  skett'lierl  this  constitution  as  a  fragment  of  it  is  in 
 his  handwriting.  We  have  alwaj'S  been  suspicious  that  because  Pomp  did 
 not  serve  on  the  committee,  he  was  one  of  the  minoritv  in  the  coetus 
 who  were  not  favorable  to  complete  separation  from  Holland.  This,  too, 
 would  accord  with  his  generally  conservative  disposition. 
 
4  History  of  Keformed  Ciii'rcii  in  the  T"^.  S. 
 
 Pennsylvania  churches  he  alk)\v(Ml  to  move  on  this  subject. 
 The  coetiis  of  that  year,  however,  is  careful  to  intimate  that 
 this  request  was  not  made  with  any  idea  of  separation  from 
 Holland,  wliich  tli(y  say  "would  ])e  the  basest  ingratitude  for 
 all  the  kindness  thoy  had  received."  Later  their  activity 
 and  presence  at  the  opening  of  the  Franklin  High^School  at 
 Lancaster  in  1787  fanned  anew  the  suspicions  of  the  Holland 
 Fathers,  that  this  was  a  new  tendeney  to  ind('pcn(h'n('y  and 
 they  asked  some  pointed  questions. 
 
 Another  reason  that  led  them  to  lliis  desire  was  th(^  un- 
 worthy character  of  some  of  the  latei-  ministers  that  Holland 
 had  sent  over,  as  Pernisius  and  Willy ;  while  on  tlu'  other  hand 
 the  young  ministers  Avho  were  raised  up  by  the  eoetus  itself 
 were  doing  most  excellent  woi'k.  Still  neither  of  these  differ- 
 ences are  mentioned  as  the  cause  of  the  separatiim.  As  to 
 the  second  of  these,  too  much  stress  should  not  perhaps  be 
 laid  on  it;  for  although  Franklin  High  School  at  Lancaster 
 had  to  succumb  to  adverse  fate,  yet  the  members  of  the  synod 
 made  no  attempt  for  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century  to  found  a 
 theological  school  of  their  own. 
 
 The  only  reason  given  is  lack  of  correspondence.  Corre- 
 spondence across  the  Atlantic  was  always  difficult  in  the  eigh- 
 teenth century.  Winter  would  largely  suspend  commerce. 
 W^ars,  as  the  Amer-ican  Revolution,  interrupted  it,  yes  often 
 prevented  it  entirely.  The  Holland  fathers,  as  well  as  the  mem- 
 bers of  the  eoetus,  complain  of  breaches  of  correspondence. 
 The  Classis  of  Amsterdam  and  the  Synod  of  South  Holland 
 complain  repeatedly  of  the  lack  of  news  from  Pennsylvania. 
 Holland,  too,  was  undergoing  serious  political  strife  Ix'tween 
 the  patriots  and  its  luler.  which  at  times  provoked  war  until 
 Holland  was  fiiudiy  tak<'n  by  France,  llengstenberg*  says  that 
 with  the  French  occupation  of  Holland,  the  bond  between  Hol- 
 land and  our  churcli  was  pei'inancntly  broken.  All  tliis  would 
 tend  to  interfere  with  con-esi)ondence,  and  yet  in  the  reports 
 of  the  Holland  ecclesiastical  bodies  every  meeting  has  an  item 
 about  the  Pennsylvania   atif'aii-s.   whether  an\-   news  were  re- 
 
 *See  Messenger  in  the  Kail  <>f  J 847. 
 
The  Early  Synod.  5 
 
 ceived  or  not,  showing  their  continued  interest  in  us.  The 
 only  direct  light,  therefore,  that  we  have  as  to  the  cause  of 
 separation  is  given  in  the  action:  ''Inasmuch  as  we  have  re- 
 ceived no  reply  to  our  last  letters  and  procedure,  it  is  re- 
 solved by  a  majority  of  votes  that  for  the  present  we  will 
 transmit  to  the  Fathers  in  Holland  only  a  letter  and  not  our 
 proceedings." 
 
 Two  facts  are  to  be  noticed  in  this  action.  One  is  that  the 
 action  was  not  unanimous.  Evidently  there  was  a  minority 
 who  still  desired  to  continue  their  former  relations  to  Hol- 
 land. Another-  is  that  it  is  so  worded  as  if  it  were  intended 
 to  be  temporary.  It  is  to  be- "for  the  present."  Either  this 
 indicated  that  they  did  not  expect  the  separation  from  Hol- 
 land to  be  ])ermanent.  Or  if  it  were  to  be  permanent,  that 
 modifying  statement  was  made  to  satisfy  the  conservative 
 members  of  the  coetus  who  still  wanted  to  remain  under  Hol- 
 land. If  the  latter  were  the  idea,  it  failed  in  its  aim,  for  these 
 seem  to  have  voted  against  it,  as  it  was  adopted  only  by  a 
 majority,  not  by  a  unanimous  vote. 
 
 One  thing,  however,  is  evident :  The  coetus  was  hoping  to 
 go  slow  about  separation  from  the  Holland  Church.  This  is 
 shown  by  two  reasons:  (1)  In  this  action  it  was  only  a  tem- 
 porary arrangement.  (2)  In  the  i)revious  coetus,  although 
 they  had  taken  action  that  they  had  the  right  to  ordain,  they 
 did  not  so  notify  the  Holland  fathers;  for  that  action  is  not 
 in  the  draft  of  the  coetus'  minutes  sent  to  Holland.  It  is, 
 therefore,  very  evident  that  the  separation  of  our  church 
 from  the  mother  church  in  Holland  was  not  an  act  of  rebellion 
 or  of  any  great  difference  in  doctrine,  but  simply  because  they 
 were  drifting  apart,  due  mainly  to  the  lack  of  correspondence. 
 This  is  proved  by  the  report  of  the  connnittee  of  the  Synod 
 of  1817  on  the  origin  and  progress  of  the  synod.  It  says  that 
 because  the  last  coetus'  minutes  sent  to  Holland  were  not 
 answered,  the  separation  took  place.* 
 
 Before  leaving  this  first  synod  it  might  be  well  to  notice  the 
 men  who  organized  it,  cradled  its  infancy  and  guided  the  new- 
 
 *See  also  my  History  of  the  Refornieil  Cliuieh  in  the  U.  S.,  pages- 
 659-665. 
 
6  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 born  child.  Of  the  members  reported,  ten  had  been  sent  over 
 from  Holland :  Otterbein,  Hendel,  Pomp,  Blumer,  Helffrich, 
 Dubendorf,  Herman,  Dellicker  and  Troldenier.  Thirteen  had 
 been  raised  up  by  the  eoetus  on  tliis  side  of  the  Atlantic :  Go- 
 brecht,  Wack,  Xevelino;.  Weber,  AVagner,  Runkel,  Hantz. 
 Pauli,  Gueting,  Rahaiiscr,  Stock  and  ^lann.  Besides  these, 
 there  were  some  Reformed  ministers  independent  of  the  eoetus, 
 as  Willy,  Lupp,  Loretz.  Wilms,  etc.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that 
 while  the  majority  of  the  ministers  were  those  raised  up  in 
 America,  yet  the  leaders  of  the  synod  were  virtually  the  men 
 sent  from  Holland.  They  were  at  this  time  the  older  members 
 of  the  s^aiod ;  and  as  a  general  rule  were  better  educated  than 
 the  others,  as  they  all  had  a  university  training  in  Europe, 
 although  some  of  the  latter,  too,  had  a  fine  education,  as  Stock 
 and  Pauli.  Hendel  was  evidently  the  leader,  a  fine  combina- 
 tion of  intellectual  and  spiritual  power,  but  his  life  was  soon 
 cut  short  by  death  from  yellow  fever  in  1798. 
 
 Of  the  first  generation  of  Reformed  ministers  who  came  to 
 America,  Boehm,  Weiss,  Schlatter,  Rieger,  all  were  by  this 
 time  gone.  Of  the  second  generation  (those  who  came  over 
 with  Schlatter  in  1752),  only  one  was  still  in  the  eoetus,  Otter- 
 bein. Of  them  Stoy  was  still  living,  but  was  independent 
 and  long  a  bitter  enemy  of  the  eoetus.  Otterbein,  too,  on 
 account  of  increasing  age  and  because  living  at  a  long  distance 
 from  the  centre  of  the  church,  found  it  difficult  to  attend  the 
 eoetus,  although  he  was  present  at  the  later  meetings  of  1797, 
 1800  and  18U6,  and  still  professed  himself  to  be  Reformed.* 
 It  was,  however,  the  ministers  who  came  over  from  Holland 
 after  3760  who  were  now  the  leaders:  Hendel,  Pomp,  Helf- 
 frich, Dellicker,  Troldenier  and  Herman.  As,  however,  the 
 synod  grew  in  years,  these  fathers  of  the  synod  gradually 
 passed  away  as  follows:  Hendel  1798,  Dellicker  1799,  Trol- 
 denier 1800,  Stoy  1801,  Helffrich  1810,  Wagner  1810,  Go- 
 brecht  1815,  Pauli  1815,  Weber  1816,  Rahauser  1817,  Pomp 
 1819,  Blumer  1822,  Hautz  1830,  Runkel  1832,  Faber  1833, 
 Wack  1839,  Neveling  1844,  Herman   1848,  the  last  living  a 
 
 *See  pages  128-130. 
 
The  Early  Synod.  7 
 
 half  century  after  its  organization.     Their  passing  away  re- 
 minds ns  of  the  beautiful  lines: 
 
 Our  Fathers,  where  are  they, 
 
 With  all  they  call  their  own. 
 Their  joys  and  griefs  and  hopes  and  cares 
 
 And  wealth  and  honor  gone. 
 
 Of  all  the  pious  dead 
 
 May  we  the  footsteps  trace, 
 Till  with  them  in  the  land  of  light 
 
 We  dwell  before  Thy  face. 
 
 — Doddridge. 
 
 Section  2.     The  Conflict  of  Languages. 
 
 The  first  great  problem  that  came  up  was  that  of  language. 
 The  change  from  the  German  language  to  the  English  brought 
 up  serious  complications.  As  the  German  families  (especially 
 their  young  people)  became  more  English,  they  desired  Eng- 
 lish services  because  of  the  difficulty  of  understanding  Ger- 
 man. On  the  other  hand,  the  Germans  clung  tenaciously  to 
 their  mother-tongue,  because  they  loved  it  as  Germans  always 
 do.  The  problem  was  made  more  difficult  because  different 
 parts  of  the  church  differed,  some  becoming  English  before 
 others.  Hrid  the  change  occurred  simultaneously  everywhere, 
 they  might  have  sympathized  with  each  other.  But  as  they 
 did  not^  the  prevailing  German  districts  were  apt  to  be  more 
 conservative  than  the  English  districts.  Thus  the  Germans  of 
 New  Jersey  became  English  before  those  of  Pennsylvania. 
 Wack,  in  1782,  when  pastor  at  German  Valley,  preached  in 
 English.  In  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century,  the 
 district  west  of  the  Susquehanna,  especially  Maryland,  be- 
 came English  faster  than  that  east  of  the  Susquehanna, 
 which  was  the  great  stronghold  of  the  church  and  which  was 
 conservative.  This  diversity  later  threatened  to  make  serious 
 trouble  in  the  church  Avhen  the  founding  of  a  theological 
 seminary  was  talked  of,  as  the  Maryland  Classis  w'as  far  in 
 advance  of  the  German  classes  east  of  the  Susquehanna.  So 
 great  was  the  prejudice  against  the  English  by  some  of  the 
 German  pastors,  that  at  the   Synod  of  1826  the  president 
 
8  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 publicly  reproved  a  yoimg  member  for  attempting  to  deliver 
 an  address  in  English.  This  inequality  in  the  change  of 
 language  is  also  sho^\Tl  by  the  cities  becoming  English  faster 
 than  the  country  districts.  Thus  it  is  said  that  at  German- 
 to^^^l.  Herman  preached  English  as  early  as  1792,  although  he 
 had  been  but  six  years  in  America  among  English-speaking 
 people.  (President  Washington  is  said  to  have  attended  the 
 Reformed  Church  at  Germantown  when  Provost  Smith  of  the 
 Episcopal  Church  preached  English.)  Runkel  is  said  to  have 
 preached  English  in  1802,  whether  at  Frederick  or  German- 
 towTQ  we  do  not  know. 
 
 Controversies  in  denominations  are  caused  by  such  differ- 
 ences as  these  and  in  this  lay  the  possibilit}'  of  serious  danger 
 in  the  church.  The  first  appearance  of  trouble  occurred  at 
 Philadelphia  in  1804.  The  consistory  of  that  church  on 
 April  2  appointed  a  congregational  meeting  for  May  8  to  test 
 the  feeling  of  the  members  on  the  subject  of  the  introduction 
 of  the  English  language.  In  the  meanwhile  the  synod  met 
 at  Reading  on  April  29.  One  of  the  parties,  evidently  the 
 German  element,  sent  a  petition  to  it,  asking  it  to  come  to 
 the  assistance  of  this  congregation,  as  it  was  threatened  with 
 total  division  because  a  strong  party  desired  to  have  English 
 worship  every  two  weeks.  The  synod  took  no  decided  action 
 except  to  write  to  the  congregation  a  friendly  letter  represent- 
 ing the  danger  of  an  unhappy  separation  and  exhorting  them 
 to  walk  together  in  brotherly  love.  But  the  quarrel  had 
 become  too  deep  to  be  settled  by  kind  advice.  The  congre- 
 gational meeting  was  held  and  the  result  was  almost  a  tie. 
 Owing  to  some  defects  in  the  method  of  the  election  it  was  de- 
 clared illegal.  The  agitation  continued.  Various  petitions 
 came  before  the  consistory  urging  the  introduction  of  the 
 English.  At  the  next  synod  (1805)  a  request  came  that  Eng- 
 lish services  would  be  permitted  every  third  Sunday  of  the 
 month  and  also  a  complaint  was  brought  against  their  pastor. 
 Dr.  Helffenstein.  The  synod  granted  the  petition  of  the  con- 
 gregation for  an  English  service,  but  made  it  a  condition  that 
 it  should  be  held  by  either  a  minister  of  our  own  denomination 
 or  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  and  that  to  it  the  consent  of  the 
 
The  Early  Synod.  9 
 
 German  minister  must  be  obtained.  The  consistory  therefore 
 on  July  9,  1805,  voted  on  the  question.  It  resulted  in  a  tie. 
 Dr.  Helffenstein,  who  at  that  time  favorc^d  the  German  ele- 
 ment, voted  in  the  negative  and  so  it  was  lost.  Th(>  result 
 of  this  was  that  a  large  and  influential  part  of  the  congrega- 
 tion withdrew  in  1806  and  organized  an  independent  Re- 
 formed congregation.  They  worshiped  in  the  Whitfield  Acad- 
 emy on  Fourth  above  Arch.* 
 
 For  a  time  the  differences  in  our  First  Church  of  Philadel- 
 phia ceased  as  the  English  party  had  withdrawn ;  but  another 
 English  party  gradually  grew  up,  so  that  by  ]812  the  sjmod's 
 attention  was  again  called  to  it  by  complaints  from  different 
 persons  in  the  congregation.  Its  committee  reported  that  the 
 difficulties  came  partly  from  misunderstandings  and  partly 
 from  design.  It  ordered  that  the  parties  should  be  reconciled, 
 or,  if  not,  reprimanded.  The  differences  seem  to  have  con- 
 tinued, for  in  1816  the  sad  state  of  the  congregation  was 
 again  brought  before  the  synod  and  Dr.  Helffenstein 's  re- 
 moval urged.  It  seems  that  during  these  years  Dr.  Helffen- 
 stein had  changed  his  views  and  now  favored  the  English 
 party.  Perhaps  the  loss  of  so  important  an  element  of  a  con- 
 gregation to  the  Dutch  church  had  opened  his  eyes.  The 
 synod  unanimously  decided  that  there  was  not  a  single  ground 
 to  justify  the  removal  of  Dr.  Helffenstein.  In  1817  the  Ger- 
 man party,  having  elected  a  majoritj^  of  the  board  of  the 
 congregation,  took  summary  action  and  dismissed  Dr.  Helf- 
 fenstein. On  the  following  Sunday,  he  took  his  place  as  usual 
 in  the  chancel  and  gave  the  congregation  an  account  of  what 
 
 *Tliey  first  called  themselves  the  Second  Refornie<l  Association  for 
 four  years.  They  hoped  to  be  able  to  get  a  German  Reformed  minister 
 who  could  preach  English  and  thus  remain  in  connection  with  our  Church. 
 Tt  seems,  however,  that  there  was  hardly  a  minister  of  our  Church  quali- 
 fied to  do  so  at  the  time  except  LeAvis  Mayer,  then  a  young  man  and 
 just  licensed.  It  is  said  he  ])reached  for  them,  but  no  result  followed.  So 
 they  engaged  Eev.  Josejih  p]astburn  (1806-8)  and  then  Rev.  James  K. 
 Burch,  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  (1809-181.S),  as  stated  supply.  In 
 1810  they  changed  their  name  to  the  Evangelical  Reformed  Congregation 
 of  Philadelphia,  and  built  a  church  on  Crown  Street  in  1812.  Finally,  in 
 1813,  despairing  of  getting  a  minister  of  our  church  as  pastor,  they  en- 
 tered the  Dutch  Church,  became  the  First  Dutch  Church  of  Philadelphia, 
 and  in  1814  called  Rev.  Joseph  Brodhead  of  that  church  as  their  pastor. 
 
10  History  of  Reformed  Ciiurcit  ix  the  U.  S, 
 
 had  been  done.  His  remarks  called  forth  strong  sympathy 
 for  him.  The  next  Sunday  the  corporation  closed  the  doors 
 of  the  church  against  him,  so  he  and  his  friends  went  into  the 
 parochial  schoolhouse  and  held  services.  The  case  was  then 
 taken  to  court,  which  ordered  the  board  to  open  the  churcli 
 and  give  their  pastor  possession  of  the  pulpit.*  The  tables 
 seemed  now  to  have  been  turned.  In  1806  the  German  party 
 forced  the  English  party  from  the  church;  noAv,  however,  the 
 English  party  did  the  same  to  the  Germans. 
 
 The  Germans  having  withdrawn,  they  worshiped  at  first  in 
 Old  Commissioners'  Hall  on  Third  street.  In  September,  1817, 
 they  organized  Salem's  Reformed  Church  with  67  members, 
 and  in  December,  1818,  called  Rev.  F.  "W.  Vandersloot  as 
 their  pastor.  The  old  congregation  introduced  alternate  Eng- 
 lish and  German  services  until  1828,  when  the  German  was 
 discontinued.  Such  was  the  sad  history  of  the  first  attempt 
 of  our  church  to  solve  the  difficult  problem  of  languages.  It 
 is  true  we  lost  a  congregation  to  the  Dutch  but  the  experi- 
 ence derived  from  this  prepared  our  church  to  better  solve  the 
 problem  of  language. 
 
 What  took  place  in  Philadelphia  threatened  to  be  repeated 
 in  Baltimore.  Rev.  Dr.  Becker,  at  the  close  of  his  ministry 
 there  was  importuned  by  the  English  party  to  introduce  Eng- 
 lish. At  first  he  yielded,  but  his  German  friends  interfering, 
 he  retracted  and  then  the  storm  broke  out.  He  did  not  long 
 survive  the  conflict,  for  he  died  in  1818.  The  English  party 
 then  appointed  a  committee  to  go  to  our  Synod  of  1818  to 
 bring  before  it  the  importance  of  English  preaching.  This 
 synod  favored  them  and  urged  brotherly  unity.  Rev.  Lewis 
 Mayer  preached  there  as  a  candidate.  When  he  preached, 
 there  were  police  officers  in  and  outside  of  the  church, 
 for    an    immense    congregation    had    gathered.      Some    had 
 
 *When  on  the  following  Sunday,  according  to  tho  statement  of  Dr. 
 Helffenstein 's  son,  he  entered  the  ])ulpit,  the  leader  of  the  German  party 
 rose,  saying,  "Come,  this  is  not  our  minister,"  the  whole  party  left  the 
 church.  This  seriously  damaged  the  prospects  of  the  German  party 
 afterward,  for  in  building  their  church  they  received  no  aid  from  the 
 English  party,  who  remained  in  the  church.  This  cwnt  is,  however, 
 doubted  by  some  historians. 
 
The  Early  Synod.  11 
 
 threatened  personal  violence  if  he  preached  in  English, 
 but  nothing  occurred.  Mr.  Mayer  was  called  but  declined. 
 Rev.  Alfred  Helffenstein  finally  was  called  and  accepted 
 in  1819,  but  he  had  mueli  opposition.  Still,  as  he  had 
 studied  there  for  the  ministry  under  Dr.  Becker  and  had 
 man}'  personal  friends  in  the  congregation,  he  was  able  to  sus- 
 tain himself.  Alternate  German  and  English  services  were 
 held.  The  Germans,  however,  refused  to  pay  anything  to 
 the  support  of  the  church  except  a  pittance  for  their  burial- 
 rights.  So  finally  the  English  party,  as  they  had  to  bear  the 
 church  expenses,  decided  to  have  only  English  services  at  the 
 regular  hours,  and  put  the  German  services  in  the  afternoon. 
 Only  a  few  attended,  so  they  ordered  them  stopped.  The 
 Germans  finally  got  hold  of  a  Lutheran  licentiate  and  again 
 began  services  in  the  afternoon.  But  the  consistory  finding 
 this  was  a  plot  to  gain  the  church  finally  forbade  it.  The  li- 
 centiate and  the  Germans  soon  disagreed  and  the  German  con- 
 gregation went  to  pieces.  Later  a  German  congregation  was 
 organized.  The  feeling,  however,  continued  between  the  Ger- 
 mans and  the  English  even  down  to  the  coming  of  Heiner  as 
 their  pastor  in  1835. 
 
 The  difficulty  in  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore  repeated  itself 
 in  many  other  congregations.  Rev.  Philip  Gloninger  wrote 
 in  the  church-book  at  Harrisburg  that  English  was  first 
 preached  in  that  congregation  Feb.  23,  1812.  The  Frederick 
 congregation  met  the  crisis  about  1825,  but  wisely  solved  it  by 
 calling  an  English  pastor  as  assistant,  calling  their  pastor's 
 nephew.  Rev.  Samuel  Helffenstein.  This  was  a  new  method 
 of  solving  the  question ;  instead  of  alternating  English  serv- 
 ices it  gave  each  a  pastor.  At  Waynesboro,  Pa.,  the  con- 
 troversy became  so  bitter  that  the  attention  of  Maryland 
 Classis  was  called  to  it.  At  Chambersburg  there  was  a  bitter 
 controversy  whose  results  did  not  heal  imtil  the  wise  pastorate 
 of  Rice  in  1834.  At  Lancaster  the  controversy  between  the 
 two  parties  forced  Hoffmeier  to  resign  in  1831.  Glessner  tried 
 to  control  the  elements  there  after  him  but  it  resulted  finally 
 in  the  formation  of  a  new  congregation,  the  St.  Paul's.     The 
 
12  History  of  Eeformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 York  congregation  after  a  long  controversy  called  an  English 
 pastor  about  1850  and  finally  divided. 
 
 Our  church  finally  learned  how  to  deal  with  the  pi-()l)lein 
 of  language.    It  was  solved  generally  by  one  of  three  ways: 
 
 1.  The  introduction  of  p]nglish  occasionally  or  alt(>rnat(>ly. 
 
 2.  The  calling  of  an  English  pastor. 
 
 3.  A  division  in  the  church. 
 
 But  our  church  has  learned  wisdom  by  experience  and  now 
 English  is  gradually  introduced  by  a  gradual  increase  of  the 
 number  of  its  services.  The  old  prejudice  of  the  German 
 against  the  English  has  largely  ceased  and  the  English  have 
 been  more  careful  in  dealing  with  the  Germans.  Still  the 
 English  denominations  in  this  country  knew  nothing  of  the 
 difficulties  caused  by  the  change  of  language.  It  made  us  lose 
 thousands  of  members  and  caused  strifes  that  greatly  hin- 
 dered our  work. 
 
 Section  3.    The  Schools  op  the  Prophets. 
 
 The  kingdom  of  Israel  had  its  schools  of  the  prophets  foimd- 
 ed  by  Samuel,  and  the  early  Christian  Church  had  its  cate- 
 chetical schools  as  at  Alexandria  for  the  training  of  ministers. 
 So,  too,  our  early  Reformed  Church  in  Pennsylvania  had  its 
 schools  of  the  prophets.  These  were  private  theological  semi- 
 naries; for  the  days  of  a  church  tlieological  seminary  had  not 
 yet  arrived.  Individual  ministers  tried  to  su])ply  the  increas- 
 ing demand  for  ministers  ])y  educating  i)romising  young  men. 
 A  study  of  these  private  theological  seminaries  is  interesting 
 and  leads  to  some  surprising  results  somewhat  at  variance 
 with  previous  traditicmal  opinions. 
 
 The  first  minister  in  our  church  who  is  mentioned  as  trying 
 to  prepare  a  student  for  the  ministry  privately  was  Stoy  in 
 1756,  but  the  young  man  (Hoimer)  never  entered  onr  minis- 
 try. The  first  effort  that  pi-oduced  results  was  by  Alsentz. 
 who,  when  pastor  at  Wentz'  church,  ju-ejiared  Ciobrecht  (1764- 
 6),  and  Faehring  (1765-6).  From  this  time  the  preparation 
 of  young  men  privately  by  ministers  received  considerable  at- 
 tention. Thus  Pomp  aided  in  preparing  Faehring  (1766-7). 
 Gros  aided  in  preparing  Neveling  (1770)  and  also  Wagner. 
 
The  Early  Synod.  13 
 
 Weyberg  was  (|uite  active  in  noticing  young  men  titted  for  the 
 ministry  and  preparing  tliem.  He  prepared  Faehring  (1766- 
 7),  Waek  (1766-9),  Neveling  (1769),  Weber  (1770),  and 
 Stahlschmidt  (1772).  Bnt  the  most  prominent  teacher  was 
 Rev.  William  Hendel.  AVhile  pastor  at  Tulpehocl^en  he  pre- 
 pared Wagner  (1770-1),  Stahlschmidt  (1773),  and  at  Lan- 
 caster Hautz  (1785),  Chitara  (1785-8),  J.  Rahanser  (1785- 
 9),  J.  J.  Faber,  Jr.  (1791-2),  John  Gobrecht  (1793),  and 
 while  at  Philadelphia,  S.  Heltfenstein  (1795).  There  seem 
 to  have  been  very  few  years  that  he  did  not  have  as  an  inmate 
 of  his  family  some  student  for  the  ministry.  Well  was  it  for 
 the  early  church  that  a  man  at  once  so  learned  and  so  spiritual 
 could  leave  his  impressicm  on  so  many  of  her  ministers.  It 
 did  much  toward  giving  her  an  efficient  ministrJ^ 
 
 When  the  synod  separated  from  the  Church  of  Holland, 
 its  supply  of  ministers  from  Holland  was  cut  off.*  It  became 
 increasingly  necessary  for  the  synod  to  provide  for  a  supply 
 of  ministers.  This  was,  after  the  difficulty  of  language,  the 
 second  great  difficulty  that  faced  the  early  synod.  After 
 1793,  as  w^e  have  seen,  Hendel  trained  up  two,  Grobrecht  and 
 S.  Helffenstein.  AVagner,  one  of  the  best  of  the  fathers 
 of  the  synod,  practical,  efficient  and  spiritual,  but  lacking 
 the  university  training  of  Hendel,  educated  a  few  of  the  most 
 useful  ministers.  While  pastor  at  York  he  educated  Hiester 
 (1797),  and  while  pastor  at  Frederick,  Lewis  Mayer  (1806), 
 F.  A.  Rahauser  (1807)  and  Fries  (1808).  But  there  were 
 three  ministers  who  were  especially  prominent  iji  ministerial 
 education.  They  were  C.  L.  Becker,  L.  F.  Herman  and  Samuel 
 Helffenstein. 
 
 The  first  of  these  was  Rev.  Christian  Lewis  Becker,  D.D. 
 He  was  a  fine  scholar  and  eloquent  preacher,  ''impassioned  in 
 his  eloquence,  sometimes  swaying  his  congregation  as  a  wind 
 
 *A  few  oanie  over  after  that  at  their  own  expense  from  Germany. 
 That  our  ministers  of  that  day  were  concerned  about  the  supjily  of  min- 
 isters is  shown  by  a  letter  from  Hendel  to  Helffrich,  Ang;ust  21,  179.3, 
 in  which  he  says  that  Troldenier  and  Herman  would  look  after  getting 
 students  of  theology  from  Europe.  But  he  says,  "we  must  be  careful 
 lest  the  rationalism  of  Germany  be  lirought  in."  Troldenier  and  Her- 
 man introduced  quite  a  number  of  young  men  info  our  ministry,  who 
 came  from  Bremen   and  northern  Germany. 
 
14  History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 moves  the  forest."    Born  at  Anlialt-Cothen,  in  Germany,  Nov. 
 17,  1756,  lie  was  educated  at  the  university  of  Halle  and  the 
 Reformed  gymnasium  there.     In  the  former  he  was  taught 
 church  history  by  Semler,  and  in  the  latter  theology  by  ]\Tur- 
 sinna.    Before  he  came  to  America  in  1793  he  had  been  a  li- 
 centiate of  theology  for  fourteen  years  at  Bremen  and  had 
 revealed  considerable  ability  and  scholarship  in  the  publica- 
 tion of  two  works.     One  was  an  exposition  of  the  fifty-third 
 chapter  of  Isaiah  and  the  other  a  treatise  on  the  best  method 
 of  converting  the  Jews.     The  certificate  of  the  Bremen  ^Min- 
 isterium  of  May  14,  1703,  bears  high  testimony  to  his  ability 
 and  activity  and  especially  commends  his  work  on  the  fifty- 
 third  chapter  of  Isaiah.     He  was  admirably  fitted  to  prepare 
 students   for   the   ministry,    for   at   Bremen    he   had   devoted 
 part  of  his  time  to  preparing  young  men  for  the  university. 
 While  pastor  at  Lancaster  he  began  this  work,  1)y  preparing 
 Charles  Helffenstein    (1800),   Jonathan   HelfPenstein    (1804) 
 and  J.  Diefenbach   (1806).     He  continued  his  work  after  he 
 removed  to  Baltimore,  preparing  Gloninger,  Dechant,  SchaflP- 
 ner,   Albert  IJelffenstein   and  his  son   J.   C.   Becker    (1807). 
 Philip    Mayer    (1808),    Reily    (1809-1811),    Hableston    and 
 Weinel   (1814),  Geiger   (1816).     Hess  and  Zwisler  are  also 
 spoken  of  as  having  studied  under  him.*     At  the  time  of  his 
 death  he  was  educating  Denues,  Hacke,  Koch  and  TIamm.  Nine- 
 teen in  all  passed  under  his  training.  It  was  quite  a  compliment 
 to  his  ability  that  the  sons  of  the  late  Rev.  J.  C.  A.  HelfPen- 
 stein, who,  later,  became  leaders  in  our  church,  were  one  after 
 the  other  committed  to  his  care  after  the  death  of  Hendel,  who 
 had  begun  their  preparation.     One  of  these,  Rev.  A.  HelflFen- 
 stein,  thus  describes  Dr.  Becker's  methods  of  teaching: 
 
 "Every  clay  except  Saturday,  Dr.  Becker  visited  the  class-room  and 
 heard  recitations  in  Latin,  Greek  or  Hebrew.  Then  he  lectured  either 
 on  dogmatics,  moral  theology,  exegesis  or  church  history,  He  h:i<l  a 
 short  method  for  beginners  in  the  languages,  especially  the  Latin.  Tlf 
 was  a  ripe  Hebrew  scholar.  He  always  used  the  Bible  without  the 
 Hebrew  vowel-points,  while  the  students  had  the  pointed  text,  yet  he 
 always  detected   any  mistake  of  their 's.     When   he  went  to   Baltimore, 
 
 *In  giving  the  dates  of  the  students  in  this  chai)ter,  wo  are  uiiifnriiily 
 taking  the  year  before  their  licensure. 
 
The  Early  Synod.  15 
 
 all  his  students  went  with  him,  boarded  with  him  in  the  parsonage  and 
 were  treated  like  gentlemen.  Mrs.  Becker  always  was  kind,  especially 
 in  sickness.  He  never  made  any  charge  for  tuition  to  the  students, 
 whether  they  were  rich  or  poor.  All  he  charged  was  board  at  very 
 moderate  rates.  From  most  of  the  students  he  received  no  remunera- 
 tion during  their  whole  stay,  until  after  they  were  settled  in  a  charge. ' ' 
 Albert  Helffenstein  says  that  he  thus  became  indebted  to  him  for  from 
 five  to  six  hundred  dollars,  which  he  later  paid  off.  This  account  reveals 
 Dr.  Becker's  thoroughness  in  teaching  and  also  his  kindness  of  heart. 
 
 Dr.  Becker's  interest  in  young  men  was  shown  by  an  illustration  in 
 the  life  of  Philip  Mayer,*  a  poor  young  man  attending  the  Eeformed 
 church  at  Carlisle  while  at  college  there.  Dr.  Becker  was  invited  by  the 
 pastor  of  that  church,  who  had  been  one  of  his  pupils,  to  preach  the 
 dedicatory  sermon.  While  staying  there,  he  was  told  by  some  of  the 
 members  about  this  young  man  and  he  asked  to  see  him.  He  quickly 
 made  arrangements  for  him  to  come  to  Baltimore  and  prosecute  his 
 studies  under  him.  During  the  heat  of  summer,  Dr.  Becker  would  send 
 out  his  students  on  preaching  or  mission  tours,  and  Philip  Mayer  de- 
 scribes very  graphically  one  of  them  in  which  a  sermon,  preached  by 
 himself,  led  three  young  men  into  the  ministry.f 
 
 Dr.  Becker  told  his  students  that  if  they  lost  the  thread  of  their  dis- 
 course, they  should  help  themselves  out  by  quoting  the  catechism.  Once 
 at  a  funeral  of  a  drunkard's  child,  he  lost  his  place.  "Who  made 
 heaven  and  earth  ? "  he  went  on  to  say.  ' '  What  did  God  do  on  the 
 first  day?  What  is  the  name  of  the  first  man?  Why  is  a  drunkard 
 worse  than  the  devil?  Because  the  Bible  nowhere  declares  that  the 
 devil  was  ever  drunk."  By  this  time  the  thread  of  his  discourse  came 
 back  to  him.     As  a  result  of  his  sermon,  the  father  gave  up  drinking. 
 
 The  next  to  train  young  men  was  Frederick  Lebrecht  Her- 
 man, D.D.    He,  like  Becker,  was  born  at  Anhalt-Cothen,  Oct. 
 
 *Messeuger,  Dec.  21,  1870. 
 
 fBecker,  in  bidding  good-bye  to  one  of  his  students  as  he  went  to  his 
 charge  said  to  him:  "Mr.  Geiger,  do  you  know  how  to  keep  a  congrega- 
 tion together  in  peace  and  prosperity."  "I  do  not  know  that  I  do," 
 was  his  modest  reply.  "I  will  tell  you  how,"  said  the  doctor.  "If  you 
 wish  to  call  a  flock  of  chickens  together,  would  you  seek  to  do  it  by 
 throwing  clubs  and  stones  among  them,  accompanied  with  angry  words, 
 or  would  you  throw  grain  and  bread  among  them  with  a  soothing  voice 
 of  invitation?"  "I  would  feed  them  with  bread  and  grain  and  call 
 them  kindly,"  said  Geiger.  "That  is  right,"  responded  the  doctor, 
 "and  so,  if  you  wish  to  keep  a  congregation  together,  do  not  cast  in 
 among  them  coarse,  rough  and  contentious  words,  for  that  will  divide 
 them  and  cause  them  to  fly  for  fear  in  all  directions;  but  scatter  among 
 them  the  bread  of  life,  the  seed  of  truth,  and  they  will  gather  around 
 it  to  feed  and  love  to  be  near  him  who  scatters  it." — (Harbaugh's  Fa- 
 thers of  the  Eeformed  Church,  Vol.  3,  page  287.) 
 
16  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 9.  1761.  Like  him  he  had  been  a  student  at  the  university  of 
 Halle  and  the  Reformed  gymnasium  of  Halle ;  but  a  few  years 
 later  than  Becker.  After  being  an  assistant  minister  at 
 Bremen  for  three  years,  he  was  sent  to  America  by  the  Hol- 
 land fathers  in  1786,  seven  years  before  Becker  came.  Like 
 Becker,  he  was  an  able  scholar  and  though  an  excellent 
 preacher  yet  had  not  so  great  a  reputation  for  pulpit  oratory 
 as  Becker.  But  his  university  preparation  prepared  him 
 to  do  thorough  work  in  teaching.  While  pastor  at  German- 
 town  he  prepared  Samuel  "Weyberg  (1790-2),  the  son  of  Dr. 
 AVeyberg,  and  in  1793  educated  Geistweit.  But  it  was  espe- 
 cially while  pastor  at  Falkner  Swamp,  east  of  Pottstown,  that 
 his  work  in  preparing  students  became  prominent.  His  school 
 was  popularly  kno^^^l  as  "the  Swamp  College."  Before  1810 
 he  began  with  the  instruction  of  his  son  Charles,  followed  by 
 that  of  his  son  Frederick,  who  was  licensed  1815.  This  family 
 school  of  his  then  grew  into  larger  proportions.  He  educated 
 Geistweit  (1793).  C.  G.  Herman  (1809),  F.  A.  Herman 
 (1814),  Guldin  and  J.  D.  Young  (1819),  Augustus  L.  Her- 
 man. Leinbach  and  Dubbs  (1821).  I.  Stiely  (1822),  Schneck 
 and  P.  S.  Fisher  (1824),  R.  A.  Fisher  (1825),  Reuben  and 
 Tobias  Herman  (1828),  Lewis  Herman  (1830),  fifteen  in  all. 
 His  graduates  formed  (luite  a  prominent  element  in  the  Free 
 synod  and  to  his  school  that  synod  looked  largely  for  its  min- 
 isters. He  was  a  fine  teacher,  his  methods  being  rigid  and 
 exact.  His  course  of  study  required  three  years.  He  taught 
 them  not  only  theology-  but  the  ancient  languages  and  kindred 
 sciences.  He  would,  after  the  German  fashion,  train  them  to 
 speak  Latin  and  write  in  it.  On  Sundays  the  more  advanced 
 of  his  students  would  exercise  their  abilities  by  filling  appoint- 
 ments for  him  in  his  large  pastoral  charge. 
 
 When  Dubbs  had  been  three  years  under  Herman's  tuition,  the  latter 
 sent  him  one  cold  Sunday  morning  in  winter  to  preach  his  first  sermon 
 in  the  Church  at  Limerick.  The  Church  had  just  received  from  'Squire 
 Brook  the  gift  of  a  stove,  an  article  which  was  almost  unknown  in  the 
 Churches  of  those  days  and  which  in  some  localities  was  regarded  as  a 
 new  and  dangerous  innovation.  The  good  people  of  Limerick  offered 
 no  objection  to  having  the  stove  in  their  Church,  though  they  may  have 
 regarded  it  as  a  piece  of  useless  luxury,  but   in  this  instiuu-e  it  was  a 
 
The  Early  Synod.  17 
 
 source  of  very  little  comfort.  The  stove  unfortunately  had  no  pipe, 
 as  it  was  found  difficult  to  get  one  sufficiently  long  to  meet  the  wants 
 of  the  case.  Things  were  suffered  to  remain  in  this  condition  for  a  con- 
 siderable time.  Fire  was  made  in  the  stove  before  every  service  and 
 the  smoke  permitted  to  take  care  of  itself.  Of  course  the  church  was  so 
 full  of  smoke  that  the  people  could  hardly  see  the  preacher.  There  he 
 preached  his  first  sermon  amid  the  coughing  and  sneezing  of  the  people. 
 And  between  nervousness  and  smoke  he  says,  "1  almost  feared  I  would 
 choke  to  death. ' '  The  people,  however,  were  accustomed  to  the  inflic- 
 tion and  assured  him  that  he  had  no  occasion  to  be  discouraged  with  his 
 first  sermon. 
 
 Dubb's  first  funeral  was  of  a  man  residing  at  a  place  called  Fox 
 Hill,  a  great  miser.  As  he  was  equally  distant  from  three  churches,  he 
 claimed  a  sort  of  relation  to  all,  so  that  he  might  not  contribute  to 
 any.  When  the  deacon  of  the  Boyertown  church  approached  him  for 
 a  subscription  he  was  sure  to  say  I  belong  to  Pottstown;  and  when 
 the  Pottstown  deacon  approached  him  he  would  answer,  astonished, 
 ' '  Did  yoii  not  know  that  I  belong  to  Falkner  Swamp. ' '  In  this  way  the 
 miser  for  some  time  escaped  entirely,  but  finally  the  deacons  of  the 
 three  churches  arranged  to  meet  him  together  and  each  demanded  a 
 subscription.  This  time  there  was  no  way  of  escape,  and  he  at  last 
 declared  his  allegiance  to  one  of  the  churches  by  agreeing  to  pay  to 
 Falkner  Swamp  ten  cents  a  year.  One  day  there  was  to  be  a  funeral 
 in  this  man 's  family  and  Dubbs  as  a  student  was  sent  by  Herman 
 to  conduct  the  services.  It  was  the  custom  to  give  the  officiating  clergy- 
 man several  dollars  and  the  organist  a  smaller  sum.  On  this  occasion 
 the  miser  handed  the  student  fifty  cents  and  the  organist  twenty-five. 
 The  former  thanked  the  giver,  but  the  organist,  determined  to  teach  the 
 miser  a  lesson,  held  up  his  coin  so  that  all  could  see,  and  asked  in  a  loud 
 tone,  "What  is  that  for?"  "That's  your  fee,"  answered  the  miser. 
 "You  miserable  skinflint,"  responded  the  organist,  "Do  you  imagine 
 that  I  can  afford  to  lose  my  school,  hire  a  horse  and  give  you  a  whole 
 day's  service  for  twenty-five  cents.  I  insist  on  another  dollar."  The 
 miser's  contortions  were  very  amazing,  but  at  last  he  finally  yielded 
 and  paid  the  dollar.  Then,  as  if  struck  by  conscience,  he  exclaimed 
 ' '  The  minister  deserves  a  dollar  as  well  as  the  organist, ' '  and  insisted 
 on  giving  him  the  same  amount. 
 
 Herman  frequently  sent  his  students  to  preach  at  the  Hill  or  Indian- 
 Corn  Church  (the  Colebrookdale  Church),  so-called  because  the  neighbors 
 were  accustomed  to  hang  their  seed-corn  under  the  roof  of  a  small 
 porch  before  the  church-door  from  one  season  to  another  (none  wag 
 ever  stolen).  The  trip  to  this  Cliurch  was  always  looked  on  with  favor 
 by  the  students,  for  they  were  treated  so  kindly  by  the  people.  On 
 one  occasion,  two  of  the  students  were  entertained  by  an  old  lady  who 
 had  a  habit  of  saying  "That  is  as  true  as  gospel."     At  the  table  one 
 
18 
 
 History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 of  her  guests  unfortunately  spilled  the  coffee  and  blurted  out  in  his 
 confusion  ' '  I  am  the  clumsiest  person  in  the  world. ' '  The  old  lady 
 at  once  replied,  ' '  That  is  as  true  as  gospel ;  but  it  does  not  matter. ' ' 
 Her  confusion,  when  she  began  to  realize  the  meaning  of  what  she  said, 
 was  even  greater  than  that  of  the  victim  of  the  accident.* 
 
 Rev.  Samuel  Hei.ffenstein,  D.  D. 
 
 The  third  private  theological  school  was  that  of  Rov.  Sanitiol 
 Helffenstein,  D.D.,  the  son  of  one  of  our  most  honored  minis- 
 ters. Rev.  J.  C.  A.  Helffenstein,  in  whose  family  the  ministerial 
 
 *IIerman  sometimes  sat  as  a  hearer  to  the  preaching  of  his  students. 
 On  one  occasion,  E.  S.  Fisher  was  to  preach  and  Sclineck  and  P.  S.  Fisher 
 sat  in  the  gallery  opposite  the  organ.  They  were  very  much  afraid 
 that  he  would  break  down.  In  the  middle  of  his  sermon  he  forgot  him- 
 self. White  as  a  sheet,  he  sent  up  a  look  of  pain  to  his  friends  in  the 
 gallery  as  if  seeking  help  from  them.  Without  further  application,  the 
 preacher  suddenly  closed,  saying  ' '  In  Christ  Jesus,  Amen. "  As  _  he 
 came  down  from  the  pulpit,  Herman  took  him  by  the  hand,  comforting 
 him  and  saying,  "Richard,  only  do  not  forget  the  Amen  at  the  end." 
 
The  Early  Synod.  19 
 
 office  had  come  down  in  lineal  succession  from  the  time  of  the 
 Reformation.*  He  did  not  begin  as  early  as  Herman  or  did 
 he  continue  so  long.  His  school  flourished  during  the  middle 
 period  of  Herman's  seminary.  But  he  educated  more  than 
 either  Becker  or  Herman,  twenty-seven  in  all.f  He  did  his 
 work  while  pastor  of  our  church  in  Philadelphia.  He  began 
 in  1810,  with  I.  Gerhart  (1810-12),  Hoffeditz  and  J.  H. 
 Gerhart  (1811),  F.  A.  Scholl  (1813),  Zeller  (1814),  Helffrich 
 (1811-15),  Bnmer  (1815),  Weisz  (1816),  J.  Seholl,  Strass- 
 berger  and  Ebaugh  (1817),  Zulieh  (1818),  Winel)ronncr 
 (1819),  I^oyer,  Rudy,  Knaus  (1820),  Mills,  Hamm,  Albert 
 Helffenstein,  Samuel  Helffenstein  and  J.  Mayer  (1821),  Hertz 
 and  Hassinger  (1822),  J.  Helffenstein,  Bibighaus  and  Seibert 
 (1823),  H.  Miller  (1830),  with  Snyder  and  Hassler  also  spoken 
 of  as  students.  His  son  Albert,  together  with  Hannn  and  J. 
 IMayer,  came  to  him  from  Rev.  C.  J.  Becker,  at  Baltimore,  after 
 the  latter  had  died. 
 
 In  his  history  of  the  First  Reformed  Church  of  Philadel- 
 phia, Dr.  Van  Home  says:  "The  students  were  accustomed  to 
 sit  under  the  pulpit  in  the  chancel  during  the  church  services 
 and  in  many  eases  were  received  into  the  pastor's  home  as 
 regular  members  of  the  family.  Helffrich  quite  graphically 
 describes  his  student  days  under  Helffenstein,  who  was  his 
 cousin.  He  says:  "The  students  were  practiced  by  Helffen- 
 stein in  the  classic  languages  and  all  the  branches  of  the 
 theological  sciences.  Hebrew  was  Dr.  Helffenstein 's  favorite 
 language.  Each  Sunday  they  bad  to  take  turns  in  delivering 
 addresses  at  the  almshouse  and  the  hospital  of  the  city.  The 
 Germania,  a  German  society  of  Philadelphia,  was  utilized  by 
 them  for  the  cultivation  of  public  address  and  the  students 
 often  acted  as  its  officers.  Other  exercises  in  oratory  were 
 held  in  the  church.  Each  student  had  to  preach  a  sermon 
 under  the  criticism  of  Heltfrieh  and  the  other  students  and 
 also  of  invited  guests."  Helffrich  was,  like  Helffenstein,  a  fol- 
 lower of  rigid  orthodoxy.    Helffenstein  was  an  able  theologian, 
 
 *Appel,  College  Recollections,  page  32. 
 
 jAppcl  is  in  error  Mhen  he  says  that  Herman's  theological  school  was 
 the  largest. 
 
20  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 as  his  published  theology  shows.     We  have  seen  his  Hebrew- 
 notes.    The}^  reveal  that  he  was  a  finished  scholar. 
 
 In  addition  to  these  three  private  theological  seminaries, 
 other  ministers  were  active  in  educating  young  men,  although 
 not  to  so  great  a  degree.  John  William  Deohant  trained 
 Willers  (1820),  Bindaman  (1823),  Ilangen  and  Augustus 
 Pauli  (1824),  Lechner  (1828),  and  in  part  several  others  as 
 Hoffeditz,  Staehr,  Riegel  and  Bassler.  As  his  home  was  not 
 far  in  Oley,  his  school  w^as  not  far  from  the  Swamp  College 
 of  Herman ;  indeed  they  might  have  been  to  some  extent 
 rivals,  Herman  belonging  to  the  Free  synod  and  Dechant  to 
 the  old  synod.  Rev.  Yost  Fries  trained  Gutelius  (1821). 
 D.  Weiser  (1822),  and  H.  Snyder  (1824).  Rev.  J.  C.  Becker, 
 the  son  of  Rev.  C.  L.  Becker,  of  Baltimore,  also  did  consider- 
 able Avork  along  this  line.  Several  of  his  father's  students 
 at  his  father's  death  came  to  him,  although  he  was  still 
 j^ovmg.*  He  educated  Weinel  (1814),  Geiger  (1816),  Koch 
 andHacke  (1818),  Riegel  and  Willers  (1820),  Zwisler  (1824). 
 Kemmerer  and  S.  Hess  (1826),  Gerhard  (1833).  Daniel 
 (1844).  Graeff  also  studied  somewhat  with  liim.  In  Ohio 
 some  of  the  ministers,  as  Winters,  did  the  same.  Rev.  Mr. 
 Weisz  educated  Descombes  (1823),  King  (1824),  llillegas  and 
 Long  (1825),  Keller  (1826).  Rev.  G.  Schlosser  educated  A. 
 Stump  (1839),  J.  Schlosser  (1843),  Hines  (1844),  and  Wil- 
 liam Stump  (1848),  Some  others  educated  two  and  quite  a 
 considerable  number  educated  oiie.f  -^'1  o^"  these  did  good 
 work  in  raising  u])  ministere  at  a  time  when  tliey  weiv  greatly 
 needed.  AVithout  these  private  schools  our  Cliurch  would 
 have  been  in  great  straits  foi-  ministers.  AVe  may,  therefore, 
 be  very  grateful  for  them  and  tbeir  memory  should  be  treas- 
 ured with  thankfulness  and  respect. 
 
 *ITe  used  his  father's  lecturos  on  theohigy,  soniowhat  al)l)rpviato(I. 
 Kpinmcrer's  copy  is  in  the  Ceiitiiil  Tln'ologieal  seminary  library. 
 
 fSonie  of  the  above  mentioned  stii(ii<'<l  under  two  teneliers.  which  ac- 
 counts for  their  names  being  mentioned  twice. 
 
CHAPTER  II. 
 
 The  Free  Synod. 
 Section  1.    The  Causes  That  Led  to  the  Free  Synod. 
 
 The  Church,  having  found  itself  unable  to  supply  ministers 
 enough  or  to  give  them  sufficient  training  in  the  private  theo- 
 logical seminaries,  began  moving  toward  the  establishment  of 
 a  theological  seminary  of  its  own.  The  subject  came  up  at 
 the  synod  of  1817,  where  Helffenstein  moved  it,  and  it  was 
 seconded  by  Mayer.  A  committee  was  appointed  to  consider 
 the  matter,  consisting  of  Hendel,  Hoffmeier  and  Wack.  They 
 reported,  suggesting  that  committees  be  appointed  to  confer 
 with  the  Dutch  and  Lutheran  Synods  on  the  subject.  Pomp 
 and  Helffenstein  were  appointed  to  confer  with  the  Dutch, 
 and  Hendel  and  Wack,  Sr.,  with  the  Lutherans.  The  Luth- 
 eran Synod  in  1817  had  asked  them  to  observe  with  them  the 
 tercentenary  of  the  reformation,  as  was  being  done  that  year 
 in  Germany.  This  prepared  the  way  for  this  action.  The 
 synod  also  appointed  a  committee  consisting  of  the  president 
 (Hendel)  and  the  secretary  (Hoffmeier),  together  with  Wack, 
 Sr.,  to  prepare  a  history  of  the  origin  and  progress  of  the 
 synod,  of  which  3,000  copies  were  printed.  Hendel  prepared 
 it.  (Hendel  was  a  graduate  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  theological 
 seminary  at  New  Brunswick  and  deeply  sympathized  with  the 
 movement  for  a  seminary.)  In  it  he  referred  with  com- 
 mendation to  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church  for  establishing  a 
 theological  seminary  as  an  example  worthy  to  be  imitated,  and 
 he  urged  the  German  Church  to  consider  the  subject  of  a 
 more  thorough  training  of  candidates  for  the  ministry. 
 
 At  the  synod  of  1818  the  committee  to  confer  with  the 
 Dutch  reported  that  they  had  not  been  able  to  be  present  at 
 the  meeting  of  the  Dutch  Synod,  but  they  had  sent  a  com- 
 munication to  the  synod  about  the  matter.     Weiser  says  that 
 
 21 
 
22  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 the  Dutch  in  1818  moved  to  negotiate  a  union.  The  minutes 
 of  the  Dutch  Synod  show  tliat  Lal)aeli  and  Schultz,  their  dele- 
 gates, had  been  given  autliority  to  confer  with  a  committee  of 
 our  synod.  So  our  synod  appointed  a  committee  consisting  of 
 J.  Helffenstein  and  Reily.  They  reported  that  nothing  de- 
 cisive be  done  because  the  Reformed  of  Pennsylvania  had  an 
 interest  with  other  Germans  of  Pennsylvania  in  an  institution 
 (Lancaster  High  School.)  But  they  recommended  that  dele- 
 gates be  sent  to  the  Dutch  Synod,  and  J.  Helffenstein  and  Reily 
 were  sent.  The  committee  to  the  Lutheran  Church  reported 
 (1818)  that  they  had  been  very  cordially  received  and  that 
 that  synod  had  appointed  a  committee  of  five  to  confer  with 
 our  synod  on  the  subject  and  asked  that  a  similar  conunittee 
 be  appointed.  Ploffmeier,  Hendel,  Herman,  Pomp  and  S. 
 Helffenstein  were  named  as  the  committee  to  negotiate  with 
 the  Lutherans  about  a  miion  theological  seminary  in  con- 
 nection with  Franklin  College  at  Lancaster.  Rev.  J.  G. 
 Schmucker,  D.D.,  was  chairman  of  the  Lutheran  committee 
 and  drew  up  a  plan  of  an  institution  with  two  professors,  one 
 from  each  denomination  and  with  eighteen  trustees  equally 
 divided  between  the  denominations.  But  at  the  joint  meeting, 
 says  Dubbs,*  at  the  house  of  Hoffmeier,  pastor  of  our  church 
 at  Lancaster,  Dr.  Enders,  who  really  managed  Franklin  Col- 
 lege, veiy  decidedly  opposed  the  plan.  At  the  meeting  of  the 
 Lutheran  Synod  he  said,  "Let  the  Reformed  people  cook  the 
 soup  on  their  own  fire" — so  Hoffmeier  wrote  to  C.  Wack. 
 This  remark  produced  unpleasant  feelings  and  the  project  was 
 dropped. 
 
 Before  the  synod  of  1819  met,  Rev.  Prof.  John  Livingston, 
 D.D.,  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church,  published  an  appeal, 
 entitled  "An  Address  to  the  Reformed  German  Churches  in 
 the  United  States."  He  presented  150  copies  of  it  to  the 
 synod.  Pie  urged  the  German  Reformed  to  establish  without 
 delay  a  theological  institution  of  their  own.  He  says  the  Ger- 
 man Reformed  Church  is  the  only  church  in  the  United  States 
 not  yet  aroused  to  theological  institutions  and  he  aimed  to  in- 
 
 *History  of  Fraukliu  aiul  Marshall  College,  page  112. 
 
The  Free  Synod.  23 
 
 cite  the  true  German  love  for  education  in  them.  He  ex- 
 plained what  a  theological  seminary  would  consist  of,  namely, 
 of  a  professor  of  dogmatics  and  of  church  history.  He  sug- 
 gested Philadelphia  as  the  most  desirable  place.  The  synod 
 received  the  address  with  thanks  and  it  doubtless  aided  in 
 forming  sentiment  favorable  to  the  founding  of  a  seminary  by 
 the  German  Reformed  for  themselves.  Prof.  B.  Wolff,  D.D., 
 says:  "It  was  in  a  great  measure  owing  to  his  influence 
 that  the  project  of  a  joint  institution  was  abandoned  in  favor 
 of  a  denominational  institution."  Rev.  Lewis  Mayer  is  also 
 given  as  the  minister  in  our  church,  who  mainly  led  to  the 
 abandonment  of  a  union  institution  with  the  Lutherans. 
 
 The  joint  committee  of  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed 
 reported  to  this  synod  their  project  of  a  joint  institution. 
 Two  hundred  copies  of  it  were  ordered  to  be  printed  and  dis- 
 tributed so  that  every  one  might  have  time  to  consider  the 
 subject.  But  nothing  came  of  it.  Our  church  had  by  this 
 time  gotten  beyond  the  idea  of  imiting  with  any  other  church 
 to  found  a  theological  seminary.  She  must  have  one  of  her 
 own. 
 
 Before  the  synod  of  1820  met,  the  actions  of  the  various 
 classes  revealed  the  drift  of  opinion.  Maryland  classis  in- 
 structed its  delegates,  Mayer  and  Reily,  to  use  every  effort  to 
 get  the  synod  to  found  a  seminary  as  soon  as  possible.  Sus- 
 quehanna classis  noted  that  it  had  not  yet  received  any  plan 
 of  a  theological  seminary  (noted  above),  but  it  was  their 
 united  wish  that  it  should  soon  come  into  existence  and  re- 
 quested that  it  might  receive  such  a  plan  soon.  Zion  's  classis 
 directed  its  delegates  that  if  the  Lutheran  Ministerium  would 
 approve  the  plan  of  founding  a  theological  seminary  pro- 
 jected the  previous  autumn  by  the  committee  of  both  synods, 
 it  would  approve  it,  but  if  not,  it  voted  for  a  seminary  for  the 
 Reformed  Church  and  it  supported  Chambersburg  as  the  place 
 for  it.  Lebanon  classis  reported  that  no  copy  of  the  plan  of 
 the  union  seminary  had  reached  it,  but  it  declared  itself 
 ready  to  co-operate.  Philadelphia  classis  took  no  action  and 
 Northampton  does  not  refer  to  it. 
 
24:  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 The  synod  of  1820*  brought  the  matter  to  a  head.  It  de- 
 cided that  a  union  seminary  with  the  Lutherans  was  not  feasi- 
 ble and  also  that  the  German  Reformed  Church  should  have 
 a  seminary  of  its  own.  It  went  farther  than  this.  It  adopted 
 a  plan  for  the  founding  and  control  of  the  seminary  consisting 
 of  five  articles.  It  also  appointed  a  board  of  twelve  ministers 
 as  its  superintendents :  Casper  Wack,  Hendel,  Hinsch,  S.  Hel- 
 ffenstein,  Pomp,  Jonathan  Helffensten,  F.  Rahauser,  J.  C. 
 Becker,  Lewis  Mayer,  Reily,  Albert  Helffenstein  and  Ebaugh. 
 This  would  have  been  sufficient  action  for  the  time  being,  but 
 they  proceeded  a  step  farther.  They  at  once  elected  a  pro- 
 fessor of  theology. 
 
 It  happened  that  there  was  present  at  the  synod  as  a  dele- 
 gate from  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church,  the  Rev.  Philip 
 Milledoler,  D.D.  He  was  of  German  birth,  born  at  Rhinebeck, 
 N.  Y.,  where  there  was  a  German  Reformed  congregation.  He 
 studied  theology  under  Rev.  Dr.  Gros,  pastor  of  the  German 
 Reformed  Church  in  New  York  City,  and  was  ordained  by  our 
 synod  in  1794.  He  had  been  for  a  time  pastor  of  a  church 
 then  belonging  to  our  synod  located  at  New  York  City.  He 
 was,  therefore,  not  a  stranger  to  the  synod.  His  remarkable 
 ability,  fine  pulpit  oratory  and  spiritual  power  won  the  hearts 
 of  the  synod.  He  preached  a  sermon  before  the  synod,  en- 
 titled "The  Faithful  Servant  of  God,"  which  was  published. 
 He  was  unanimously  chosen  professor  of  dogmatic,  polemic 
 and  pastoral  theology  at  a  salary  of  $2,000  a  year,  and  Revs. 
 Messrs.  Reily  and  Becker  were  appointed  a  committee  to  for- 
 mally extend  the  call  to  him. 
 
 Dr.  Milledoler  had  been  pastor  of  some  of  the  most  promi- 
 nent churches  in  three  denominations :  the  German  Reformed 
 at  Nassau  St.,  New  York  City  (1794-1800)  ;  Pine  Street  Pres- 
 byterian, Philadelphia  (1800-5)  ;  Rutgers  Presbyterian,  New 
 York  City  (1805-1813)  ;  Collegiate  Reformed  Church,  New 
 York  City  (1813-25).  He  had  been  honored  with  the  mod- 
 eratorship  of  the  Presbyterian  General  Assembly  in  1808  at 
 
 *Thi3  synod  was  the  first  to  adopt  the  title  of  General  Synod,  perhaps 
 because  it  was  the  first  to  be  a  delegated  body.  But  later  the  title  was 
 given  up. 
 
The  Free  Synod.  25 
 
 the  early  age  of  thirty-three.  Later  he  was  made  professor 
 of  theology  by  the  Dutch  Reformed  at  their  theological  semi- 
 nary at  New  Brunswick,  N.  J.,  in  1825.  When  elected  to  this 
 professorship  by  our  synod  he  was  in  the  prime  of  life — 
 about  45  years  of  age.  He  was  admirably  fitted  for  this  posi- 
 tion by  his  familiarity  with  both  the  English  and  German 
 languages. 
 
 The  synod  also  decided  the  location  of  the  seminary.  It  is 
 true  that  was  left  to  the  directors  chosen,  but  it  was  under- 
 stood that  Frederick  would  be  the  place.  This  place  was 
 championed  by  Judge  Schriver  and  it  offered  $12,000.  The 
 locality  was,  however,  left  somewhat  open  so  as  to  excite  com- 
 petition in  bids.  The  sjmod,  in  order  to  provide  funds  for 
 maintaining  the  seminary,  at  once  proceeded  to  gather  sub- 
 scriptions and  asked  the  different  congregations  to  take  up 
 collections.  It  also  passed  an  action  prohibiting  any  minister 
 from  instructing  young  men  privately  in  theology,  although 
 they  w^ere  permitted  to  do  so  in  the  preliminary  studies.  This 
 action  was  rather  premature  as  the  seminary  as  yet  existed 
 only  on  paper  and  in  fact  did  not  open  till  five  years  later. 
 
 The  constitution  of  1805  permitted  ministers  to  instruct 
 yoimg  men  in  theology  privately.  Synod  could  not,  therefore, 
 deprive  them  of  this  right  without  changing  the  constitution, 
 which  was  the  fundamental  law  of  the  Church.  This  it  did 
 not  do.  Later,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  days  of  the  liturgical 
 controversy,  this  action  of  the  synod  of  1820  was  referred 
 to  by  the  Mercersburg  men  and  re-enacted  against  Ursinus 
 college  but  just  as  illegally  because  even  the  later  constitution 
 of  1842  had  never  deprived  ministers  of  the  right  to  train 
 young  men  privately. 
 
 After  the  synod  of  1821  had  adjourned,  a  great  deal  of 
 criticism  and  opposition  developed  in  tlie  Church.  This  re- 
 vealed itself  publicly  at  the  meetings  of  the  classes.  It  seems 
 that  a  conference  of  some  of  the  ministers  of  Philadelphia 
 classis  was  lield  at  NorristoAvn,  March  26,  1821,  which  con- 
 sidered and  took  action  on  the  foundation  of  the  new  theo- 
 logical seminary.     Revs.  Wack,  Sr.,  Waek,  Jr.,  Vandersloot 
 
26  History  of  Reformed  Ciiurcii  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 and  others  were  there.  They  decided  that  the  synod  had 
 exceeded  its  powers  in  founding  a  seminary  and  calling  a 
 professor.  This  decision  was  made  known  in  a  letter  sent  to 
 all  the  classes.  Every  minister  of  Philadelphia  classis  except 
 Herman  signed  the  circular. 
 
 Philadelphia  classis,  when  it  met,  received  the  recommenda- 
 tions of  the  committee  appointed  at  Norristown  and  appj-oved 
 them.  It  gave  as  its  judgment  that  such  an  action  would 
 only  be  constitutional  if  adopted  by  a  convention-synod  com- 
 posed not  of  delegates,  as  was  the  Synod  of  1820,  but  of  all 
 the  ministers;  or  approved  by  two-thirds  of  the  classes,  so 
 that  all  might  have  a  voice  in  the  matter.  It  therefore  decided 
 that  it  could  not  approve  of  the  plan  of  the  seminary  or  its 
 execution.  It  unanimously  adopted  an  action  calling  upon 
 the  president  of  the  Synod,  S.  Helffenstein,  to  call  a  conven- 
 tion-synod instead  of  the  delegate-synod  that  had  been  ap- 
 pointed by  the  last  synod,  and  to  call  it  at  the  same  time  and 
 place  as  the  regular  synod.  It  also  appointed  a  committee 
 to  confer  with  the  directors  of  the  Theological  seminary,  who 
 were  to  meet  in  Philadelphia  on  May  31.  The  committee  was 
 Wack,  Sr.,  Vandersloot  and  Dechant, 
 
 We  also  find  the  following  note  published  in  a  letter  of 
 Mayer  to  Wolff.  Whether  it  is  confused  with  the  meeting  of 
 the  Philadelphia  ministers  or  whether  it  was  another  meet- 
 ing, we  can  not  make  out : 
 
 "Before  the  Synod  of  1821,  the  opponents  of  the  seminary  met  at 
 Kutztown  before  June  25,  organized  themselves  and  issued  a  printed 
 circular  inviting  the  brethren  to  join  them.  It  appointed  a  committee 
 of  Wack,  Sr.,  Vandersloot  and  Dechant  to  meet  the  directors  of  the 
 seminary  at  Philadelphia  in  June  to  protest  against  the  synod's  action 
 on  the  seminary  and  to  recommend  the  calling  of  a  professor  from 
 Germany.  The  managers  met  them  kindly  but  showed  them  the  wealth  of 
 the  church  west  of  the  Susqtiehanna,  their  liberality  to  the  seminary,  and 
 their  attachment  to  Dr.  Milledoler,  their  determination  to  support  no 
 other,  the  disastrous  consequences  if  Dr.  Milledoler  would  decline  and 
 that  if  the  matter  were  defeated,  the  seminary  i.arty  would  secede  to  the 
 Dutch.  The  committee  was  finally  affected  by  the  firmness  of  the  board, 
 abandoned  the  project  and  went  home." 
 
The  Free  Synod.  27 
 
 This  action  of  Philadelphia  classis  was  echoed  by  North- 
 ampton classis,  which  met  at  the  same  time.  The  action  of 
 the  special  conference  at  Norristown  was  laid  before  it.  The 
 classis  urged  the  holding  of  a  convention-synod  and  asked  the 
 president  of  the  synod  on  his  own  authority  to  call  such  a 
 synod,  because  of  the  great  dissatisfaction  of  the  members  of 
 the  classis  with  the  decision  of  the  synod  and  the  possibility  of 
 a  division  of  the  church  unless  its  action  were  reconsidered. 
 
 Ohio  classis  also  protested  against  the  action  of  synod  about 
 the  seminary,  that  it  was  taken  with  too  much  haste  and  in- 
 consideration.  It  especially  protested  against  its  forbidding 
 of  ministers  teaching  students  theology,  as  it  was  impossible 
 for  them  at  their  long  distance  from  the  east  to  send  their 
 students  to  the  east  for  education,  and  they  preferred  the 
 old  method  of  private  instruction  by  some  minister. 
 
 This  decided  opposition  of  Philadelphia  and  Northampton 
 classes  was  quite  in  contrast  with  that  of  Maryland  classis, 
 which  met  at  the  same  time.  It  rejoiced  in  the  action  of  the 
 synod  in  thus  going  forward  toward  the  founding  of  a  semi- 
 nary. It,  however,  reported  that  one  of  its  members  had  re- 
 ceived a  letter  from  a  member  of  the  Philadelphia  classis  op- 
 posing the  synod's  action  and  also  two  papers  sent  by  Phila- 
 delphia classis.  These  claimed  that  the  synod  had  violated 
 the  constitution  by  taking  on  itself  the  responsi})iIity  to  foimd 
 a  seminary  without  action  by  the  classes,  and  they  also  ob- 
 jected to  its  action  forbidding  ministers  to  give  young  men 
 theological  training  privately.  Classis  denied  the  positions 
 taken  in  these  papers, — that  the  synod  had  violated  its  au- 
 thority, or  the  constitution  by  so  doing.  It  also  endorsed  the 
 synod's  position  against  private  theological  training  by  min- 
 isters. It  answered  the  charge  that  the  decision  about  the 
 seminary  was  hasty,  by  saying  it  had  been  discussed  for  three 
 years.  As  those  communications  had  asked  that  a  professor 
 from  Europe  be  elected,  it  declared  that  the  sending  to  Europe 
 for  a  professor  was  an  impossibility.  It  also  defended  the 
 choice  of  Frederick  as  the  location  of  the  seminaryT  It  de- 
 plored this  attack  on  the  synod's  action;  and  in  regard  to 
 
28  History  of  Reformed  CriuRcn  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Philadelphia  classis'  request  for  the  calling  of  a  convention- 
 synod,  it  agreed  to  such  a  call,  providing  a  niajority  of  the 
 classes  asked  for  it. 
 
 Susquehanna  classis  expressed  itself  dissatisfied  with  the 
 synod's  action  on  the  seminary  for  the  following  grounds: 
 Because  the  synod  had  no  such  authority;  hecause  it  did  not 
 agree  that  all  ministers  must  give  up  theological  instruction, 
 as  that  would  be  making  young  men  go  to  the  seminary  by  the 
 use  of  force.  It,  however,  expressed  itself  as  favorable  to  the 
 establishment  of  a  seminary.  But  it  did  not  express  itself 
 at  all  about  the  calling  of  a  convention-synod. 
 
 Zion's  classis  refused  to  ask  for  a  convention-synod.  Leba- 
 non classis  took  no  action.  The  minutes  of  West  Pennsyl- 
 vania classis  we  have  not  at  hand. 
 
 From  these  actions  of  the  classes,  it  is  evident  that  the  main 
 criticisms  on  the  synod  for  its  action  about  the  seminary  are 
 as  follows: 
 
 1.  A  constitutional  one.  Philadelphia  classis  claimed  that 
 the  synod  had  no  authority  to  go  ahead  with  such  a  project 
 until  two-thirds  of  the  classes  gave  assent  to  it.  The  consti- 
 tutional point  was  whether  the  seminary  was  an  ordinance  or 
 not;  if  so  it  required  a  two-thirds  majority  of  the  classes. 
 Thus  a  new  point  in  constitutional  government  had  come  up 
 which  needed  to  be  solved.  It  was  somewhat  unfortunate  that 
 this  project  of  a  seminary  came  np  and  was  decided  at  what 
 was  the  first  delegate-synod  of  our  Church.  Before  1820,  the 
 synod  had  always  met  as  a  convention ;  that  is,  every  minister 
 had  a  right  to  be  a  member  in  it,  together  with  an  elder  from 
 each  charge.  Each  charge  thus  had  a  voice  in  its  actions. 
 But  as  the  synod  had  become  too  large  for  this,  it  was  decided 
 in  1819  to  change  it  into  a  delegated  body,  at  which  only  a 
 few  from  each  classis  would  bo  present.  But  in  this  way  it 
 might  be  possible  for  a  minority  to  dictate  to  the  whole  eluuvh 
 unless  their  action  was  referred  to  the  classes,  where  every 
 minister  and  charge  had  a  right  to  vote.  It  was  felt,  therefore, 
 that  a  delegated  body  was  not  large  enough  to  decide  so  grave 
 a  question   for  the  whole  church.     The  synod  of  1820  was 
 
The  Free  Synod.  29 
 
 composed  of  only  13  ministers  (out  of  68  ministers)  and  11 
 elders.  It  was  a  rather  small  body  for  such  responsible  legis- 
 lation. It  would  have  done  better  had  it  gone  more  slowly 
 and  tried  first  to  get  the  mind  of  the  Church  before  coming 
 to  so  important  a  decision.  To  some  of  the  ministers  it  began 
 to  look  as  if  a  few  aggressive  ministers  were  leading  the 
 Church  too  fast,  and  so  there  came  a  reaction. 
 
 2.  The  action  of  the  synod  forbidding  any  minister  to  ac- 
 cept a  student  for  the  ministry  Avas  felt  to  be  unwise,  as  the 
 seminary  had  not  yet  come  into  existence.  Such  an  action 
 might  be  taken  after  its  opening,  but  not  before.  Students 
 for  the  ministry  at  that  time  would  have  no  place  to  go  to 
 for  educatipn.  They  were  forbidden  to  go  to  ministers  to  be 
 educated  privately,  and  yet  there  was  no  seminary  existing 
 to  which  they  could  go.  No  wonder  the  action  M'as  modified 
 the  next  year  and  became,  in  the  history  of  the  Church,  a 
 dead  letter. 
 
 Besides  these  two  main  reason  given  there  were  others. 
 
 3.  A  financial  one.  The  largeness  of  Dr.  Milledoler's  salary 
 ($2,000)  was  so  far  beyond  the  salary  of  any  minister  in  the 
 Church  that  it  was  considered  beyond  the  ability  of  the  Church 
 to  pay. 
 
 4.  A  local  reason.  The  choice  of  Frederick,  j\Id.,  was  con- 
 sidered unwise  by  many,  as  it  was  too  far  from  the  centre  of 
 the  Church,  which  was  still  east  of  the  Susquehanna.  Besides, 
 Frederick  was  located  right  in  the  midst  of  the  very  ag- 
 gressive Maryland  classis,  which  made  the  conservative  classes 
 suspicious  of  undue  influences  on  their  students. 
 
 5.  A  linguistic  reason.  The  seminary,  if  located  at  Fred- 
 erick, would  be  among  the  English-speaking  churches.  This 
 would  give  the  English  undue  influence,  thought  the  some- 
 what suspicious  Germans.  The  election  of  Dr.  Milledoler. 
 who  was  pastor  of  an  English  church,  and  the  introduction  of 
 English  into  the  instruction  and  preaching  in  the  seminary 
 was  looked  upon  as  an  innovation.* 
 
 *Prof.  Theodore  Appel  says  another  actioii  of  the  Synod  of  1820  pre- 
 pared the  way  for  nltimate  division  by  declaring  that  it  was  contrary  to 
 the  Scriptures  that  a  minister  shouhl  hoM  a  secular  office.  This  struck 
 several  ministers,  who  were  holding  public  office. 
 
30  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 The  fact  was  that  a  dividing  line  was  beginning  to  appear 
 between  the  eastern  and  western  sections  of  the  church.  The 
 east  was  German  and  conservative,  the  west  more  English  and 
 aggressive.  The  east  generally  criticized  the  action  of  the 
 seminary;  the  west  endorsed  it.  It  is  evident  that  the  synod 
 of  1820,  while  enthusiastic  and  aggressive,  was  not  sufficiently 
 judicious  and  did  not  fully  reflect  the  mind  of  the  whole 
 Church.  Still  its  action  was  used  by  Providence  to  ultimately 
 lead  to  the  founding  of  a  seminary,  although  many  difficulties 
 now  loomed  up  in  the  way. 
 
 Section  2.    The  Separation  op  the  Free  Synod. 
 
 It  is  evident,  from  what  we  have  seen  of  the  criticisms  nud 
 differences  engendered  in  the  classes,  that  when  the  next  synod 
 met  at  Reading  in  1821  a  storm  was  brewing.  Unlike  the 
 previous  synod,  it  was  not  a  delegated  body  but  a  convention - 
 synod.  The  president  of  the  synod.  Rev.  S.  Ilelffenstein,  on 
 his  own  responsibility  and  at  the  request  of  only  two  of  the 
 classes,  had  called  a  convention-synod  to  meet  at  the  date  of 
 the  delegated-synod.  This  was  not  to  the  mind  of  the  jMary- 
 land  Classis,  which  granted  that  he  could  do  so,  if  a  majority 
 of  the  eight  classes  had  so  desired  it.  So  at  the  very  begin- 
 ning of  the  synod  there  was  friction.  Rev.  Lewis  Mayer  took 
 the  ground  that  the  president  alone  had  not  the  authority 
 to  change  the  synod  to  a  convention-synod.  He  demanded 
 that  if  a  convention-synod  were  to  be  held,  the  proper  way 
 was  for  the  delegated  body  first  to  hold  a  meeting  and  rc^solve 
 itself  into  a  convention-synod.  But  the  synod,  which  was  ;i 
 eomparativeh^  large  one  (43  ministers  and  28  elders),  was  con- 
 trolled by  the  German  and  conservative  party.  They  wcnj 
 ahead  and  organized  the  synod  without  paying  much  atlentioii 
 to  their  opponents.  Dr.  Maj'cr,  however,  entered  his  protest 
 against  the  constitutionality  of  the  meeting. 
 
 Dr.  Mayer  was  undoubtedly  right  constitutionality,  and  this 
 was  virtually  granted  at  the  close  of  the  synod  after  all 
 the  differences  were  healed,  when  the  president.  Rev.  S.  Helf- 
 fenstein  offered  a  resolution  explanatory  of  the  powers  of  the 
 
The  Free  Synod.  31 
 
 president  of  synod,  by  which  that  officer  was  forever  pre- 
 cluded from  changing  at  will  the  synod  from  a  delegated  to 
 a  convention-synod.  Mayer  then  withdrew  his  protest.  An- 
 other objection  to  the  method  of  calling  this  synod  in  this  way 
 appears  in  a  private  letter  of  Mayer  to  Wolff,  that  the  call 
 was  issued  at  so  late  a  date  that  many  of  the  brethren  who  lived 
 at  great  distances  could  not  attend. 
 
 The  most  prominent  subject  before  the  synod  was  evidently 
 the  seminary.  The  conservative  Germans  had  formed  a  plan 
 to  kill  the  project  by  objecting  to  its  being  located  at  Frederick 
 and  by  asking  that  Dr.  Milledoler  be  made  professor  only  on 
 condition  that  he  would  teach  in  German.  The  seminary  or 
 p]nglisli  party  felt  themselves  aggrieved  at  this  because  nothing 
 had  before  been  said  about  the  use  of  English  in  the  seminary, 
 and  they  knew  that  Dr.  Milledoler  would  not  accept  the  call 
 if  he  had  to  teach  only  in  German.  As  a  consequence  all  the 
 funds  pledged  to  the  seminary  on  condition  of  Dr.  Milledoler 's 
 acceptance  would  be  lost.  Mayer  had  reported  to  the  synod  a 
 capital  of  about  $30,000  ($22,500  in  sight) .  He  even  ventured 
 to  anticipate  a  surplus  above  the  salary,  which  might  be  ap- 
 plied to  missions.  Reily  spoke  against  the  resolution  to  have 
 only  German  in  the  seminary.  It  was  therefore  altered  to  this 
 — that  Dr.  Milledoler  lecture  both  in  German  and  English. 
 But  then  it  was  again  amended  that  he  lecture  principally  in 
 German  and  occasionally  in  English.  On  this  the  debate  be- 
 came very  sharp,  the  English  party  opposing  it  with  all  their 
 might.  But  it  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  45  to  20.  Mr.  Reily 
 led  the  seminary  party  and  was  ably  seconded  by  Ilendel, 
 Lewis  Mayer,  Jonathan  Helffenstein,  Albert  Helffenstein  and 
 Frederick  Rahauser.  Reily  then  notified  the  synod  that  if 
 the  resolution  remained  as  it  was,  his  party  would  have  noth- 
 ing to  do  but  to  secede  from  the  Church.  It  was  their  purpose 
 to  go  over  to  the  Dutch  Church.  Having  made  his  address, 
 he  invited  the  minority  to  meet  him  at  the  place  where  he 
 lodged  to  devise  other  measures.  His  remarks  brought  mat- 
 ters to  a  crisis.  All  felt  the  gravity  of  the  situation.  The 
 synod  was  near  division.     There  was  silence  for  a  few  mo- 
 
32  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 nients.  Then  one  of  the  majority,  J.  C.  Becker,  proposed  that 
 Dr.  Milledoler  give  instructions  in  both  the  English  and  Ger- 
 man languages,  which  was  unanimously  adopted.  The  semi- 
 nary party  then  made  concessions  by  offering  a  resolution  that 
 every  student  must  be  able  to  speak  German  before  he  could 
 be  admitted  to  the  ministry.  Thus  the  threatened  schism  was 
 averted.  A  committee  was  appointed  to  revise  and  amend  the 
 plan  of  the  seminary,  whose  report  would  be  submitted  to  the 
 classes.  The  committee  Avas  Jonathan  Helffenstein,  Reily  and 
 Ilinsch.  The  German  party  had  gained  its  points,  first,  that 
 German  Avas  to  be  recognized  in  the  seminary,  and,  second, 
 that  all  action  on  the  subject  must  go  before  the  whole  Church 
 by  being  submitted  to  all  the  classes.  On  the  other  side,  the 
 seminar^'-  party  gained  their  point,  that  the  seminary  was  to 
 be  founded  and  Dr.  IMilledoler  was  to  be  the  professor.  The 
 extreme  action  of  1820  forbidding  any  minister  to  teach  the- 
 ologj'-  was  modified,  on  motion  of  S.  Helffenstein,  that  it  did 
 not  affect  those  at  present  studying  with  any  minister.  The 
 synod  also  appointed  a  committee  to  prepare  a  plan  for  the 
 incorporation  of  the  seminary  (against  Avhich  there  had  been 
 considerable  opposition)  and  submit  it  to  the  classes,  and  thus 
 the  next  synod  would  have  the  information  by  which  to  come 
 to  a  wise  decision.  The  synod  also  ordered  that  ministers  take 
 up  a  collection  for  the  seminary  and  those  who  did  not  preach 
 on  this  subject  and  take  a  collection  should  be  called  to  ac- 
 count. Tliis  latter  action  was  misinterpreted  by  many — that 
 the  synod  by  legal  and  ecclesiastical  force  would  compel  them 
 to  pay  to  the  large  salary  of  Dr.  IMilledoler. 
 
 But  as  one  cause  for  division  was  removed  another  suddenly 
 appeared,  although  along  somewhat  different  lines — along  per- 
 sonal lines  rather  than  party  lines — the  adherents  and  the  op- 
 ponents of  the  Hermans.  The  state  of  the  synod  was  such  that 
 a  slight  cause  was  needed  to  produce  division.  This  came  in 
 the  suspension  of  the  gifted  but  wayward  Frederick  Herman.* 
 son  of  F.  L.  Herman,  one  of  the  oldest  and  most  honored 
 
 *Frederick  Herman  was  later  reinstated  by  Lebanon  classis  in  1830, 
 but  in  1835  he  left  that  classis  at  his  own  request. 
 
The  Free  Synod.  '  33 
 
 ministers  and  the  head  of  the  "Swamp  College."    There  was 
 no  doubt  of  the  righteousness  of  the  synod's  action  in  so  doing. 
 But  the  manner  in  which  it  was  done  gave  unnecessary  of- 
 fence.   When  his  father  asked  the  significance  of  the  deposi- 
 tion of  his  son  from  the  ministry,  the  president,  Rev.  Mr. 
 Hinsch,  replied,  "In  this  case  it  means  exclusion  forever." 
 In  saying  this,  the  president  over-reached  his  powers.     No 
 exclusion  is  necessarily  forever,  for  it  may  be  rescinded  in 
 case  of  repentance.     Instead  of  such  severity  it  had  been 
 better  if  the  synod  had  appointed,  as  it  does  now,  a  committee 
 to  draft  its  decision  carefully.     Still  the  action  of  the  synod 
 was  not  so  severe  as  the  remark  of  the  president.    Dr.  Herman 
 then  left  the  synod  without  permission.     That  act  was  the 
 premonition   of  the   future   division.     It  has  been   charged 
 against  Dr.  Herman  that  his  dissatisfaction  with  the  synod 
 was  due  to  the  founding  of  the  new  seminary — that  he  feared 
 it  would  interfere  with  his  "Swamp  College" — that  he  was 
 dissatisfied  with  the  election  of  Dr.  Milledoler  because  he  had 
 aspirations  to  that  position.    Whether  there  was  any  truth  in 
 this  we  do  not  know.    There  has  been  a  false  statement  made 
 by  some  of  our  historians  which  helped  this  idea,  namely,  that 
 Dr.  Herman's  private  theological  seminary  was  the  largest 
 in  the  Church,  and  would  be  most  affected  by  synod's  action. 
 This  is  not  true.    His  seminary  was  not  as  large  at  that  time 
 as  Dr.  Helff enstein 's.     The  new  seminary  would  have  inter- 
 fered more  with  Helffenstein's  school  than  with  Herman's. 
 At  any  rate,  Dr.  Herman  had  been  a  member  of  the  Synod  of 
 1820,  and  had  there  voted  for  the  election  of  Dr.  Milledoler, 
 for  the  election,  we  understand,  was  unanimous.     Also,  when 
 Philadelphia  classis  declared  for  a  convention-synod  in  1821. 
 Herman  did  not  sign  his  adherence  to  it.    All  this  is  significant 
 for  he  would  have  done  the  latter  if  very  much  dissatisfied. 
 We  are,  therefore,  inclined  to  think  that  more  was  made  of 
 this  charge  by  his  opponents  than  the  facts  warrant.    At  any 
 rate  the  only  knowledge  we  have  of  these  aspirations  of  his  are 
 from  his  opponents.     That  he  would  have  made  an  excellent 
 professor  of  theology,  both  intellectually  and  pedagogically, 
 
34  History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 we  have  no  doubt.  So  would  Dr.  Helffenstein.*  The  only 
 reason  Ave  have  found  given  was  what  Dr.  Herman  himself 
 gave,  that  he  thought  Frederick  was  not  a  suitable  location. 
 
 After  the  synod  was  over,  the  tendencies  toward  disunion 
 began  to  reveal  themselves.  The  friends  of  Dr.  Herman  began 
 to  secede.  In  the  eastern  part  of  Berks  and  Montgomery 
 Counties,  congregation  after  congregation  withdrew  from 
 synod.  The  first  congregations  to  secede,  as  far  as  we  know, 
 were  those  of  Guldin,  the  pupil  and  son-in-law  of  Herman,  at 
 Vincent,  Coventry  and  St.  Peters,  in  Chester  County;  also 
 the  Centre  congregation  in  Lancaster  County  and  the  Alle- 
 gheny congregation  in  Berks  Coimty.  The  next  congregation 
 was  that  of  Kutzto\ra  on  Jan.  30.  1822.  This  congregation 
 published  five  reasons  for  declaring  itself  independent : 
 
 1.  Because  the  synod  had  ordered  that  the  seminary  become  incorpo- 
 rated.    This  would  make  each  church-member  responsible  for  its  debts. 
 
 2.  Because  it  was  located  at  Frederick. 
 
 3.  Because  it  called  an  English  minister  (Milledoler)   as  professor. 
 
 4.  Because  of  the  extrava,gance  of  his  salary   ($2,000). 
 
 5.  Because  the  cost  of  sending  delegates  to  the  classis  and  synod  and 
 to  the  Dutch  synod  was  too  great,  especially  at  a  time  like  the  present. 
 
 This  congregation  asked  its  pastor,  Charles  G.  Herman,  to 
 invite  the  pastors  of  other  congregations  to  come  together  so  as 
 to  form  a  free  and  independent  synod. 
 
 New  Hanover  congregation  declared  itself  independent  on 
 February  9,  1822,  for  the  same  reasons,  only  adding  that  all 
 this  project  of  the  synod  was  looked  upon  as  an  aristocratic 
 method  of  robbing  the  members  of  the  church  of  their  freedom. 
 Zion's  Church,  Alsace  Township,  did  so  on  February  23,  as 
 also  did  the  Trappe  congregation  in  Montgomery  Coimty  on 
 that  date.  Pottsgrove  (Pottsto\ra)  declared  itself  independ- 
 ent on  February  28.  The  Reformed  Church  of  Pike  Town- 
 ship, Berks  County,  did  so  on  March  2,  the  Colebrookdale 
 Church,  on  March  2.  The  Bensalem,  Zion  's.  Comer  and  Jacob's 
 Church  in  Lynn  Township,  Lehigh  County,  became  independ- 
 
 *If  the  synod  could  have  united  the  two  seminaries  of  Helffenstein  and 
 Herman  with  both  of  them  as  professors,  at  some  point  between  Phila- 
 delphia and  Pottstown,  where  they  were  located,  that  would  have  been 
 the  simplest  solution  of  the  problem,  but  that  was  never  thought  of. 
 
The  Free  Synod.  35 
 
 ent  on  March  20,  Upper  Bern   (Salerns)   on  j\Iarcli  30,  and 
 Muehlbach  on  March  24. 
 
 This  continued  withdrawal  of  congregations  from  the  synod 
 was  aided  by  the  formation  of  the  first  Free  synod.  A  num- 
 ber of  ministers  favorable  to  the  organization  of  a  free  synod 
 met  at  the  house  of  Rev.  Charles  G.  Herman,  in  Maxatawny 
 Township  on  April  24,  1822.  There  were  five  ministers  pres- 
 ent, all  pupils  of  Dr.  Herman :  Charles  G.  Herman,  Frederick 
 L.  Herman.  Henry  Diefenbach.  John  Zulich  and  John  Guldin. 
 They  elected  Frederick  L.  Herman  president,  Diefenbach  sec- 
 retary and  Zulich  treasurer.  They  adopted  a  constitution  of 
 fourteen  articles.  This  constitution  reveals  quite  a  demo- 
 cratic presbyterial  form  of  government  in  which  the  congrega- 
 tion has  large  powers.  Their  distrust  of  the  tendency  toward 
 centralization  in  the  old  synod  made  them  incline  toward 
 giving  large  rights  to  the  congregation.  They  continued  a 
 convention-synod  while  the  mother  synod  continued  a  dele- 
 gated synod.  They  ordered  the  president  to  get  a  seal  for 
 the  synod,  to  call  a  regular  meeting  of  the  new  synod  at  Kutz- 
 town  on  the  second  Sunday  of  September,  1822,  and  to  invite 
 all  congregations  who  desired  to  be  independent  to  join  them. 
 
 After  this  preliminary  meeting  the  secession  of  the  congre- 
 gations from  the  old  synod  continued.  The  "White  Church, 
 of  Albany  Township,  Berks  County,  declared  itself  independ- 
 ent on  May  26.  In  the  Reading  Adlcr  of  June  25  a  number 
 of  the  members  of  the  Tulpehoeken  congregation,  among  them 
 its  treasurer,  two  trustees,  three  elders,  three  deacons  and 
 twenty-five  members  published  a  note  signed  in  May,  stating 
 that  they  would  not  support  a  minister  who  supported  the  semi- 
 nary. The  Tulpehoeken  congregation  held  a  meeting  on  June 
 26  and  took  action  against  the  above-mentioned  memorial,  but 
 Dr.  Hendel,  on  account  of  the  opposition  to  the  seminary  pro- 
 ject, which  he  championed,  resigned  the  Tulpehoeken  and 
 Muehlbach  congregations. 
 
 The  second  Free  synod  was  held  at  Kutztown  September  7, 
 1822,  when  the  synod  became  thoroughly  organized.  It  con- 
 sisted of  the  ministers  who  were  at  the  April  meeting  (except 
 Zulich),  with  the  addition  of  Joseph  Dubbs,  Thomas  Lein- 
 
36  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  IT.  S. 
 
 bach  and  Augustus  Herman,  who  as  students  of  Dr.  Herman 
 were  licensed  at  this  meeting.  Kemp,  an  elder,  was  elected 
 treasurer  in  place  of  Zulich.  There  were  in  all  thirty  minis- 
 ters and  elders  present. 
 
 The  gap  between  the  two  s.ynods  Avas  finally  completed  by 
 the  action  of  the  old  synod  in  the  autumn  of  1822.  After 
 Philadelphia  classis  had  reported  that  it  had  given  F.  L. 
 Herman  and  Guldin,  Avho  belonged  to  it,  until  September  1  to 
 declare  whether  they  would  remain  in  the  old  synod  or 
 secede,*  the  sjTiod  then  took  action  that  F.  L.  Herman,  Charles 
 G.  Herman,  Guldin  and  Henry  Diefenbach,  since  they  no  longer 
 desired  to  be  members  of  the  old  synod,  are,  because  of  thoir 
 actions,  shut  out  from  that  synod.  The  synod  was  competent 
 to  take  such  an  action,  but  it  would  have  been  better  had  they 
 gone  about  it  leisurely  and  appointed,  as  was  done  in  later 
 years,  a  committee  to  confer  with  them  first  before  finally  ex- 
 cluding them.  Still  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  synod 
 had  had  no  previous  experience  in  dealing  with  such  matters, 
 and,  besides,  feeling  ran  high  at  that  time. 
 
 While  only  five  ministers  left  the  synod,  yet  a  number  of 
 ministers  who  remained  in  the  old  synod  were  ffuite  awkwardly 
 placed,  as  either  their  Lutheran  colleagues  were  inclined  to 
 independency  or  many  of  their  people  favored  it.  We  have 
 already  noticed  the  awkward  position  of  Hendel.  Zulich  re- 
 ported to  the  classis  of  Northampton  that  on  account  of  the 
 opposition  of  his  people  he  did  not  deem  it  wise  to  come  to  the 
 meeting  of  classis  in  1823.  Zellers  complained  to  that  classis 
 of  disaffection  in  his  congregations  and  of  opposition  to  tho 
 new  seminary.  Helffrich  had  a  similar  experience,  especially 
 as  his  Lutheran  colleague,  Knoske,  became  independent  of  tlie 
 Lutheran  synod;  still  he  managed  to  retain  his  congregations 
 in  the  old  synod.  Even  in  congregations  that  remained  in  the 
 old  synod  a  prejudice  sometimes  arose  lest  they  would  be  sub- 
 ject to  a  seminary  tax.  For  this  reason  Klopp's  congregation 
 and  one  of  J.  J.  Faber's  sent  a  committee  to  the  synod  of  1822 
 to  inquire  about  this  matter.     The  old  synod  replied  tliat  if 
 
 *Norfh;nn|itnn  classis  took  tlio  SiiiiiP  action  and  Zulich  rc'turnod  tu  tlii' 
 old  synod,  but  C.  G.  TTornian  and  Diefenbach  did  not. 
 
The  Free  Synod.  37 
 
 the  congregation  was  unwilling  to  take  up  a  collection,  the 
 synod  had  no  idea  of  forcing  them  to  do  it.  This  action 
 ought  to  have  quieted  the  fears  of  many  of  the  alarmists  who 
 opposed  the  seminary.  But  coupled  with  this  was  another 
 prejudice,  namely,  against  the  incorporation  and  chartering  of 
 religious  societies,  especially  theological  seminaries.  This  was 
 a  new  thing  in  those  days  and  was  looked  upon  with  great  sus- 
 picion as  an  effort  of  the  church  to  get  the  state  under  its 
 domination.*  Still  the  main  force  of  the  movement  toward 
 secession  abated  in  1823,  as  we  find  very  few  congregations 
 leaving  the  old  synod.  Thus  the  Bethel  church  of  Albany 
 Township  declared  itself  independent  on  February  18,  1823, 
 and  the  Reformed  Church  of  Hereford  Township,  Berks 
 County,  on  June  12,  1823. 
 
 Section  3.     The  Controversy  Between  the  Two  Synods. 
 
 It  has  hitherto  been  said  that  the  mother  synod  did  not 
 carry  on  any  controversy  with  the  Free  synod,  but  left  it 
 alone  after  having  disciplined  its  members.  This  is  not  true. 
 There  was  an  active  controversy  between  them  in  which  the 
 contrary  was  the  truth.  The  ministers  of  the  old  synod  took 
 part  in  it  while  the  ministers  of  the  Free  synod  rather  avoided 
 it,  for  their  side  of  the  controversy  was  carried  on  by  laymen. 
 It  is  very  evident  that  there  was  a  great  deal  of  feeling  at  that 
 time  and  considerable  rivalry  between  the  synods.  The  old 
 synod  was  fearful  lest  it  might  lose  more  congregations  to 
 the  Free  synod,  while  the  latter  was  just  as  anxious  to  in- 
 crease its  number  and  enlarge  its  influence.  Thus,  in  1824, 
 the  Salem's  German  congregation  of  Philadelphia,  Rev.  Mr. 
 Bibighaus,  pastor,  left  the  old  synod  for  the  Free  synod. 
 This  act  caused  great  anxiety  in  the  former.  On  the  other 
 hand  Schneck  left  the  Free  synod  for  the  old  ^nod.  Iliester, 
 the  pastor  at  Lebanon,  who  died  in  1828,  was  so  fearful  lest 
 after  his  death  his  congregation  would  go  from  the  old  synod 
 
 *Thus,  as  late  as  1835,  the  argument  was  used  against  Governor 
 Eitner,  then  a  candidate  for  the  governorship,  that  he  had  voted  for  the 
 incorporation  of  religious  institutions  in  1826  and  1827.  A  broadside 
 to  that  effect  was  printed  and  widely  scattered  to  win  voters  against  him. 
 
38  History  op  Reformed  Ciiitroii  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 to  tlie  Free  synod  that  he  spent  liours  in  talking  with  his 
 people,  arguing  with  them  in  favor  of  the  seminary  and  the 
 old  synod.  He  often  closed  with  this  appeal:  "Since  you 
 can  not  accuse  me  of  having  at  any  time  told  you  an  untruth, 
 why  should  you  not  believe  me  when  I  speak  on  this  subject." 
 A  few  days  ))ef()re  he  died,  lie  called  one  of  his  congregation 
 to  him  and  charged  him  that  the  congregation  should  pro- 
 cure a  minister  from  the  old  sjaiod.* 
 
 The  controversy  between  the  two'  synods  ai)])eared  in  two 
 forms : 
 
 1.  The  pam])ldet  controversy  between  laymen. 
 
 2.  Tlie  news])aper  controversy  of  Dr.  IMayer  and  others. 
 
 1.  The  pamphlet  ccmtroversy  between  laymen.  In  this  Carl 
 Gock  championed  the  Free  Synod,  while  Gossler  and  Eylert 
 defended  the  old  synod.     They  were  all  schoolmasters. 
 
 Gock  was  a  Lutheran,  yet  he  was  interested  in  the  contro- 
 versy because  of  his  opposition  to  all  tyrannj'",  whether  in 
 church  or  state.  lie  had  come  to  America  about  twenty  years 
 before  and  settled  in  Albany  Township,  Berks  county.  He 
 became  a  politician,  then  a  strolling  herb-doctor,  finally  a 
 drunkard  and  died  in  the  Berks  county  almshouse. t  His 
 ))ook  is  entitled  "The  Vindication  of  the  Free  Church  in 
 America"  (1822-3), — a  small  pamphlet  of  about  120  pages. 
 
 It  was  a  weak,  serajijiy.  wandering  sort  of  book,  full  of  low  niisrqt- 
 resentations  and  bombast  and  appealing  to  ignorance  and  jjrejudice. 
 ITis  main  contention  was  that  synods  are  tyrannical  and  that  only  a 
 republican  synod  is  desirable.  lie  gives  illustrations  of  tyranny  in 
 some  of  the  Protestant  churches  in  Europe,  where  church  and  state 
 are  united.  He  urged  that  money  colled eil  in  the  congregations  should 
 not   go   into   the   hands  of  the   ministers,    hut   be  given    to   Avidows   and, 
 
 *There  was  a  strong  rivalry  l)et\veen  the  two  synods.  Schneck,  when 
 in  the  Free  synod,  once  asked  Kev.  Yost  Fries,  who  was  in  the  Old 
 synod,  to  announce  his  jireaching  in  a  certain  church.  This  Fries  did, 
 lint  added  in  his  characteristic  odd  way,  "They  say  he  belongs  to  the 
 Free  synod,  and  if  it  be  true,  he  is  not  worth  much"  (nichts  werth). 
 
 fl'rof.  r)ubl)S,  "The  Reformed  Church  in  Pennsylvania,"  page  2S;i. 
 says  Gock  was  a  local  politician  and  for  twenty  years  a  delegate  to  the 
 county  convention.  As  long  iis  the  nominees  were  chosen  by  secret  ballot, 
 Gock  conducted  a  j)rosperous  business  ])y  secretly  selling  his  vote  to  all 
 candidates  and  then  voting  as  he  pleased.  See  also  "The  Guardian"  of 
 August,  186;{,  ])ago  LMCi,  for  an  interesting  visit  of  Dr.  Ilarbaugh  to  him 
 in  the  Berks  county  almshouse. 
 
The  Free  Synod.  39 
 
 orphans  aud  to  the  mission  treasury  to  aid  such  ministers  as  preach 
 according  to  the  gospel.  After  a  meaningless  digression  into  the  re- 
 ligious history  of  the  world  since  the  creation,  in  order  probably  to  show 
 his  learning,  he  closes  with  a  bitter  attack  on  the  old  feynod's  resolution 
 to  establish  the  seminary ;  adding  an  appeal  for  the  Lutherans  and 
 Reformed  to  unite  in  forming  an  Evangelical  synod  which  would  resist 
 all  ecclesiastical  oppression. 
 
 Goek  later  in  this  controversy  published  (1830)  another 
 book,  entitled  ''My  Religious  and  Political  Views  on  North 
 America  and  Continuation  of  the  Vindication  of  the  Free 
 Synod."  This  book  was  so  weak  and  vapid  as  to  deserve 
 no  notice  except  the  fact  of  its  publication.  In  it  he  expresses 
 the  lowest  views  of  church  government  and  civil  authority. 
 
 Gossler,  who  replied  to  Gock,  was  a  publisher  at  Reading.* 
 His  book  was  published  in  1823  and  was  entitled  "Carl  Gock's 
 Calumnies,  or  The  Defence  of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed 
 Synods  of  North  America."  His  book  was  stronger  and  more 
 logical  than  Gock's. 
 
 He  takes  Gock  severely  to  task  by  telling  him  that  he  also  was  from 
 Europe  and  knows  whereof  he  speaks.  After  an  introductory  chapter 
 on  the  origin  and  history  of  the  Reformed  synod,  he  takes  up  Gock's 
 book,  section  by  section,  and  ridicules  his  arguments.  He  reveals  con- 
 siderable knowledge  of  Reformed  Church  history  and  ecclesiastical  law 
 abroad.  He  gives  illustrations  in  Europe  to  prove  there  was  no 
 tyranny  in  the  Protestant  churches.  He  does  not  leave  a  peg  for  Gock 
 to  hang  an  argument  on.  He,  however,  stirred  up  the  ire  of  the  mem- 
 bers of  the  Free  synod  by  making  a  personal  charge  against  old  Dr. 
 Herman, — that  he  had  put  Peter  Miller's  name  as  president  of  the 
 congregational  meeting  at  New  Hanover,  Feb.  26,  1822  (when  it  de- 
 clared that  congregation  independent),  without  Miller's  permission.  He 
 also  charged  that  Dr.  Herman  in  1818  had  collected  $10.32  from  the 
 Oley  congregation  and  yet  paid  only  $5  to  the  Synod. 
 
 Theodore  Eylert's  book  was  the  strongest  of  the  three.  He 
 calls  himself  a  schoolmaster  in  Tulpehocken  Township,  Berks 
 county,  not  far  from  Rehrersburg.  The  pamphlet  was  pub- 
 lished January,  1823,  and  entitled  "The  Darkness  of  the  Free 
 Synod  of  America. ' ' 
 
 He  says  in  the  beginning  that  as  no  one  else  had  taken  up  the  de- 
 fence of  the  old  synod  he  felt  it  his  duty  to  do  so.  He  declared  that  he 
 
 *He  published  the  Life  of  Napoleon  in  German  in  1822. 
 
40  HiSTOKi'  OF  Keformed  Church  ]n  the  U.  S. 
 
 knew  what  oppression  in  the  Fatherland  was,  for  he  had  been  oppressed 
 at  Hamburg,  Germany,  for  five  years  by  Napoleon,  where  he  had  been 
 a  merchant  and  had  been  robbed  by  the  French  of  $25,000.  He  charged 
 Gock  that  his  object  in  writing  his  book  was  mercenary,  —that  he 
 might  go  through  the  congregations  of  the  Free  synod  and  sell  it  for 
 50  cents  a  copy.  He  asked  Gock  where  in  Europe  were  the  people  so 
 severely  oppressed  as  he  had  stated.  Eylert  says  he  had  traveled  over 
 a  large  part  of  Germany,  Holland,  part  of  France,  England,  Denmark 
 and  Sweden, — he  had  lived  many  years  at  Hamburg,  Lubeck  and 
 Bremen  and  four  weeks  at  Lisbon,  but  had  heard  nothing  of  such 
 oppression  as  Gock  spoke  of.  He  had  never  heard  that  people  had  to 
 leave  Germany  because  of  religious  oppression,  at  least  not  in  the 
 Protestant  Church  or  even  in  the  Catholic  Church  of  that  time.  He 
 declared  that  no  pastor  in  Germany  could  of  his  own  will  punish  a 
 member  without  the  latter  having  the  right  of  appeal  to  a  higher 
 church-court.  He  facetiously  suggested  that  the  Free  synod  ought  to 
 make  Gock  its  president.  He  denies  Gock 's  charge  that  all  schoolmasters 
 were  nothing  but  bootblacks  and  menials  to  their  ministers,  etc.  He 
 claimed  that  a  theological  seminary  was  a  necessity. 
 
 These  various  publications  against  the  Free  synod,  espe- 
 cially the  charges  of  Gossler  against  Herman,  greatly  stirred 
 up  the  members  of  that  synod.  As  a  result,  on  Jime  12,  1823, 
 representatives  of  fifteen  congregations  met  at  the  church  in 
 Hereford  Township,  Berks  County.  They  adopted  a  series 
 of  resolutions  declaring  that  the  Free  synod  was  persecuted 
 by  tracts,  hand-bills  and  especially  defamed  by  Gossler 's  book. 
 They  especially  declaim  against  his  charge  against  Dr.  Her- 
 man that  he  had  received  over  ten  dollars  from  the  Oley  con- 
 gregation for  the  sjTiod  and  had  handed  in  only  five  dollars. 
 They  reply  by  showing  that  according  to  the  minutes  up  to 
 1819  it  had  been  properly  paid.  Two  of  the  Oley  members  de- 
 clare they  were  ready  to  take  oath  if  necessary  that  when  Dr. 
 Herman  returned  from  the  synod  he  told  them  he  had  not  paid 
 it  all,  because  he  did  not  see  the  necessity  of  it  at  synod. 
 They  thus  fully  answer  the  charge  and  clear  Dr.  Herman's 
 character.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  great  bitterness  had 
 been  stirred  up.  This  meeting  also  answered  Gossler 's  charge 
 that  Dr.  Herman  had  started  the  Free  synod.  These  con- 
 gregations say  it  was  their  wish  that  it  should  be  founded,  and 
 
The  Free  Synod.  41 
 
 they  thank  Herman  for  carrying  out  their  wishes.  They  say 
 that  the  charge  that  Herman  wanted  to  found  a  sect  came 
 from  his  publication  of  a  catechism  of  his  own,  but  he  did  this 
 at  the  request  "of  his  congregation  and  he  defended  himself 
 by  the  fact  that  other  Reformed  ministers  of  the  synod  had 
 done  the  same  thing  as  Helffenstein,  Becker  and  Hiester.  The 
 resolutions  of  their  meeting  were  signed  by  three  representa- 
 tives each  from  the  congregations  of  Falkner  Swamp  and 
 Pottsgrove  (Pottstown),  two  each  from  St.  Peter's,  of  Rich- 
 mond Township  and  Longswamp;  one  each  from  Zion's  (Al- 
 sace), Trappe,  Vincent,  Centre,  Allegheny,  Dunkel's,  Zion's 
 ("Windsor),  the  "White  Church  (Albany),  the  Mountain 
 Church  and  Boyer's,  and  by  seven  from  the  Hereford  congre- 
 gation, where  the  meeting  was  held.  No  ministers  are  men- 
 tioned in  the  proceedings  as  present  at  the  meeting,  the  laity 
 being  the  active  forces  there.  This  strong  protest  of  so  many 
 congregations  doubtless  served  as  a  bulwark  to  retain  their 
 churches  in  the  Free  synod. 
 
 2.  The  newspaper  controversy  between  Mayer,  Dechant 
 and  Fries  with  Berkenmeyer. 
 
 This  was  a  far  abler  controversy  than  the  former.  Its 
 leaders  were  Rev.  Dr.  Mayer,  of  York,  for  the  old  synod,  and 
 Carl  Berkenmeyer,  of  Kutztown,  a  leading  laymen  of  the  Free 
 synod.  Rev.  Messrs.  Dechant  and  Fries  tried  to  mediate,  yet 
 standing  on  the  side  of  the  old  synod.  This  controversy 
 especially  on  the  part  of  Dr.  Mayer,  was  in  every  way  worthy 
 of  the  dignity  and  gravity  of  the  subject.* 
 
 The  published  news,  that  so  many  congregations  of  the  old 
 synod  were  withdrawing  from  it,  led  its  ministers  to  come  to 
 its  defense.  It  was  especially  the  published  action  of  the 
 Kutztown  congregation,  February  19,  1822,  that  led  Dr.  Mayer 
 to  come  out  in  print.    He  wrote  his  first  article  on  February 
 
 *Rev.  Dr.  Dubbs,  in  summing  up  Gock  and  Gossler,  says:  "The 
 strong  men  of  the  Church  (old  synod)  declined  to  enter  the  contro- 
 versy." In  saying  this  lie  appears  to  have  erred,  yet  he  was  only  echoing 
 the  traditional  rumor  that  had  come  down.  This  Mayer  controversy 
 seems  to  have  been  unnoticed  until  the  writer  discovered  it  a  few  years 
 ago  in  the  columns  of  the  Reading  Adler. 
 
42  History  of  Reformed  Church  ix  the  TJ.  S. 
 
 28  and  it  appeared  March  26.     He  replies  to  the  complaints 
 of  that  congregation  against  the  old  synod : 
 
 1.  That  if  the  seminary  would  be  chartered,  all  the  congregation  and 
 members  would   be   compelled   to  support  it   by  contributions. 
 
 2.  The  high  salary  of  Dr.  Milledoler  ($2,000),  and  that  he  was  an 
 English  preacher  and  not  a  German. 
 
 3.  The  expense  of  sending  delegates  to  classes,  synods  and  especially 
 as  corresponding  members  to  the  Dutch  General  Synod. 
 
 Dr.  Mayer  takes  up  these  objections  one  after  the  other,  answering 
 the  first  in  his  first  article.  He  asked  the  Kutztown  congregation 
 wliether  the  incorporation  of  a  school  or  any  other  society  would  compel 
 all  its  individual  memliers  to  support  it  whether  willing  or  not.  In- 
 corporation was  necessary  in  the  case  of  the  seminary,  because  without 
 it,  its  funds  could  only  be  held  hj  private  parties  whose  heirs  might 
 claim  the  money.  But  he  said  the  synod  never  could  use  force  to  col- 
 lect the  money,  as  she  had  not  the  power  nor  would  it  be  well-pleasing 
 to  God.  But  she  Wiould  be  glad  to  receive  free-will  offerings  for  the 
 seminary,  especially  an  annual  collection.  The  action  of  the  synod 
 to  take  up  an  annual  collection  was  proposed  by  Hoffeditz  and  unani- 
 mously adopted,  but  all  understood  it  was  to  be  a  free-will  offering. 
 He  therefore  declared  that  the  first  complaint  of  the  Kutztown  con- 
 gregation was  based  on  a  misunderstanding. 
 
 Ilis  second  article,  written  on  April  2,  dealt  with  the  second  comjilaint 
 of  the  Kutztown  congregation  under  three  heads: 
 
 1.  That  the  professor-elect  is  an  English  minister. 
 
 2.  That  he  was  from  New  York. 
 
 3.  That  he  was  promised  a  salary  of  $2,000. 
 
 As  to  the  first  he  said  it  was  well  known  that  Dr.  Milledoler  was  by 
 birth  a  German  and  in  the  early  years  of  his  ministry  had  been  in  the 
 German  Eeformed  Church, — he  understood  German  and  although  most  of 
 his  pastorates  had  been  English,  he  wouhl  soon  regain  power  with  the 
 German  if  he  came  to  the  seminary. 
 
 He  then  proceeds  to  answer  the  complaint  tliat  Dr.  Milledoler  was 
 from  New  York*  and  from  another  denomination.  He  says  he  fails  to  see 
 as  his  opponent  had  suggested  that  it  was  pride  that  led  them  to 
 choose  Dr.  Milledoler.  If  our  denomination  could  better  itself  by  calling 
 a  man  from  another  denomination  she  ought  to  do  so.  Had  the  German 
 Church  of  Pennsylvania  not  called  on  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church  of 
 Holland  for  nearly  a  century  in  the  18th  century  for  help?  The  Dutch 
 Church  of  Holland  was  our  mother  and  the  Dutch  Church  of  America, 
 to  which  Dr.  Milledoler  belonged,  was  our  sister.  Is  the  German 
 Church  so  ill-bred  as  to  forget  her  mother  or  despise  her  sister. 
 
 He  then  took  up  the  third  part  of  the  complaint,  namely,  that  Dr. 
 Milledoler  was   to    receive   a   salary    of    $2,000.      This   he    proceeds   to 
 
The  Free  Synod.  43 
 
 answer  in  various  ways.  -  The  laborer  was  worthy  of  his  hire,  for 
 the  professorship  of  theology  was  a  very  responsible  position.  The 
 professors  of  theology  at  Princeton,  Avho  were  asked  to  teach  only  in 
 English  received  that  amount  and  Dr.  Milledoler  was  to  teach  in  both 
 languages.  Besides,  if  $2,000  were  divided  among  the  members  of  the 
 synod  (20,000),  it  would  mean  only  10  cents  a  member.  Dr.  Mille- 
 doler at  New  York  received  a  salary  and  gifts  of  $3,500.  He  would  be 
 giving  uj)  $1,500  to  accept  this  professorship  at  $2,000. 
 
 On  March  12,  Dr.  Mayer  wrote  a  third  communication  which  answered 
 the  third  charge  of  the  Kutztown  congregation, — that  the  cost  of  send- 
 ing delegates  to  the  classes  and  synods  and  to  the  Dutch  General  Synod 
 was  too  great  for  our  congregations.  He  said  the  synod  aimed  at 
 economy  and  not  extravagance,  for  the  division  into  classes  in  1820  had 
 been  made  in  order  to  save  expense.  He  reminded  them  of  their  incon- 
 sistency, for  they  had  organized  a  new  synod  and  that,  too,  would 
 involve  extra  expense.  As  to  the  expenses  to  the  Dutch  Synod,  little 
 had  been  spent.  During  the  nine  years  of  correspondence  with  them 
 before  1820  there  was  no  expense  to  the  synod.  In  1820  the  delegates 
 received  ten  dollars,  in  1821  the  two  delegates  received  between  eighty 
 and  ninety  dollars  as  the  Dutch  Synod  was  held  at  Albany,  which  was 
 a  great  distance  away.  But  if  this  amount  were  divided  among  the 
 members  of  the  synod  each  would  have  to  contribute  one  cent.  Who 
 ought  therefore  to  comjjlainf  After  having  answered  their  arguments, 
 he  then  proceeded  to  the  offensive.  He  reminded  them  that  the  pastor 
 of  the  Kutztown  congregation  had  brought  to  the  synod  of  1819  a  con- 
 tribution of  only  $4.50  from  a  congregation  of  883  members,  while  his 
 (Mayer's)  congregation  at  York,  which  had  only  262  communicants, 
 had  contributed  $67.  In  four  years  (1818-1821)  York  had  paid  $283.89. 
 Here  was  an  example  that  the  Kutztown  congregation  would  do  well 
 to  follow,  for  during  that  time,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  they  were 
 three  times  as  large,  they  had  raised  only  $8.50. 
 
 These  three  published  letters  of  Mayer  so  completely  exposed  the 
 fallacy  of  the  published  charges  of  the  Kutztown  congregation  that 
 their  secretary,  Frederick  Berkenmeyer,  evidently  felt  called  upon  to 
 reply.  He  therefore  wrote  an  article,  April  5,  which  wa9  published  in 
 the  Adler,  April  23.  He  declares  that  their  object  in  declaring  them- 
 selves independent  was  to  escape  religious  slavery  so  common  in  the 
 old  world  and  brought  about  by  regulations  like  those  adopted  by  the 
 old  synod.  He  tries  to  defend  himself  against  Dr.  Mayer's  article,  but 
 his  defense  is  very  weak. 
 
 In  the  same  number  of  the  Adler  in  which  Berkenmeyer 's  article 
 appeared,  there  was  also  a  communication  from  the  Rev.  Yost  H. 
 Fries,  a  prominent  Reformed  minister  and  pastor  of  the  Refonned 
 congregation  at  Youngmanstown  up  the  Susquehanna  (Mifflinburg,  Pa.). 
 He   opens   by   declaring   his   neutrality,   that    at    neither   of   the   synods 
 
44  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 of  1820  or  1821  had  he  voted  for  or  against  the  semiuary.  lie 
 believed  that  a  seminary  was  a  necessity  but  he  was  not  satisfied 
 with  the  plan  proposed  for  it.  His  plan  had  been  to  unite  with  the 
 Lutherans  in  the  project.  But  if  this  were  impossible  there  would  be 
 plenty  of  time  to  elect  a  professor  from  the  German  Reformed  Church 
 if  necessary,  for  he  said  that  there  were  six  men  in  the  synod  wlio 
 could  fill  the  office  with  honor.  Two  men  could  be  gotten  for  $1,000 
 each,  or  at  the  highest  $1,200  each.  But  his  ideas  had  not  been  accepted. 
 He  had,  however,  this  to  say,  that  Dr.  Milledoler  was  a  very  learned  man 
 and  truly  converted,  a  thing  very  necessary  in  a  seminary  professor. 
 His  election  was  not  caused  by  pride  in  the  synod,  as  had  been  charged. 
 As  to  the  cost  of  it,  the  amount  would  soon  be  raised  if  each  member 
 were  to  give  from  one  to  twenty-five  cents.  As  to  being  forced  to  raise 
 money  for  this  object,  no  seminary  in  America  could  do  that.  But  he 
 adds,  if  I  were  opposed  to  the  seminary,  I  would  not  lift  my  finger 
 against  it  but  would  say  with  Gamaliel  if  it  be  the  work  of  God  it  will 
 be  blessed.  He  then  warns  them  against  division  and  schism  as  great 
 evils  and  entreats  them  not  to  leave  the  old  synod. 
 
 Berkenmeyer  wrote  a  second  article  (April  30)  in  which  he  replies 
 to  Mayer's  second  article,  making  the  startling  assertion  that  Dr.  Mille- 
 doler was  not  a  German  by  birth  but  a  Dane, — that  he  was  so  English 
 that  if  the  young  men  of  the  German  congregations  were  to  go  to  the 
 seminary  they  would  not  be  able  to  understand  him.  He  asks  if  Dr. 
 Milledoler  receives  such  a  high  salary  in  New  York  whether  it  is  not 
 a  shame  to  call  him  even  at  so  large  a  salary  as  the  synod  offered  him. 
 lie  claims  that  Mayer's  arguments  only  strengthened  his  position,  which 
 we  do  not  see. 
 
 Then  Eev.  J.  W.  Dechant,  of  Montgomery  County,  also  came  to  the 
 aid  of  Dr.  Mayer  by  a  communication  to  the  Adler,  dated  April  8. 
 He  declared  that  he  was  urged  to  do  so  by  a  number  in  his  congregation. 
 The  plan  of  the  seminary  and  the  election  of  Dr.  Milledoler  in  1820 
 had  been  against  his  wishes,  because  he  felt  the  synod  was  too  small  a 
 body  to  take  such  an  important  and  far-reaching  action;  and  a  number 
 of  the  elders  had  thus  spoken  to  him  both  publicly  and  privately,  but 
 to  his  regret  he  found  no  following  in  synod.  On  his  return  home  he 
 found  that  his  views  were  shared  by  most  of  the  members  of  his  classis. 
 He  describes  the  appeal  sent  out  by  the  Norristown  conference  March 
 26,  1821,  against  the  plan  of  the  seminary.  At  the  last  synod  (1821), 
 the  majority  (the  German  party)  had  given  in  to  the  minority  (the 
 seminary  party)  for  fear  of  division,  but  it  was  not  to  be  wondered  at 
 that  some  ministers  were  estranged.  As  to  the  expenses  caused  by  classes 
 and  synods  they  were  light  as  only  those  delegated  usually  go  to  synods; 
 and  when  classis  met,  their  members  had  usually  not  far  to  go.  After 
 all,  the  says,  the  main  question  at  issue  is  one  of  liberty.  That  the 
 synod  would  take  the  right  of  liberty  from  a  congregation  is  ridiculous. 
 
The  Free  Synod.  45 
 
 If  the  Americans  came  out  victorious  against  Great  Britain,  ought  one 
 be  afraid  of  seventy  ministers  who  compose  the  old  synod.  He  says  di- 
 vision- in  the  church  is  painful.  He  warns  against  it  and  pleads  for 
 unity. 
 
 After  the  appearance  of  these  moderate  articles  by  Yost  and  Dechant, 
 the  controversy  was  continued  by  Mayer  and  Berkenmeyer.  Berken- 
 meyer  in  his  article  written  April  15  finds  great  difficulty  in  replying  to 
 Mayer's  third  article  in  which  he  compares  the  liberality  of  the  York 
 congregation  with  the  stinginess  of  the  Kutztown  congregation.  lie 
 really  makes  no  answer  except  to  say  that  their  congregation  honors 
 its  pastor,  Charles  G.  Herman. 
 
 Mayer,  however,  continues  the  controversy.  In  his  fourth  article, 
 Avritten  April  30,  he  answers  Berkenmeyer 's  first  reply  to  his  first  article. 
 He  asks  him,  where  in  any  of  the  theological  seminaries  in  the  United 
 States  could  it  be  shown  that  they  had  brought  men  into  slavery.  There 
 were  many  incorporated  literary  institutions  and  seminaries  in  Penn- 
 sylvania and  other  states.  Had  they  ever  led  to  slavery  or  forced  money 
 from  the  people.  Mayer  says  he  had  no  desire  to  continue  the  contro- 
 versy with  one  who  perverts  and  ridicules  his  words  as  did  Berken- 
 meyer. In  his  fifth  communication  of  .lune  4th,  Maj'er  says  he  finds 
 himself  again  compelled  to  answer  Berkenmeyer  in  order  to  correct 
 him.  He  denies  the  latter 's  statement  that  Dr.  Milledoler  is  a  Dane,  for 
 he  had  told  him  that  his  parents  were  Germans.  He  declares  that 
 Berkenmeyer  perverts  his  meaning,  and  that  he  did  not  say  that  Dr. 
 Milledoler  could  no  longer  preach  German  or  that  Dr.  Milledoler  had  an 
 annual  income  of  $4,000.  Berkenmeyer 's  ridicule,  as  if  he  were  not  ac- 
 quainted with  the  difference  between  Germany  and  Denmark  and  between 
 high  and  low  German,  he  passes  by  as  unworthy  of  answer.  He  calls 
 Berkenmeyer 's  attention  to  the  ninth  article  of  the  Pennsylvania  consti- 
 tution which  forbids  taxation  for  religious  purposes,  to  show  that  the 
 synod  looked  upon  the  church  and  state  as  separate.  He  reminded  him 
 of  the  action  of  the  synod  in  1820-1  forbidding  a  minister  to  engage  in 
 a  worldly  occupation.  He  closes  by  declaring  that  the  annual  collection 
 asked  for  by  synod  would  produce  no  slavery. 
 
 Berkenmeyer  then  answers  Dechant  and  Mayer  by  trying  to  show  that 
 they  contradicted  each  other  about  slavery,  Mayer  denying  it  and 
 Dechant  virtually  granting  its  possibility.  He  denies  that  the  incor- 
 porated institutions  mentioned  by  Mayer  were  generally  for  the  educa- 
 tion of  ministers.  He  said  he  was  not  opposed  to  a  seminary  but  to  its 
 location  at  Frederick. 
 
 Mayer  wrote  his  seventh  article  to  correct  Berkenmeyet's  misstate- 
 ments about  his  article,  because  he  had  given  the  impression  that  the 
 collection  in  each  congregation  for  the  synod  was  to  be  weekly  and  not 
 yearly.  This  he  denies.  He  charges  Berkenmeyer  with  knowing  that  the 
 synod  receives  only  free-will  offerings;  yet,  by  his  language,  he  heats 
 
46  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 up  the  farmers  against  the  seminary.  He  closes  by  saying  that  here- 
 after he  would  write  no  more  and  that  Berkenmcyer  had  not  answered 
 any  of  his  arguments  but  had  given  vent  only  to  unfounded  arguments 
 and  sharp  ridicule.  The  controversy  closed  in  June,  1822,  the  last 
 article  being  by  Berkenmeyer  in  answer  to  Mayer's  sixth  article  but  nutli- 
 ing  particular  was  added  to  the  controversy. 
 
 In  these  controversies  both  in  tlie  pamphlets  and  the  news- 
 papers the  old  synod  had  by  far  the  ablest  defenders.  Ey- 
 lert  and  Gossler  proved  far  abler  than  Gock,  and  Mayer  far 
 outdistancing  Berkenmeyer.  But  the  Free  synod  had  by  that 
 time  passed  beyond  the  sphere  of  argument.  It  had  become  a 
 fact  and  no  newspaper  articles  or  arguments  could  keep  back 
 secession  or  cause  them  to  return  to  the  old  synod.  Provi- 
 dence and  grace  alone  could  bring  them  together  again,  which 
 it  afterward  did. 
 
 Section  4.    The  History  of  the  Free  Synod. 
 
 As  the  Free  synod  is  now  an  almost  forgotten  fact  and  its 
 minutes  almost  inaccessible,  we  will  give  a  brief  outline  of  its 
 history.*  Harbaugh,  in  his  work  on  Schism,  has  dealt  se- 
 verely with  the  Free  synod,  too  severely,  we  think,  probably 
 owing  to  his  high-church  view  of  the  Church  which  looked  on 
 schism  as  sin.  But  as  one  reads  the  minutes  of  that  body  and 
 gains  some  idea  of  its  influence  and  work,  it  is  easy  to  see 
 that  Harbaugh 's  strictures  are  entirely  too  severe.  It  was  a 
 very  respectable  bod}^,  though  not  without  its  faults  and  it  had 
 in  it  a  number  of  excellent,  earnest  and  strong  men.  Begin- 
 ning on  a  small  scale  in  1822  with  five  ministers,  it  grew  until 
 in  1836  it  had  on  its  list  23  ministers  and  10  candidates.  In 
 all,  55  ministers  had  been  connected  with  it  and  it  had  in  it 
 over  80  congregations  by  1836.  During  its  existence  of  15 
 years  it  had  licensed  51  persons  and  ordained  34. 
 
 In  comparison  with  the  old  synod  it  seems  to  have  been 
 a  somewhat  more  harmonious  body,  as  the  old  synod  was  kept 
 in  a  turmoil  for  a  number  of  years  by  difficulties  and  differ- 
 ences about  the  theological  seminarj^     The  Free  synod  also 
 
 *The  Minutes  of  the  Free  svnod  have  boon  kindly  luaiiod  us  by  tiie  late 
 Rev.  Prof.  .T.  H.  Dubbs,  D.D. 
 
The  Free  Synod.  47 
 
 seemed  to  be  very  happy  in  its  return  to  the  original  forin 
 of  church  government,  that  is  of  a  convention-synod,  where 
 all  the  ministers  could  meet  together,  while  the  old  synod 
 continued  to  be  a  synod  of  delegates  from  the  different  classes. 
 The  minutes  of  this  synod  reveal  quite  a  decided  advance, 
 both  in  numbers  and  in  aggressive  work.  It  became  so  wide- 
 spread as  to  extend  from  New  York  to  Carlisle  and  even  to 
 Ohio.  It,  therefore,  added  the  phrase  "and  adjacent  states" 
 to  its  original  name  "Synod  of  Pennsylvania."  This  was  a 
 larger  name  than  the  old  synod  then  had.  Its  main  work  for 
 the  first  few  years  was  the  licensing  of  candidates  for  the 
 ministry  and  the  reception  of  new  congregations.  In  1828  it 
 began  to  come  into  correspondence  with  the  Ohio  synod  and 
 the  Lutheran  Sjmod  of  Tennessee.  In  1829,  although  it  had 
 at  its  beginning  been  so  strongly  German  in  its  sympathies,  it 
 began  to  print  its  minutes  in  English  as  well  as  German.     In 
 
 1830,  when  it  held  its  session  in  Philadelphia,  it  looked  very 
 much  as  if  the  First  Reformed  congregation  of  wiiich  Rev.  S. 
 Helffenstein  had  been  pastor  would  join  it,  as  its  consistory 
 asked  it  to  ordain  young  Charles  W.  Wack,  of  the  Dutch  Re- 
 formed Theological  Seminary.  Two  of  the  members  of  that 
 synod,  A.  L.  Herman  and  Guldin,  preached  in  the  Race 
 Street  Church.  It,  and  not  the  old  synod,  ordained  Wack  as 
 pastor  in  the  Race  Street  Church,  where  he  was  pastor  for  a 
 year,  during  which  time  that  congregation  did  not  report  to 
 the  old  synod.  However,  with  the  pastorate  of  Rev.  Dr. 
 Sprole,  May  1,  1832,  it  returned  to  the  old  synod. 
 
 The  meeting  of  1832   seems,   however,   to   have   been   an 
 epochal  meeting.    A  committee  appointed  by  the  old  synod  in 
 
 1831,  consisting  of  Rev.  Messrs.  Hinsch,  C.  Helffenstein  and 
 C.  Berentz,  appeared  before  it,  asking  that  measures  be  taken 
 to  reunite  the  two  synods.  The  Free  synod,  however,  was  not 
 ready  for  imion  as  yet,  but  declared  itself  willing  to  come  into 
 fraternal  relations  with  the  old  synod,  which  it  did  by  an  in- 
 terchange of  minutes.  The  old  animosity  between  the  two 
 synods  was  dying  out  and  the  cordial  understanding  here  ar- 
 rived at  prepared  the  way  for  their  ultimate  union.  It  was, 
 however,  very  evident  that  this  synod  was  gaining  momentum 
 
48  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 and  moving  on,  breaking  away  from  its  former  conservative 
 traditions.  Thus  it  took  action  favoring  the  introduction  of 
 Sunday  schools  into  the  congregations  and  requested  the  con- 
 gregations to  co-operate  with  one  of  its  members,  Rev.  A. 
 Berkey,  missionary  of  the  American  Sunday  School  Union, 
 in  founding  them.  This  action,  in  view  of  the  great  prejudice 
 against  Sunday  schools  in  many  of  the  country  districts,  and 
 in  contrast  with  the  action  of  the  Northampton  classis  of  the 
 old  sjTiod  in  1829  which  virtually  opposed  these  things,  shows 
 the  spirit  of  liberality  and  progress  in  the  Free  synod.  At 
 the  S}Tiod  of  1832  it  even  took  an  action  toward  establishing 
 a  theological  school.  This  would  seem  to  be  going  back  on 
 their  traditional  opposition  to  the  seminary,  but  in  reality 
 the  members  never  expressed  themselves  opposed  to  a  semi- 
 nary, only  to  the  manner  in  which  the  seminary  movement  had 
 been  begun  by  the  old  synod.  Toward  such  an  institution  a 
 friend  in  Cumberland  County  offered  to  donate  50  acres  for 
 the  better  preparation  of  ministers.  But  nothing  came  of  it. 
 The  synod  also  took  very  decided  temperance  action:  ^^ Re- 
 solved, That  it  be  the  solemn  duty  of  every  member  of  this 
 body  to  use  every  effort  to  bring  into  disrepute  the  practice 
 of  habitual  drinking  and  hy  precept  and  example  to  expel  for- 
 ever the  use  of  ardent  spirits  from  his  congregation."  Prof. 
 F.  L.  Herman,  the  leader  of  the  synod,  was  a  strong  temper- 
 ance advocate.  The  synod  of  1834  founded  a  mission  treasury 
 for  which  a  yearly  collection  was  to  be  taken.  This  was  going 
 back  on  their  original  ideas,  for  they  were  now  doing  what 
 Berkenmcyer  attacked  in  the  old  s^Tiod.  namely,  its  tyranny 
 in  taking  up  an  annual  collection.  But  they  were  becoming 
 more  liberal  minded.  In  1835  a  missionary  constitution  was 
 prepared  and  a  traveling  preacher's  association  was  organized 
 to  send  ministers  to  destitute  fields  or  to  vacant  charges.  Its 
 last  synod  reported  $250  for  missions.  In  various  ways  it 
 tried  to  stimulate  genuine  piety.  It  repeatedly  recommended 
 Zollikofer-'s  prayer-book,  which  Guldin  had  had  printed,  so 
 that  there  might  be  more  religion  in  the  homes  of  the  synod. 
 It  had  sunrise  praj^er-meetings  at  the  synods  of  1832  and 
 1836,  showing  that  it  was  not  as  formalistic  as  it  had  been 
 
The  Free  Synod.  49 
 
 supposed.  It  set  apart  September  13,  1832,  as  a  day  of  prayer 
 and  humiliation  because  of  the  prevalence  of  the  cholera,  and 
 it  several  times  urged  that  New  Year's  day  and  Good  Friday 
 be  especially  set  apart  as  days  of  prayer. 
 
 While  the  Free  synod  was  thus  growing  in  size,  influence 
 and  activity,  it  however  was  beginning  to  become  heavy  with 
 its  own  weight.  It  had  been  rather  lenient  in  licensing  candi- 
 dates, although  it  compelled  them  to  be  licentiates  for  at  least 
 a  year  before  ordination  and  would  not  ordain  them  unless 
 they  had  a  call  to  a  charge.  It  was,  however,  very  careful 
 (as  was  also  the  custom  of  the  old  Synod)  in  examining  the 
 diaries  of  its  licentiates  at  each  of  its  sessions.  But  it  was 
 overrun  with  applicants  for  licensure.  Thus  its  minutes  of 
 1832  reveal  9  ministers  present,  5  candidates  and  15  appli- 
 cants. Perhaps  its  ambition  to  rival  the  old  synod  in  size 
 may  have  led  it  to  laxity  in  licensure.  Dr.  Herman  educated 
 the  most  of  the  candidates,  but  other  ministers,  as  Leinbach, 
 brought  candidates  before  it.  Still  laxity  about  admission 
 into  the  ministry  is  apt  to  produce  adverse  results..  We  thus 
 see  that  this  Free  synod  was  not  without  its  excellences  and 
 produced  many  good  results.  Whatever  of  failure  may  have 
 characterized  it  at  its  beginning,  when  Eylert  wrote  his 
 "Darkness  of  the  Free  Synod,"  had  passed  away,  and  al- 
 though not  perfect,  yet  it  was  a  genuine  part  of  God's  church, 
 doing  earnestly  his  work  on  earth. 
 
 Section  5.    The  Religious  Agitation  of  1829. 
 
 As  an  appendix  to  this  Free  Synod  movement,  we  add  a  sec- 
 tion on  an  agitation,  not  a  movement  and  not  of  the  Re- 
 formed Church,  but  in  which  many  of  her  members,  together 
 with  the  Lutherans,  were  concerned. 
 
 In  1829  the  agitation  against  the  progressive  movements  in  the  church 
 broke  out  anew.  It  was  also  a  time  of  great  political  agitation.  A 
 strong  crusade  had  been  made  against  secret  societies  which  were 
 denounced  as  tending  to  subvert  free  American  institutions.  The  re- 
 port that  a  traitor  to  the  Free  Masons  had  been  abducted  in  New  York 
 created  a  tremendous  reaction  against  that  society  and  against  all  secret 
 societies.  The  state  of  Pennsylvania  became  almost  evenly  divided 
 on  the  subject.    In  its  second  contest,  the  Anti-Free  Masons  lacked  only 
 
50  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 3,000  votes  out  of  200,000  to  carry  the  state.  The  old  Federal  party 
 went  down  under  the  Free  Mason  party  and  the  Democratic  party  be- 
 came the  Kepublican-Democratic  party,  a  curious  combination,  which, 
 in  these  latter  days,  sounds  strange  to  our  ears  when  these  two  parties, 
 Eepublican  and  Democratic,  have  been  life-long  rivals.  Through  this 
 agitation  many  Christians  were  led  to  oppose  secret  societies  as  anti- 
 Christian.  On  the  other  hand  many  rationalists  and  the  worldly-minded 
 openly  opposed  the  Church,  declaring  that  the  state  was  gradually  com- 
 ing under  the  control  of  the  Church.  The  opposition  to  the  Sunday  mail 
 service  by  many  Church  people  led  to  a  reaction,  as  many  looked  on  it 
 as  an  attempt  to  limit  personal  freedom.  This  movement  was  helped  on 
 by  political  demagogues  and  by  editors  inclined  to  lax  religious  views 
 and  even  by  some  rationalistic  intriguing  ministers,  who  went  about  in 
 sheeps'  clothing. 
 
 All  this  agitation  did  not  fail  to  have  its  effect  on  the  simple-hearted 
 German  element,  especially  in  the  country  districts,  whose  traditions  had 
 led  them  to  be  opposed  to  any  union  of  church  and  state.  It  happened, 
 too,  that  certain  other  events  became  known  just  at  that  time  which  also 
 tended  to  increase  the  anxiety  and  opposition  of  such  misled  but  honest 
 people.  For  the  Churches  were  becoming  incorporated  societies  and 
 holding  property  of  increasing  value.  Thus  in  1829  the  representative 
 of  the  Bible  Society  reported  receipts  amounting  to  $143,184  and  the 
 Tract  Society  reported  more  than  $60,000.  These  seemed  enormous  sums 
 to  many  of  the  plain  Pennsylvania-German  farmers  with  whom  money 
 was  a  scarce  article.  All  these  things  were  made  to  appear  to  them  as 
 efforts  to  advance  the  Church  in  power  and  the  ultimate  outcome  would 
 be  the  union  of  Church  and  state,  in  M'hich  the  Church  would  rule  the 
 state. 
 
 Certain  other  events  also  tended  to  cause  irritation.  The  introduc- 
 tion of  Sunday  schools  was  looked  upon  with  suspicion,  for  the  Sunday 
 School  Union  was  looked  upon  as  a  new  Church  society  whose  object 
 was  to  enslave  the  people  and  of  it  each  Sunday  school  was  to  be  an 
 active  agent.  The  increase  of  revivals  caused  great  excitement  in  cer- 
 tain districts,  where  such  things  had  been  hitherto  unknown;  and  the 
 wild  excesses  permitted  in  some  of  them  roused  still  greater  opposition. 
 Of  course  the  worldly-minded  opposed  such  things,  but  many  seriously- 
 minded  very  properly  objected  to  some  of  their  extravagances.  As  a 
 result  of  all  these  movements,  matters  came  to  a  climax  in  1829  in 
 Berks  and  Lancaster  Counties  and  the  adjacent  districts. 
 
 As  far  as  Berks  County  was  concerned  this  agitation  was  helped  on 
 by  the  Finney  revival  at  Eeading  in  1829.  Rev.  C.  G.  Finney,  D.D.,  the 
 great  evangelist,  had  come  to  Reading  at  the  earnest  request  of  Ttev. 
 Dr,  Grier,  pastor  of  the  Presbyterian  church.  His  erratic  course  and 
 outspoken  denunciation  of  all  who  opposed  him  caused  great  excite- 
 ment.    Dr.  Grier  died  suddenly  in  the  midst  of  the  revival  and  before 
 
The  Free  Synod.  51 
 
 he  died  Dr.  Fiimey  asked  him  to  remember  him  to  the  Apostle  Paul  in 
 heaven.  Such  a  remark  was  looked  upon  as  sacrilegious  and  caused  much 
 criticism.  Dr.  Finney  openly  charged  the  Lutheran  pastor  of  Reading 
 with  making  Christians  at  a  dollar  a  head,  referring  to  the  usual  custom 
 of  the  minister  in  receiving  the  free-will  offering  of  his  catechumens. 
 These  and  other  things  caused  so  much  opposition  that  the  elders  of  the 
 Presbyterian  church  published  a  statement  in  the  papers  that  Dr.  Finney 
 was  not  an  adventurer  but  a  regularly  ordained  minister  of  the  Pres- 
 byterian Church.  And  to  prove  his  efficiency  to  the  German  element 
 in  Reading,  they  published  an  action  of  the  Board  of  the  First  Reformed 
 Church  of  Philadelphia  dated  January  5,  1829,  which  stated  that  Dr. 
 Finney  had  had  wonderful  success  in  the  revival  that  he  held  in  their 
 Church  and  recommended  him  to  all  the  Churches. 
 
 This  agitation  revealed  itself  in  a  number  of  public  meetings  which 
 severely  denounced  all  these  forward  movements  in  the  Church  as  Tract, 
 Bible,  Mission,  and  Sunday  School  Societies  and  also  revivals.  The  first 
 of  these  meetings  was  held  at  the  Swan  tavern,  Cocalico  Township, 
 Lancaster  County,  March  19,  1829.  The  next  was  held  at  the  public 
 house  of  George  Gernand  in  Heidelberg  Township,  Berks  County,  near 
 Wernersville,  May  21,  1829.  This  meeting  went  so  far  as  to  declare  they 
 would  not  procure  a  minister  who  favored  such  things.  The  action  was 
 signed  by  many  present,  among  them  two  of  our  ministers,  Dubbs  and 
 Leinbach.  Against  the  action  of  this  meeting  the  "Magazine  of  the 
 German  Reformed  Church ' '  had  an  article,  August,  1829.  The  next 
 meeting  was  held  in  Exeter  Township,  June  27,  1829.  There  was  also 
 a  meeting  at  the  Black  Bear  tavern,  June  27,  1829.  These  meetings  were 
 continued  at  the  Muhlbach  Hotel,  Heidelberg  Township,  July  2.5,  1829, 
 and  at  Gicker's  hotel.  Born  Township,  July  24.  Some  of  these  meetings 
 were  largely  attended,  the  number  running  into  hundreds,  yes,  occasion- 
 ally a  thousand.  We  do  not  know  whether  a  county  meeting  was  held 
 as  was  suggested  at  the  Bern  meeting.  But  the  next  year,  January 
 23,  a  meeting  was  held  in  the  court  house  at  Reading  to  protest  against 
 interference  with  Sunday  mails. 
 
 This  agitation  placed  many  of  the  ministers  in  the  country  districts 
 in  awkward  positions  as  their  congregations  sympathized  largely  with 
 these  movements.  The  Free  synod  did  not  notice  them  but,  on  the 
 contrary,  expressed  itself  favorably  to  Sunday  schools,  etc.,  as  did  East 
 Pennsylvania  classis,  1827,  on  Sunday  schools.  But  East  Pennsylvania 
 classis  of  the  old  synod,  however,  took  action  at  Trexlertown,  May  2.5, 
 1829,  trying  to  stem  the  tide  by  a  sort  of  compromise  statement.  The 
 action  is  very  shrewdly  drawn  up.  They  declare  that  a  respectable  de- 
 nomination (the  Presbyterian)  had  gone  too  far  in  their  religious  zeal 
 and  had  given  cause  for  suspicion  to  the  feeble-minded.  They  declare 
 Sunday  schools  good  but  not  when  they  are  used  to  entice  their  young 
 to  other  denominations, — they  esteem  missionary  societies  but  not  when 
 
52  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S, 
 
 they  are  used  to  make  proselytes  to  other  churches.  They  add  a  state- 
 ment which  threw  them  on  the  side  of  their  members  and  against  these 
 things,  as  they  say  they  had  no  desire  to  mingle  church  affairs  with 
 state  affairs,  and  therefore  will  not  aid  in  opposing  Sunday  mails; 
 that  the  German  Eeformed  have  no  Bible  Society  in  their  synod ;  that  the 
 Reformed  have  a  missionary  society  it  is  true,  but  its  object  is  to  send 
 ministers  to  destitute  parts  of  the  country.  This  action  was  signed  by 
 every  minister  in  the  classis  with  one  exception,  Rev.  S.  Ilelffenstein,  who 
 showed  his  protest  by  leaving  the  meeting  and  going  home. 
 
 This  action  was  at  once  taken  up  as  hostile  to  the  best  interests  of 
 religion.  The  New  Torlc  Observer  criticized  it  severely.  So  did  Dr. 
 Mayer.*  But  his  article  never  was  finished.  Perhaps  he  had  received  a 
 quiet  hint  from  the  members  of  East  Pennsylvania  classis  that  enough 
 had  been  said.  The  agitation  against  these  forward  movements  in  the 
 Church  gradually  died  out,  although  as  late  as  1842  some  of  the  citizens 
 of  Upper  Mahanoy  and  Jackson  Townships  held"  a  meeting  to  take  ac- 
 tion against  such  church  societies  and  organizations.  Dr.  Mayer,  in  a 
 private  letter  to  Rev.  Dr.  Wolff,  says:  "The  spirit  of  the  late  meetings 
 in  Lancaster,  Berks  and  Philadelphia  Counties  in  opposition  to  all  re- 
 ligious activity  prevails  with  great  violence  among  the  ignorajit  and 
 vicious  of  that  region  and  ministers  have  abandoned  the  ground  to  the 
 enemy.  This  opposition  to  incorporated  religious  societies  existed  con- 
 siderably within  our  Church,  for  Dr.  Mayer,  as  editor  of  the  "Magazine 
 of  the  German  Reformed  Church,"  was  severely  criticised  for  an  article 
 published  in  3  828,  favorable  to  the  American  Tract  Society  and  to  the 
 distribution  of  German  tracts.  Dr.  IMayer  replied  by  asking  from  the 
 critic  for  proof  whether  he  is  right  or  wrong.  He  claims,  however,  that 
 the  object  of  a  religious  publication  is  the  spiritual  improvement  of  the 
 church  and  therefore  the  article  was  proper.  Dr.  Nevin,  in  writing  of 
 this  agitation  of  1829,  said  it  shook  the  Church. 
 
 Section  6.    The  Return  of  the  Free  Svxon. 
 
 As  the  years  rolled  on,  the  causes  that  led  to  the  sei)aratioii 
 of  the  synods  gradually  passed  away.  The  bitterness  and  per- 
 sonalities indultred  in  at  the  beginning  had  long  since  been 
 forgotten.  Wliatever  conservatism  the  Free  synod  may  have 
 had  at  its  beginning,  it  becomes  on  some  things  more  aggres- 
 sive than  the  old  synod,  and  the  extreme  progressiveness  of 
 some  of  the  old  synod  for  the  seminary  had  been  tempered  by 
 time  and  by  the  difficulties  in  establishing  it.  Tlie  ministers 
 of  the  one  sj-nod  would  occasionally  attend  the  other  s.^^lod 
 
 •See  "Magazine  of  the  Reformed  Church."  Soptomber,  1829. 
 
The  Free  Synod.  53 
 
 and  found  themselves  cordially  received.  The  feeling  gradu- 
 ally grew  that  the  two  synods  were  too  nearly  alike  to  remain 
 separated.  The  personal  cause  of  the  Free  synod,  the  dis- 
 ciplining of  Frederick  Herman  by  the  old  synod,  had  been 
 removed  as  he  had  been  received  back  into  the  old  synod. 
 The  younger  members  of  the  synod,  who  had  no  personal 
 grievance,  felt  their  synod  had  no  apparent  mission.  It  needed 
 but  a  slight  providence  to  be  the  cause  of  bringing  them  to- 
 gether again.  This  occurred  at  the  meeting  of  the  Free  synod 
 in  1836. 
 
 That  synod  was  held  September  18,  1836,  at  Salem's  Re- 
 formed Church,  Philadelphia.  Rev.  T.  H.  Leinbach  was 
 elected  president.  Old  Professor  F.  L.  Herman  was  present  at 
 its  sessions  but  was  frequently  absent  on  account  of  illness. 
 As  he  was  supposed  to  be  opposed  to  any  union  this  hindrance 
 was  providentially  set  aside.  It  seems  that  a  delegate  from 
 the  Lutheran  Synod  brought  before  them  a  proposal  from  the 
 Lutheran  Synod  looking  toward  union.  It  was  kindly  re- 
 ceived but  led  to  an  entirely  different  result.  In  the  discus- 
 sion that  followed,  one  of  the  members  of  the  Free  synod 
 stated  that  he  had  conferred  with  Dr.  Milledoler,  of  the  Dutch 
 Reformed  Church,  and  offered  a  resolution  that  the  Free 
 synod  take  measures  to  unite  with  the  Dutch.  After  he  had 
 finished  his  remarks,  there  was  perfect  silence  for  about  five 
 minutes.  Everyone  seemed  to  feel  that  a  crisis  had  come  in 
 the  history  of  the  synod.  Then  Rev.  Mr.  Dubbs  rose  and 
 stated  that  he  was  in  favor  of  union,  but  of  union  of  a  dif- 
 ferent kind,  namely,  with  the  synod  of  the  German  Reformed 
 Church.  "We  are  German  Reformed,"  he  said,  "and  not 
 Dutch  Reformed."  He  feared  union  with  the  Dutch  might 
 produce  confusion  and  heart-burnings  and  proposed  that,  lay- 
 ing aside  all  personal  feelings  and  looking  only  to  the  best 
 interests  of  the  Church,  the  synod  take  measures  to  pro- 
 mote union  with  the  German  Reformed  synod.  Rev.  J.  S. 
 Ebaugh  rose  and  asked  him  to  commit  what  he  had  said  to 
 writing,  which  he  did,  offering  the  resolution  that  the  Free 
 .synod  appoint  three  delegates  to  attend  the  next  meeting  of 
 the  old  synod  and  report  the  result  to  the  next  session  of  the 
 
54  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Free  synod.  Dubbs  was  supported  in  his  position  by  other 
 members  of  the  Free  synod  as  Bibighaus,  Guldin  and 
 Ebaugh,  After  considerable  discussion  the  resolution  was 
 adopted  and  three  delegates,  Dubbs,  Guldin  and  Charles  G. 
 Herman,  were  appointed.  Two  of  the  delegates  attended  the 
 next  meeting  of  the  old  synod  at  Baltimore,  Dubbs  and  Guldin, 
 C.  G.  Herman  having  been  providentiall}'  detained  at  home. 
 It  happened  that  w^hile  they  were  on  their  way  to  Baltimore, 
 Dubbs  accidentally  met  Rev.  J.  C.  Becker,  D.D.,  of  the  old 
 synod,  who  was  surprised  and  delighted  to  hear  of  their  mis- 
 sion. The  two  delegates  were  very  cordially  received  by  the 
 old  synod.  Their  overtures  were  referred  to  a  committee, 
 with  J.  C.  Becker  as  chairman.  It  reported  favorably  on  their 
 reception  as  a  body.  There  was  some  discussion  about  their 
 admission.  Some  of  the  members  were  not  so  favorable  at  first 
 because  some  of  the  members  of  the  Free  synod  had  been 
 under  suspension  in  the  old  synod,  especially  p]baugh  (who, 
 as  we  shall  see,  had  given  the  old  s,>Tiod  a  great  deal  of  trouble 
 in  regard  to  the  seminary  at  .Carlisle),  and  also  Hassinger 
 and  Leidy.*  Gutelius  also  thought  that  it  was  not  pos- 
 sible to  arrange  a  imion  between  the  synods.  Dubbs  replied 
 that  the  Free  synod  had  received  these  ministers  without 
 knowing  they  were  under  censure.  Besides,  if  they  were  re- 
 ceived back  into  the  old  synod,  that  synod  could  then  deal 
 with  them  again  by  disciplining  them,  whereas  now  they  could 
 not  reach  them.  Smaltz  said,  "Perhaps  Ebaugh  had 
 changed,"  and  Berg  said  "it  was  our  duty  to  forgive."  Gu- 
 telius replied  that  he  would  stand  alone  as  he  had  done  once 
 before  in  the  synod.  The  only  real  opposition  came  because 
 the  Free  synod  had  been  somewhat  careless  in  granting  li- 
 censure. But  when  the  final  vote  was  taken  it  was  unanimous 
 in  favor  of  union. 
 
 *To  show  the  feeling  tliat  liad  existed,  it  might  be  mentioned  that  some 
 years  before  in  1828  the  ohl  synod  had  received  Schneck,  one  of  the  mem- 
 bers of  the  Free  synod.  At  that  time  tiiere  was  some  objection  to  liis 
 reception  because  he  had  been  ordained  by  the  Free  synod,  and  this  was 
 looked  upon  as  irregular  by  the  old  synod  because  performed  by  a  body 
 in  secession.  But  this  objection  was  overruled  by  the  synod  and  after  he 
 had  sustained  a  satisfactory  examination  he  was  received  into  member- 
 ship.   By  this  time,  however,  most  of  that  feeling  had  passed  away. 
 
THE  FREE  SYNOD.  55 
 
 The  next  meeting  of  the  Free  synod  was  held  at  Pottstown 
 in  1837.  The  delegates  to  the  old  synod  presented  their  report. 
 It  was  found,  however,  that  there  was  unexpected  opposition, 
 as  old  Dr.  Herman  was  said  to  be  opposed  to  the  union  and 
 his  influence  was  still  great  in  the  synod.  But  he  was  no 
 longer  able  to  control  that  body  as  he  used  to  do  in  its  early 
 days.  Most  of  its  members  had  determined  to  return  to  the 
 old  synod.  So,  after  considerable  discussion,  the  report  of  the 
 delegates  was  ratified  and  the  Free  synod  passed  into  the  old 
 synod  and  the  schism  of  fifteen  years  (1822-1837)  was  healed. 
 
CHAPTER  III. 
 
 The  Early  History  of  the  Theological  Seminary  and  the 
 
 College, 
 
 Section  1.    The  Founding  of  the  Theological  Seminary. 
 
 The  seminary  project  had  been  formally  launched  in  1820. 
 We  have  already  seen  some  of  the  opposition  to  it  in  the  Free 
 synod  movement.  We  will  now  look  at  its  history  in  connec- 
 tion with  the  old  sj-nod.  Here  various  difficulties  arose, 
 mainly  educational  and  financial. 
 
 The  first  was  the  declination  of  Rev.  Milledoler.  He  has 
 been  at  times  severely  criticized  by  some  in  our  church  for  this 
 action.  But  on  careful  study,  the  criticism  does  not  seem  to 
 be  just.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  from  the  first,  his  con- 
 gregation in  New  York  was  very  bitterly  opposed  to  his  ac- 
 ceptance. Besides,  there  was  the  uncertainty  about  the  rais- 
 ing of  sufficient  funds  for  the  seminary.  So,  before  February 
 15,  1821,  he  sent  his  declination  to  the  iiianagers  of  the  semi- 
 nary. He  has  been  charged  with  keeping  our  Church  in  sus- 
 pense for  a  long  while.  But  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  his 
 later  actions  were  the  result  of  the  advice  of  the  managers 
 of  the  seminary.  At  a  meeting  in  March,  1821,  it  was  at  their 
 request  that  he  finally  agreed  to  suspend  his  decision  while  they 
 made  desperate  efforts  to  raise  the  necessary  funds.  He  was 
 finally  persuaded  by  them  to  accept  conditionally,  conditioned 
 however,  that  if  by  the  next  synod  sufficient  funds  were  not 
 at  hand,  he  would  be  at  liberty  to  withdraw. 
 
 The  synod  of  1821,  instead  of  clearing  up  matters  brought 
 them  into  greater  confusion.  It  was  a  stormy  synod,  as  we 
 have  seen.  But  it  approved  the  location  of  the  seminary  and 
 Dr.  Milledoler 's  election,  which  had  been  criticized  by  some. 
 In  that  regard,  it  was  a  gain.  He  was  now  the  choice  of  the 
 whole  Church.     But  the  synod  desired  him  to  give  instruc- 
 
 56 
 
Early  History  of  Seminary  and  College.  57 
 
 tion  in  German  as  well  as  in  English,  which,  however,  was  not 
 agreeable  to  him.  The  financial  aspect,  too,  began  to  clear 
 up.  Dr.  Mayer  reported  cash  and  subscriptions  amounting 
 to  $22,500,  and  that  nearly  $30,000  was  in  sight.  Of  this, 
 however,  $14,500  was  conditioned  on  Dr.  Milledoler's  accept- 
 ance. On  account  of  the  favorable  appearance  of  things,  Dr. 
 Milledoler,  in  December,  1821,  accepted  the  call  and  arrange- 
 ments were  made  for  liis  installation  at  Baltimore,  June  18, 
 1822. 
 
 But  now  two  events  occurred  to  change  everything.  His 
 consistory  at  the  last  moment  refused  to  let  him  go.  And  at 
 the  same  time  the  Free  synod  had  sprung  into  existence  and 
 was  rapidly  spreading  in  eastern  Pennsylvania,  revealing  di- 
 vision in  the  church  and  protesting  against  his  election.  He, 
 therefore,  in  March,  sent  his  declination  to  the  managers  of 
 the  seminary.  His  letter  reveals  that  he  was  influenced  in  his 
 decision  by  the  action  of  his  consistory  and  by  the  dissensions 
 that  had  appeared  in  the  German  Reformed  Church,  especially 
 in  the  formation  of  the  Free  synod  and  in  the  action  of  the 
 West  Pennsylvania  classis,  which  urged  the  appointment  also 
 of  a  German  professor.  He  says  that  ''H."  and  "V  d  S." 
 declared  that  the  seminary  would  not  have  their  support. 
 
 The  resignation  of  Dr.  Milledoler  left  everything  at  loose 
 ends.  The  subscriptions,  conditioned  on  his  acceptance,  of 
 course  fell,  as  also  did  many  of  the  others.  The  Church  was 
 now  faced  by  the  difficult  problem  of  finding  a  suitable  person 
 to  be  professor.  Rev.  S.  Helffenstein  was  in  favor  of  calling 
 another  convention-synod  to  select  a  professor.  Hinsch  and 
 others  thought  that  a  suitable  person  should  be  imported  from 
 Germany,  but  Dr.  Mayer  was  suspicious  of  this  lest,  as  he  says, 
 they  might  get  "a  cat  in  a  bag." 
 
 The  action  of  the  classes  in  1822  reveal  the  varied  state  of 
 opinion  in  the  Church.  Philadelphia  classis  favored  the  call- 
 ing of  a  convention-synod.  North  Carolina  classis  also  asked 
 synod  not  to  elect  a  professor  even  temporarily  but  to  call  a 
 convention-synod.  Zion's  classis  asked  that  a  professor  be 
 elected  as  soon  as  possible.  Northampton  classis  asked  Becker 
 as  its  representative  in  the  seminary  corporation  to  ask  them 
 
58  History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 not  to  elect  a  professor  but  to  postpone  it  until  sjTiod  met  on 
 account  of  the  restlessness  in  the  Church. 
 
 The  synod  of  1822  at  Harrisburg  revealed  a  reaction.  In- 
 stead of  the  progressiveness  and  seeming  extravagance  of  the 
 synod  of  1820,  it  now  went  to  the  other  extreme  of  penny- 
 wise  economy  and  conservatism.  Harrisburg  loomed  up  as  a 
 suitable  site  and  it  was  suggested  that  the  professor  be  also 
 pastor  there  and  the  salary  ($1,000)  be  divided  between  the 
 congregation  and  the  synod. 
 
 But  there  was  a  difficulty  in  the  way.  The  pastor  of  the 
 Harrisburg  congregation  at  that  time  Avas  Rev.  John  Wine- 
 brenner.  An  influential  party  in  the  congregation  were  seek- 
 ing to  get  rid  of  him  and  thought  this  a  good  method  of  doing 
 so.  It  made  the  proposition  to  the  synod  and  a  committee 
 was  appointed  to  confer  with  the  Harrisburg  congregation. 
 The  consistory  were  favorable  to  it,  but  AVinebrenner  sought 
 for  time  to  consider  it.  And  so  the  synod  had  to  leave  the 
 matter  with  a  committee.  The  synod,  however,  changed  the 
 constitution  of  the  board  of  managers  from  having  only  min- 
 isters to  nine  ministers  and  three  laymen.* 
 
 As  if  prophetic  of  the  future  location  of  the  seminar}^, 
 some  of  the  classes  in  1823  took  action  about  Franklin  Col- 
 lege at  Lancaster.  Zion's  classis  declared  against  applying 
 funds  to  that  institution.  Lebanon  classis  declared  that  under 
 no  circumstances  should  our  synod  relinquish  its  share  in  the 
 college.  North  Carolina  classis  declared  that  the  plan  to  place 
 the  seminary  at  Harrisburg  would  fail  and  asked  synod  that 
 the  plan  be  given  up  for  the  present.  Maryland  Classis  asked 
 that,  as  there  seemed  to  be  no  hope  of  founding  the  seminary, 
 synod  give  permission  to  found  a  society  which  should  labor 
 toward  founding  such  a  school. 
 
 The  synod  of  3  823  appointed  a  committee  to  confer  with 
 the  delegates  of  the  Harrisburg  congregation,  Judge  Bucher 
 and  F.  Kelker.  They  reported  that  their  congi-egation  was 
 without  a  pastor  and  that  the  way  was  open  to  enter  into  the 
 
 *This  was  the  synod  which  the  Governor  of  Pennsylvania,  Joseph 
 Hiester,  visited  in  person  and  was  recognized  and  received  by  them 
 standing.    He  was  a  prominent  member  of  our  church. 
 
Early  History  of  Seminary  and  College.  59 
 
 arrangement.  The  synod  therefore  chose  Harrisburg  as  the 
 location  and  elected  a  professor.  Three  candidates  were 
 named:  S.  Helffenstein,  L.  Mayer  and  J.  C.  Becker.  On  the 
 first  ballot  the  votes  were  nearly  equal.  But  on  the  third 
 ballot  Mayer  withdrew  and  Helffenstein  was  elected  at  a  salary 
 of  $1,000,  one-half  of  which  was  to  be  paid  by  the  Harrisburg 
 congregation  to  him  as  pastor.  Dr.  Helffenstein  was  a  very 
 worthy  selection.  He  was  descended  from  a  family  of  preach- 
 ers both  in  Germany  and  here.  He  was  himself  one  of  the 
 ablest  and  most  influential  of  the  ministers  in  the  church.  Be- 
 sides, he  had  ample  experience  in  this  line  of  work,  because  for 
 years  he  had  been  preparing  young  men  for  the  ministry  in 
 his  own  private  theological  seminary  at  Philadelphia. 
 
 But  after  the  synod  adjourned,  it  became  evident  that  the 
 way  was  not  clear  yet.  The  Harrisburg  charge  got  into  con- 
 troversy with  Winebrenner,  who  had  a  considerable  following 
 in  it.  He  continued  to  officiate  in  the  country  congregations 
 belonging  to  it,  as  Shoup's  and  Wenrich's,  His  opponents  in 
 the  Harrisburg  charge  brought  charges  against  him  to  the 
 synod  of  1824,  which,  however,  sent  the  matter  for  deci- 
 sion down  to  Lebanon  classis,  to  which  the  charge  belonged. 
 Winebrenner,  however,  did  not  go  to  Lebanon  Classis  but  to 
 Susquehanna  classis,  to  which  Harrisburg  had  belonged  be- 
 fore 1822,  on  the  plea  that  the  synod  had  transferred  the 
 congregation  but  not  himself  to  Lebanon  classis.  And, 
 strange  to  say,  in  this  he  was  supported  by  a  majority  of  votes 
 in  that  classis,  which  complicated  matters  still  more.  It 
 brought  up  the  constitutional  question  w^hether  the  transfer 
 of  a  congregation  also  meant  the  transfer  of  its  pastor  or  not, 
 a  point  which  synod  had  never  before  decided.  It  arrayed  one 
 classis  against  another — Susquehanna  against  Lebanon.  Leba- 
 non classis  declared  Harrisburg  vacant.  Winebrenner  then 
 appealed  to  synod  which  very  properly  in  1825  sustained 
 Lebanon  classis.  Finally,  after  three  years  of  this  contro- 
 versy, Winebrenner  wrote  a  letter,  November  2,  1825,  stating 
 that  he  had  in  contemplation  the  formation  of  a  new  denomi- 
 nation. His  case  was  continued  in  the  church  courts  until 
 1828,  when  synod  finally  excluded  him.    He  then,  in  1830,  or- 
 
60  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 ganized  the  denomination  which  he  called  "The  Church  of 
 God"  and  which  was  a  combination  of  the  Methodist  and  Bap- 
 tist principles. 
 
 Winebrenner  had  not  at  first  opposed  the  seminar}^  project, 
 but  had  been  quite  sanguine  in  it,  for  in  1821  he  pledged  $200 
 a  year  toward  it.  It  has  been  suggested  that  later,  when  he 
 found  that  Harrisburg  would  be  its  location,  he  conceived  the 
 notion  that,  as  he  was  pastor  there,  he  might  be  elected  pro- 
 fessor.  But  he  was  as  yet  too  young  a  man  for  such  a  posi- 
 tion, having  been  only  two  years  in  the  ministry.  While  he 
 afterwards  revealed  elements  of  ability  and  became  a  man  of 
 considerable  talents  and  popular  gifts,  he  was  as  yet  untried 
 and  his  later  course  shows  how  unreliable  he  would  have 
 proved  in  the  professor's  chair.  It  has  been  said  that  he;  was 
 driven  out  of  our  church  because  he  was  a  revivalist.  Thnt 
 is  not  true,  for  at  that  time  there  were  other  men  in  the  synod 
 as  full  of  revival  zeal  as  he.  It  was  his  continued  insubordina- 
 tion that  drove  him  out.  He  had  refused  to  notice  the  citat- 
 ions of  synod  and  had  begun  preaching  against  infant  bap- 
 tism. Synod  -finally,  after  waiting  for  years,  deposed  him. 
 Synod  did  not  act  hastily,  as  if  glad  to  get  rid  of  him,  but 
 carried  it  along,  hoping  for  a  reconciliation.  The  great  op- 
 position to  revivals  did  not  begin  till  about  1844,  after  Dr. 
 Nevin  wrote  his  tract  on  the  Anxious  Bench.  And  with  the 
 writing  of  this  book,  as  we  shall  see,  Winebrenner  had  iiuid- 
 vertently  something  to  do. 
 
 Tlie  seminary  movement  thus  far  seemed  to  have  brought 
 only  liarm  and  no  good.  It  had  a  professor-elect.  Dr.  Helf- 
 fenstein,  but  no  place  for  the  seminary.  And  the  result  had 
 been  two  schisms  in  the  church,  the  first  the  Free  synod  in 
 1822,  and  later  about  1830  the  organization  of  the  "Church  of 
 God"  under  Winebrenner. 
 
 But  the  darkest  day  is  just  before  the  dawn.  The  Synod 
 of  1823  found  the  church  divided  as  to  the  best  policy.  Phila- 
 delphia classis  asked  for  a  further  postponement  and  sug- 
 gested there  be  a  board  of  three  or  four  ministers  to  examine 
 young  candidates  as  also  did  Northampton  classis.  Maryland, 
 with  its  usual  boldness,  was  ready  to  shoulder  the  movement 
 
Early  History  of  Seminary  and  College.  61 
 
 alone  by  erecting  a  seminary,  but  Philadelphia  classis  objected 
 to  s3aiod  giving  any  such  authority  to  any  classis.  Susque- 
 hanna and  Lebanon  classes  left  it  to  the  wisdom  of  the  synod. 
 
 The  synod  of  1824  was  a  convention-synod,  not  a  delegate- 
 synod.  So  the  whole  church  was  virtually  present  to  come  to 
 a  final  decision  on  this  important  question.  This  synod  re- 
 vealed another  critical  time  in  the  history  of  the  seminary.  In 
 1821  the  difficulty  had  been  between  the  German  and  English 
 sections  of  the  church.  In  1824  the  difficulty  was  that  the 
 church  was  becoming  disheartened  with  the  repeated  difficul- 
 ties which  had  cope  up  one  after  the  other.  So  great  was  the 
 opposition  to  going  forward  that  the  whole  matter  virtually 
 rested  on  one  vote.  "When  the  vote  was  taken  it  resulted  in  a 
 tie.  Then  the  president,  Dr.  Hendel  saved  the  day  by  voting, 
 saying,  "I  vote  for  the  seminary,"  adding,  on  account  of  the 
 opposition  to  it:  "I  have  broad  shoulders  and  can  carry  very 
 much."  (He  had  to  carry  much  for  voting  thus,  for  because 
 of  it  he  afterward  resigned  his  charge.)  His  course  was  con- 
 sidered all  the  more  remarkable,  since  he  came  from. a  section 
 of  the  state  that  was  German  and  prevailingly  conservative. 
 
 Fortunately  at  this  synod  there  came  an  offer  from  the 
 trustees  of  Dickinson  College,  a  Presbyterian  institution  at 
 Carlisle.*  Dr.  Cathcart,  its  president,  thought  it  would  be 
 strengthened  by  an  alliance  with  our  Church,  and  so  he  made 
 overtures.  He  made  a  liberal  proposition,  offering  the  use  of 
 the  lecture-room  in  the  college  and  the  conveyance  of  a  lot 
 100  feet  square  for  the  erection  of  suitable  buildings,  and  also 
 giving  to  the  students  the  use  of  the  college  library  and  grant- 
 ing tuition  free  of  charge  in  all  lectures  in  moral  philosophy, 
 evidences  of  Christianity,  natural  theology  and  political  eco- 
 nomics. They  would  pay  the  house-rent  of  the  professor,  for 
 which  he,  in  turn,  Avas  to  teach  history  and  German  in  the 
 college  and  also  be  a  member  of  the  faculty.  This  proposition 
 was  accepted,  although  the  report  of  the  committee  led  by 
 Hinsch,  the  leading  representative   of  the   uncompromising 
 
 *It  had  been  founded  1783  but  had  been  declining  because  other  insti- 
 tutions had  been  started. 
 
62  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Germans,  reads  as  if  the  leading  purpose  of  the  seminary  were 
 the  perpetuation  of  the  German  consciousness  and  literature.* 
 The  synod  having  at  last  found  a  place  for  the  seminary 
 renewed  the  call  to  Rev.  S.  Ilelflfenstein  to  be  professor  of 
 theology  and  elected  Rev.  L.  Mayer  as  his  alternate.  Dr. 
 Helffenstein  declined  the  call,  so  it  was  offered  to  Dr.  Mayer, 
 who  accepted  it  at  a  salary  of  $700.  Dr.  Mayer  was  a  suitable 
 person  for  the  position  in  many  respects.  Although  he  did 
 not  have  the  advantages  of  a  college  training  (very  few  of  the 
 ministers  then  were  college  graduates),  yet  he  had  had  a  fine 
 classical  education  and  had  been  a  diligent  student.  His  theo- 
 logical studies  had  been  under  Rev.  Daniel  Wagner,  one  of  the 
 most  pious  and  judicious  ministers  of  our  church.  He  had  not 
 had  an  experience  in  educating  young  men  for  the  ministry 
 like  S.  Helffenstein  or  J.  C.  Becker.  He,  however,  had  been  a 
 leader  of  the  seminary  party  in  the  synod  since  its  beginning 
 and  had  borne  much  of  the  brunt  of  the  opposition  to  it.  He 
 was,  therefore,  the  natural  choice  of  the  synod  for  a  position 
 which  he  had  so  largely  helped  to  create.  With  some  diffidence 
 and  reluctance  he  accepted  it,  rather  from  a  sense  of  duty 
 than  of  the  honor  connected  with  it.  He  thus  wrote  al)out  lu's 
 acceptance  of  it  more  than  ten  years  later: 
 
 "When  I  accepted  the  call,  the  prospect  of  establishing  a  seminary 
 was  so  dark  and  discouraging,  that  no  brother  whose  situation  Avas  ])leas- 
 ant  could  have  been  induced  to  accept  it.  I  gave  up  a  certainty  for  an 
 uncertainty,  relinquishing  a  bettor  living  and  subjected  myself  to  a 
 sense  of  untried  labor,  resolved  at  the  hazard  of  all  I  found  dear,  to  make 
 the  effort  to  lay  the  foundation  of  an  institution  which  I  hoped  would 
 be  a  blessing  to  the  church  for  ages  to  come." 
 
 Before  he  began  his  work,  lie  visited  the  tboological  semi- 
 naries at  Princeton  and  New  Brmiswick,  seeking  information 
 about  studies  and  books.  He  then  returned  to  Carlisle  after 
 a  twenty -two  days'  trip  and  opened  the  seminary  IMareli  11. 
 1825,  Avith  five  students  (one  of  them  a  Lutlieran),  John 
 Frederick  Huber,  of  Bedford;   Henry  Wagoner,  of  Centre 
 
 *Appel  calls  attention  to  tlio  interesting  custom  of  our  synod  at  that 
 time,  that  the  ministers  all  sat  in  a  row  on  the  front  seats  around  the 
 chancel,  arranged  according  to  age.  The  elders  sat  behind  them  in  like 
 order.     The  ministers  spoke  according  to  (iieir  seniority  of  age. 
 
Early  History  of  Seminary  and  College.  63 
 
 County ;  John  Fritchey,  of  Dauphin  County ;  John  H.  Craw- 
 ford, of  Frederick  County,  Md.,  and  Daniel  Heilig,  of  Cumber- 
 land County.  Of  these  Huber  alone  had  considerable  prepara- 
 tion. The  rest  were  raw  young  men.  "I  am  obliged,"  he 
 said,  "to  teach  them  the  rudiments  of  Greek  and  even  of  the 
 grammar  of  their  mother-tongue."  He  taught  them  the  first 
 chapter  of  Genesis,  Shuekford's  Connections  and  Greek.  For 
 dogmatics  he  used  Stapfer's  as  well  as  Mursinna's.  He  deliv- 
 ered his  Inaugural  Address  April  6,  at  Carlisle.  It  was  an 
 Evangelical  defense  of  Christianity  and  the  Bible.  In  it  he 
 says  of  his  work  that  "the  course  in  the  institution  was  de- 
 signed to  be  Biblical,  not  scholastic.  Our  principal  book 
 Avill  be  the  Bible  and  an  instant  eye  will  be  kept  on  the  re- 
 ligious character  of  the  students.  Nothing  inconsistent  with 
 piety  will  be  allowed." 
 
 Section  2.    History  of  the  Seminary  at  Carlisle  (1825-29). 
 
 The  seminary  was  now  at  last  opened,  but  its  course  was 
 not  smooth.  It  had  five  studtots,  $300  in  funds  and  a  library 
 of  100  volumes.  Its  first  difficulty  was.  lack  of  students.  In 
 November,  1825,  there  were  ten.  Then,  in  the  fall  of  1826, 
 they  fell  off  to  eight,  but  rose  to  twelve  in  January,  1827, 
 and  at  the  beginning  of  1828  to  thirteen.  Another  difficulty 
 arose  from  the  relations  of  the  seminary  to  Dickinson  College. 
 The  students  of  the  college  did  not  care  to  study  German  and 
 the  recitation  room  of  the  seminary  was  found  to  be  unsatis- 
 factory because  of  the  pranks  of  the  students.  As  the  college 
 was  itself  continually  embarrassed  for  want  of  funds.  Dr. 
 ]\Iayer  was  not  willing  that  they  should  pay  his  house-rent 
 without  being  able  to  render  the  college  some  equivalent,  so 
 the  next  synod  (1826)  agreed  to  pay  his  house-rent.  This 
 set  him  freer  in  his  relations  to  tlie  college.  Reily  speaks  of 
 a  misunderstanding  between  Dr.  Mayer  and  some  of  the  trus- 
 tees of  the  college,  but  does  not  state  what  it  was.* 
 
 The  financial  difficulties  of  the  seminary  were  the  most  seri- 
 ous.    The  agents  of  the  seminary  had  been  able  to  raise  very 
 
 *From  1825-1828  Dr.  Mayer  is  mentioned  in  the  catalogues  of  Dickin- 
 son College  as  professor  of  history  and  German. 
 
64  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 little  money.  Dr.  Mayer  reported  that  up  to  Oct.  1,  1826, 
 only  four  ministers  had  taken  up  a  collection  for  the  seminary, 
 which,  all  told,  amounted  to  about  fifty-eight  dollars. 
 
 Then  it  was  that  one  of  the  most  faithful  friends  of  the  col- 
 lege, Rev.  J.  R.  Reily,  pastor  of  the  church  at  Hagerstown, 
 suddenly  conceived  the  notion  that  money  could  be  raised  in 
 Europe.  He  almost  took  away  the  breath  of  the  board  of 
 managers  by  the  proposition.  He  rode  up  to  the  house  of  Dr. 
 Bernard  Wolff's  father  at  Martinsburg,  Va.,  sprang  from  his 
 fine  horse  to  the  pavement,  grasped  the  hand  of  young  "Wolff 
 and  startled  him  by  saying,  "I  am  going  to  Germany."  "But 
 you  are  not  on  your  way,"  replied  Wolff.  "No,  but  I  soon 
 will  be.  Wait  till  I  get  in  the  house  and  I  will  tell  j^ou." 
 They  went  in  and  he  told  Wolff  of  the  idea  which  had  struck 
 his  mind  on  the  way.  When  the  matter  was  brought  before 
 the  seminary  board  on  April  25,  the  board  was  at  first  some- 
 what doubtful  whether  it  ought  to  undertake  such  risks.  But 
 Mr.  Reily  w^as  ready  to  father  all  losses  if  there  be  any, 
 while  the  seminary  was  to  get  all  the  profits.  All  he  asked 
 was  that  if  successful,  his  salary  might  be  paid  out  of  the 
 fund.     Still  many  looked  on  it  as  a  wild-goose  chase. 
 
 He  went  on  his  journey  with  the  recommendations  of  the 
 board.  To  the  surprise  of  many,  he  made  a  wonderful  suc- 
 cess at  it.  He  was,  however,  admirably  fitted  to  it.  He  was 
 of  Irish  and  German  descent,  and  combined  in  himself  the  best 
 elements  of  both  nationalities.  He  was  as  well  equipped  in 
 German  as  in  English,  and  to  the  thoroughness  and  patience 
 of  the  German  he  added  the  fluent  oratory  and  quick  wit  of 
 the  Irishman,  On  the  floor  of  synod  he  was  the  equal  of  any 
 in  debate. 
 
 He  sailed  from  Newcastle,  Delaware,  May  20,  182.5,  and  arrived  safely 
 at  London.  There  Rev.  Mr,  Zieka,  pastor  of  the  German  Reformed 
 Church,  encouraged  him  and  gave  him  letters  to  Germany,  Rev.  Dr.  Wer- 
 ninck,  the  pastor  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church  of  London,  gave  him 
 letters  of  introduction  to  Holland  which  proved  of  the  greatest  value 
 to  him  in  giving  him  a  hearing  in  that  land.  On  June  23  he  arrived 
 at  Rotterdam,  but  getting  no  aid  he  went  to  The  Hague,  where  he  also 
 met  with  no  success.  He  then  went  to  Leyden  and  Haarlem ;  at  the 
 latter  place,  Rev.  Dr.  Hacke  encouraged  him  to  go  to  Amsterdam.    There 
 
Early  History  op  Seminary  and  College.  65 
 
 Rev.  Dr.  Weyland,  to  whom  lie  harl  a  letter  of  introduction,  encouraged  him, 
 recalling  the  fact  that  there  had  once  been  a  Pennsylvania  fund  in  the  Hol- 
 land churches.*  He  counselled  him  to  wait  until  the  synod  of  South  Hol- 
 land would  meet  at  the  Hague,  July  6th,  which  he  did.  He  went  to  the 
 synod  with  letters  of  introduction  and  recommendation  from  Dr.  Wey- 
 land.    The  synod  cordially  welcomed  him. 
 
 This  was  the  first  time  that  the  mother-church  of  the  Netherlands 
 and  the  daughter-church  in  America  had  been  brought  face  to  face 
 since  their  separation  in  1792,  33  years  before.  He  inquired  about  the 
 fund  that  had  belonged  to  the  Pennsylvania  churches  and  was  after- 
 wards notified  by  the  president  that  it  had  been  distributed  to  destitute 
 churches.  However,  the  synod  appointed  a  committee  to  confer  with  him 
 and  voted  1,000  guilders  ($400)  for  the  seminary  in  the  hope  that  the 
 broken-off  correspondence  between  the  two  churches  might  be  restored. 
 And  now,  having  the  authority  of  the  synod,  liberal  gifts  began  to 
 come  in.  At  Utrecht  the  Shunaman  brothers  had  the  appeal  of  our 
 seminary  board  translated  into  Dutch  and  printed  at  their  own  expense, 
 with  an  introduction  by  Professors  Heringa  and  Schroeder,  of  the  Uni- 
 versity of  Utrecht,  and  Rev.  Mr.  Weyland.  Reily  succeeded  in  interesting 
 prominent  ministers  in  Haarlem,  Leyden,  Hague,  Rotterdam  and  Schie- 
 dam. On  October  7  he  left  for  Germany.  At  Elberfeld,  Oct.  25,  that 
 Reformed  centre  of  Germany,  he  was  most  cordially  received.  The  Appeal 
 of  the  seminary  board  was  reprinted  in  German  and  distributed.  At 
 Saren,  near  Muehlheim,  he  called  to  see  Rev.  Mr.  Stahlschmidt,  then 
 aged  85,  who  had  labored  in  our  church  in  America  at  the  beginning 
 of  the  revolution.  He  was  glad  to  see  some  one  from  his  former  church 
 in  America,  but  died  soon  after  Reily 's  visit.  Reily  visited  Dusseldorf, 
 Crefeld,  Cologne,  Mayence  and  Frankford.  He  arrived  at  Heidelberg 
 (Nov.  18),  where  he  was  ably  supported  in  his  efforts  by  Professors 
 Daub  and  Schwartz,  and  by  Rev.  Mr.  Dittenberger,  who  collected  books 
 for  the  seminary  library.  At  Stuttgard  the  king  of  Wurtemburg  gave 
 him  pennission  to  take  up  collections.  At  Tuebingen  Prof.  Staeudal 
 aided  him.  He  then  left  Germany  for  Swritzerland,  going  first  to  Schaff- 
 hausen  (Dec.  29)  and  to  Basle  (Jan.  7).  At  Basle  ho  received  his 
 most  cordial  welcome  in  that  land.  He  stayed  six  weeks  with  Mr. 
 Stahelin  and  created  great  interest  among  the  ministry  in  his  work. 
 Prof.  De  Wette  became  so  interested  that  he  wrote  a  pamphlet  on  the 
 seminary  which  was  published  by  Spittler,  an  elder  of  the  Reformed 
 Church  of  Basle.  This  pamphlet  contained  the  letter  of  Hendel,  the 
 president  of  our  synod,  and  Hinsch,  its  secretary,  and  the  endorsement 
 of  the  seminary  by  Governor  Schulze  of  Pennsylvania,  Henry  Clay 
 and  others.     It  gave  a  brief   history  of  the  German  Reformed  Church 
 
 *See  my  "History  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S., "  pages  666- 
 673. 
 
/ 
 
 66  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 in  America,  of  Reily's  journey,  the  articles  of  the  seminary  and  its 
 opening,  also  letters  of  recommendation  by  Veith,  antistes  of  Schafif- 
 hausen,  dated  Jan.  1,  1826,  also  of  the  Dutch  ministers  and  of  Inspector 
 Blumhardt  of  the  Basle  Mission-house.  DeWette  offered  to  continue 
 raising  funds  for  the  seminary  and  to  continue  the  publication  of  re- 
 ports on  the  condition  of  the  church  in  America. 
 
 Beily  then  visited  Zurich  where  Antistes  Hess,  then  SO  years  of  age, 
 although  too  old  to  do  much  personally  for  him,  yet  endorsed  his  efforts 
 and  issued  a  circular  commending  him,  which  brought  in  considerable 
 money  and  books.  He  also  visited  Bern  and  Geneva  successfully.  In- 
 deed he  was  so  successful  in  pleading  his  cause  that  ladies  gave  their 
 jewelry  and  one  gave  her  gold  watch.  But  unfortunately  his  health, 
 which  had  been  restored  by  the  ocean  voyage,  broke  down  and  he  was 
 prevented  from  going  to  the  more  distant  parts  of  Switzerland.  He, 
 however,  recommended  to  the  seminary  a  young  tutor  at  Basle  (who 
 was  willing  to  come  to  America)  that  he  might  become  the  second  pro- 
 fessor in  the  seminary.  Dr.  Mayer  generously  offered  to  give  up  his 
 position  in  Dickinson  College  to  him  if  he  would  come,  so  that  his 
 appointment  might  conciliate  the  German  brethren  who  were  still  some- 
 what lukewarm  toward  the  seminary. 
 
 From  Switzerland  Reily  returned  to  Germany.  At  Darmstadt,  Van 
 Ess  gave  him  .500  copies  of  his  New  Testament  for  the  poor  people  of 
 America.  At  Leipsic  the  booksellers  aided  him  with  gifts  of  books.  At 
 Berlin,  though  unwell,  he  was  very  cordially  welcomed  by  the  King  of 
 Prussia,  who  was  a  warm  adherent  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.  The 
 king  gave  him  200  rix-dollars  and  the  royal  sanction  to  collect  funds 
 (June  18,  1826).  He  was  supported  in  this  by  the  press  and  the  min- 
 isters. A  female  society  was  there  formed  to  aid  the  seminary.  He 
 then  went  to  Hamburg  and  Bremen,  where  he  also  raised  money.  Then 
 he  traveled  to  Amsterdam.  Leyden,  Liverpool,  whence  he  sailed  (Oct. 
 14),  arriving  at  Philadelphia  Nov.  16,  after  an  absence  of  a  year  and 
 a  half. 
 
 The  total  amount  raised  by  him  was  $6,605,  to  which  were 
 added  about  5,000  books.  The  shipping  of  these  cost  $1,653, 
 leaving  $5,042  for  the  seminary.  But  more  important  than 
 the  money  returns,  etc.,  from  this  trip  was  the  impulse  it  gave 
 to  our  church  in  seminary  matters,  for  it  served  to  rouse  our 
 congregations.  If  foreigners  were  so  willing  to  do  so  much, 
 our  churches  felt  it  their  duty  to  do  more. 
 
 During  Reily's  absence  in  Europe  an  interesting  correspond- 
 ence occurred.  It  is  very  hard  to  find  any  material  on  the 
 period  of  the  seminary  at  Carlisle,  but  Dr.  Mayer's  letters  to 
 Reily  give  some  very  interesting  sidelights  to  it.    Tliese  letters 
 
PlvRLv  History  of  Seminary  and  College.  67 
 
 were  written  1825-6,  and  have  been  published  in  the  Haus- 
 freund  in  1879.  From  these  we  see  that  in  the  first  years 
 of  the  seminary's  existence,  its  future  was  by  no  means  as- 
 sured. 
 
 One  of  the  letters  says  that  if  the  seminary  jiroject  fails,  then  Mary- 
 land and  Zion's  classes  will  unite  together  to  raise  money  so  that  young 
 men  can  be  educated  in  an  eastern  seminary.  In  his  first  letter,  March 
 25,  Dr.  Mayer  says :  ' '  Your  mission  to  Europe  is  my  chief  source  of 
 encouragement."  It  seems  that  although  the  board  of  directors  of  the 
 seminary  had  assumed  no  responsibility  for  Reily  's  success  in  Europe, 
 yet  after  all  his  lack  of  success  would  have  been  a  severe  blow,  while 
 his  success  abroad  would  stimulate  greater  efforts  at  home. 
 
 On  October  7,  1825,  Dr.  Mayer  writes  that  he  had  laid  Reily 's  letter 
 before  the  synod,  stating  that  he  had  been  raising  money  and  getting 
 books  and  that  they  had  produced  a  great  impression.  As  a  result  all 
 opposition  to  the  seminary  was  given  up,  although  on  the  part  of  a  few 
 ministers  there  was  still  a  <lecided  indifference.  He  refers  to  a  suggestion 
 Reily  had  made  of  getting  a  second  professor  from  Germany,  and  says 
 that  there  was  some  opposition  to  it,  and  that  before  it  was  done  the 
 support  of  the  first  professorship  must  be  better  provided  for.  He  also 
 says  that  the  students  of  Princeton  seminary  had  begun  to  take  a  lively 
 interest  in  the  new  seminary  and  were  remembering  them  in  their 
 prayers, — that  some  of  them  expected  to  come  to  the  seminary  so  as  to 
 catch  the  German  spirit  and  be  better  prepared  for  work  among  the 
 Germans.  In  a  later  letter,  June  28,  1826,  he  tells  Reily  that  one  of 
 the  Princeton  students,  Binger,  had  entered  the  seminary  and  was  help- 
 ing him  in  teaching  Hebrew  and  Greek.  He  speaks  of  forming  a  Mis- 
 sion Society  which  would  be  auxiliary  to  the  one  in  Princeton. 
 
 In  Dec,  1825,  Dr.  Mayer  reveals  the  gravity  of  the  situation.  He 
 says :  ' '  Your  lack  of  success  abroad  would  be  the  signal  for  an  open  and 
 strong  opposition  against  the  seminary  by  its  enemies  and  perhaps 
 for  its  being  closed  because  of  lack  of  confidence  by  its  friends.  If 
 that  were  to  happen,  it  was  to  be  expected  that  Socinian  errors  would 
 be  widely  scattered  by  a  small  party  who  are  opposed  to  the  seminary 
 because  its  Evangelical  principles  oppose  their  views."  (This  is  the  only 
 reference  ^ye  have  yet  been  able  to  find  in  our  many  researches  to  any 
 element  of  rationalism  in  our  church.  To  whom  it  refers  we  do  not 
 know.  If  to  the  mem])ers  of  the  Herman  Synod,  lie  is  mistaken  and 
 his  statement  is  due  to  prejudice,  for  Dr.  Herman  was  Evangelical.  It 
 would  seem,  however,  that  he  refers  to  an  element  in  the  old  synod.  Mho 
 were  in  a  position  to  injure  tlie  seminary  if  Reily  failed,  which  the  Her- 
 manites  could  not  do.  But  as  Mayer  and  the  seminar^'  party  became 
 victorious  it  is  evident  this  Socinian  element  was  small  and  not  influ- 
 ential.    Our  riuirch  as  a  Ghurch  was  orthodox.) 
 
68  History  of  Reformed  CiirRCH  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Later  another  effort  to  raise  fmuls  for  the  seminary  was  at- 
 tempted b}'  the  organization  of  educational  societies,  a  number 
 of  which  were  organized  in  congregations  and  classes.  But  the 
 financial  problem  was  always  a  difficult  one  and  the  seminary 
 ran  back  in  its  tinances.  In  1828  a  new  scheme  was  evolved 
 by  Elder  Jacob  Myers,  of  Virginia,  to  raise  $10,000  by  $100 
 subscriptions  so  as  to  complete  the  endowment.  In  less  than 
 a  year  the  amount  was  raised,  mainly  through  the  efforts  of 
 Rev.  Jacob  Beecher,  of  Shepherdstown,  a  young  minister  of 
 devoted  piety  and  great  energj^  who  had  just  entered  our 
 ministry.  jMr.  Beecher 's  congregation,  though  not  strong, 
 contributed  one-tenth  of  the  amount.  Beecher,  like  Rice  later, 
 broke  down  his  health  by  overwork  for  the  seminary  and  died 
 prematurely.  ]\Ir.  B.  C.  Wolff  also  collected  for  this  $100  fund, 
 raising  $1,200  in  New  York  City,  of  which  Col.  Rutgers  gave 
 $200  and  John  Jacob  Astor.  tlie  millionaire,  $50.  Ur.  ]\Iayer, 
 in  May,  1829,  reported  that  the  total  subscripti(ms  were  $10,- 
 719.17,  but  the  Synod  of  1830  reported  that  only  part  of  it 
 had  been  paid  in. 
 
 Another  complication  that  came  up  was  the  difficulty  in 
 getting  a  charter  and  the  unfortunate  controversy  that. came 
 out  of  it.  The  Synod  in  1825  had  api)oint(Ml  a  committee  to 
 procure  a  charter  from  the  legishiture  of  Pennsylvania.  A 
 charter  satisfactory  to  the  synod  had  been  prepared.  But 
 although  it  passed  the  senate,  the  house  left  it  slumber  in 
 committee.  There  was  a  very  strong  prejudice  in  some  qua  in- 
 ters of  the  state,  as  we  saw  in  the  chapter  on  the  Free  synod. 
 against  chartering  religious  corporations.  Many  looked  upon 
 it  as  giving  too  much  power  to  the  church  over  tlie  state  and 
 leading  to  their  union.  AVhen  the  n»>xt  synod  (1826)  learned 
 that  the  last  legislature  had  pigeon-holed  the  charter,  it  ap- 
 pointed a  committee  of  tive  gentlemen  prominent  in  the  state, 
 Judge  Bucher,  Gabriel  Iliester,  surveyor  gmieral  of  the  state, 
 Dr.  Luther  Reily  and  J.  P.  Helffenstein  to  aid  the  directors 
 in  securing  a  charter  in  the  legislative  session  (1826-7).  Find- 
 ing this  difficult,  they  placed  the  matter  in  the  hand  of  Rev. 
 Mr.  Ebaugh,  the  pastor  at  Carlisle,  who  claimed  to  have  been 
 appointed  agent  for  the  seminary.     He  sfill   further  compli- 
 
Early  History  op  Seminary  and  College.  60 
 
 cated  matters.  ]iy  nature  an  enthusiast  and  visionary,  he  con- 
 ceived the  idea  that  the  seminary  ought  to  buy  the  Reformed 
 church  and  parsonage  at  Carlisle.  The  value  of  the  prop- 
 erty was  about  $5,000.  He  offered  to  collect  the  amount 
 in  Cumberland  County.  This  would  have  enabled  the  con- 
 gregation to  build  a  new  church.  To  this  plan  five  members 
 of  the  seminary  board,  (less  than  a  quorum)  agreed  on  May 
 24,  1826,  and  the  consistory  of  the  church  also  agreed  to  it. 
 IVIr.  Ebaugh  looked  on  this  transaction  as  a  contract,  entered 
 into  by  the  directors  of  the  seminary  with  the  congregation. 
 But  the  majority  of  the  directors  did  not  so  view  it,  but  only 
 as  advisory.  The  synod,  they  said,  must  approve  or  reject  the 
 purchase.  This  synod  did  not  do  but  claimed  it  was  not  bind- 
 ing. Meanwhile,  Mr.  Ebaugh  had  gone  ahead,  collected  a 
 thousand  dollars  in  subscriptions  and  also  some  books.  He 
 and  his  congregation  had  the  Reformed  church  altered  into  a 
 lecture  room  and  some  of  the  classes  of  the  seminary  used  it. 
 They  also  began  building  a  new  church.  The  result  was  (as 
 the  directors  claimed  they  were  not  bound  to  him,  as  the 
 synod  gave  them  no  authority,*)  that  the  church  became  bank- 
 rupt. Their  new  building  was  sold  and  pui'chased  by  the 
 Methodists. 
 
 While  Ebaugh  was  thus  complicating  matters  financially, 
 he  was  in  the  meanwhile  also  complicating  the  matter  of  the 
 charter.  After  the  matter  had  been  placed  in  his  own  hands, 
 what  did  he  do  but  on  his  own  authority  amend  the  charter 
 by  changing  it  so  as  to  give  the  synod  less  authority  and  give 
 more  authority  to  the  board  itself.  He  omitted  articles  which 
 gave  to  the  synod  the  absolute  control  of  the  seminary,  of  its 
 property  and  of  the  election  of  professors.  These  matters 
 were  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  directors.  This  gave  the  di- 
 rectors such  great  powers  that  it  virtually  made  them  a  close 
 corporation.  He  then  appealed  to  the  supreme  court  for  a 
 charter,  instead  of  to  the  legislature  as  synod  had  ordered, 
 and  it  granted  the  charter. 
 
 *Ebaugh's  consistory,  after  synod  liad  iiict,  forbade  him  to  go  any 
 farther  in  collecting  money,  as  synod  was  not  favoralile  to  his  proposals 
 and  did  not  promise  to  make  Carlisle  the  permanent  location  of  the 
 seminary. 
 
70  History  of  Reformed  Church  ix  the  U.  S. 
 
 The  next  synod  (1827)  repudiated  this  charter  and  ordered 
 the  articles  omitted  by  Ebaugh  to  be  restored.  It  also  changed 
 the  charter  so  as  to  allow  its  removal  from  Carlisle,  if  deemed 
 necessary.  (Ebaugh  had  had  it  stated  in  his  charter  that  it 
 must  remain  at  Carlisle.)  But  the  synod,  while  rejecting  the 
 charter,  unfortunately  for  the  sake  of  a  compromise,  left  the 
 old  directors  in  office.  It  appointed  a  committee,  with  Rev. 
 Mr.  Reily,  as  chairman,  to  apply  for  a  charter  to  the  legisla- 
 ture and  not  to  the  supreme  court.  He  could  have  gained  it 
 if  he  had  been  sustained  by  all  the  members  of  the  committee, 
 but  there  was  one  member  on  the  committee  who,  in  spite  of 
 its  adoption  by  synod,  prevented  the  verdict.  So  when  the 
 next  synod  (1828)  met,  there  was  still  no  charter.  The 
 synod,  having  by  this  time  lost  faith  in  Ebaugh 's  judgment 
 and  lost  patience  at  his  actions,  now  took  matters  into  its 
 own  hands  and  appointed  a  committee  of  five  to  take  charge 
 of  all  the  property  of  the  seminary  and  instructed  that  noth- 
 ing be  paid  out  except  by  order  of  this  committee.  Reily 
 was  again  instructed  to  secure  a  charter.  This  was  a  great 
 disappointment  to  Ebaugh  and  he  entered  his  protest,  which 
 synod  did  not  heed,  and  later  Ilinsch,  Ebaugh  and  Jacob 
 Hendel  as  a  committee  of  the  l)oard  filed  a  protest. 
 
 In  the  meantime  another  difficulty  came  up.  The  charter  re- 
 jected by  the  synod  had  of  course  by  that  act  become  a  dead 
 letter.  But  as  the  directors  named  in  it  were  retained  as  di- 
 rectors of  the  synod,  it  had,  as  a  legal  document,  a  certain 
 degree  of  vitality.  The  members  present  at  a  board  meeting 
 under  the  pseudo-charter,  gave  Ebaugh  a  judgment  bond  of 
 $2,024  against  the  seminary  for  losses  sustained  l)y  the  Re- 
 formed congregation  in  Carlisle  in  building  their  church,  as 
 it  was  sold  by  the  sheriff  at  that  nnich  less  than  cost.  So 
 Ebaugh  had  sold,  as  the  property  of  the  seminary,  the  Re- 
 formed church  parsonage  and  three  lots,  although  the  semi- 
 nary never  had  any  papers  of  transfer  or  deeds  for  any  of  it. 
 This  property,  said  by  Ebaugh  to  be  worth  $7-8.000,  was  sold 
 at  only  $1,500,  and  the  sheriff  was  authorized  to  get  the  bal- 
 ance out  of  any  property  the  seminai-y  might   have. 
 
Early  History  of  Seminary  and  College.  71 
 
 Such  was  the  state  of  affairs  when  the  Synod  of  1829  met. 
 There  was  still  no  charter.  The  seminary  was  alienated  from 
 the  Reformed  church  at  Carlisle.  Ebaugh  was  the  bitter  foe 
 of  Dr.  Mayor.  At  this  synod,  Ebaugh  read  a  statement  vin- 
 dicating himself  and  his  friends.  Reily,  as  chairman,  replied 
 and  was  supported  by  Dr.  Mayer,  All  these  things  revealed 
 the  strained  condition  of  affairs  at  Carlisle.  Dr.  IVIayer  wrote 
 that  as  the  sheriff*  was  only  w^aiting  to  levy,  he  Avas  careful 
 that  no  one  should  get  the  keys  of  the  library.  It  was  evident 
 that  Dr.  IMayer  and  the  seminary  were  very  uncomfortable 
 at  Carlisle,  also  that  the  church  at  large  had  entirely  lost 
 faith  in  Ebaugh.  So  at  this  synod  Dr.  Mayer  gave  it  as  his 
 view  that  Carlisle  was  not  the  place  for  the  seminary.  Be- 
 sides the  Cumberland  Valley  was  a  Scotch-Irish  district,  with 
 comparatively  few  Germans  and,  therefore,  was  not  sympa- 
 thetic to  our  work,  while  York  was  located  in  a  German 
 settlement  with  many  adherents  of  our  Church  and  especially 
 of  Dr.  Mayer,  who  had  formerly  been  a  pastor  there.  And  Dr. 
 Mayer  also  reported  that  there  was  no  room  at  Carlisle  for  the 
 library  or  for  recitations,  and  he  had  to  have  them  in  his  own 
 house.  The  synod  then,  by  a  vote  of  twenty -three  to  one, 
 ordered  its  transfer  to  York.  This  change  originated  with  Rev. 
 Dr.  Cathcart,  pastor  of  the  Presbyterian  church  at  York,  who 
 suggested  that  probably  considerable  subscriptions  might  be 
 there  obtained.  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  if  it  had  remained 
 at  Carlisle  it  might  have  become  heir  to  Dickinson  College 
 which  was  later  (1833)  transferred  from  the  Presbyterians  to 
 the  IMethodists.  Had  we  remained,  we  would  have  been  on 
 the  ground  ready  to  take  it.  But  evidently  God's  plan  was 
 otherwise. 
 
 Thus  the  seminary,  after  being  about  four  and  a  half  years 
 at  Carlisle,  was  removed  to  York.  The  number  of  students 
 continued  small,  but  these  few  were  greatly  needed  by  the 
 Church  and  proved  the  usefulness  of  the  seminary  by  becom- 
 ing influential  in  the  Church. 
 
72  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Section  3.     The  Theological  Seminary  at  York  and  the 
 Organization  of  the  Classical  School  (1829-1835). 
 
 The  seminary  was  opened  at  York  November  11,  1829,  with 
 twelve  students.  Dr.  Mayer,  on  his  own  responsibility,  pur- 
 chased a  property  for  the  seminary  at  the  northwest  corner  of 
 Market  and  Penn  streets,  which  synod  later  accepted.* 
 
 An  important  step  had  been  taken  by  the  Synod  of  1829  in 
 the  election  of  Rev.  Daniel  Young  as  professor.  He  Avas  of 
 Reformed  ancestry  but  had  been  reared  and  educated  in  the 
 Presbyterian  Church.  He  was  a  brilliant  young  man  and 
 when  delegate  from  the  Presbyterian  General  Assembly  to 
 our  synod  in  1827  had  made  a  most  favorable  impression.  He 
 was  also  elected  to  the  editorship  of  the  new  "German  Re- 
 formed Church  Magazine."  He  was  well  versed  in  Hebrew 
 and  cognate  languages  and  M'rote  an  article  in  the  Princeton 
 Biblical  Repertory  (1829)  on  "The  Sacred  Poetry  of  the 
 Early  Christians"  which  reveals  his  Syriac  studies.  He  also 
 wrote  a  "Review  of  Essays  and  Dissertations  on  Biblical 
 Literature"  in  the  same  work  in  1830.  In  early  life  he  had 
 hoped  to  go  as  a  missionary  to  Arabia,  and  so  had  made  a 
 special  study  of  Arabic  and  Syriac.  He  understood  German 
 well.  At  first  he  taught  Biblical  literature,  exegesis  and 
 church  history.  Unfortunately  his  health  soon  broke  down 
 and  he  was  compelled  to  go  south,  where  he  died  at  Augusta, 
 Georgia,  in  March,  1831.  He  was  a  beautiful  Christian  char- 
 acter and  his  death  was  a  great  loss  to  the  seminary  and  tlio 
 Church. 
 
 The  most  important  step  taken  at  York  was  the  founding  of 
 a  Classical  School,  which  was  opened  in  1831  .f  So  many 
 students  for  the  ministry  came  so  poorly  prepared  that  such 
 a  school  became  a  necessity.  The  school  seems  at  first  to  have 
 been  taught  by  Rev.  Mr.  Boyer,  a  Presbyterian  minister,  who 
 had  had  charge  of  the  York  Academy,  then  by  William  A. 
 
 *It  had  l)oon  an  old-time  sclionl-liouse  and  was  about  fifty  foot  in 
 length. 
 
 j-Accordinfr  to  a  wcll-fonnch'd  traditinii  IIk^  classical  school  was  start  oil 
 in  a  building  on  Routli  (Icorge  Stroct,  adjoining  the  site  of  the  present 
 St.  Mary's  Catholic  (Church,  says  William  Welsh.  In  this  building  the 
 Goethean  Society  of  Marshall  ("ollcue  was  founded. 
 
Early  History  of  Sfjminary  and  College.  78 
 
 Good,  one  of  the  few  students  in  the  seminary  who  had  had 
 the  advantage  of  a  good  preparatory  training  and  was  there- 
 fore better  qualified  than  most  of  the  students.  He  taught 
 during  the  summer  term  of  1832  ''with  much  acceptance," 
 says  A.  H.  Kremer,  one  of  his  students.  In  September,  1832. 
 Dr.  Ranch  was  elected  principal  of  the  classical  school  and  by 
 the  synod,  ])rofessor  in  the  seminary.  Rev.  John  A.  Agnew, 
 formerly  professor  of  languages  in  Washington  College,  had 
 been  appointed  assistant.  The  latter  resigned  September, 
 1832,  and  Rev.  H.  Miller,  a  licentiate  of  the  Free  synod,  was 
 his  successor  till  1834.  Later,  Rev.  Mr.  Dober,  of  the  ]Mo- 
 ravian  Church  of  York,  taught  (1833-5).*  Finally  Mr.  S.  W. 
 Budd,  later  Prof.  Budd,  became  teacher.  The  number  of 
 seminary  students  slowly  increased,  Mayer  reporting  fourteen 
 in  1831.  But  it  was  especially  the  founding  of  the  classical 
 school  and  the  coming  of  Prof.  Ranch  that  gave  the  educa- 
 tional movement  a  boom.  Ranch  reported  already  in  1833 
 forty-seven  students,  and  in  1834  seventy-six  students.  In 
 1834  the  name  was  changed  to  High  School,  which  was  the 
 German  name  for  a  small  university. 
 
 But  in  spite  of  the  prosperity  of  the  seminary,  its  old  trou- 
 bles about  the  charter  followed  it.  Ebaugh  had  tried  to  re- 
 tain the  seminary  at  Carlisle.  As  he  could  not  do  that,  ho 
 made  its  departure  as  difficult  as  possible  by  taking  out  a 
 judgment  against  the  seminary  for  the  amount  of  money 
 which  he  said  was  due  his  church.  As  a  result,  the  sheriff  of 
 York  County,  by  reason  of  a  process  from  Cumberland 
 Comity,  in  which  Carlisle  was  situated,  levied  on  the  property 
 of  the  seminary  and  sold  a  part  of  the  lil)rary,  which  Reily  re- 
 purchased on  his  own  responsibility  and  money.  (When  the 
 charter  troubles  were  over,  he  afterwards  sold  it  to  the  semi- 
 nary for  what  he  here  paid  for  it.)  In  return,  the  seminary 
 took  a  process  of  trespass  against  the  sheriff  of  York  County. 
 The  lawyers  of  York,  says  Prof.  Theodore  Appel,  were  pitted 
 against  those  of  Carlisle.  This  suit  was  finally  gained  for 
 the  seminary  in  1831.    A  motion,  however,  was  made  ^or  a  new 
 
 *He  used  to  say.  "  O,  Hebrew;  T  have  learned  it.  seven  tinn's  and  for- 
 gotten it  seven  times." 
 
74  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 trial  and  the  decision  of  the  jury  was  set  aside  by  the  court  on 
 a  legal  technicality.  This  further  delayed  and  complicated  the 
 case.  The  seminary  pressed  its  suit  and  the  case  was  con- 
 tinued for  a  number  of  years,  becoming  known  in  the  annals 
 of  the  sj^nod  as  the  Sheriti'  Dimcan  case.  It  became  a  by-word 
 at  the  synod's  meetings,  all  becoming  heartily  tired  of  it,  and 
 nothing  was  ever  expected  to  come  out  of  it.  But  it  was 
 pressed  by  Jolm  L.  ]\Iayer,  Esq.,  of  York,  (a  son  of  Dr.  Mayer 
 and  a  leading  lawyer),  and  in  1836  it  was  reported  that  the 
 case  with  Ebaugh  was  settled.  The  costs  of  the  suit  were 
 $1,187,  and  this  was  apportioned  among  the  classes.  Synod 
 finally  made  a  full  settlement  in  1839.  The  suit  against  ex- 
 Sheritf  Duncan  was  continued.  Rev.  J.  0.  INIiller,  of  York, 
 and  J.  J.  Naille,  of  Hanover,  were  a  committee  to  take  charge 
 of  it.  They  continued  it  until  1866,  when  they  reported  that 
 the  heirs  of  Duncan,  to  get  rid  of  a  lien  which  the  committee 
 had  placed  on  their  property,  paid  $1,000  to  the  seminary. 
 So  closed  one  of  the  unpleasant  experiences  of  the  Church. 
 Rev.  Mr.  Reily,  after  his  return  from  Europe,  learning  of 
 the  difficulties  that  had  come  up  through  Ebaugh,  retained 
 the  money  and  books  he  had  collected  in  Germany  until  all 
 the  differences  had  been  adjusted  and  a  charter  for  the  school 
 obtained.  After  this  was  done  he  turned  over  both  books  and 
 money,  with  interest,  to  the  seminary  in  1829.  And  finally  the 
 seminary  gained  its  charter  in  1831.  But  financial  difficulties 
 continued  to  harass  the  seminary.  The  increase  in  the  num- 
 b(^r  of  students  brought  new  expenses  which  the  tuition  fees 
 did  not  cover.  In  November,  1832,  Rev.  Dr.  Cathcart,  of  the 
 Presbyterian  church  at  York,  made  a  suggestion  that  $2,500 
 be  raised  by  $50  subscriptions.  This  was  pushed  and  con- 
 siderable money  was  realized.  But  in  1834  the  agent  of  the 
 seminary  was  dismissed  at  his  own  request,  because  the  money 
 collected  was  not  sufficient  for  his  expenses. 
 
 At  a  meeting  of  the  Synod  of  1835  the  prospects  of  the 
 seminary  were  very  depressing,  there  being  a  deficit  of  over 
 $2,000,  which  had  to  be  paid  out  of  tlie  synod's  treasury.  It 
 looked  as  if  there  were  some  danger  that  Prof.  Ranch  would  be 
 compelled  to  resign  for  lack  of  support.     He  had  flattering 
 
Early  History  of  Seminary  and  College.  75 
 
 offers  from  other  institutions.  One  old  minister  at  tlie  synod 
 hearing  of  this  said,  "he  had  flour  and  potatoes  at  home,  but 
 that  if  the  prosperity  of  the  High  School  required  it,  Ranch 
 should  eat  the  flour  and  he  the  potatoes." 
 
 So  two  new  movements  led  to  new  unrest  about  the  loca- 
 tion of  the  seminary.  The  first  was  financial  stringency, 
 the  second  was  the  growth  of  the  classical  school  toward  a 
 college.  It  was  felt  that  something  must  be  done  to  meet 
 these  two  conditions.  It  had  been  expected  that  York  would 
 do  much  for  the  seminary,  but  she  had  done  nothing,  so 
 its  removal  to  another  place  was  suggested.  The  subject 
 of  removal  came  up  at  the  synod  of  183-1  at  Pittsburg. 
 As  Pittsburg  was  so  far  from  the  centre  of  the  synod,  it 
 was  a  small  synod ;  so  a  convention  was  ordered  to  'be 
 held  at  Harrisburg  in  December  to  decide  on  the  removal  of 
 the  seminary.  When  this  met,  it  declined  to  come  to  a  de- 
 cision. In  June,  1835,  a  convention  of  ministers  and  the  board 
 of  visitors  decided  to  throw  open  the  matter  for  bids.  At 
 the  synod  of  1835  propositions  came  in  from  INIercersburg, 
 Chambersburg,  Lancaster  and  also  from  York.  IMercersburg 
 was  especially  strongly  championed  by  Rev.  Jacob  Mayer,  the 
 Reformed  pastor  there.  He  so  interested  that  connnunity  that 
 it  made  an  offer  of  $10,000  and  also  ground  for  a  building  and 
 a  house  for  the  professors  till  their  houses  were  built.  Lan- 
 caster wanted  the  classical  school,  so  as  to  add  it  to  its  Frank- 
 lin College.  Chambersburg  also  presented  its  claim  through 
 Rice,  the  Reformed  pastor  there.  Prof.  Dubbs  says  that  the 
 school  might  easily  have  been  retained  at  York  if  there  had 
 been,  as  in  the  other  places,  any  one  to  rouse  the  people  to  a 
 sense  of  its  importance.  The  Synod  of  1835  decided  for 
 Mercersburg,  probably  on  the  ground  of  its  gift  of  $10,000 
 (of  which  only  $3,934.37  are  said  to  have  been  paid,*  al- 
 though there  was  a  promise  held  out  then  that  the  great  rail- 
 road (later  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad)  would  go  west  through 
 Chambersburg  and  IMercersburg,  a  promise  never  fulfilled. 
 There  was,  however,  considerable  opposition  to  the  seminary 
 
 *Dubb's  History  of  Franklin  and  Marshall  College,  page  243,  note. 
 
76  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 r«Mnoval  at  York,  and  among  the  students  as  well  as  in  certain 
 parts  of  the  Church.* 
 
 Thirty-four  students  were  graduated  from  the  seminary 
 wliile  it  was  at  York,  many  of  whom  soon  became  leaders  in 
 the  Church.  The  classical  school  was  removed  in  the  fall  of 
 1835.  But  the  theological  seminary  was  not  removed  at  that 
 time,  for  the  board  of  trustin^s  objected  to  its  removal,  fearing 
 lest  by  consenting  to  the  removal,  the  charter  would  be  for- 
 feited, the  board  dissolved  and  legal  control  of  the  fimds 
 lost.  The  treasurer  refused  to  pay  the  salaries  of  the  pro- 
 fessors if  it  were  removed  to  ]\Iercersburg.  For  this  reason 
 and  because  of  affliction  in  his  family,  Mayer  refused  to  go  to 
 Mercersburg.  The  synod,  however,  took  legal  advice  on  this 
 subject  and,  when  the  legal  difficulty  was  removed,  ordered 
 the  seminary  also  to  "be  removed  to  JMercersburg.  For  this 
 reason  the  seminary  was  not  removed  until  3837,  a  year  and 
 more  after  the  removal  of  the  preparatory  school. 
 
 Section  4.     The  Theological   Seminary  at  IMercersbijrg 
 AND  THE  Founding  of  Marshall  College  (1836-18-1:4). 
 
 The   Classical   School   opened   at   Mercersburg,   November. 
 
 1835.  It  came  from  York  with  eighteen  students  and  two  pro- 
 fessors, Ranch  and  Budd.     The  college  soon  after,  INIarch  31, 
 
 1836,  received  its  charter  from  the  State  of  Pennsylvania. 
 The  state  also  made  an  appropriation  of  $12,000  towards  its 
 endowment,  but  required  it  to  give  tuition  to  twenty  students 
 free  of  charge.  It  was  named  after  the  late  Chief-Justice 
 Marshall  who  had  died  the  year  before,  "out  of  respect  to  his 
 exalted  character,  great  worth  and  high  mental  attainments." 
 Of  tlie  ])oard  of  trustees  of  \ho  college.  Rev.  Mr.  Rice,  pastor 
 
 *Rev.  Moses  KielTor,  in  a  reiiiiiiisceiice,  tells  the  story  that  the  students 
 used  to  go  out  canvassing  for  the  Mcs.scnger.  A  })ious  older  of  one  of 
 the  congregations  met  one  of  them,  who  was  bemoaning  the  change  and 
 asked  him  what  was  the  matter.  lie  replied  that  the  institutions  were 
 to  be  removed  to  Mercersburg,  an  out-of-the-way  place, — a  nuidliole, — 
 where  there  was  no  society  or  religion  either,  nothing  V)ut  blue  stocking- 
 ism.  "O,"  said  the  elder,  "y(ni  must  not  take  it  so  liard ;  Mercersburg 
 will  i>ay  .$10.1)00  for  the  buildings."  "Ten  thousand  dollars."  he  re- 
 2jlied.  "The  ten  students  who  are  working  for  the  Mrsscnger  could 
 easily  have  raised  $10,000  for  ^'ork  in  order  io  i)ut  up  buildings." 
 
Early  History  of  Seminary  and  CoiiLEOE.  77 
 
 of  our  church  at  Chambcrsburg,  was  made  president.  lie 
 greatly  aided  in  securing- money.  The  board,  July  12,  1836, 
 elected  Prof.  Ranch  president  of  the  college  and  also  professor 
 of  Hebrew,  Greek,  German  and  evidences  of  Christianity.  He 
 was  also  to  remain  as  before,  professor  of  Biblical  theology 
 in  the  seminary.  Prof.  Budd  was  made  professor  of  mathe- 
 matics, chemistry,  natural  philosophy,  etc.  Rev.  Mr.  Berg, 
 pastor  at  Harrisburg,  was  later  elected  professor  of  Latin  and 
 Greek.  This  action  of  the  college  board,  in  going  ahead  and 
 organizing  the  college  without  waiting  for  the  action  of  the 
 synod,  was  criticized  by  some  at  the  next  s.ynod.*  The  board 
 replied  that  it  became  necessary  for  it  to  do  so,  as  Dr.  Ranch 
 had  an  urgent  call  from  Ohio  and  b}^  electing  him  president 
 he  was  induced  to  remain.  A  law  school  was  also  established 
 in  connection  with  the  college  in  February,  1838,  but  located 
 at  Chambersburg.  Judge  Alexander  Thompson  was  made 
 professor  of  law  in  it.  It  continued  in  existence  up  to  1848, 
 but  was  not  closely  identified  with  Marshall  college  except  that 
 its  graduates  received  their  degrees  from  the  college.  The 
 Preparatory.  School  was  established  as  soon  as  the  college  was 
 organized  and  Rev.  W.  A.  Goodf  w^as  made  its  first  rector. 
 
 We  can  not  pass  from  this  notice  of  the  beginnings  of  Mar- 
 shall College  without  some  reference  to  the  Rev.  j\Ir.  Rice, 
 the  president  of  its  first  board  of  trustees.  He  was  elected  the 
 agent  of  the  college  in  1836  and  with  his  usual  earnestness  he 
 undertook  the  work,  his  pulpit  being  supplied  by  neighboring 
 brethren  during  his  absence.  He  returned  in  the  spring  of 
 1837,  having  raised,  it  is  said,  nearly  $6,000  but  at  the  sacri- 
 fice of  his  life,  for  he  returned  imwell  and  died  on  May  3. 
 He  was  a  most  spiritually-minded,  self-sacrificing  man.  "When 
 he  died  Marshall  College  was  on  his  mind.  As  he  died,  he 
 wliispered  to  a  friend  at  his  bedside,  "Give  my  love  to  the 
 professors  and  tell  them  not  to  despond." 
 
 *Alroa(ly  tlio  qupstion  was  coming  up  ■nbether  the  eollefje  should  be 
 under  the  direct  or  indirect  control  of  the  synod.  The  latter  finally  pre- 
 vailed and  it  has  been  controlled  by  its  own  board,  though  reporting  to 
 the  synod. 
 
 fThe  father  of  the  author  of  this  book. 
 
78  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 The  Theological  School  was  not  removed  until  1837.  A 
 new  building  was  erected  for  it,  its  comer-stone  being  laid 
 August  17,  1836,  when  an  English  address  was  delivered  by 
 Rev.  Mr.  Rice,  of  Chambersburg,  and  a  German  address  by 
 Rev.  William  A.  Good.  Dr.  Ilendel  had  charge  of  the  cere- 
 monies. As  the  seminary  virtually  owed  its  existence  to  his 
 vote  at  the  Synod  of  1824,  he  was  very  cordially  welcomed. 
 The  building  was  completed  by  December,  1837,  but  Dr.  jNIayer 
 refused  to  come  to  Mercersburg  and  had  resigned  February, 
 1837.  Prof.  Rauch  was  therefore  the  only  professor  of  the- 
 ology. Fortimately  the  number  of  theological  students  was 
 small.  Rauch  reported,  September  24,  1838,  that  there  were 
 only  three,  of  whom  two  had  to  give  up  studying  and  only  one 
 (Bomberger)  remained.  The  resignation  of  Dr.  Mayer  pro- 
 duced a  new  emergency  in  the  Church.  Lebanon,  IMaryland 
 and  Susquehanna  classes  requested  that  some  one  from  our 
 own  Church  be  elected  and  the  latter  desired  Prof.  Mayer 
 again.  At  the  synod  of  1838  there  were  three  nominees, 
 Smaltz,  Willers  and  INIayer.  The  two  former  declined  and 
 ]\layer  was  re-elected  at  a  salary  of  $1,000. 
 
 He  removed  to  ]\lercersburg,  re-opening  the  seminary  No- 
 vember 9,  1838.  He  taught  for  one  year  (1838-9).  At 
 first  everything  went  along  harmoniously,  but  soon  friction 
 Ijegan  to  develop.  Dr.  ^Mayer  was  charged  by  some  of  the 
 students  with  heretical  teaching.  Five  of  the  students  be- 
 came dissatisfied  and  after  one  of  them  had  interviewed 
 Dr.  ]\Iayer  to  see  if  they  were  right  in  their  understanding 
 o£  his  views,  one  of  them  went  to  Dr.  Schneek  at  Chambers- 
 burg to  notify  him  of  their  proposed  withdrawal  from  the 
 seminary.  None  of  the  students  preferred  any  charges 
 against  Dr.  Mayer.  They  only  gave  notice  of  tlicir  dissatis- 
 faction. So  the  board  of  visitors  was  called  together.  TIk^ 
 students  one  by  one  were  brought  before  the  board  and 
 examined.  Afterward  Dr.  ]\Iayer  was  interviewed  by  the 
 board.  The  decision  of  the  board  was:  (1)  that  the  students 
 had  failed  to  understand  Dr.  INIayer  correctly  and  (2)  that 
 he  was  advised  to  be  more  careful  in  the  expression  of  his 
 views   so    as   not   to   be    misunderstood.      But   the    students 
 
Early  History  of  Seminary  and  College.  79 
 
 were  not  satisfied  with  tliis  reflection  on  their  ability  to  un- 
 derstand. So  four  of  them*  asked  for  hitters  of  dismissal. 
 Another  left  without  dismissal  and  a  sixth  left  to  earn  some 
 money  to  pay  his  way  through  the  seminary  :  so  that  by  the  end 
 of  the  term  there  were  only  three  students.  G.  Williard,  Miller 
 and  Webb.  Dr.  Mayer  became  sick  and  resigned  at  the  Synod 
 of  1839.  When  the  matter  came  up  before  synod  there  was  a 
 sharp  discussion.  Dr.  Mayer  attempted  to  vindicate  himself 
 and  in  so  doing  made  statements  that  reflected  on  Prof.  Ranch, 
 who  then  replied  at  length.  The  synod  accepted  the  resigna- 
 tion of  Dr.  Mayer,  passing  a  vote  of  thanks  for  his  faithful 
 and  valuable  service. 
 
 The  synod  then  proceeded  to  elect  a  successor.  Three  can- 
 didates were  named:  J.  C.  Becker,  Willers  and  W.  A.  Good. 
 Rev.  Dr.  Becker  was  elected.  He  was  a  man  of  ability  and 
 one  of  the  last  ministers  to  prepare  students  for  the  ministry 
 privately.  But  he  declined.  The  board  of  visitors  then 
 elected  Rev.  A.  Helffenstein  to  the  position  temporarily  but 
 he  declined.  So  all  the  theological  teaching  (1839-40)  was 
 given  into  the  hands  of  Dr.  Ranch  again.  He  reported,  how- 
 ever, that  the  number  of  students  in  the  Fall  of  1839  was  in- 
 creasing, being  nine.  Finally  a  special  meeting  of  synod  was 
 held,  February  5,  1840,  at  which  Rev.  J.  W.  Nevin,  D.D., 
 professor  in  the  Western  Theological  Seminary  of  the  Presby- 
 terian Church  at  Allegheny  City  was  elected.  On  jMay  20  of 
 that  year  he  was  inaugurated  as  professor  of  theology. 
 
 But  the  college  and  seminary  were  called  upon  to  pass 
 through  a  very  severe  trial  in  the  death  of  Prof.  Ranch,  on 
 March  2,  1841.  At  his  death  Dr.  Nevin  was  asked  to  accept 
 the  presidency,  which  he  did.  Dr.  Nevin  now  had  also  the  sole 
 charge  of  the  seminary,  assisted  only  by  a  teacher  of  Hebrew. 
 
 The  financial  condition  of  the  college  still  gave  concern. 
 Still,  with  the  election  of  Dr.  Nevin  came  new  inspiration  to 
 lift  the  seminary  out  of  its  financial  troubles.  Rev.  Jacob 
 Mayer  was  appointed  special  agent  for  the  seminary  for  eight 
 years.    Finally  a  movement  was  started  in  1841  to  put  the  col- 
 
 *Kieffer  and  A.  Kremcr,  of  the  Class  of  ]839,  ami  Gcrhart  and  Martin, 
 of  the  next  class. 
 
80  History  of  Reformed  Ciiircii  ix  the  V.  S. 
 
 lege  and  seminary  in  a  good  financial  condition  by  the  offering 
 of  a  Centenary  fund.  This  movement  was  first  suggested  by 
 i\Iaryland  elassis,  but  was  later  ordered  by  the  synod.  "Why 
 they  chose  1841  as  the  Centenary  is  not  clear.  Perhaps  because 
 the  Philadelphia  congregation  had  recently  ol)served  its  cen- 
 tennial in  1839,  or  perhaps  because  Boehm's  church,  which 
 was  then  reputed  to  be  the  oldest  church,  had  over  its  door 
 the  date  1740.  The  Holland  records,  since  discovered,  reveal 
 how  wrong  they  were  in  observing  this  year  as  a  centennial, 
 for  the  centennial  of  the  organization  of  the  first  congregation 
 would  have  come  in  1825  and  of  the  eoetus  or  synod  in  1847, 
 so  that  1841  was  not  the  Centenary  of  anything.*  l^ut  right 
 or  wrong  they  observed  this  centennial  and  it  turned  out  to  be 
 a  financial  success  as  a  large  amount  of  money  was  raised. 
 The  plan  was  to  raise  ^100,000,  $1,01)0  for  each  year  of  the 
 existence  of  the  synod. 
 
 The  project  was  taken  up  with  great  alacrity  in  different 
 parts  of  the  chui-ch.  fSpecial  meetings  of  the  classes  were 
 held  in  order  to  further  the  movement.  ]\Iercersburg  elassis 
 agreed  to  raise  .$25,000  and  Nevin  called  on  Franklin  County 
 to  raise  .$10,000.  At  Mercersburg  an  enthusiastic  meeting 
 was  held.  Dr.  Ranch  pledged  himself  for  .$500.  as  did  Prof. 
 Hudd.  Dr.  Nevin  gave  $1,000  for  himself  and  family,  the 
 largest  amount,  says  Dr.  Appel,  probably  contributed  during 
 this  Centenary  year.  As  far  west  as  Ohio  the  centennial  move- 
 ment found  some  support.  Of  the  three  district  synods  there, 
 only  the  third  took  special  action,  for  it  resolved  to  gather  $20,- 
 000  for  beneficiary  students  and  missions.  i\laryland  elassis 
 aimed  to  raise  $30,000.  Much  was  raised  in  $.500  scholar- 
 ships, payable  in  five  years,  and  named  after  the  congrega- 
 tions raising  them  or  after  individuals  designated  by  them. 
 Thus  the  Philadelphia  congregation  raised  three  scholarships 
 and  named  them  after  their  former  pastors,  Weyberg,  Wynck- 
 haus  and  Hendel.  By  August,  Nevin  reported  upwai-d  of 
 100  scholarships  taken.     Various  towns  raised   considi'rable, 
 
 *For  in  1741  tho  Pennsylvania  "Reformed  wore  in  a  sad  condition. 
 Boehm  was  trying  to  get  the  Ifolland  C^hurches  interested  in  us  and  the 
 Holland  fathers  were  trying  but  in  vain  to  do  something  for  our 
 Churches. 
 
Early  History  of  Seminary  and  College. 
 
 81 
 
 Eastou,  $1,200;  Lebanon,  in  four  days,  $4,300;  North  Caro- 
 lina, $5,000;  Reading.  $4,-$5,000  and  expected  to  raise 
 $7,000.  To  stimulate  the  interest,  Eev.  S.  R.  Fisher  wrote 
 his  excellent  "Notes  on  the  Palatinate  Catechism,"  Avhich 
 were  published  in  the  Messenger  and  afterwards  in  book  form. 
 Dr.  Nevin  wrote  a  long  series  of  articles  in  the  Messenger 
 on  the  "History  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,"  which  were 
 afterward  published  in  book  form  but  very  much  changed, 
 altered  and  abbreviated  to  suit  the  later  IVIercersburg  the- 
 ology. t)r.  Heiner  also  wrote  a  series  of  articles  in  the  Mes- 
 senger on  the  Swiss  Reformers.  A  centennial  hymn  was  pub- 
 lished, written  by  Lydia  Jane  Pierson,*  which  was  set  to 
 music  by  Rev.  Dr.  Schneck. 
 
 Thou,  who  are  enthroned  in  glory, 
 
 Crowned    with    joy    and    robed 
 with  grace, 
 Lo,  we  humbly  bend  before  thee, 
 
 Offering  up  our  songs  of  praise. 
 Mighty  God  and  gracious  Saviour, 
 
 Spirit  of  enduring  grace. 
 Come  in  thine  especial  favor. 
 
 With  thy  glory  fill  this  place. 
 
 Since     our     fathers  —  poor  —  and 
 strangers 
 Sought     the     western     forest 's 
 shade. 
 From    Helvetia's    vine-clad    moun- 
 tains 
 Came  a  little  friendless  band. 
 By  the  rich  Ehine's  infant   foun- 
 tains 
 Others  left  their  fatherland. 
 
 See  the  star  whose  riding  splendor 
 
 Heralded  a  Saviour's  birth, 
 Now  in  its  meridian  splendor 
 
 Smiles  upon  the  joyous  earth. 
 Heart  and  han<l   and  effort  blend- 
 ing. 
 
 In  its  radiance  now  we  meet, 
 And    our   mingled    prayers   ascend- 
 ing 
 
 Seek  thee  at  the  mercy  seat. 
 
 We  would  celebrate  the  changes, 
 Which    an    hundred    years    have 
 made ! 
 
 Germany's     bright      streams     are 
 flowing 
 Through  the  vales  where  others 
 dwelt, 
 O'er    her    mountain's    winds    are 
 blowing 
 Past  the  altars  where  they  knelt. 
 Thou    went    with    them    o  'er    the 
 ocean 
 To    these    wilds    where    freedom 
 strayed, 
 'Neath   her   bowers   with   true   de- 
 votion 
 First     those     grateful     pilgrims 
 prayed. 
 
 *Mrs.  Lydia  Jane  Pierson  set  apart  in  1847  500  volumes  of  her 
 poems,  ' '  The  Forest  Minstrel, ' '  for  the  cause  of  Christian  benevolence. 
 Some  of  them  were  sold  and  $85.00  were  given  to  the  benevolences  of  our 
 Church. 
 
82  PIisTORY  OF  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Here  the  little  vine  increasing  IVIake  our  gifts  a  rich  oblation 
 
 Spread   its   branches   green   and  Many  a  mourning  heart  to  cheer: 
 
 f^ir,  AVhile   the   light    of   thy   salvation 
 
 Now,  by  thine  especial  blessing,  Gilds  each  penitential  tear. 
 
 See  how  wide  thy  vineyards  are. 
 
 Come  and  take  the  ripened  cluster,  l^^  o,,^  institutions  flourish, 
 
 All  the  vintage,  Lord,  is  thine.  Sending  forth  a  pious  band 
 
 But  let  mercy  temper  justice  ^jth  the  words  of  life  to  nourish 
 
 Where  thou   meet'st   a   fruitless  ^11     who     hunger    through     the 
 
 ^■i°«-  land. 
 
 Zion     spreads     her    hands     before 
 
 Humble  are  the  gifts  we  offer,  thee 
 
 Bless  them  in  thy  grace  divine.  Come  and  in  her  temples  reign, 
 
 Thou  wilt  not   despise  the  proffer  While  we  give  all  praise  and  glory 
 
 Though  the  universe  is  thine.  To  the  Triune  God.     Amen. 
 
 Rev.  Mr.  Duenger  also  wrote  a  centennial  hymn,  which  was 
 printed  and  ordered  to  be  sung  by  Susquehanna  classis. 
 
 But  the  best  effect  of  this  Centenary  was  the  uplift  it  gave 
 to  our  Church  as  a  denomination.  It  roused  the  Church  and 
 revealed  her  latent  powers.  The  moral  and  spiritual  effect 
 was  even  greater  than  the  financial,  and  the  contributions  re- 
 lieved the  college  from  its  pressing  financial  necessities. 
 
 Section  5.     Rev.  Prof.  Lewis  Mayer,  D.D. 
 
 Prof.  Lewis  Mayer  was  born  at  Lancaster,  March  26,  1783. 
 He  was  there  carefully  educated,  paying  special  attention  to 
 the  German  language,  which  became  of  the  greatest  value  to 
 him  later  in  his  theological  teaching.  For  a  time  he  turned 
 his  attention  to  business,  but  at  Frederick,  where  he  had 
 gone  from  Lancaster,  he  was  awakened  in  soul.  The  preach- 
 ing of  the  earnest  and  godly  minister  there.  Rev.  Daniel 
 Wagner,  led  him  to  deep  conviction  of  sin.  He  could  find  no 
 peace  day  or  night  and  was  often  in  fearful  darkness,  even 
 to  the  verge  of  despair.  But  at  last  light  broke  on  his  soul 
 and  with  it  came  the  joy  of  sins  forgiven.* 
 
 Soon  after  his  conversion,  the  claims  of  the  gospel  ministry 
 began  to  lay  hold  on  him  and  he  studied  theology  under  his 
 pastor.  Rev.  Mr.  Wagner,  who  read  Latin,  Greek  and  Hebrew 
 
 *For  an  account  of  his  conversion,  see  Western  Missionary,  May  12, 
 1851. 
 
Early  History  op  Seminary  and  College. 
 
 83 
 
 fluently,  havino;  studied  under  Prof.  Gross  at  New  York.  From 
 Gross  Wagner  got  liis  seholarsliip,  from  Ilendel,  his  theological 
 teacher,  his  spirituality.  Mayer  having  already  had  an  ex- 
 cellent preparatory  training,  was  able  to  prepare  himself 
 rapidly  for  the  ministry,  so  that  he  was  licensed  by  the  synod 
 of  1807. 
 
 Rev.   Prof.  Lewis  Mayer,  D.  D. 
 
 His  first  pastorate  was  at  Shepherdstown,  Va.,  where  he 
 labored  twelve  years.  When  his  spiritual  father  and  teacher, 
 Wagner,  died  at  Frederick  in  1811,  he  preached  the  funeral 
 sermon,  a  eulogy  such  as  a  Timothy  would  have  given  to  Paul. 
 The  sermon  was  afterward  published.  He  was  then  asked 
 by  the  Frederick  congregation  to  become  a  candidate  for  their 
 pulpit,  but  he  declined.  In  1818,  when  the  Baltimore  congre- 
 gation became  vacant  by  the  death  of  Rev.  C.  L.  Becker,  D.D., 
 
84  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 it  urgently  called  him  but  he  declined.  From  1821  to  1825 
 he  was  pastor  at  York,  Pa.  Thus  very  early  in  his  ministry 
 he  came  to  the  front  among  the  ministers  of  the  church.  This 
 was  partly  due  to  his  ability  to  preach  in  both  the  English 
 and  German  languages  at  a  time  when  few  of  the  ministers 
 could  preach  English,  and  also  to  his  native  ability  and  ag- 
 gressive temperament.  AVhen  the  project  of  founding  a 
 seminary  came  before  the  church,  he  was  one  of  its  champions. 
 By  correspondence  as  well  as  on  the  floor  of  synod  he  urged 
 it. 
 
 Prof.  Mayer,  as  we  have  seen,  became  the  first  professor  of 
 the  seminary  in  1825,  after  Dr.  S.  Helffenstein  had  declined 
 the  honor.  He  entered  on  his  professorship  from  a  sense  of 
 duty.  He  said,  "If  no  one  accepts  the  professorship  till  it 
 is  a  safe  and  profitable  office,  the  seminary  will  never  get  into 
 operation.  If  the  Son  of  God  gave  himself  for  us,  tell  me 
 when  the  dut}^  of  disinterested,  thankful  devotion  to  his 
 service  ends.  I  am  willing  to  go  as  far  as  I  know  his  holy 
 will  and  what  things  are  discouraging  I  leave  to  him."  We 
 have  already  followed  his  work  in  the  seminary,  first  at  Car- 
 lisle, then  at  York,  and  finally  at  INIercersburg.  His  work 
 was  laborious  and  successful  except  in  the  last  year,  when 
 some  of  the  students  brought  charges  against  his  orthodoxy. 
 
 This  whole  subject  is  a  difficult  one,  especially  l)ecause 
 s(»iii('  who  charged  liim  with  heresy  were  later  biasscMl  in  their 
 ()|)p<)si1ion  to  him  by  their  Mercersburg  theology,  whose  be- 
 ginnings ]\Iayer  opposed.  Prof.  T.  G.  Api)le*  chai-ges  Mayer 
 with  having  varied  ft'oiu  Ihe  accepted  orthodoxy  of  the 
 ('hurch  on  the  trinity,  person  of  Clu*ist,  atonement  and 
 original  sin.  Prof.  Theodore  Appelf  says  he  diverged  on  the 
 trinity  and  person  of  Christ.  Dubbs!}:  says  he  had  peculiar 
 views  on  the  trinity  and  esehatology.  Prof.  E.  V.  Gerhart 
 adds  that  he  lowered  the  supernatural  in  the  miracles.  Schaff§ 
 says  Mayer  had  been  under  DeWette's  semi-rationalistic  in- 
 
 *Senu-C'entennial  of  Theological  Seminary,  i)agc  59. 
 fBeginnings  of  Seminary,  page  94. 
 ifAmeriean  Chnrch  History,  Vol.  VIII,  page  360. 
 §Kirclienfreun(l,  1849. 
 
Early  History  of  Seminary  and  College.  85 
 
 fluence  and  adds  he  liad  no  churchly  sense,— his  liturgy  shows 
 this  as  it  is  only  a  gathering  of  theological  and  sensible  re- 
 flections. In  this  latter  clause  Schaff  reveals  the  animus 
 of  a  good  deal  of  criticism  against  Mayer,  namely,  the  bitter 
 animosity  of  the  Mercersburg  men  against  him.  Against 
 Schaff.  we  should  say  that  we  find  hardly  a  reference  to  De 
 Wette  in  IMayer's  dogmatics,  though  he  frequently  refers  to 
 other  German  theologians.  Appel  reveals  the  same  bias  when 
 he  says  that  under  Mayer  the  German  section  of  our  Church 
 had  not  yet  come  into  much  acquaintance  or  sympathy  with 
 the  seminary.  This  is  not  true  as  some  of  the  strongest  sup- 
 porters of  the  seminary  as  revealed  by  the  synod  and  the 
 Church  papers  were  from  the  German  part  of  our  Church. 
 The  history  of  the  matter  seems  to  be  this :  As  early  as  1834 
 there  was  an  action  of  Maryland  classis  which  says  that  in 
 view  of  the  repeated  and  unwarranted  attacks  on  Dr.  IMayer's 
 orthodoxy,  it  declares  its  implicit  confldence  in  his  integrity, 
 orthodoxy  and  piety  and  prayed  the  synod  to  treat  with  con- 
 tempt all  insinuations  against  him  brought  without  good  and 
 sufficient  evidence.  On  the  other  hand,  we  find  a  series  of 
 resolutions  adopted  later  by  East  Pennsylvania  Classis  in 
 in  1839,  reaffirming  its  adherence  to  orthodoxy.  After  a  con- 
 ference about  the  theological  seminary,  it  passed  resolutions 
 
 "])raising  the  college  and  declaring  its  adherence  to  the  authority  and 
 inspiration  of  the  Bible,  also  to  the  seventh  answer  of  the  Catechism  on 
 original  sin,  opposing  the  views  that  man  by  the  fall  was  only  placed  in 
 an  unfortunate  position  or  had  sinned  only  because  his  soul  had  been 
 placed  in  a  fleshly  body.  It  also  declared  that  according  to  the  Catechism 
 (answers  15,  33  and  35),  .Jesus  is  the  eternal  Son  of  God  and  it  opposed 
 the  view  that  he  had  his  origin  in  his  human  nature  and  was  only  clothed 
 with  divine  attributes.  It  held  that  God  exists  as  the  trinity  and  declares 
 that  the  view  that  God  is  only  unity  in  any  sense  is  unitarianism  and  a 
 calumny  on  our  doctrine.  It  held  to  the  twelfth  answer  of  the  Catechism, 
 and  opposed  the  view. that  contemplates  the  death  of  Christ  as  only  neces- 
 sary to  bring  his  perfect  nature  to  light.  All  these  were  against  the 
 Bible  and  the  doctrines  of  our  Church. 
 
 This  action  was  evidently  aimed  at  Prof.  Mayer,  and  it  has 
 been  suggested  on  good  authority  that  it  was  inspired  by  Rev. 
 B.  C.  Wolff,  then  pa.stor  at  Easton,  who  seems  to  have  been 
 
86  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 prominent  in  this  movement  against  ]\Iayer,  This  action  of 
 East  Pennsylvania  Classis  may  have  paved  the  way  for  his 
 resignation  to  the  synod.  But  when  j\Iayer  resigned  he  evi- 
 dently retained  the  confidence  of  a  large  part  of  the  Church, 
 for  both  Susquehanna  and  Ziou's  Classes  passed  commenda- 
 tory resolutions. 
 
 The  only  other  sources  to  which  we  have  access  are  his 
 printed  books  and  theological  articles  and  also  the  manuscript 
 notes  of  his  dogmatics,  of  which  we  have  two  copies.  In  the 
 latter  we  find  no  marked  divergence  from  orthodoxy.  But 
 they  give  the  impression  that  he  wrote  his  dogmatics  early  in 
 his  professorship  and  did  not  change  them;  so  that  any  later 
 divergences  would  not  be  apt  to  appear.  However,  in  one 
 of  his  theological  articles  in  the  "l^iblical  Repository,"  1840, 
 on  "The  Sonship  of  Christ,"  he  emphasizes  the  inferiority  of 
 the  Son  to  the  Father  and  claims  that  the  phrase  "Son 
 of  God"  does  not  prove  Christ's  divinity.  "The  Son  of 
 God  is  not  properly  a  designation  of  the  God-man  but  of  the 
 man  Christ  Jesus."  This  would  seem  to  bear  out  the  state- 
 ment made  by  one  of  his  students  that  "he  uniformly  spoke 
 of  the  man  Christ  Jesus.  He  affirmed  his  divinity,  ])ut  l)y  it 
 meant  that  God  had  endowed  Jesus  with  divine  authority, 
 divine  knowledge  and  divine  powers,  above  IMoses,  aliove  all 
 the  prophets,  above  all  other  men.  Jesus  was  called  the  ' '  Son 
 of  God"  because  he  was  the  most  beloved  of  the  Father  and 
 was  commissioned  to  perform  the  great  work  of  redemption." 
 (In  a  word,  he  built  Christ's  divinity  on  his  manhood  and  not 
 on  his  essential  divinity. — A.)  "On  the  Godhead  he  taught  the 
 threefold  manifestati(m,  but  denied  personal  distinctions  in 
 God's  being."  This  would  prove  a  charge  made  in  the  Mes- 
 senger* that  he  taught  Sabelliiuiisin — "that  there  was  only 
 one  person  in  the  Godhead  and  that  the  Son  and  Spirit  are 
 only  different  powers,  operations  and  offices  of  the  one  God 
 the  Father. '  'f 
 
 ♦January  22,  1867. 
 
 fRev.  T)r.  Williiii-d.  one  of  his  latest  stinloiits.  once  told  the  Mutlior  tliat 
 Dr.  Maver  did  not  liohl  to  the  full  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 
Early  History  of  Seminary  and  College.  87 
 
 Farther   than    this   we    can   not   get   the   facts.      But   this 
 charge  is  a  serious  one,  for  the  doctrines  of  the  trinity  and 
 the  divinity  of  Christ  are  fundamental  and  logically  lead  to 
 serious  departures  on  other  correlated  doctrines,  as  the  atone- 
 ment and  regeneration.     We  are  suspicious,   however,   that 
 these  divergences  did  not  become  very  prominent  until  his 
 second  period  as  professor    (1838-9).      The  earlier  charges 
 may  have  been  due  to  his  use  at  the  beginning  of  the  semi- 
 nary of  the  dogmatics  of  Mursinna,  a  supernatural  rationalist, 
 who  taught  at  Halle,  as  this  would  be  somewhat  in  contrast 
 with  what  Ilelffenstein   would  have  taught,   as  revealed  in 
 his  published  severely-orthodox  theology.     (Still  Herman  used 
 IMursinna's  work  and  yet  was  orthodox.)      It  is  also  to  be 
 noticed  that  the  influence  of  ]\layer's  teaching  did  not  lead 
 any  of  his  students  to  rationalism  or  unitarianism,   as  has 
 occurred  later  in  other  directions  in  our  Church;  although 
 one  of  them,  Raschig,  of  Cincinnati,  was  afterwards  charged 
 with  rationalism. 
 
 Having  discussed  his  departure  from  orthodoxy,  we  are 
 ready  now  to  look  at  the  unfortunate  controversy  in  the 
 seminary  in  1839.  For  this  there  were  probably  several 
 reasons : 
 
 1.  An  educational  one.  Dr.  Mayer  seems  to  have  forgotten 
 that  the  students  he  now  had  under  him  were  not  the  unpre- 
 pared men  he  formerly  had,  but  were  college  graduates. 
 His  method  of  teaching  had  been  formed  for  the  former  type 
 of  students,  and  yet  he  continued  it.  Rauch  had  moulded 
 these  young  men  by  his  enthusiasm  and  fine  pedagogical 
 method,  while  IMayer,  never  strong  physically  and  now 
 getting  old.  had  no  enthusiasm.  "Dr.  Mayer,"  says  one  of  his 
 students,  "was  at  that  time  exceedingly  slow  in  his  delivery 
 and  style  of  teaching,"  while  Ranch  had  trained  his  students 
 to  quick  thought.  This  difference  between  the  two  doubtless 
 unconsciously  provoked  comparison  by  the  students.  Prof. 
 Ranch  was  progressive  and  frt^sh  in  his  teaching,  up-to-date, 
 ready  with  the  latest  views,  while  in  the  later  period  of 
 his  teaching.  Dr.  Mayer  was  non-progressive.  Our  two  copies 
 of  his  lectures,  one  an  early  one  and  one  a  late  one,  reveiil 
 
88  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 that  they  are  about  the  same.  He  seems  to  have  written  his 
 theological  lectures  early  and  did  not  change  them.  This 
 would  make  them  cold  and  formal,  iminteresting  to  bis 
 students, 
 
 2.  A  philosophical  one.  Rauch  was  a  German  in  philoso- 
 phy, while  Mayer's  views  had  originally  been  moulded  by  the 
 Scottish  type  of  philosophy  then  popular  in  America,  al- 
 though he  was  later  intlueneed  by  his  extensive  German  read- 
 ing. Rauch  had  made  his  students  approach  things  from  a 
 different  standpoint.  With  him  the  first  fundamental  Avas 
 the  difference  between  the  subjective  and  the  objective.* 
 Dr.  Mayer's  view-point  was  entirely  different.  He  viewed 
 matters  from  the  standpoint  not  of  philosophy  but  of  the 
 Bible  and  of  theolog3^  One  writer  says,  "The  dualistic  ten- 
 dency of  Mayer  on  the  doctrine  of  man  in  which  he  set  the 
 higher  nature  of  man  over  against  the  lower  in  strong  anti- 
 thesis, was  contrary  to  Rauch,  who  emphasized  the  organic 
 idea."  Rauch  had  trained  his  students  to  view  all  from  the 
 philosophic  standpoint  and  Maj-er  from  another  point  of 
 view,  the  theological.  Perhaps  they  had  had  too  much  phil- 
 osophy to  be  theological,  and  as  IMayer's  theology  was  not 
 philosophy  they  disdained  it. 
 
 3.  A  theological  cause.  Dr.  Mayer  was  at  that  time  veer- 
 ing from  orthodoxy,  Rauch  toward  it.  Rauch,  in  Germany 
 (as  we  shall  see),  had  gone  through  semi-rationalism  and  come 
 back,  in  America,  to  Evangelical  views.  And  there  is  a  great 
 dift'erence  between  men  going  thus  in  these  opposite  directions. 
 ]\Iayer's  divergencies  made  his  pupils,  trained  under  Rauch, 
 feel  the  great  difference  and  any  divergence  from  orthodoxy 
 would  be  apt  to  be  magnified  out  of  its  due  proportion. 
 
 After  his  resignation,  Dr.  Mayer  spent  the  later  years  of  his 
 life   in   quietness  at  York,   where   he   died  ten   years  later, 
 
 *Kieffer,  in  his  Eeminiscences,  says  of  his  stutlciits:  "  Thev  woultl 
 talk  about  the  objective  and  the  subjective,  the  abstract  and  the  con- 
 crete, the  general  and  the  particular,  the  absolute  bein^j  and  the  relative 
 being  and  the  relations  of  tliese  different  things.  One  student  would 
 ask  another,  "Where  is  the  absolute  ground  of  all  relations? "  He  re- 
 plied, "in  personality."  "In  God,"  was  asked,  "or  the  personal 
 creature. ' '  The  reply  was  ' '  ultimately  in  God  the  Absolute.  God  is  a 
 personal  being."    "Yea,  tri-personal,"  was  the  response. 
 
Early  History  op  Seminary  and  College.  89 
 
 August  25,  1849.  Dr.  Harbaugh  says  "Mayer  was  always 
 gentlemanly,  polite,  generous  and  noble-hearted,  courteous 
 and  obliging."  Says  Dr.  Schaff  at  the  time  of  Dr.  Mayer's 
 death,  "Dr.  Mayer  was  a  man  of  reverent  and  devout  charac- 
 ter, clear  and  tempered  judgment  and  profound  learning." 
 
 As  a  preacher,  Dr.  Mayer's  sermons  were  able  and  learned. 
 They  were  carefully  prepared,  clear  and  chaste  in  style.  The 
 weakness  of  his  body,  however,  prevented  him  from  excelling 
 as  a  puli)it  orator.  Nevertheless  he  was  impressive  and  sol- 
 emn, although  he  could  not  be  called  a  popular  preacher  in 
 our  modern  sense.  He  was  especially  strong  in  expository 
 preaching,  as  his  "Lectures  on  Scriptural  Subjects"  (1845), 
 published  a  short  time  before  his  death,  reveal.  Rev.  Dr. 
 Cathcart,  the  Presbyterian  pastor  at  York,  considered  him 
 one  of  the  ablest  lecturers  on  Bible  subjects.  After  preaching 
 on  Sabl)atli  some  thirteen  miles  out  of  York,  Dr.  Cathcart 
 would  aim  to  return  to  listen  to  Dr.  Mayer's  lectures  in  the 
 Reformed  church  in  the  evening.  Dr.  Mayer  was  learned 
 in  the  Scripture.  Dr.  Heiner  tells  of  a  Universalist  minister 
 who  came  to  York  when  he  was  a  student,  preaching  several 
 sermons  in  the  court-house  to  crowded  audiences.  The  stu- 
 dents of  the  seminary  asked  Dr.  Mayer  to  reply.  He  did  so 
 by  preaching  on  the  parable  of  the  tares  so  convincingly  that 
 the  Universalist  preacher  left  on  the  first  stage  for  Philadel- 
 pliia  and  the  few  whose  faith  had  been  wavering  were  restored. 
 Dr.  Mayer  never  preached  an  indifferent  sermon,  said  an 
 eloquent  minister.  As  a  pastor,  says  Wolff,  he  was  unsur- 
 passed for  truth  and  tenderness  in  the  sick-room — in  dealing 
 with  persons  concerned  on  the  subject  of  religion.  In  debate, 
 there  were  few  superiors  to  him,  for  he  was  always  ready 
 with  abundant  resources  at  conmiand. 
 
 As  a  professor,  he  was  an  excellent  scholar,  especially  in 
 the  classics,  Greek  and  Latin  as  well  as  in  the  Hebrew.  He 
 mastered  the  Dutch  and  knew  some  French  and  was  enthusi- 
 astic in  the  natural  sciences.  His  lectures  reveal  a  careful 
 study  of  the  Biblical  languages.  He  was  familiar  with  the 
 Biblical  systems  of  his  day,  referring  to  a  number  of  them 
 as  Reinhard,  Dwight,  Bretschneider,  Dick,  Knapp  and  others. 
 
90  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 His  theological  ability  is  revealed  in  his  pamphlet  on  "The 
 Sin  Against  the  Holy  Ghost,"  whose  authorship  he  at  first 
 concealed  because  of  his  modesty,  when  it  first  appeared  in 
 German. 
 
 In  it  he  holds  substantially  the  view  of  Whitbv,  that  the  blasphemy 
 against  the  Holy  Ghost  was  the  malicious  reviling  of  the  testimony 
 which  the  Holy  Spirit  bore  to  the  divine  mission  of  Jesus  and  the  truth 
 of  Christianity, — in  his  miraculous  operations  in  the  Church  after  he 
 came  in  Christ 's  stead.  The  sin  was  not  a  single  transient  act  of  special 
 enormity,  but  a  permanent  disposition  of  mind  and  manner  of  acting, 
 which  terminated  only  with  the  end  of  life,  by  which  the  person  set  at 
 naught  all  the  evidences  of  Christianity,  even  the  testimony  of  the  Holy 
 Spirit  and  therefore  shut  himself  out  from  faith  and  repentance. 
 
 Dr.  Mayer  also  wrote  other  able  Scriptural  articles  in  the 
 "Biblical  Repository"  on  "The  Scriptural  Idea  of  the 
 Angels"  (1838),  and  "The  Agony  in  Gethsemane"  (1841). 
 His  largest  published  work  was  his  "History  of  the  Reformed 
 Church,"  published  after  his  death  by  his  pupil.  Dr.  Heiner. 
 It  covers  only  the  history  of  our  church  in  Switzerland  and 
 it  reveals  Dr.  Mayer  to  be  a  church  historian  as  well  as  a 
 theologian.  It  is  an  excellent  work,  careful  and  painstaking 
 in  its  statements  but  somewhat  cold  in  style. 
 
 Dr.  Mayer's  theological  standpoint  was  not  the  Christo- 
 centrie  view  so  prominently  developed  in  the  nineteenth  cen- 
 tury. "While  he  occasionally  refers  to  Schleiermacher,  the 
 author  of  that  view,  he  did  not  follow  him  in  it.  He  reflected 
 more  the  older  type  of  dogmatics.  On  some  points  his  dog- 
 matics is  very  exceUent  and  he  reveals  ability.  His  general 
 I)osition  is  that  of  the  lower  sublapsarian  Calvin ists.  (There 
 are  three  schools  of  Calvinists,  supralapsarian  (highest),  in- 
 fralapsarian  (high)  and  sublapsarian  (low),*)  While  in  one 
 or  two  places  in  the  Messenger,  he  seems  to  incline  to  a  belief 
 in  synergism  that  would  make  him  Arminian,  yet  in  his  dog- 
 matics he  argues  against  synergism  and  is  Calvinistic,  argu- 
 ing against  the  Arminians  on  the  subject  of  predestination. 
 He  ascribed  election   only  to  the   free  grace,   good   pleasure 
 
 *The  two  former  make  God's  sovereignty  prominent  and  hold  to  lim- 
 ited atonement — Christ  died  for  the  elect:  the  latter  makes  sovereignty 
 less  prominent  than  rodomption  and  holds  to  universal  atonement. 
 
Early  History  of  Seminary  and  College.  91 
 
 and  purpose  of  God.*  He  is,  however,  quite  low  in  his  state- 
 ments of  predestination,  placing  it  late  and  discussing  it 
 under  the  topic  of  "calling"  rather  than  under  "provi- 
 dence." He  did  not,  therefore,  agree  with  the  infralapsarians 
 in  making  it  a  formative  principle  in  his  theology,  as  did  the 
 Federalists,  but  one  of  the  less  important  doctrines,  although 
 still  a  true  doctrine.  He  also  held  with  the  Sublapsarians  to 
 the  universal  atonement  over  against  the  limited  atonement. 
 In  these  views  he  probably  followed  Stapfer,  although  lie 
 does  not  refer  to  him.  And  as  compared  with  the  other  theo- 
 logical teachers  of  his  day,  Helffenstein  and  Herman,  he  was 
 low-Calvinistic  or  sublapsarian,  while  they  were  high  Calvin- 
 istic.  He  was  not,  however,  in  any  sense  a  theologian  of  the 
 Mercersburg  theology.  That  theology  come  up  later.  It  re- 
 mained for  Dr.  Nevin  to  develop  it  after  Mayer's  time.  Of 
 Nevin's  idea  of  religion  as  a  life  rather  than  a  doctrine,  he 
 knew  nothing.  Salvation  to  him  was  a  gift  rather  than  a  life. 
 Of  Nevin's  high  ideas  of  the  sacraments  and  of  generic  hu- 
 manity of  Christ  he  knew  nothing.  This  is  virtually  granted 
 by  Dr.  T.  G.  Appel,  in  his  address  at  the  Semi-centennial  of 
 the  Theological  Seminary,  where  he  says  Dr.  Mayer's  theology 
 was  theistic  as  compared  with  the  Christological  and  Christo- 
 centric  system  of  Nevin. 
 
 Dr.  Mayer's  life  was  one  of  great  usefulness  to  the  Church. 
 During  the  forty-three  years  of  his  ministry  he  filled  the  most 
 prominent  and  burdensome  of  the  positions  as  pastor,  pro- 
 fessor, editor  and  author. 
 
 Section  6.     Rev.  Prof.  Frederick  Augustus  Rauch,  Ph.D. 
 
 Prof.  Frederick  Augustus  Ranch,  the  second  professor  of 
 theology,  Avas  born  at  Kirchbracht  in  Isenburg-Birstein,t 
 Germany, J  on  Tuesday,  July  23,  1806.  He  was  the  second 
 son  of  Rev.  Henry  Rauch,  formerly  from  AVachenbuehen, 
 in  the  province  of  Ilanau.  His  mother  was  Frederica  Caro- 
 lina  Haderman,   from   Philipseich.      His   father  during   his 
 
 *See  also  his  "Sin  Against  the  Holy  Ghost,"  pages  44-5. 
 fOr,  as  he  once  called  it,  Isenberg-Hesse. 
 
 JTsenberg  was  incorporated  in  1816  into  Hesse-Darrastadt,  although 
 lying  on  the  borders  of  Electoral  Hesse. 
 
92 
 
 History  of  Reformed  Churcii  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 life  was  pastor  at  Kirchbracht  (1805-22),  at  Hitzkirehen 
 (1822-33),  and  Langenselbold  (1833-53),  where  he  died  April 
 12,  1853. 
 
 He  was  baptized  on  Wednesday,  July  30,  1806,  by  his 
 father.  His  baptismal  name  was  Frederick" W.  Justus  Ranch, 
 so  named  after  one  of  his  sponsors,  Frederick  Justus  Wittich. 
 the  head-butler  of  the  noble  Prince  of  Birstein  and  of  the 
 
 The  House  in  Which  Professor  Rauch  Was  Bcrn. 
 
 Princess  Dorothea  Wilhelmina  of  Birstein.  He  later  chauwod 
 his  name  to  Frederick  Augustus  Ranch.  In  the  l)<ii)1ismal 
 record,  written  after  his  name  in  another's  hjuidwi-itiiig.  are 
 the  words  in  Latin,  "he  ])ecame  a  celebrated  man." 
 
 His  mother  died  when  he  was  only  fifteen  days  old  and 
 later  his  father  married  again.  He  early  revealed  the  ten- 
 dencies of  his  nature.  As  a  boy  four  years  old  h(>  would  get 
 on  the  steps  of  the  parsonage  and  preach.  As  he  was  often 
 interrupted  by  his  step-mother  the  father  said,  "Let  him  go, 
 he  will  make  an  excellent  preacher. ' '  *     Frederick  was  cate- 
 
 *The  father  was  a  very  strict  man.  Tie  would  say  to  his  catechumens, 
 "My  name  is  Rauch  (meaning  'smoke')  and  when  I  smoke  I  smoke 
 right. ' '    But  he  was  an  earnest  i)reachpr. 
 
Early  History  op  Seminary  and  College.  93 
 
 chized  by  his  father.  The  catechumens,  usually  sixty  to  eighty 
 in  number,  met  in  the  parsonage  in  a  room  set  apart  for  them. 
 He  was  confirmed  by  his  father  at  Lichenroth,  June  4,  1820,* 
 when    he   was    fourteen   years   ohl,    after   wliich   he   went   to 
 
 The  Church  in  Which  Professor  Rauch  Was  Baptized. 
 
 study  at  the  gymnasium  at  Ilanau.t  U^  entered  the  fourth 
 grade  and  studied  there  for  three  years.  Dr.  Welker,  in  his 
 Eulogy  after  Ranch's  death,  gives  the  fact  that  his  father 
 
 *One  of  tlie  branch  churches  of  tlie  charge  of   which   the  church   at 
 Kirchbracht  was  the  chief. 
 
 f  "^Ticn  he  came  home,  the  people  used  to  say  he  was  ' '  over-studied. ' ' 
 
94  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 thought  him  too  yoimg  to  go  to  the  gjniinasiiim.  although 
 his  eager  thirst  for  knowledge  would  brook  no  delay.  At 
 this  time  he  visited  an  aunt,  to  whom  he  confided  his  diffi- 
 culties .".nd  desire  to  prosecute  his  studies.  She  sympathized 
 with  him  and  furnished  him  Avith  the  means  to  go.  His  father 
 finding  him  credital)ly  attending  to  his  studies,  later  cheer- 
 fully supplied  him  with  the  means.  At  Hanau  he  was  espe- 
 cially impressed  by  the  teaching  of  Prof.  Sduippius,  who 
 taught  him  Nepos,  Ctesar  and  Ovid  and  inspired  him  with  a 
 great  love  of  the  classics. 
 
 From  Hanau  he  went  to  Biidingen  because  "of  necessity" 
 he  says.  We  notice  among  the  teachers  there  a  Haderman. 
 perhaps  a  relative  of  his  mother's,  with  whom  perhaps  he 
 could  live  cheaply.  After  a  year  or  two  he  went  to  the  uni- 
 versity at  Giessen.*  His  father  wanted  him  to  study  for  the 
 ministry  and  take  up  especially  religious  and  theological 
 branches,  but  to  his  father's  regret  he  preferred  linguistic, 
 philosophical  and  historical  studies.  He  remained  at  Giessen 
 for  three  years  (]82'4-27).  Then  he  went  to  Frankford-on-the 
 Main,  where  his  uncle  (his  mother's  brother)  had  opened  a 
 commercial  school,f  and  Ranch  was  to  help  him  because  he 
 was  in  ill-health.  While  at  Frankford,  he  made  application 
 to  the  University  of  IMarburg  to  grant  him  the  degree  of 
 doctor  of  philosophy,  submitting  to  them  a  Latin  dissertation 
 on  "The  Electra  of  Sophocles,"  which  he  imblished  (1827) 
 at  their  recpiest.  It  was  an  able  and  elaborate  discussion  of 
 the  literary  and  j)hil()Iogica.l  characteristics  of  that  Greek 
 work.  He  was  finally  granted  his  degree  while  still  teaching 
 in  the  Haderman  Institute  at  Frankford.  On  December  17, 
 1727,  he  matriculated  at  the  University  of  Heidelberg  as  a 
 student  of  philosophy.  Prof.  Daub  was  the  great  attraction 
 there,  but  as  vacillating  in  judgment  as  he  was  brilliant  in 
 
 *These  main  facts  of  his  early  life  and  studies  we  have  gleaned  from 
 a  Latin  autobiography  which  he  submitted  to  the  University  of  Mar- 
 burg on  his  application  for  his  degree. 
 
 f Haderman 's  Erziohungs-anstalt  was  opened  March,  1S02,  and  con- 
 tinued in  existence  till  September,  1832,  says  Dr.  Ebrard,  the  director  of 
 the  City  Library  at  Frankford. 
 
Early  History  of  Seminary  and  College.  95 
 
 mind,  swinging  the  circle  philosophically.  He  was  first  a 
 Kantian,  then  a  follower  of  Schelling  and  finally  a  Hege- 
 lian, and  for  this  changeableness  he  has  been  called  "the 
 Tallyrand  of  modern  philosophy. ' '  When  Ranch  came  nnder 
 him  it  was  during  the  Hegelian  period  of  his  life.  Like  Hegel, 
 Daub  resolved  everything  down  to  ideas.  Thus  he  made 
 Judas  Iscariot  the  incarnation  of  evil  just  as  Jesus  was  the 
 incarnation  of  God.  While  Strauss  carried  these  Hegelian 
 ideas  out  into  rationalism.  Daub  still  tried  to  keep  near  the 
 borders  of  orthodoxy,  although  very  speculative.  Ranch  al- 
 ways spoke  of  Daub  with  great  veneration.  Indeed  he  was 
 one  of  Daub's  favorite  pupils.  "He  was  favored,"  says 
 Welker,  "with  private  intercourse  with  Daub,  and  the  con- 
 versations during  their  private  walks  formed  epochs  in  his 
 life  to  which  he  often  loved  to  refer.  At  such  times  the 
 great  truths  of  ethics  were  investigated  in  their  origin  and 
 consequences."  Daub  gave  a  great  intellectual  stimulus  to 
 Raueh,  as  had  Schuppius  at  Hanau  and  Schmidhenner  at 
 Giessen. 
 
 A  year  later,  November  29,  1828,  he  again  matricu- 
 lated at  Giessen  University.  In  1829  he  was  noted  in  its 
 catalogue  as  the  youngest  private  docent  or  teacher.  He 
 made  a  request,  March  31,  1830,  to  be  allowed  to  give  thirty 
 lectures  during  the  summer  semester  on  logic,  dialectics  and 
 psychology  according  to  Hegel.  There  was  considerable  ne- 
 gotiation between  him  and  the  faculty  about  the  recognition 
 of  his  doctor's  degree,  which  had  been  gained  at  another 
 university  (Marburg),  but  finally  the  Bureau  of  Justice  of 
 Hesse-Darmstadt  granted  it  on  April  18.  In  that  year  he 
 also  published  at  Marburg  an  elaborate  pamphlet,  "The 
 Identity  of  the  Hindu,  Persian,  Pelasgic,  German  and  Slavic 
 Nations  as  Sho^^^l  by  their  Languages  and  Customs."  It  was 
 dedicated  to  Daub  and  to  Schmidhenner,  his  professor  of  his- 
 tory at  Giessen,  the  preface  being  dated  April  15,  1830.  It 
 is  an  elaborate  disciLssion,  revealing  great  linguistic  ability 
 and  considerable  research.  In  the  preface  he  pays  a  special 
 tribute  to  Prof.  Schmidhenner.  He  evidently  intended  pub- 
 lishing another  volume,  probably  giving  a  comparison  of  the 
 
96  History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 customs  of  these  nations  as  this  is  taken  up  onl}^  with  the  lan- 
 guages. 
 
 In  1830  he  published  at  Biidingen  his  Lectures  on  "Goethe's 
 Faust,"  part  of  which  he  had  given  as  lectures  at  Giessen 
 to  a  considerable  body  of  students  and  as  he  had  been  pre- 
 vented by  "external  circumstances"  from  delivering  the 
 later  lectures,  he  published  them.  Welker  says  that  Gjtpthe 
 in  his  conversation  with  Eckerman.  pronoimced  it  to  be  the 
 best  of  the  numerous  work's  that  had  been  written  on  his 
 Faust.  It  reveals  fine  literary  criticism.  He  aimed,  how- 
 ever, to  show  the  theological  meaning  of  the  work  as  well  as 
 its  literary  character.  But  it  reveals  his  theological  stand- 
 point as  Hegelian  and  very  speculative.  He  evidently  was 
 inclining  to  be.  like  Daub,  quite  lax  in  his  views.  There  is  a 
 tradition  that  when  he  would  preach  for  his  father  (as  he 
 did  occasionally)  he  revealed  his  tendencies  toward  rational- 
 ism. He  Avas  at  this  time  a  teacher  rather  than  a  preacher. 
 There  is  a  tradition  that  he  was  invited  to  a  position  in  the 
 University  of  H(Mdel])erg,  but  we  have  been  alile  to  find  no 
 record  of  it.    He  remained  at  Giessen  until  the  Fall  of  1881. 
 
 Of  the  other  works  mentioned  by  Harbaugh  as  having  been 
 published  while  Ranch  was  yet  in  Germany,  as  the  ResurriH'- 
 tion  (in  Latin),  Auricular  Confession.  Separation  from  the 
 Church,  a  treatise  on  Apostasy,  we  have  not  been  able  to  find 
 them  or  even  a  notice  of  their  publication.  He.  however, 
 l)ublished  a  small  work  which  appeared  after  he  left  Ger- 
 many, 1832,  entitled  "The  Glorification  of  the  Universe,  or 
 The  Destiny  of  Men."* 
 
 The  cause  of  his  sudden  departure  from  Giessen  was  the 
 fact  that  he  expressed  himself  too  freely  on  the  subject  of 
 civil  government.  After  the  Napoleonic  wars  a  spirit  of  free- 
 dom was  awakened  in  Germany.  The  assassination  of  Kotza- 
 bue  by  Sand  in  1819  aroused  the  suspicions  of  the  German 
 rulers  and  they  began  a  policy  of  repression  and  espionage. 
 As  this  movement  was  prominent  among  the  students,  many 
 
 *A  copy  of  this  work  was  sold  at  Iloidelbprg  in  1910,  but  wc  have 
 never  been  able  to  see  a  copy  of  it,  as  the  university  libraries  do  not 
 have  it. 
 
Early  History  of  Seminary  and  College.  97 
 
 professors  and  students  were  compelled  to  flee  from  the 
 country.  Thus  De  Wette  lost  his  professorship  and  went  to 
 Switzerland.  The  Bursehenschaft  arose  out  of  the  French 
 wars  and  was  founded  by  "Welcker.  A  society  was  founded  at 
 Giessen  in  1814  and  Carl  Follen  became  a  leader.  Suspected 
 of  revolutionary  tendencies  by  the  university,  this  society  was 
 outlawed  and  he  came  to  America.*  But  in  1826  a  new  Ger- 
 man Burschenschaft  was  organized.  "This  Burschen  element 
 was  prominent  at  Giessen,"  says  Prof.  Schiedt.f  "Its  great- 
 est enemy.  Baron  Franz  Joseph  von  Ahrens,  was  appointed 
 chancellor.  He  imprisoned  Pastor  Weidig  and  other  patriots. 
 Ranch  publicly  declared  himself  in  their  favor  and  was  threat- 
 ened with  arrest.  As  this  might  mean  life-imprisonment  or 
 even  death,  he  fled. ' '  He  went  first  to  his  father,  then  pastor 
 at  Hitzkirchen,  but  could  spend  only  a  couple  of  hours  at 
 midnight  secretly  with  him.  His  father,  then  in  an  agony  of 
 sorrow  at  his  departure,  upbraided  him,  saying  "O,  Fritz." 
 Frederick  then  took  a  solemn  vow  that  when  he  would  reach 
 America  he  would  be  a  different  man.  His  previous  manner 
 of  life  seems  not  to  have  been  quite  pleasing  to  his  father, 
 as  we  have  seen,  not  because  there  was  any  immorality  but 
 perhaps  because  he  was  inclined  to  literary  and  philosophical 
 studies  rather  than  theological,  perhaps  because  he  was  too 
 impulsive  or  inclined  too  much  toward  liberal  theological 
 views.  "Whatever  the  reason,  he  kept  his  promise  on  arriving 
 in  America.    He  became  a  new  man,  as  we  shall  see. 
 
 This,  however,  does  not  seem  to  have  been  the  only  reason, 
 according  to  our  recent  researches,  of  his  departure.  There 
 had  evidently  been  a  controversy  for  some  time  against  him 
 in  the  faculty  of  the  University  of  Giessen.  When  attending 
 the  lectures  in  philosophy  (or  philology)  in  the  winter  of 
 1828-9,  Prof.  Osann,  because  of  some  absences  from  lectures, 
 which  Ranch  claimed  were  unavoidable,  forbade  his  further 
 attendance.  And  Prof.  Osann  afterwards  in  his  lectures 
 referred  to  him  publicly  as  "a  poor  subject,"  and  in  speaking 
 of  him,  refused  to  give  him  his  title  of  "Doctor,"  and  called 
 
 *See  "Karl  Follen  iind  die  Giessener  Schwarzen"  by  Haupt,  1907. 
 fReformed  Eeview,  3906,  page  438. 
 
98  History  of  Reformed  CnuRcn  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 him  only  "Mister."  This,  in  Germany,  was  usuallj'-  consid- 
 ered a  gross  insult.  Ranch,  therefore,  complained  against 
 this  to  the  state  authorities,  who  had  charge  of  the  education 
 of  the  duchy  and  under  whom  the  university  was  placed,  that 
 such  language  was  abusive  and  that  he  rightly  was  entitled 
 to  the  title  of  Doctor  because  he  had  received  the  degree  from 
 the  University  of  Marburg.  This  controversy  with  Prof. 
 Osann  lingered  on  from  1829  until  after  his  coming  to 
 America,  and  must  have  made  him  very  uncomfortable.* 
 
 He  arrived  at  New  York  after  a  voyage  of  forty-nine  days, 
 for  on  November  14,  1831,  he  wtote  a  letter  home,  telling  of 
 his  safe  arrival.  He  went  to  Easton,  where  he  learned  the 
 English  language,  also  giving  lessons  in  music  and  teaching 
 German  in  Lafayette  College.  There  he  became  acquainted 
 with  Rev.  Thomas  Pomp,  the  pastor  of  the  German  Reformed 
 church.  He  was  present  at  East  Pennsylvania  classis  in  the 
 spring  of  1832,  and  asked  the  classis  to  support  him  in  the 
 publication  of  a  work  on  the  trinity.  Classis  agreed  to 
 support  him  and  gave  him  a  special  recommendation.  In 
 June,  1832,  he  went  to  York,  highly  recommended  by  Presi- 
 dent Junkin  of  Lafayette  College,  Rev.  Dr.  Gray,  the 
 Presbyterian  minister  of  Easton,  and  the  Rev.  Messrs. 
 Pomp,  Becker,  Hoffeditz  and  Gerhart,  of  our  church,  as  a 
 person  fitted  to  be  the  principal  of  our  newly-founded  Clas- 
 sical School  there.  His  election  to  it  met  with  general  ap- 
 proval. Susquehanna  and  IMaryland  Classes  in  1833  both  ap- 
 proved of  his  election  as  principal  of  the  Classical  Academy. 
 He  soon  revealed  his  remarkable  linguistic  talents  and  in 
 1832  the  synod  elected  him  professor  of  sacred  languages 
 in  the  theological  seminary  at  a  salary  of  $600.t     He  was 
 
 *Not  infrequently  a  professor  in  Germany  is  forced  out  of  a  university 
 faculty  by  the  continued  opposition  of  one  or  more  of  the  other  pro- 
 fessors. Cuno  Fisher,  the  eminent  professor  of  philoso])hy  at  Heidel- 
 berg, was  thus  forced  out  of  that  faculty  many  years  a<^o,  tliough  he 
 returned  after  the  death  of  his  enemies. 
 
 fThe  synod  ran  a  great  risk  in  electing  an  almost  unknown  young 
 man  (so  soon  after  his  arrival  in  America)  to  such  a  responsible  a  posi- 
 tion as  professor  of  theology.  If  Eauch  had  continued  holding,  the 
 speculative  views  he  had,  under  the  influence  of  Daub,  held  in  dermany, 
 our  church  would  soon  have  had  trouble  with  him.     But  fortunately  he 
 
Early  History  op  Seminary  and  College.  91) 
 
 ordained  to  the  ministry  October  17,  1832,  when  the  sermon 
 was  preached  by  Rev.  A.  Helffenstein  and  the  charge  deliv- 
 ered by  Prof.  Mayer,  Dr.  Zacharias  presiding.  The  next  day 
 he  was  inaugurated  as  professor  in  the  theological  seminary, 
 when  he  delivered  an  address  on  ''The  Object  of  Theological 
 Study."  It  was  a  fair  production,  stating  the  Evangelical 
 standpoint  but  not  revealing  his  peculiar  ability.  His  ap- 
 pointment gave  great  satisfaction  to  the  German  part  of  the 
 Church,  as  many  of  them  had  all  along  felt  that  the  semi- 
 nary was  too  nuich  under  English  influences.  The  election 
 of  Ranch  disarmed  nuicli  of  the  opposition  of  the  Free 
 synod  to  the  seminary  and  was  one  of  the  causes  that  pre- 
 pared the  way  for  the  return  of  that  synod  to  the  old 
 church.  Dr.  Ranch's  tine  pedagogical  talent  soon  brought 
 the  school  into  great  prosperity.  In  the  Spring  of  1833  he 
 was  called  to  the  presidency  of  Pennsylvania  College,  the 
 Lutheran  institution  at  Gettysburg,  but  at  the  urgent  request 
 of  his  Reformed  brethren  he  declined.  His  salary  was  raised 
 to  $800. 
 
 In  1834  he  prepared  a  work,  "History  of  Neology  in  Ger- 
 many," a  defense  against  the  rationalists.  A  prospectus  of 
 this  work  appeared  in  the  Messenger,  stating  it  was  to  be 
 translated  by  Rev.  Herman  Bokum,  professor  of  German 
 literature  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.*  This  work 
 was,  we  understand,  never  published  because  not  sufficiently 
 supported  by  subscriptions. 
 
 In  1835  he  went  with-  the  Classical  School  to  Mercersburg 
 and  soon  after  was  elected  the  first  president  of  Marshall 
 College  (1836)  at  a  salary  of  $1,000.    He,  therefore,  refused 
 
 became  a  changed  man,  as  he  had  told  his  father,  and  through  the  influ- 
 ence of  Rev.  Mr.  Rice  Avas  thoroughly  converted  to  Christ,  so  that  to 
 intellectual  ability  he  added  genuine  heart-experience  of  salvation.  This 
 the  author  was  told  by  Mrs.  Young,  a  near  relative  of  Dr.  Ranch's,  and 
 corroborated  by  Rev.  Dr.  McCauley,  of  Reading,  her  pastor. 
 
 *It  was  to  be  a  careful,  comprehensive  survey  of  the  rationalism  of 
 Germany  and  a  reply  to  its  pretensions.     In  it  he  would  discuss: 
 
 1.  Rationalism  in  its  idealistic  and  poetico-mystical  schools. 
 
 2.  Rationalism  in  theology,  especially  in  dogmatics  and  ethics. 
 
 He  aimed  to  give  a  fair  view  of  Kant,  Jacoby,  Schelling,  Fichte  and 
 others  in  relation  to  the  great  doctrines  of  religion. 
 
100        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  XL  S. 
 
 a  pressing  call  to  be  professor  in  AVestern  Reserve  College,  0., 
 and  also  a  call  from  West  Pennsylvania  Classis. 
 
 In  1837  he  published  in  the  "Biblical  Repository"  a  re- 
 markable article  on  "The  Ecclesiastical  Historiography  of 
 Germany.* 
 
 In  it  be  discusses  its  deinaiiils,  tlu>  |in>i>i'r  uses  of  its  snurcos,  the 
 character  of  the  historian  and  his  styh-  and  juruiiirenuMit.  lie  then 
 passes  on  to  review  the  different  classes  of  Church  historians,  tlie 
 orthodox  school  as  Seckendorf,  the  more  impartial  as  Mosheim,  tlie 
 heterodox  as  Henke  and  Planck,  the  transitional  as  Giesclcr,  the  evan- 
 gelical as  Milner,  Neander  ajid  Guericke.  He  gave  a  splendid  summary 
 of  the  effect  of  Kant's  philosophy  and  especially  of  Jacoby,  over  against 
 Kant's  emphasis  on  morals.  Neander  united  the  spirit  of  Pietism  with 
 the  views  of  Jacoby  who  based  everything  on  man's  innate  consciousness 
 of  God  which  he  calls  faith.  It  was  a  masterly,  comprehensive  view^  of 
 German  Church  History  and  of  the  philosophy  that  was  underlying  it. 
 He  holds  to  the  historical  doctrine  of  tlie  church  as  an  organism  like 
 Neander.f 
 
 In  1840  he  published  his  Psycliolugy,  which  introduced  the 
 German  type  of  philosophy  to  American  readers.  When 
 Dr.  Nevin  became  his  colleague,  he  was  greatly  relieved 
 of  the  excess  of  his  college  and  seminary  duties.  But  his 
 health  began  to  fail  early  in  IH-tO  and  for  a  year  he  was 
 not  well.  He  spent  the  summer  of  that  year  in  traveling. 
 — visited  Saratoga  in  the  hope  of  regaining  his  health.  Dur- 
 ing the  latter  part  of  the  Winter  of  1841,  a  calai-i-lial  fever 
 becaiiu;  epidemic  in  IMercersburg.  It  seizcnl  his  already  weak- 
 ened frame  and  carried  him  off  on  AFareh  2,  1S41.  at  the  early 
 age  of  34.  AVelker  says,  "In  the  last  conversation  I  had  with 
 him  on  the  prospect  of  death,  he  told  me  that  if  it  were  the 
 Master's  will  he  had  no  desire  to  remain  ami  tliat  he  was 
 willing  to  leave  behind  the  world  and  his  conlcmplated  labors 
 for  its  benefit."    He  was  buried  on  a  l)aliiiy  fourlli  of  .\b-ii'eli. 
 
 *This  work  has  recently  been  repriuicd  in  the  Reformed  Church  Re- 
 view, 1905,  page  380. 
 
 fit  is  very  remarkable  that  Rauch,  who  had  given  most  of  his  studies 
 in  Germany  to  philology  and  philosoi)hy  was  able  to  write  so  comi>re- 
 hensively  on  a  theological  subject.  With  his  usual  clearness  of  thought 
 he  gives  a  masterly  bird's-eye-view  of  the  history  of  Church  History 
 just  before  his  time. 
 
Rev.  Prof.  FREnERiCK  Augustus  Rauch. 
 
 The  onlv  true  i)ictiiri'.    The  original  being  kindly  loaned  by 
 Mrs.  Frof.  J.  H.  Dubbs.     (See  page  loi  note.) 
 
Early  History  op  Seminary  and  College.  101 
 
 the  same  day  tliat  President  Harrison  was  inaugurated.  His 
 remains  were  afterwards  removed  (1859)  to  Lancaster*  As 
 a  teacher,  Dr.  Rauch  excelled.    Welker  says: 
 
 "For  a  period  of  five  years  I  have  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  his  instruc- 
 tions and  advice.  His  felicitous  faculty  in  communicating  knowledge  is 
 spoken  of  in  highest  terms  by  all  'nho  enjoyed  his  instructions.  The  most 
 dry  and  abstruse  subjects  of  study  would  assume  life  and  agreeableness 
 under  his  explanations.  It  did  him  good  to  see  an  inquisitive  mind  and  he 
 took  pleasure  in  urging  such  a  youth  onward.  I  have  heard  him  unravel  a 
 tissue  of  contradictions  and  seeming  absurdities  by  a  simple  and  com- 
 prehensive course  of  reasoning,  that  when  he  was  done  my  every  diffi- 
 culty had  vanished  as  if  by  magic :  and  I  Avas  left  to  wonder  when  in- 
 troduced into  this  flood  of  light  and  reason  how  it  was  possible  I  did 
 not  see  it  before,  now  it  appeared  all  so  simple  and  natural. ' ' 
 
 Dubbs  tells  a  story  of  Eauch  that  he  did  not  like  text-books,  and 
 once  threw  the  book  across  the  room,  exclaiming :  "I  don 't  want  that ; 
 I  can  teach  you  all  that  is  in  Aristotle  without  a  book. ' '  The  truth  was 
 that  his  mind  was  so  full  that  it  went  out  beyond  the  book.  He  had  the 
 wonderful  power  not  merely  of  imparting  but  of  inspiring  thought  in  the 
 student.  He  would  say,  says  Kieffcr  in  his  Eeminiscenees,  ' '  Now,  young 
 gentlemen,  think."     He  aimed  to  make  them  thinkers  for  themselves. 
 
 As  a  preacher,  he  was  not  so  great  as  a  teacher.  The  desk 
 was  his  throne,  not  the  pulpit.  Especially  in  preaching  Eng- 
 lish was  he  diffident,  for  he  never  mastered  our  language  with 
 the  fluency  of  liis  successor.  Dr.  Schaff.  Yet  his  volume  of 
 sermons  published  posthumously  by  Gerhart  reveals  a  very 
 sweet  religious  spirit.    "Welker  says : 
 
 ' '  The  great  distinctive  features  of  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  were 
 themes  he  loved  to  dwell  upon.  It  created  a  pleasure  that  warmed  up 
 the  heart  to  listen  to  him  when  conversing  or  discoursing  on  the  love 
 of  God.  He  never  grew  weary  in  telling  of  the  love  of  heaven.  Then 
 it  was  that  a  celestial  flame  seemed  to  burn  in  his  bosom  for  he  became 
 truly  eloquent. ' ' 
 
 As  a  writer,  his  special  field  before  he  came  to  this  country 
 had  been  in  the  line  of  philology  and  philosophy.  In  this 
 country  he  issued  but  one  great  published  work,  his  Psy- 
 
 *A  painting  of  him  when  dead  was  made  by  an  artist  of  Mercersburg, 
 Jonathan  Good  (an  uncle  of  the  author),  which  is  in  the  library  of 
 Franklin  and  Marshall  College.  It  gives  a  much  better  idea  of  Dr. 
 Rauch 's  appearance  than  the  portrait  commonly  shown,  which  is  said  to 
 look  very  little  like  him. 
 
102         IIiPTORY  OF  Reformed  CrirRcn  tx  the  TT.  S. 
 
 cliolog3'.  His  iiitt'iitiou  was  to  have  followed  it  with  a  woi-k 
 on  Ethics  and  another  on  Aesthetics.  The  peculiarities  of  his 
 Psychology  w^  ere : 
 
 1.  His  emphasis  on  Anthropology^  looking  at  it  from  the  standpoint 
 of  the  physical — a  sort  of  forerunner  of  the  later  theory  of  evolution.  Tn 
 Uiie  Eauch  followed  the  i^hilosophieal  anthropology  of  Daub.  Scotch 
 philosophy  criticized  this  peculiarity  of  German  philosophy. 
 
 2.  His  emphasis  on  idealism  as  over  against  Scotch  realism  in  phil- 
 osophy. 
 
 3.  His  popular  presentation  of  the  most  profound  subjects.  Such  a 
 gift  of  popular  style  belonged  only  to  a  master,  to  one  who  had  thor- 
 oughly grasped  his  subject. 
 
 Prof.  Murdock,  of  New  Haven,  in  his  work,  "Sketches  of 
 Blodern  Philosophy  Especially  Among  the  Germans,"  devotes 
 a  whole  chapter  to  Ranch's  work,  and  charges  him  with  pan- 
 theism and  transcendentalism,  because  he  never  alludes  to  a 
 special  revelation,  man's  apostasy,  a  Saviour's  forgiveness, 
 atonement,  judgment  and  eternal  punishment.  He  says  that 
 "he  is  a  transcendentalist  and  pantheist  of  the  school  of  Hegel.  He 
 utterly  denies  the  freedom  of  the  will  in  the  natural  man  and  gives  to 
 the  divine  will  absolute  control  over  the  human  in  regeneration"  (see 
 pages  155,  292,  309).  "Religion  is  not  a  mere  quality  but  the  sub- 
 stance of  man.  He  ceases  to  be  a  man  in  the  full  sense  of  the  term 
 when  he  has  no  religion  (page  4,  preface).  Regeneration  is  a  change  in 
 man's  substance  or  nature.  It  is  by  the  power  of  God,  yet  allowing  no 
 room  for  pardon  of  sin  through  an  atonement  and  no  work  for  a  medi- 
 ator between  God  and  man.  In  short,  like  other  transcendentalists  he 
 makes  religion  an  operation  of  God,  carrying  out  and  perfecting  the 
 creation  of  a  rational  soul  (199-201)."  A  minister  of  the  Presbyterian 
 Church  in  1855,  who  published  a  series  of  articles  in  the  CJiristian 
 Observer  on  German  Theology  in  America,  quotes  these  remarks  of  IMur- 
 doek  as  conclusive  testimony  in  favor  of  Rauch's  pantheism. 
 
 Dr.  Nevin  declared  that  Ranch  w^as  not  a  pantheist  when  ho 
 wrote  his  Psychology.  Whatever  Ik^  may  have  been  in  the 
 fatherland,  his  sermons  are  against  this.  Schncck  refers  to  his 
 "Inner  Life"  (page  152),  "Christ  died  that  he  might  recon- 
 cile the  world  to  God.  And  the  Father  makes  use  of  their  (the 
 Jews')  arms  to  slay  him  whose  pure  and  innocent  blood  was  to 
 be  the  ransom  of  our  sins."  Such  is  not  the  language  of  a 
 pantheist.  Welkersays:  "  His  views  on  the  great  doctrines  of 
 the   Bible — the  sovereignty   of   divine   grace — the  justifying 
 
Early  History  op  Seminary  and  College.  103 
 
 merits  of  the  Redeemer 's  blood — the  eternal  sonship  and  deity 
 of  Christ  were  orthodox  as  held  by  the  Reformed  Church  in 
 all  ages." 
 
 This  tendency  to  pantheism,  Dr.  Nevin  denies  in  his  Re- 
 view of  Ranch's  book  in  the  Messenger. 
 
 "Thevc-  is  no  pantheism  in  it  as  lie  holds  to  a  personal  God,  although 
 some  expressions  have  strayed  into  it  from  the  pantheistic  camp.  But 
 some  of  h"'3  subjects,  as  the  influence  of  plastic  power,  instinct,  sleep, 
 dreaming,  etc.,  are  as  yet  unproved  and,  therefore,  avoided  by  the 
 British  philosophers.  He  questions  his  proofs  of  prophetic  dreams  and 
 animal  magnetism.'' 
 
 This  criticism  about  the  book  is  probably  correct.  Dr. 
 Ranch  was  not  a  pantheist.  But  he  inherited  from  Germany 
 some  pantheistic  forms  of  expression  which  he  uses  in  his 
 work  and  which  appear  as  pantheizing  (see  page  171).  The 
 truth  is  that  Ranch  never  fully  got  over  the  Hegelianism  in 
 which  he  had  been  trained  as  a  young  man.  Nevin  grants 
 this  by  saying  that  Ranch  believed  that  in  spite  of  bad  use 
 made  of  it,  Hegelianism  had  wrought  a  real  reform  in  the 
 world  of  mind.  Perhaps  Ranch  w^ould  better  be  classified  as 
 an  idealist  of  the  German  type  and  reveals  its  advantages 
 but  also  its  dangers,  one  of  which  was  its  minimizing  of  the 
 necessity  of  second  causes  in  nature  or  of  media  in  redemp- 
 tion. The  half-century  that  has  elapsed  since  he  lived,  has 
 sho\vn  that  the  dangers  of  idealism  referred  to  by  Murdock 
 are  real.  Ranch,  not  foreseeing  these,  did  not  guard  his 
 statements  as  he  should  have  done. 
 
 Ranch's  Psychology  found  considerable  favor  in  the  United 
 States.  Its  sale  was  so  great  that  the  next  year  a  new  edition 
 was  necessary.  "Before  it,"  says  Buettner,  the  best  of  the 
 early  historians  of  our  Church,  'Hhey  used  in  the  American 
 schools  only  a  History  of  English  and  Scotch  Philosophy 
 by  Dugald  Stewart,  or  an  eclectic  book  after  Cousin."  It 
 was  introduced  into  three  of  our  colleges,  into  the  University 
 of  Vermont  and  Dartmouth  College,  as  well  as  into  Marshall 
 College.  The  work,  however,  when  viewed  from  the  stand- 
 point of  tlie  present  time,  seems  rather  superficial  because 
 of  the  immense  progress  made  since  then  in  observation  and 
 
104        History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 induction  especiall.y  in  pliysioo-psyehological  phenomena.  It 
 had  been  described  as  an  attempt  at  psychology  rather  than 
 a  finished  work — a  popular  statement  of  it.  Its  popular 
 style  atones  for  some  of  its  faults,  for  some  of  the  positions 
 and  illustrations  would  not  pass  muster  to-day. 
 
 In  Ranch's  own  judgment,  his  most  important  work  was  to 
 have  been  his  Ethics.  But,  alas,  he  was  taken  sick  with  his  last 
 illness  just  as  he  was  about  to  prepare  it.  His  Ethics  were 
 based  on  Daub,  says  Appel,  and  was  divided,  as  are  most  works 
 on  ethics,  into  general  and  special. 
 
 "Ranch,"  says  Welker,  "made  the  will  of  God  the  eternal  source  and 
 spirit  of  all  morality  and  firmly  built  his  beautiful  and  well-proportioned 
 superstructure  of  ethical  science  in  strict  conformity  with  the  divine 
 precepts  as  revealed  in  the  inspired  volume.  He  discarded  the  theories 
 that  made  happiness,  usefulness  or  any  of  the  varied  forms  of  selfishness 
 to  be  the  basis  of  moral  obligation,  as  low  and  derogatory  to  the  majesty 
 of  God.  His  system  was  eminently  calculated  to  exalt  God — to  make 
 him  the  centre  of  all  that  is  holy  and  good  and  an  object  worthy  the 
 love,  reverence  and  obedience  of  man.  Love  to  God  he  insisted  on  as 
 necessarily  the  constraining  motive  to  duty  in  the  strictly  moral  man. 
 The  man  only  who  is  purely  moral  is  free  and  this  liberty  of  man  consists 
 in  the  harmony  of  the  human  with  the  divine  will.  The  acuteness  of 
 Kant, — the  transparency  of  Schliermacher  and  the  vast  speculations  of 
 the  capacious  mind  of  Hegel  were  laid  under  contribution  by  him.  He 
 combined  the  richness  and  profundity  of  German  thought  with  the  per- 
 spicuity and  intelligibility  of  the  English." 
 
 In  Aesthetics  he,  too,  was  a  master. 
 
 "Art,"  says  Appel,  in  describing  his  views,  "involves  the  inward 
 union  of  thought  and  form,  of  ideal  and  real,  of  visible  and  invisible, 
 of  finite  and  infinite — a  unity  in  diversity.  Welker  says  his  ideal  of 
 beauty  was  that  it  was  thought  realized.  In  the  sphere  of  beauty  as 
 presented  in  the  fine  arts,  he  viewed  the  human  mind  as  realizing  its 
 thoughts  in  forms  that  presented  the  highest  idea  of  the  compass  and 
 power  of  the  intellect  of  man.  In  nature  all  that  was  sublime  was  the 
 handiwork  of  the  divine  thought  realized.  These  fundamental  ideas  he 
 applied  to  the  various  fine  arts,  but  especially  to  poetry  as  the  most 
 expressive  and  universal  of  the  arts.  He  described  its  various  forms 
 as  national,  didactic,  descriptive,  lyric,  epic  and  dramatic  and  went  into 
 the  analysis  of  the  great  poems  of  different  languages  as  the  Cid  of 
 Spain,  the  Niebelungen  Lied  of  Germany  and  the  works  of  Goethe, 
 Schiller,  Homer  and  Shakespeare. ' ' 
 
Early  History  of  Seminary  and  College.  105 
 
 Dr.  Raueh's  theological  position  may  be  stated  as  simply 
 Evangelical.  His  former  rationalism  he  had  left  behind  in 
 Germany,  and  now  he  looked  on  infidelity  as  shallow.  He  was 
 ready  to  admit  in  his  later  years  that  his  views  in  Germany 
 had  not  been  the  most  Evangelical,  but  they  had  become 
 changed  by  his  contact  with  the  practical  religious  life  of 
 America,  especially  by  his  intercourse  with  our  heavenly- 
 minded  pastor  at  Chambersburg,  Rice.  In  Germany,  he  had 
 been  brought  up  on  the  formal  idea  of  Church  and  religion, 
 due  largely  to  the  union  of  church  and  state.  This  had 
 passed  away  as  religion  became  a  living  experience  to  him  in 
 America.  His  sermons  on  the  Inner  Life,  published  fifteen 
 years  after  his  death  by  his  pupil,  E.  V.  Gerhart,  reveal  an 
 Evangelical  position.  The  first  one  reveals  the  struggle  he  had 
 had  with  doubt.  A  New  England  paper  criticized  them  be- 
 cause there  was  less  in  them  about  the  atonement  than  is 
 usual  in  a  course  of  sermons.  Still  that  may  have  been  due 
 to  his  subjects  rather  than  to  the  doctrine. 
 
 But  while  he  may  be  rated  as  an  Evangelical,  he  did  not 
 occupy  the  old  Reformed  position  of  Calvinism.  He  had  been 
 brought  up  in  Germany  after  the  union  of  the  Lutheran  and 
 Reformed  churches  in  1817,  and  had  been  affected  by  the  me- 
 diating spirit  prevailing.  Thus,  although  he  was  by  birth 
 Reformed,  yet  he  studied  at  a  Lutheran  university  (Giessen). 
 Daub's  influence,  too,  was  away  from  all  confessionalism  and 
 toward  speculation.  Rauch  showed  this  tendency  to  union 
 by  suggesting  that  our  Reformed  Church  in  America  should 
 declare  its  adherence  to  the  United  Church  (Lutheran  and 
 Reformed)  of  Prussia  by  turning  over  the  western  fields  in 
 this  countr}^  to  the  IMissionary  Society  of  that  denomination.* 
 For  this  non-confessional  attitude,  Rauch  brought  down  on 
 himself  the  criticism  of  those  who  were  ardently  attached  to 
 our  Reformed  Church.     Ilis  tendencj^  toward  unionism  was 
 
 *He  would  have  led  our  chureh  into  the  mistake  made  by  the  Congre- 
 gationalists  about  a  century  ago,  when  they  turned  over  New  York  and 
 Pennsylvania  to. the  Presbyterians  and  lost  immensely  by  it;  for  their 
 adherents  moving  into  those  states  became  Presbyterian,  while  the  few 
 Presbyterians  removing  into  New  England  and  becoming  Congregational- 
 ists  was  not  sufficient  to  balance  the  loss. 
 
 J 
 
ion        History  of  Reformed  Ctturctt  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 corrected  at  the  83-001!  of  1836,  which  took  guarded  action 
 against  the  formation  of  such  union  congregations. 
 
 It  has  been  said  that  he  started  the  Mercersburg  theology.  M. 
 Kieffer  in  his  Reminiscences,*  says  "his  (Rauch's)  notes  on  the 
 mystery  of  the  trinity  and  incarnation  contain  generally  all  that 
 has  subsequently  been  developed  by  the  thinking  of  the  Mer- 
 cersburg School  in  the  department  of  dogmatics.  He  was 
 the  Schleiermacher  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  America. ' '  But 
 this  statement  of  Dr.  Moses  Kieffer 's  is  not  true  to  the  facts. 
 It  is  to  be  remembered  that  Mercersburg  theology  had  not 
 yet  arisen  in  his  day.  He  nowhere  shows  the  high  views  of 
 the  sacraments  and  their  objective  efficacy  which  Nevin  de- 
 veloped. His  philosophical  position  may  have  prepared  the 
 way  for  Mercersburg  by  his  emphasis  on  organism  and  by  his 
 realism,  which  Nevin  afterward  incorporated  into  his  the- 
 ology. But  where  Nevinism  emphasized  even  in  a  crass 
 form  the  objective,  Rauch  gave  prominence  to  both  sub- 
 jective and  objective;  indeed,  his  emphasis  in  his  religious 
 works  was  rather  on  the  subjective,  which  is  quite  different 
 from  Nevin  and  Nevinism.  But  theologically  he  was  not  in 
 accord  with  Mercersburg  views.  His  love  for  the  plain  Re- 
 formed worship  of  Germany  was  contrary  to  their  ritualistic 
 tendencies  and  his  simple  preaching  was  in  contrast  with  the 
 exaggerated  emphasis  placed  on  philosophy  by  their  ser- 
 mons. He  belongs  with  Mayer  to  the  earlier  type  of  Re- 
 formed. Wolff  in  his  paper  at  the  Tercentenary  Festival 
 (1863)  on  the  History  of  the  Seminary,  hints  at  Rauch  being 
 the  bridge  to  the  later  views  of  theology  of  the  Mercersburg 
 and  adds  that  he  was  opposed  to  the  revivalism  of  his  day 
 and  to  the  Mayer  liturg3^  This  does  not  harmonize  with 
 what  Welker  says : 
 
 "Rauch  took  special  delight  in  the  socLal  prayer-meeting  which  was 
 held  by  the  students  as  long  as  his  health  and  pressing  duties  permitted. 
 Tie  never  felt  so  happy  as  when  standing  in  their  midst,  speaking  of  re- 
 deeming love.  He  acknowledged  the  gracious  revival  that  God  sent  to 
 his  soul  when  he  took  to  heaven  that  dear  friend  of  his,  the  beloved 
 Rice."     And  E.  M.  R.  says   {Reformed  Church  Monthly),  "We  never 
 
 *  Christian  World,  Aug.  4,  1870. 
 
Early  Histokv  o.'  Skminauy  and  College.  107 
 
 heard  a  taunt  from  Rauch's  lips  that  revived  popish  and  prelatical 
 hatred  against  the  Puritans.  (The  writer  refers  to  the  habit  of  Mer- 
 eersburg  in  attacking  Puritanism.)  Tie  had  no  affection  for  Rome — 
 never  regretted  the  want  of  form  and  style  in  our  worship. ' '  Another 
 writer  says:  "Rauch's  plain,  almost  Quakerish  simplicity  was  opposed 
 to  the  ornateness  of  their  ritual.  Was  his  philosophy  Mercersburg's 
 philosophy?  On  the  organic  it  was,  but  no  farther."  His  was  em- 
 phatically idealism;   Nevin's,  realism. 
 
 President  Ranch  thus  reveals  himself  a  thinker,  a  scholar, 
 a  brilliant  teacher  and  an  earnest  preacher.  His  was  a  great 
 mind  especially  for  one  so  young.  He  lived  only  long  enough 
 to  lay  great  foundations  for  others  to  build  upon, — if  they 
 had  only  built  upon  them  and  not  exaggerated  their  equipoise 
 or  veered  from  their  truth. 
 
 Section  7.     The  Early  Years  of  Rev.  John  Willlvmson 
 Nevin's  Professorship   (1840-4). 
 
 The  third  professor  in  the  Theological  Seminary  was  Rev. 
 John  Williamson  Nevin,  D.D.  We  separate  these  first  years 
 of  his  professorship  from  his  later  years  because  his  views 
 were  different  then  from  what  they  were  later.*  Before  the 
 controversy  over  Schaff's  "Principle  of  Protestantism"  in 
 1845,  he  was  in  the  main  in  sympathy  with  the  previous  theo- 
 logical position  of  the  seminary  on  two  points: 
 
 1.  He  was  a  churchly  Pietist.  While  he  opposed  the  noisy 
 anxious  bench  system,  yet,  as  his  work  on  the  "Anxious 
 Bench"  shows,  he  approved  of  true,  quiet,  churchly  revivals. 
 
 2.  He  was  Calvinistic  in  doctrine,  that  is  his  whole  system 
 of  doctrine  was  based  on  Calvin.  He  was  Calvinistic  not  only 
 on  the  sacraments  but  also  on  predestination.  Later,  how- 
 ever, he  ridiculed  Calvinism  as  a  system,  declaring  he  had 
 found  a  new  solution  of  the  difficulties  between  Arminianism 
 and  Calvinism  in  his  Christocentric  system  of  the  person  of 
 Christ.  His  inaugural  Address  reveals  his  inner  agreement 
 witli   other  Reformed  Churches,  not  excepting  that  branch 
 
 *Apple.  in  his  Semi-centennial  History  of  the  Theological  Seminary, 
 ignores  the  difference  between  the  earlier  years  of  Dr.  Nevin  and  the 
 later  ones,  as  do  most  of  the  Mercersburg  historians  except  Prof.  Pubbs. 
 
108 
 
 History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 which  he  afterward  chided  for  bondage  to  metaphysical  Cal- 
 vinism— the  Dutch  Reformed.  It  is  very  important  to  notice 
 these  early  positions  of  Dr.  Nevin,  as  they  have  been  forgotten 
 in  the  course  of  the  controversy.  Yet  they  appear  clearly  in 
 his  writings  at  that  time.  And  it  will  also  be  interesting  to 
 watch  the  later  development  of  his  !Mercersburg  theology 
 from  these  earlier  positions  as  it  passes  through  its  various 
 stages  in  his  mind. 
 
 Prof.  J.  W.  Nevin  was  born  February  20,  1803,  at  Herron's 
 Branch,   near   Shippensburg,    Pa.      He   was   of   Seoteh-Trish 
 
 Rev.   Prof.  J.   W.   Nevin,  D.  D. 
 
 Presbyterian  stock.  After  the  old  Presbyterian  iiu'lhod  he 
 was  brought  up  on  the  Shorter  Catechism.  His  father,  who 
 was  a  farmer,  but  a  graduate^  of  Princ(^ton  College,  put 
 a  Latin  grammar  in  liis  son's  liaiuls  at  a  very'  early  age.  He 
 entered  Union  College  at  Schenectady,  N.  Y.,  in  1817,  then 
 under  the  presidency  of  Dr.  Nott.  He  there  passed  through  a 
 revival  of  religion  and  was,  under  the  inliucncc  of  ^Ir.  Nettle- 
 ton,  the  great  evangelist,  converted  to  Christ.  This  he  after- 
 ward, when  he  became  imbued  with  his  Mercersburg  theology. 
 
Early  History  of  Seminary  and  College.  lOf) 
 
 severely  criticized  as  a  mere  fanaticism.  He  later  called  his 
 fellow-students  who  brought  him  to  Christ  "miserable  obste- 
 tricians."* He  graduated  there  in  1821  with  honors  but 
 with  broken  health,  on  account  of  which  he  remained  at  home 
 for  two  years.  In  1823  he  entered  Princeton  Theological 
 seminary.  There  he  enjoyed  his  .studies  under  Professors 
 Miller,  Alexander  and  Hodge.  He  especially  distinguished 
 himself  in  Hebrew — reading  the  whole  Hebrew  Bible  through 
 during  his  seminary  course,  and  was  considered  the  best  He- 
 brew scholar  among  the  students.  As  a  result,  when  Prof. 
 Hodge  went  to  Europe  for  two  years,  he  was  made  temporary 
 professor  of  Hebrew.  During  this  time  he  wrote  his  Biblical 
 Antiquities,  an  excellent  handbook  of  the  Bible,  which  gave 
 him  quite  a  reputation  and  had  a  large  circulation.'!  When 
 Prof.  Hodge  returned  in  1828,  his  reputation  as  a  Hebrew 
 scholar  led  him  to  be  called  as  professor  to  the  new  Presby- 
 terian Theological  Seminary  at  Allegheny  City,  Pa.,  although 
 he  did  not  enter  upon  his  duties  there  till  1830.  In  the  mean- 
 time he  had  been  licensed  (October,  1828)  by  the  Presbytery 
 of  Carlisle,  and  had  become  active  in  the  temperance  cause, 
 due  especially  to  the  influence  of  his  uncle,  after  whom  he 
 was  named,  Dr.  Hugh  Williamson.  The  latter  had  given  him  as 
 his  advice  when  he  went  to  college,  "Take  care,  my  boy,  that 
 you  do  not  learn  to  smoke,  for  smoking  will  lead  to  drinking 
 and  that  is  the  end  of  all  good."  He  had  fulfilled  that  com- 
 mand in  his  college  course  and  now  joined  quite  heartily  in 
 the  temperance  agitation  that  was  sweeping  over  Pennsyl- 
 vania. 
 
 For  ten  j^ears  he  filled  the  professorship  of  Biblical  lit- 
 erature at  Allegheny  Seminary,  during  which  time  he  was 
 ordained  to  the  gospel  ministry.  He  was  not,  however,  or- 
 dained till  April  22,  1835,  five  years  after  beginning  his  pro- 
 fessorship. Why  he  postponed  it  so  long  is  a  mystery,  espe- 
 cially when  one  remembers  his  later  high-church  views  of 
 
 *Messenger,  March  9,  1870. 
 
 fin  his  autnbiograj)hy  he  quotes  a  passage  from  his  preface  to  his 
 Biblical  Antiquities  to  show  that  that  early  he  was  beginning  to  be 
 more  liberal  than  the  theology  taught  at  Princeton. 
 
110        History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 the  importance  of  ordination.  In  addition  to  his  duties  in  the 
 seminary,  he  frequently  acted  as  a  pulpit  supply  and  de- 
 livered a  number  of  addresses,  some  of  which  Avere  published 
 as  "The  Claims  of  the  Bible,"  1831;  "The  Scourge  of  God" 
 (on  the  cholera),  July  6,  1832;  "The  Claims  of  the  Chris- 
 tian Sabbath,"  1836;  "The  English  Bible,"  1836;  "Personal 
 Holiness,"  1837;  "The  Seal  of  the  Spirit,"  1838;  "Party 
 Spirit,"  1839;  "A  Pastoral  Letter"  (about  minister's  sal- 
 aries), 1840.  He  also  became  quite  prominent  in  the  anti- 
 slavery  agitation  and  as  editor  of  "The  Friend,"  its  organ, 
 was  once  in  danger  of  a  mob.  He  was  compelled  to  give  up  the 
 paper,  therefore,  in  1835,  on  account  of  the  pro-slavery  spirit. 
 He  afterwards  declared  he  had  been  too  extreme  on  the  sub- 
 ject. 
 
 In  the  Seminary,  he  taught  dogmatics  as  well  as  Biblical 
 Literature.  He  was  a  Calvinist  in  his  system  of  doctrine. 
 None  but  a  strong  believer  in  predestination  would  have  been 
 tolerated  in  such  a  Scotch-Irish  Presbyterian  commimity  as 
 Pittsburg  then  was.  His  type  of  Calvinism,  as  he  afterwards 
 said  in  his  autobiography  published  in  the  Messenger,  was  the 
 Federal  Theology  or  the  theology  of  the  Covenants  as  held  by 
 Witsius  and  Cocceius  and  as  is  still  taught  at  Princeton  and 
 Allegheny  Theological  seminaries.  When  the  controversy 
 began  to  divide  the  Presbyterians  into  Old-School  and  New- 
 School,  he  was  opposed  to  polemics.  He  said  he  did  not  see 
 why  their  western  Presbytery  should  be  rent  asunder  by  an 
 eastern  controversy  about  Rev.  Dr.  Barnes,  of  Philadelphia. 
 When  the  Pittsburg  Presbytery  favored  the  action  of  the 
 General  Assembly  against  the  New-Schoolmen.  Nevin  was 
 in  the  minority,  voting  against  their  action.  When  in  1839 
 that  Presbytery  declared  its  adherence  to  the  Old-School 
 General  Assembly,  he  with  three  others  presented  a  paper, 
 explaining  that  they  went  with  the  Presbytery,  but  not,  how- 
 ever, with  the  idea  that  its  General  Assembly  was  the  only 
 true  and  legal  assembly  in  this  country,  (thus  tlicy  recognized 
 the  New-School  Assembly).  Owing  to  his  lilxM-al  sympathies 
 with  the  New-School,  his  position  as  professor  at  Allegheny 
 
Early  History  of  Seminary  and  College.  Ill 
 
 became  uncomfortable.*  Plis  strong  temperance  and  anti- 
 slavery  agitation  had  made  him  a  nimiber  of  enemies.  In  the 
 midst  of  this  strife  between  Old  and  New-School  Presbyteri- 
 ans he  began  to  feel,  as  did  others  like  Rev.  Talbot  G.  Cham- 
 bers, D.D.,  later  of  the  Collegiate  Dutch  Church  of  New 
 York,  who  said  he  had  so  many  friends  in  both  the  Old- 
 School  and  the  New-School  branches  that  he  did  not  know 
 which  one  to  enter,  so  he  entered  neither,  but  left  the  Presby- 
 terian Church  and  entered  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church.  Like 
 him.  Dr.  Nevin  was  thus  led  out  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
 into  the  German  Reformed  Church. 
 
 "While  these  events  were  taking  place  to  cause  his  departure 
 from  the  Presbyterian  Church,  others  were  occurring  in  the 
 German  Reformed  Church  to  prepare  for  his  entrance  there. 
 Prof.  Lewis  Mayer  had  resigned  and  the  board  of  visitors  of 
 the  seminary  had  been  unable  to  fill  the  place.  The  board 
 therefore  called  a  special  meeting  of  the  synod  in  general 
 convention  January  27,  1840,  as  some  effort  must  be  made  to 
 get  a  professor  for  the  seminary.  Meanwhile  rumor  had  it 
 that  Prof.  Nevin  had  resigned  his  professorship  at  Allegheny. 
 It  seems  to  have  been  Rev.  Dr.  Schneck  (whose  wife  knew 
 Prof.  Nevin,  being  a  cousin  of  Rev.  Dr.  Riddle,  of  Pittsburg) 
 who  called  the  attention  of  the  Reformed  Church  to  Prof. 
 Nevin,  although  Dr.  S.  R.  Fisher  afterward  claimed  the  honor 
 of  it.  At  the  request  of  the  board  of  visitors.  Dr.  S.  R.  Fisher 
 Avrote  to  Prof.  Nevin,  inquiring  whether  he  would  consider  a 
 call  to  Mercersburg  and  to  the  German  Reformed  Church, 
 and  Dr.  Schneck  was  asked  to  write  to  Dr.  Riddle,  of  Pitts- 
 burg, about  him.     Dr.  Riddle  gave  no  encouragement.     Dr. 
 
 *Dr.  Schaff,  in  the  Palm -Blatter,  1847,  says  Dr.  Nevin,  chiefly  through 
 his  sympathy  with  German  thought  and  feeling,  was  led  to  give  up  this 
 professorship.  Dr.  Schaff  there  overstates  the  matter.  This  was  not  the 
 main  reason,  perhaps  not  a  reason  at  all.  For  the  German  did  not  gain 
 such  power  over  his  mind  until  he  came  under  the  influence  of  Eauch  at 
 Mercersburg.  The  real  reasons  for  his  resigning  at  Allegheny  were  the 
 lack  of  funds  to  pay  the  professorships  at  the  seminary,  and  also  the 
 fact  that  he  had,  in  the  controversy  in  the  Presbyterian  Cluirch  be- 
 tween the  Old  and  New-School,  joined  the  New-School  minority  in  the 
 Presbytery,  which  destroyed  confidence  in  him  to  a  considerable  degree. 
 These  facts  are  clearly  brought  out  by  the  minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of 
 Ohio,  1835-1840. 
 
312        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Nevin  did  not  reply  to  Dr.  Fisher  because  his  resignation  had 
 been  conditional  and  as  the  seminary  had  met  his  conditions, 
 he  felt  it  his  duty  to  stay.  Besides,  he  did  not  know  how 
 he  would  be  received  by  another  denomination.  When  the 
 synod  met,  three  persons  were  nominated,  Nevin,  Smaltz  and 
 A.  Helffenstein,  Jr.  The  two  latter  withdrew  and  Nevin  was 
 elected.  (The  synod  was  a  small  one,  as  it  was  held  in  mid- 
 winter, when  traveling  was  difificult.)  But  the  Church  soon 
 rose  to  the  support  of  the  synod  and  the  meetings  of  the 
 classes  in  the  spring  of  1840  endorsed  his  election.  Dr. 
 Schneck,  the  president  of  the  synod,  and  Dr.  S.  R.  Fisher, 
 were  appointed  a  committee  to  lay  the  call  before  Dr.  Nevin. 
 They  went  across  the  Alleghenies  in  a  sleigh  in  the  dead  of 
 Winter,  suffering  greatly  from  the  cold.  Their  visit  Avas 
 quite  a  surprise  to  Prof.  Nevin,  Avho  asked  time  for  considera- 
 tion. He  finally  accepted  the  call  and  removed  to  Mercers- 
 burg  in  the  spring  of  1840,  and  on  ]\Iay  20,  1840,  he  was  in- 
 augurated into  office,  delivering  an  address  on  ''The  Chris- 
 tian Ministry  and  the  ]\Iission  of  the  German  Reformed 
 Church  in  establishing  this  fSeminary. " 
 
 Dr.  Nevin  had  before  his  coming  known  something  of  the 
 German.  Influenced  by  Prof.  Moses  Stuart,  of  Andover 
 Theological  Seminary,  he  had  read  some  hermeneutical  works 
 as  Ernesti's  and  Morus'.  He  had  also  read  Neander's  Church 
 History  because  since  1835  he  had  been  compelled  to  teach 
 Church  history  in  the  seminary.  But  except  that  he  had  be- 
 come acquainted  with  the  German  language  and  that  Neander 
 had  given  an  impulse  to  his  mind,  he  does  not  seem  to  have 
 been  much  influenced  by  German  theology.  As  to  the  Catholic 
 Church,  which  he  later  defended  as  a  true  church,  he  then 
 regarded  her  as  gross  superstition.  He  looked  upon  Pusey- 
 ism  with  pity  and  contempt  (although  a  volume  of  Oxford 
 Tracts  placed  in  his  hands  had  made  him  feel  that  they  were 
 earnest  but  mistaken  men). 
 '  Dr.  Nevin  came  to  Mercersburg,  a  Calvinist  in  the  fullest 
 sense  of  the  word,  with  no  sign  of  any  future  aberration  from 
 its  theology.  His  change  from  the  Presbyterian  Church  to 
 the  German  Reformed  Church  was  not  looked  upon  as  involv- 
 
Early  History  of  Seminary  and  College.  113 
 
 ing  in  itself  a  change  of  denominational  faith.  It  was  con- 
 sidered simply  the  passing  from  one  section  of  the  Calvinistic 
 church  to  another.  It  took  place  with  the  approbation  of 
 Dr.  Nevin's  friends  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  and  under 
 the  advice  of  his  former  teacher  at  Princeton,  Prof.  Archi- 
 bald Alexander.     So  Dr.  Nevin  writes  of  it*J  i 
 
 He  not  only  came  as  a  Calvinist,  but  he  taught  Calvinistic 
 theology  at  first  at  Mercersburg.     These  facts  are  proved: 
 
 1.  The  text-book  that  he  used  in  teaching  at  Mercersburg 
 was  the  Theology  of  Rev.  John  Dix,  D.D.,  of  Scotland.  This 
 was  a  stiff  Calvinistic  treatise  after  the  type  of  the  Federal 
 School  of  theology.  At  first  he  is  said  to  have  very  closely 
 followed  this  work  in  teaching;  although  later,  as  his  new 
 theological  views  developed,  he  spent  most  of  his  time  in  criti- 
 cising it.  In  thus  teaching  Calvinistic  theology,  at  first  he 
 followed  Mayer,  but  his  Calvinism  was  then  of  a  higher  and 
 more  rigid  type  than  Mayer's. 
 
 2.  His  articles  in  the  Messenger  and  other  publications 
 during  this  period  reveal  his  predestinarian  position.  This  is 
 clearly  shown  for  instance  in  his  Inaugural  Address  as  pro- 
 fessor. Speaking  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  which  he  left 
 as  compared  with  the  German  Reformed  Church,  he  says : 
 
 ' '  Though  two  coninuinions  in  one  aspect,  they  are  in  another  altogether 
 the  same.  The  Eeformecl  Church  of  Scotland  and  of  Germany  are  twin 
 sisters  by  birth,  not  merely  of  the  Protestant  Reformation  but  of  that 
 reformation  in  its  purest  form  as  it  was  perfected  at  Geneva,  under  the 
 instrumentality  of  the  gigantic  spirit  of  Calvin.  In  no  sense  do  they 
 constitute  different  sects.  The  Heidelberg  Catechism  may  be  regarded 
 as  the  ground-work  doctrinally  on  which  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
 faith  was  erected  in  the  century  following.  Both  churches  stand  on  the 
 German  platform  as  to  faith."  And  again,  "If  orthodoxy  in  the  Cal- 
 vinistic sense  is  to  prevail  in  eastern  Pennsylvania,  if  Presbyterianism 
 is  destined  to  be  to  any  extent  a  leading  interest  in  that  section  of 
 country  it  must  be  under  the  standard  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism 
 especially.  Our  English  Presbyterians  should  do  all  in  their  power  to 
 encourage  and  sustain  the  German  Reformed  interest  at  every  point." 
 
 *See  Dubbs'  American  Church  History,  Vol.  Ill,  page  362,  and  also  / 
 
 his  History  of  Franklin  and  Marshall  College,  page  192.  ^ 
 
114        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 These  sentiments  he  expressed  later  in  an  article  on  Read- 
 ing,* where  he  intimated  that  there  the  Presbyterians  should 
 leave  the  field  largely  to  the  German  Reformed  because  they 
 were  the  same  as  the  Presbyterians,  and  yet  were  far  more  nu- 
 merous. All  this  was  very  different  from  his  later  view,  where 
 he  attacks  the  Presbyterian  Church  as  Puritanism  and  de- 
 nounces all  views  like  her's  as  rationalistic.  It  is  very  evi- 
 dent that  he  then  held  what  he  afterwards  called  meta- 
 physical Calvinism. 
 
 His  articles  in  the  Messenger  on  the  Heidelberg  Catechism 
 in  1841-2  also  reveal  this.  They  were  quite  different  from 
 his  later  book,  "The  Heidelberg  Catechism,"  published  in 
 1847,  in  which  they  were  abbreviated  and  changed  to  suit  his 
 new  Mercersburg  theology.  But  their  older  form  reveals  his 
 position  then.    Thus  he  says,t  in  regard  to  Calvin's  influence: 
 
 "The  system  (of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism)  is  substantially  Calvin- 
 istic,  as  the  Eeformed  Churches  before  the  Synod  of  Dort  were  all  sub- 
 stantially of  this  character,  notwithstanding  the  material  deviations  that 
 were  tolerated  among  them  from  the  rigid  form  in  which  the  doctrine 
 of  predestination  was  held  by  Calvin  himself."  Again, J  in  speaking  of 
 the  doctrines  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  he  says  ' '  The  doctrine  of 
 unconditional  election  is  involved  in  the  system,  but  was  not  directly  ex- 
 pressed, for  the  reason,  no  doubt,  because  it  was  not  universally  received 
 in  the  Eeformed  Church,  and  at  all  events  was  considered  too  deep  and 
 difficult  to  be  made  an  article  of  necessary  force  in  the  constitution  of 
 the  general  platform  of  religious  faith.  It  was  once  contended  by  some 
 very  learned  men,  Grotius  among  the  rest,  that  the  answer  to  the  37th 
 question  in  which  Christ  is  said  to  have  sustained  the  wrath  of  God 
 against  the  sins  of  all  mankind  must  have  the  meaning  that  all  the 
 human  race  have  been  equally  respected  in  the  work  of  redemption, 
 which  would  exclude,  of  course,  the  idea  of  an  election  of  grace.  But 
 it  has  been  abundantly  shown  that  this  is  by  no  means  the  necessary 
 sense  of  the  article  and  that  the  system  in  which  it  is  comprised  de- 
 mands imperiously  a  different  view.  Eedemption  is  exhibited  as  some- 
 thing universal  indeed  so  far  as  its  intrinsic  cfTiciency  and  fulness  is 
 concerned,  but  the  election  of  grace  is  represented  throughout  to  be  its 
 ground  and  fountain,  by  the  measure  of  which  the  entire  work  from  its 
 commencement  to  its  close  must  necessarily  be  ruled  and  defined. ' ' 
 
 *Messenger,  Aug.  24,  1842. 
 ■\Messenger,  May  4,  1842. 
 %Messenger  of  May  18,  1842. 
 
Early  History  of  Seminary  and  College.  115 
 
 All  this  is  very  different  from  his  later  views,  when  he 
 claimed  that  the  German  Reformed  were  different  from  other 
 Reformed  churches  in  holding  to  Melancthonianism,  an  idea 
 which  he  came  to  hold  after  Prof.  Schaff's  coming. 
 
 3.  Again  others  looked  upon  him  as  a  Calvinist.  The  Chris- 
 tian Intelligencer,  the  church  paper  of  the  Dutch  Church,  re- 
 joiced at  his  election,  that  the  German  Reformed  Seminary 
 would  have  so  strong  an  advocate  of  Calvinism.  Winebrenner 
 charges  him  with  Calvinism.  Prof.  Archibald  Alexander,  of 
 Princeton  Seminary,  his  former  teacher,  approved  of  his 
 going  to-  Mercersburg  because  it  would  strengthen  the  cause 
 of  Calvinism. 
 
 But  not  only  on  the  Calvinistic  system  is  he  different  at  this 
 time  from  what  he  was  later  in  the  Mercersburg  Theology, 
 but  also  on  other  points.  His  position  about  the  papacy  is 
 quite  different.  Instead  of  considering  the  papal  church  as 
 a  true  church  as  he  did  later,  his  criticisms  on  it  are  very 
 severe.    Thus*  he  says : 
 
 "Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  the  fact  that  Zwingli  was  brought 
 sooner  than  Luther  to  perceive  the  rottenness  of  popery  as  a  sj'stem. " 
 
 In  a  review  of  Berg's  book  on  Lectures  on  Romanism,  he  approves  of 
 them  as  thoroughly  as  he  later  opposed  him  on  this  point.f  He  says: 
 "Small  as  {he  volume  is,  it  is  large  enough  to  drag  some  of  the  most 
 hideous  features  of  the  Romish  system  into  the  broad  light  of  day." 
 After  speaking  of  the  danger  of  a  fanatical  zeal  against  Popery,  he 
 says,  "But  it  is  to  be  feared  that  the  prevailing  habit  of  thought  is  at 
 the  other  extreme.  The  system  must,  by  virtue  of  its  own  constitution, 
 work  for  the  subversion  of  our  institutions,  both  civil  and  religious. 
 Popery  is  at  war  with  our  government.  It  works  also  to  undermine 
 and  sap  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Christ.  It  is  the  mystery  of  iniquity  always 
 ready  to  evolve  itself  anew  from  the  depths  of  Satan  in  the  soul  of 
 man  as  fast  as  circumstances  will  permit." 
 
 He  speaks  of  it  as  Antichrist,  as  the  great  apostasy,  whereas 
 later  he  spoke  of  the  spirit  of  sect  and  schism  in  Protestantism 
 as  Antichrist.  He  also  speaks  of  the  Centenary  movement  in  our 
 church  as  a  revival  of  the  spirit  of  the  reformation  in  its  pro- 
 test against  popery.  In  his  Anxious  Bench,  he  says  "Popery 
 in  popish  countries  is  a  fruitful  source  of  infidelity."    Dur- 
 
 *Messenger  of  Dec.  23,  1840. 
 fMessenger  of  Nov.  25,  1840. 
 
116        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 ing  this  period  lie  appealed  only  to  the  reformation  as  his 
 model,  never  to  the  early  church,  as  he  did  later  when  under 
 the  Mercersburg  theology. 
 
 On  the  sacraments  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  his 
 Anxious  Bench  (pages  130-1),  he  declaims  against  baptismal 
 regeneration,  saying  "regeneration  may  take  place  in  the 
 womb  or  in  infancy  or  in  early  childhood  or  in  adult  age." 
 This  is  very  different  from  the  later  views  of  his  IMercersburg 
 theology,  which  limited  regeneration  to  baptism.  He  holds 
 to  the  old  Calvinistic  view  that  infants  born  in  the  church 
 are  to  be  treated  as  members  of  it  from  the  beginning.  This 
 is  very  different  from  his  later  position  that  infants  were  born 
 out  of  the  elmrch  and  made  members  of  the  church  by  bap- 
 tism. On  the  Lord's  Supper  he  holds  to  the  old  Reformed 
 view^  Appel*  saj'^s  Nevin  brought  from  the  Presbyterian 
 Church  the  Melancthonian-Calvinistic  view  of  the  Lord's 
 Supper.  In  this  he  is  wrong,  as  Nevin 's  statements  then 
 show.  Li  his  articles  on  the  Heidelberg  Catechism, f  when 
 he  speaks  of  Calvin's  emphasis  on  Christ's  glorified  humanity 
 at  the  supper,  he  says : 
 
 Calvin  taught  that  Christ's  body  remains  in  heaven  ^hile  the  sacra- 
 mental emblems  arc  exhibited  on  earth  and  that  it  is  by  the  organ  of 
 faith  exercised  in  conjunction  ■with  these,  that  our  souls  ascend  to  him 
 and  reach  that  communion  with  his  nature  which  it  is  the  object  of  the 
 institution  to  effect. 
 
 This  is  quite  different  from  his  later  statements  of  Calvin's 
 views  where  Christ's  humanity  came  down  from  heaven  as 
 his  theanthropic  life  comes  to  us  tlirougli  the  cliiircli  and  the 
 sacraments.  This  view  of  ''our  minds  ascending  \i\)  to 
 heaven"  as  liere  stated,  is  the  exact  opposite  of  his  later  views. 
 All  this  W'Ould  be  too  subjective  according  to  his  laler  \ie\vs, 
 which  emphasize  the  objective. 
 
 It  is  evident  from  these  facts  that  the  Dr.  Nexiu  nf  llie 
 first  four  years  of  his  professorship  was  different  from  the 
 later  Dr.  Nevin  of  the  IMercersburg  theology.  Tiie  only  ])asis 
 for  his  later  view^s  was  in  the  Hegelianism  of  Ranch's  philoso- 
 
 *Life  of  Nevin,  page  149. 
 fMessenger,  April  27,  1842. 
 
Early  History  of  Seminary  and  College.  117 
 
 phy,  the  plastic  power,  the  organic  idea,  the  philosophical 
 realism.  It  remained  for  Prof.  Schaff  to  come,  for  Puseyism 
 to  gain  influence,  for  a  controversy  to  arise  in  order  to  de- 
 velop him.  Then  he  added  these  to  this  original  philosophy 
 and  out  of  them  all  came  Mercersburg  theology.  / 
 
 Section  8.     The  Attempt  to  Found  a  Theological 
 Seminary  in  Ohio   (1838). 
 
 One  of  the  most  important  efforts  of  the  Ohio  sjTnod  was 
 its  attempt  to  found  a  theological  seminary.  As  in  the  early 
 days  of  the  Eastern  synod,  many  young  men  were  then  edu- 
 cated privately  b.y  ministers;  but  this  was  found  to  be  insuf- 
 ficient. The  first  action  toward  a  theological  seminary  was 
 taken  by  the  synod  in  1833.  A  little  later  (1835) ,  West  Penn- 
 sylvania classis,  feeling  the  need  of  such  a  seminary,  began 
 correspondence  with  the  Ohio  synod  about  it.  In  1836,  West 
 Pennsylvania  classis  sent  to  Ohio  synod  a  proposition  to  ap- 
 point a  committee  to  confer  with  its  committee  on  union  and 
 on  the  establishing  of  a  theological  institute.  Ohio  synod 
 agreed  to  this.     So  the  joint-committees  met  September  5, 
 
 1836,  and  its  plan  was  adopted  at  their  next  meeting  by  both 
 synods.  At  the  preliminar}'  meeting  between  them  in  1837 
 there  was,  however,  some  rivalry  between  the  Ohio  and  West 
 Pennsylvania  members.  The  Ohio  were  the  larger  body  and 
 did  not  wish  to  lose  prestige  in  the  new  organization,  while 
 the  West  Pennsylvania  men  were  many  of  them  better  edu- 
 cated than  the  majority  of  the  Ohio  men,  as  some  of  them  had 
 been  educated  abroad.  This  rivalry  led  Weisz,  of  the  Ohio 
 synod  without  the  Imowledge  of  his  brethren  to  precipitate  a 
 plan  for  a  charter  prepared  by  Dr.  Winters  at  the  meeting  of 
 
 1837.  The  West  Pennsylvania  men  looked  upon  this  as  an 
 attempt  of  the  Ohio  men  to  gain  control  of  the  new  project. 
 But  at  the  next  synod  the  charter,  with  slight  modifications, 
 was  adopted  and  a  plan  for  a  seminary  prepared,  which  had 
 been  the  plan  of  the  West  Pennsylvania  men.  An  election 
 for  professor  was  held,  at  which  there  were  six  nominees. 
 Rev.  J.  G.  Buettner  was  elected  by  a  majority  of  seven  more 
 than  all  the  rest.    His  salary  was  to  be  $250,  while  at  the  same 
 
118        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 time  he  was  to  serve  two  congregations,  one  at  Osnaburg  and 
 one  at  Massilon.  The  seminary  was  to  be  located  at  Canton, 
 0.  He  w-as  inaugurated  professor  in  our  church  at  Canton, 
 Aug.  14,  1838,  Daubert  preaching  the  sermon,  Ilerbruck  read- 
 ing the  formula.  Schlosser  made  the  prayer  and  Buettner 
 delivered  an  address.* 
 
 Dr.  Buettner  was  an  interesting  character  and  a  superior 
 scholar.  He  was  born  at  Miinchenbernsdorf,  in  Prussia,  Au- 
 gust 23,  1809.  He  matriculated  at  the  University  of  Leipsie, 
 May  26,  1829,  and  at  the  University  of  Jena,  1831-1834,  as 
 student  of  theology.  On  INTarch  15,  1834,  he  gave  a  historical 
 critical  dissertation  on  the  life  of  Rufinus,  and  thus  became 
 a  doctor  of  philosophy.  He  came  to  America,  September,  1834, 
 according  to  his  published  volume  of  "Travels  in  America," 
 landing  at  Baltimore.  From  there  he  went  to  Wheeling, 
 West  Pennsylvania  and  Ohio.  It  was  through  Rev.  Mr. 
 Begeman,  then  pastor  of  the  Reformed  church  at  Washing- 
 ton, in  Western  Pennsylvania,  that  he  was  led  to  join  the  Re- 
 formed Cburch  rather  than  the  Lutheran,  to  which  he  had  be- 
 longed in  Germany,  for  he  says  he  foimd  the  Lutherans  here 
 too  narrow  and  exclusive,  while  he  sympathized  rather  with 
 
 *Eev.  E.  P.  lierbruek,  D.D.,  of  Canton,  lias  foniul  tlie  follow  iiij^-  adver- 
 tisement in  tlie  Ohio  lieponitori/,  September  13,  18:58:    ' 
 
 Theological  Seminary  of  the  German  Reformed  Synod  of  Ohio,  &c. 
 This  institution,  for  the  present  located  at  Canton,  Stark  County,  0., 
 a  city  which  for  health  and  beauty  is  surpassed  by  none  in  the  flourish- 
 ing State  of  Ohio,  will  be  ojien  for  tiie  reception  of  students  from  and 
 after  the  first  of  October  next.  The  Rev.  Dr.  J.  G.  Buettner  has  been 
 elected  professor.  He  is  a  man  whose  theological  and  ])hilological  ac- 
 quirements recommend  him  to  all  who  desire  a  thorough  theological 
 education  and  whom  the  committee  feel  proud  to  recommend  to  the 
 Christian  public  for  his  orthodox  doctrine,  integrity  and  moral  worth. 
 All  lectures  will  be  given  in  the  German  and  English  language  if  re- 
 quired, and  no  efforts  spared  to  qualify  students  to  preach  in  both  lan- 
 guages. Those  who  are  desirous  of  attending  are  requested  to  make  im- 
 mediate application.     Tuition  to  all  theological  students  free. 
 
 Rev.   N.    p.    Hacke,    Greensburg;         ^         ...        . 
 Rev.  C.  L.  A.  Allardt,  and  Coimmtteeof 
 
 Rev.  G.  Schlosser.  of  Ohio.  Arrangements. 
 
 This  advertisement  appeared  in  eight  issues  of  the  paper.  There  is 
 also  an  advertisement  of  Mrs.  Buettner  for  pupils  in  embroidery.  She 
 gives  her  residence  as  on  the  West  Side  of  Market  Street  (she  calls  it 
 Main),  between  Seventh  and  Eighth  Sts.  Probably  the  theological  insti- 
 tution was  in  this  residence. 
 
Early  History  of  Seminary  and  College.  .         119 
 
 the  union  of  the  Lutherans  with  the  Reformed.  He  went  to 
 the  elassis  of  West  Pennsylvania  in  1835  for  licensure  and 
 ordination.  He  was  appointed  a  missionary  among  the  Ger- 
 mans, receiving  $150  for  six  months.  He  then  went  through 
 Cincinnati  and  Louisville  to  St.  Louis;  where,  while  doing 
 missionary  work  in  the  neighborhood,  he  was  called  to  be 
 pastor  of  the  German  Evangelical  Church  of  St.  Louis.  While 
 there  he  was  charged  by  a  Lutheran  pastor,  Haverstick,  with 
 being  a  rationalist,  which  charge  he  denied  and  tried  to  dis- 
 prove. He,  however,  gave  up  the  church  and  came  east  to  the 
 next  meeting  of  the  West  Pennsylvania  Classis  in  1836.  He 
 continued  his  work  as  missionary  among  the  Germans,  travel- 
 ing through  Ohio,  then  northward  to  Buffalo  and  then  going 
 east  to  Boston,  New  York  and  Pennsylvania,  stopping  at 
 Easton  and  IMercersburg.  At  the  classis  of  West  Pennsyl- 
 vania (1837)  he  was  appointed  on  the  committee  on  union 
 with  the  Ohio  synod.  After  this  he  was  called  to  the  Re- 
 formed congregation  at  Osnaburg,  0.,  and  also  as  supply  to 
 the  Evangelical  German  congregation  at  Massilon,  0,  At  the 
 sjTiod  of  1838  he  was,  as  we  have  seen,  elected  professor  of 
 theology  by  the  synod.  He  was  a  very  learned  man.*  In  the 
 "Biblical  Repository"  for  1836  there  is  a  Latin  article  by  him 
 on  John  1 :  29,  "  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God, ' '  etc.  It  was 
 written  while  he  was  preaching  at  St.  Louis.  It  begins  with 
 a  description  of  his  travels  in  the  United  States  as  a  mission- 
 ary among  the  Germans  in  the  West.  After  he  has  praised 
 the  study  of  the  classics  he  goes  into  the  exegesis  of  the  text. 
 
 *His  ability  was  so  recognized  by  his  brethren  of  the  Ohio  synod  that 
 an  amusing  illustration  is  given  by  Kev.  Prof.  J.  H.  Good,  D.D.  (Dubbs' 
 Reformed  Church  in  Pennsylvania,  314,  note),  that  when  his  students 
 were  to  appear  before  the  classis  for  examination,  nobody  wanted  to 
 examine  them  and  thus  perhaps  expose  his  own  ignorance  and  inef- 
 ficiency as  compared  with  their  teacher.  When  the  day  appointed  for  the 
 examination  arrived,  the  committee,  students  and  Prof.  Buettner  as- 
 sembled at  Canton,  but  the  chairman  of  the  committee  had  not  yet 
 arrived,  Z.  of  Canfield.  The  rest  of  the  committee  wanted  to  place  the 
 responsibility  of  the  examination  on  the  chairman,  while  he  in  turn  evi- 
 dently stayed  away,  hoping  they  would  go  ahead  in  his  absence.  After 
 waiting  all  day  he  finally  arrived  toward  evening  and  was  astonished 
 to  find  that  the  examination  had  not  been  held.  He  pled  all  sorts  of  ex- 
 cuses as  that  he  had  been  called  away  to  a  funeral,  and  that  now  he 
 was  too  tired  from  the  journey  to  begin  the  examination  that  night.     Sr^ 
 
120        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 But  in  spite  of  all  his  ability  the  seminary  did  not  succeed. 
 At  first  only  two  students  applied,  A.  Stump  and  S.  Hess, 
 and  Stump  soon  left,  as  he  did  not  succeed  in  his  studies  as  he 
 desired,  and  went  to  study  imder  a  less  learned  minister  of 
 the  Ohio  synod,  Schlosser,  as  also  did  Hess.  By  jMay,  1839, 
 there  were  no  students.  So  that  after  eighteen  months  in 
 the  professorship,  Buettner  resigned  and  the  semmary  closed. 
 The  seminary  board  attempted  to  have  another  meeting  after 
 Buettner 's  resignation,  but  only  one  member  was  present  be- 
 sides the  president,  and  so  nothing  was  done  for  some  time. 
 The  only  thing  that  remained  of  the  seminary  was  an  old- 
 fashioned  stove  long  shown  in  Canton  as  a  relic  of  the  semi- 
 nary. 
 
 Several  reasons  seemed  to  have  caused  his  failure.  While 
 he  was  universally  recognized  as  a  very  able  man,  yet  he 
 was  not  a  man  exactly  to  the  mind  of  the  Ohio  sjTiiod.  He 
 was  a  very  strong  union  man,  urging  the  union  of  the  Re- 
 formed and  Lutherans,  which  did  not  suit  the  strict  Reformed, 
 many  of  whom  had  had  controversies  with  their  less  liberal 
 Lutheran  brethren.  Again,  he  was  a  strong  opponent  to  re- 
 vivals and  confesses  that  one  of  the  reasons  why  he  accepted 
 the  professorship  was  to  raise  up  ministers  opposed  to  such 
 movements.  But  many  of  the  ministers  of  the  Ohio  synod 
 were  strongly  in  favor  of  them  and  so  they  did  not  feel  any 
 sympathy  with  his  work.  Besides,  as  a  German,  he  could  not 
 accommodate  himself  to  many  of  the  peculiarities  of  Ameri- 
 can life.  And  perhaps  a  little  of  the  rivalry  still  existed  be- 
 tween the  Ohio  and  West  Pennsylvania  men,  so  that  although 
 his  seminary  was  located  in  Ohio,  yet  he  was  looked  upon  as 
 a  West  Pennsylvania  man.  In  later  j^ears  he  is  described  in 
 the  Evangelist,  the  German  paper  of  our  Western  church,  as 
 
 it  was  delayed  until  the  next  morning.  Buettner  Avent  back  to  Osna- 
 burg  that  night  and  the  committee  cunningly  decided  to  have  the  exami- 
 nation very  early  in  the  morning  before  Buettner  could  arrive.  The 
 examination  was  just  about  beginning  the  next  morning  with  not  a 
 single  question  asked,  when  Dr.  Buettner  was  seen  coming  to  the  gate 
 of  the  house.  When  Buettner,  on  entering,  asked  whether  the  examina- 
 tion had  begun,  the  chairman  replied  "it  is  ended,"  and  that  the  young 
 men  have  been  licensed.  Of  course,  the  students  kept  mum  about  the 
 examination  since  they  got  off  so  easily;  but  this  incident  passed  down  as 
 one  of  the  humorous  traditions  of  the  Ohio  synod. 
 
Early  Histojry  of  Seminary  and  College.  121 
 
 friendly  to  rationalism,  especially  in  his  History  of  the  Refor- 
 mation. If  he  had  in  any  way  gained  this  reputation, 
 whether  true  or  not,  it  must  have  interfered  with  his  success 
 and  influence.  At  any  rate,  whatever  may  have  been  the 
 cause,  the  seminary  failed. 
 
 In  the  meantime  Buettner  determined  to  continue  his 
 travels  and  also  to  sell  his  small  book  "A  Short  History  of  the 
 Reformation."  He  was  elected  president  of  the  Ohio  synod 
 of  1839.  It  had  a  severe  controversy  on  the  subject  of 
 prayer-meetings,  which  was  finally  harmonized  by  a  motion 
 to  acknowledge  prayer-meetings  such  as  were  held  in  the 
 New  Testament.*  Soon  afterward  he  started  eastward,  to- 
 gether with  his  wife  whom  he  had  married  at  Osnaburg.  He 
 sailed  from  New  York  June  10,  1840,  arriving  at  Bremen. 
 After  his  return  to  Germany,  he  became  pastor  (1846)  at 
 Volkmansdorf  and  Essbach  near  Schleiz,  in  the  County  of 
 Weimar.  He  published  a  brief  history  (in  German)  of  the 
 German  Reformed  Church  in  the  United  States,  (1848,)  which 
 is  excellent — the  best  early  history  of  our  church,  and  also 
 his  book  of  "Travels  in  America"  (1844),  at  Hamburg,  from 
 which  many  of  the  facts  of  his  life  here  given  are  gleaned. 
 
 Thus  the  seminary  plan  lapsed.  The  only  thing  that  re- 
 mained was  a  legacy  of  five  hundred  dollars  which  C.  Reedy 
 left  to  the  seminary,  and  also  about  $1,600  in  notes.  When 
 the  Centenary  movement  began  in  1840,  it  was  hoped  that  it 
 would  aid  the  endowment  of  the  seminary.  But  though  con- 
 siderable money  was  raised  in  the  synod,  yet  the  want  of 
 unity  among  the  ministers  prevented  any  formal  attempt  and 
 the  whole  matter  was  postponed. 
 
 We  may  be  permitted  to  pass  beyond  the  limits  of  this 
 period  (1793-1844)  in  order  to  complete  the  establishment  of 
 the  institutions  in  Ohio.  The  effort  for  a  theological  seminary 
 slept  in  the  Ohio  Synod  till  1844.  New  trustees  were  elected 
 and  Rev.  Jacob  Peucer,  a  Presbyterian,  the  head  of  an  acad- 
 emy in  Germanto\^^l,  Avas  temporarily  made  professor  of  the- 
 
 *For  the  coutroversy  in  the  Ohio  Synod  about  New-Measures  and 
 Temperance,  see  Eeiter  "Eeformed  Church  Review, "  January,  1879, 
 note. 
 
122        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 ology.  But  the  controversies  in  the  synod  as  between  old-  and 
 new-measui-ism  and  the  secession  of  the  Independent  SjTiod  of 
 Ohio  caused  that  nothing  was  done.  Not  a  student  presented 
 himself.  In  1846,  Rev.  A.  P.  Freeze  founded  an  academy  at 
 Columbus  with  the  idea  that  it  would  lead  up  to  a  theological 
 seminary.  And  Rev.  J.  H.  Good  did  the  same  at  Lancaster,  0. 
 In  the  Synod  of  1846  there  were  stormy  debates  whether  to  go 
 on  or  not.  In  1847  the  synod  decided  to  go  ahead  and  raise 
 money  for  the  institution.  And  in  1848  the  synod  elected  Rev. 
 A.  P.  Freeze  as  professor  of  theology  and  Rev.  J.  H.  Good  as 
 professor  of  languages.  This  institution,  which  was  called 
 "The  Ohio  Literary  and  Theological  Institution,"  was  opened 
 at  Columbus,  October  31, 1848,  and  had  five  students  (all  Eng- 
 lish like  the  professors).  But  on  July  1,  1849,  Rev.  Mr. 
 Freeze  left  and  went  east  afterwards  to  enter  the  Dutch  Re- 
 formed Church.  The  synod  then  requested  Rev.  J.  H.  Good 
 to  give  instructions  in  theology  to  the  students  Avho  desired  it. 
 Then,  on  April  18,  1850,  a  special  meeting  of  the  Ohio  Synod 
 decided  to  locate  the  theological  and  literary  institution  at 
 Tarlton,  near  Columbus,  w'here  Rev.  S.  S.  Rickly  had  charge 
 of  an  academy,  and  call  it  Tarlton  College.  Tarlton  offered 
 th(^m  $7,200  in  subscriptions  and  $800  in  land.  The  synod 
 requested  Rev.  S.  S.  Ricklj^,  the  principal  of  the  Academy 
 there,  and  Rev.  S.  Jacobs  to  give  theological  instruction  until 
 other  arrangements  were  made,  but  it  postponed  the  election 
 of  a  permanent  professor  of  theolog}^  until  the  regular  meet- 
 ing of  the  synod  that  year.  Preparations  were  then  made  to 
 ])uild  a  college  building  at  Tarlton  and  an  order  was  given 
 for  the  delivery  of  200,000  bricks. 
 
 But  after  the  synod  was  over,  there  was  a  good  deal  of  dis- 
 satisfaction in  the  synod  at  the  choice  of  the  place,  because 
 there  were  so  many  schools  at  and  around  Columbus.  Be- 
 sides, Tarlton  was  rather  a  Methodist  commiuiity  than  Re- 
 formed. Rev.  H.  Schaull,  of  Tiffin,  seeing  the  dissatisfaction, 
 started  a  subscription  at  Tiffin  and  went  to  the  regular  synod 
 meeting  of  1850  with  an  offer  of  $11,000  in  subscriptions  from 
 Tiffin,  0.  This  synod  reversed  the  action  of  the  special  synod 
 and   ordered   the   institutions  to  be  located  at  Tiffin.     The 
 
Early  History  op  Seminary  and  College. 
 
 123 
 
 synod,  however,  iudoiimified  the  citizens  and  Academy  at 
 Tarlton  for  loss  sustained  by  paying  them  $300.  The  college, 
 which  was  called  Heidelberg  College,  was  opened  at  Tiffin, 
 November  18,  1850,  with  seven  students  in  rented  rooms  on 
 the  third  floor  of  Commercial  Row.  In  the  first  year,  1850-51, 
 its  catalogue  reported  149  students.  Rev.  B.  Schneck  was  elect 
 cd  professor  of  theology  but  declined,  and  Rev.  E.  V.  Gerhart 
 was  elected  president  and  professor  of  theology.  Rev.  J.  11. 
 Good  Avas  made  professor  of  mathematics  and  Rev.  Reuben 
 Good  rector  of  the  Academy.  In  1855,  Rev.  M.  Kieffer  suc- 
 ceeded Rev.  E.  V.  Gerhart  as  president  and  professor  of  theol- 
 ogy. Rev.  II.  Rust  was  added  as  professor  of  Church  history 
 in  1855. 
 
 Heidelberg  University. 
 
CHAPTER  IV. 
 
 Revivals. 
 
 Section  1.    Early  References  to  Revivals. 
 
 Those  who  have  declared  that  revivals  are  not  in  harmony 
 with  the  genius  of  the  Reformed  Church  will  be  surprised 
 to  learn  that  revivals  were  quite  a  distinguishing  mark  of 
 this  period  and  were  considered  soimdly  Reformed  by  the 
 Church.  It  was  our  privilege  to  unmask  the  falsity  of  their 
 assertion  by  revealing  a  new  chapter  in  the  history  of  our 
 Church  in  Germany,  the  chapter  on  Pietism  in  our  History 
 of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Germany.*  It  is  now  our  privi- 
 lege to  lay  bare  a  part  of  the  history  of  our  Church  in  this 
 country  which  has  been  persistently  hidden  or  minimized  by 
 the  Mercersburg  historians  except  Prof.  Dubbs.  Some  of  us 
 remember  how  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago  and  more,  prayer- 
 meetings  were  stigmatized  in  certain  quarters  of  our  Church 
 as  Methodistic.  Free  prayer  was  discouraged.  Those  who 
 made  these  assertions  would  have  done  well  to  have  read  the 
 history  of  our  Church  diii'ing  this  earlier  period.  In  saying 
 that  our  Church  was  favorable  to  revivals  especially  during 
 the  latter  part  of  this  period,  we  do  not  mean  to  say  that 
 there  were  not  some  ministers  who  opposed  them,  as  Pomp 
 and  Becker,  or  were  liikewanu  toward  them, — many  of  them 
 earnest,  godly,  excellent  men.  This,  however,  has  been  true 
 of  every  denomination  except,  perliaps  the  Methodist.  But 
 the  attempt  to  read  evangelism  and  revivals  out  of  our  Church 
 as  not  Reformed,  would  take  out  of  her  a  very  considerable 
 part  of  her  best  life  and  history.  Revivals  have  been  an  in- 
 tegral element  in  our  Church  from  the  beginning  and  have 
 had  an  important  part  in  the  making  of  her  history. 
 
 *Pages  307-395. 
 
 ]24 
 
Kevivals  During  This  Period.  125 
 
 In  the  eighteenth  century  the  six  Reformed  ministers  who 
 held  the  big  meetings  in  Maryland,  Hendel,  Henop,  Otterbein, 
 Wagner,  Weymer  and  Schwob,  brought  this  movement  into 
 prominence  before  the  Revolutionary  War.*  Since  giving 
 those  facts,  several  other  facts  have  turned  up.  The  elder 
 Helffenstein  seems  also  to  have  been  a  minister  of  that  stamp, 
 for  when  he  died  at  Germantown  it  was  in  the  midst  of  a 
 blessed  revival  there.  In  those  days  when  prayer-meetings 
 were  a  new  thing  in  America,  Hendel  had  them  before  New 
 England  had  them,  in  his  pastorate  at  Tulpehocken,  where 
 he  held  them  on  Thursday  afternoons.  In  the  early  part  of 
 Troldenier's  pastorate,  about  1802,  the  Baltimore  congrega- 
 tion adopted  a  rule  that  those  who  were  candidates  for  admis- 
 sion into  the  church  should  be  conversed  with  in  private  by 
 the  pastor  at  least  one  hour  before  they  were  confirmed,  and 
 they  also  made  a  rule-  that  the  first  Thursday  of  every  month 
 there  should  be  a  meeting  for  public  prayer.  Harbaugh  says 
 that  Hiester  observed  the  old  Reformed  custom  of  inviting  all 
 to  call  at  the  parsonage  before  the  observance  of  the  com- 
 mimion,  so  as  to  receive  admonition  and  instruction.  It  was 
 customary  for  our  early  ministers  to  hold  prayer-meetings  at 
 the  houses  of  their  parishioners  where  they  happened  to  spend 
 the  night.  Harbaugh  mentions  several,  as  Lupp,  who  would 
 hold  a  service  on  Saturday  night  at  the  home  where  they 
 Avere  staying.  Wagner  did  the  same  at  Tulpehocken.  One 
 of  the  most  beautiful  illustrations  of  this  is  given  in  the 
 Messenger-^  by  an  old  person  who  belonged  to  Wagner's  con- 
 gregation at  Tulpehocken  (1786-1795).  "Mr.  Wagner,"  he 
 said,  "gave  out  a  hymn  and  then  prayed  so  earnestly  that 
 there  was  not  a  dry  eye  to  be  seen  in  the  house.  Then  he 
 preached  a  sermon  so  earnestly  that  it  brought  deep  conviction 
 of  sin  to  my  own  soul."  He  describes  how  Wagner's  ear- 
 nest preaching  led  to  many  conversions.  The  church  book 
 at  Tulpehockeni  says  that  when  Wagner  spent  the  night  in 
 
 *See  mv  Iliston*  of  the  Reformed  Cluirch  in  tlie  United  States,  592- 
 601. 
 
 fDecember  30,  1835. 
 :j:Haiisfreund,  January  17,  1867. 
 
126        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 a  family,  he  often  asked  parents  and  children,  "How  is  it 
 with  your  souls'  salvation?"  These  are  a  few  illustrations 
 that  reveal  the  spirit  and  custom  of  the  times.  Prof.  J.  H. 
 Dubbs,  speaking  of  the  early  church,  confesses  that  its  leaders 
 were  pietistic* 
 
 There  has,  however,  been  a  tradition  in  the  Church,  fos- 
 tered by  the  Mercersburg  theology  (which  was  not  friendly 
 to  experimental  religion  of  this  kind)  that  several  ministers 
 were  put  out  of  the  church  for  being  Pietists  and  holding  re- 
 vivals.   Let  us  see. 
 
 One  of  them  was  Gueting.  He  was  one  of  the  converts 
 of  the  big  meetings  in  Maryland  and  was  ordained  by  the 
 coetus  in  1788,  notwithstanding  Pomp's  opposition  because  of 
 his  Pietism.  Gueting  was  present  at  the  coetus  meetings  of 
 1791,  1794  and  1797.  In  1798,  Hinsch  complains  against 
 Gueting  as  making  encroachments  on  his  congregations,  and 
 it  was  resolved  that  he  be  written  to  about  the  matter.  He 
 was  reported  as  excused  at  the  meetings  of  1802  and  1803. 
 In  1802,  on  account  of  his  absence  from  synod,  it  resolved  that 
 a  brotherly  letter  be  written  to  him  and  that  he  be  urged  to 
 attend  the  next  synod.  This  does  not  look  as  if  the  synod 
 were  trying  to  drive  him  out  because  of  his  Pietism.  Still, 
 however,  he  did  not  appear  at  synod.  So,  in  1804,  coinphiint 
 was  preferred  against  him  because  of  disorderly  conduct. 
 Two  motions  Avere  made  to  the  synod,  one  by  Rahauser  and 
 Kuiikel,  that  the  matter  be  postponed  for  another  year  and 
 he  be  earnestly  admonished  to  abstain  from  his  disorderly 
 conduct.  The  other  was  by  Becker,  that  he  be  immediately 
 expelled  from  the  synod.  The  vote  stood  for  the  latter  20-17, 
 and  so  he  was  expelled,  but  a  note  was  added  to  the  action 
 that  he  might  at  any  time  be  restored  on  giving  evidence  of 
 true  reformation.  All  this  does  not  look  as  if  they  wanted  to 
 get  rid  of  him.  From  this  it  has  been  argued  that  he  was 
 put  out  because  of  his  Pietism.  This  may  be  true,  but  two 
 things  need  to  be  noticed.  In  the  official  action  by  the  synod. 
 Pietism  is  not  mentioned  as  the  cause,  but  first  absence  and 
 
 *American  Church  History,  Vol.  VIII,  311;  also.  The  Reformed  Church 
 in  Pennsylvania,  page  236. 
 
Revivals  During  This  Period.  127 
 
 then  disorderly  conduct.  Nothing  else  is  referred  to.  And 
 again  the  majority  was  so  small  as  hardly  to  commit  the 
 synod  much  against  Pietism,  especially  when  it  is  to  be  re- 
 membered that  some  of  the  leaders  of  the  pietistic  party,  as 
 Otterbein,  Wagner  and  others  were  not  present.  Besides 
 Otterbein  would  hardly  have  been  present  at  the  coetus  the 
 next  year  if  the  action  of  the  coetus  had  been  looked  upon  as 
 a  direct  assault  against  revivalism  and  Pietism. 
 
 The  other  case  quoted  is  that  of  Aurandt.  He  had  been 
 an  attendant  on  "the  big  meetings"  and  had  accompanied 
 Pfrimmer,  the  leader  of  these  United  Brethren,  who  about 
 
 1800  served  Driesbach's  charge  in  the  Buffalo  Valley.     In 
 
 1801  the  congregations  of  New  Berlin  and  Buffalo  Valley 
 asked  for  his  (Aurandt 's)  ordination.  But  it  was  found  that 
 he  had  baptized  without  ever  having  been  ordained.  He 
 confessed  his  fault,  saying  he  was  very  sorry  and  asked  that 
 his  examination  be  postponed  because  he  felt  unfit  to  undergo 
 it.  He  asked  that  he  might  be  placed  under  Wagner  for 
 instruction.  The  synod  ordered  him  to  present  himself  at 
 its  next  regular  meeting,  but  forbade  him  to  administer  the 
 sacraments  or  to  attend  the  big  meetings  and  ordered  him  to 
 prosecute  his  studies  under  some  minister.  From  this  con- 
 nection it  seems  to  appear  as  if  his  attendance  on  the  big 
 meetings  had  something  to  do  with  his  irregular  administra- 
 tion of  baptism,  for  the  United  Brethren  were  not  careful 
 about  those  things.  This  action  by  the  synod  was  held  by 
 some  to  be  an  attack  on  the  revivals  as  revealed  in  the  big 
 meetings. 
 
 These  two  actions  of  the  synod  would  seem  to  reveal  two 
 things:  1.  That  our  Church  was  opposed  to  the  "big  meet- 
 ings" as  held  at  that  time.  It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  by 
 the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  the  "new  Re- 
 formed" who  afterwards  became  the  United  Brethren  Church, 
 were  very  noisy  and  fanatical  in  their  services.  Even  the  Re- 
 formed ministers  who  had  begun  those  meetings,  as  Hendel, 
 Wagner,  etc.,  would  hardly  approve  of  them  as  later  held, 
 because  their  character  had  changed.  The  action  of  the  sjTiod 
 can  not  be  quoted  against  revivals,  only  against  noisy  re- 
 
128        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 vivals  such  as  were  common  at  that  time  in  the  big  meetings 
 of  the  United  Brethren,  for  there  is  a  clear  distinction  be- 
 tween noisy  and  quiet  revivals.  The  Reformed  never  con- 
 demned the  latter  as  they  did  the  former. 
 
 The  third  case  that  has  been  quoted  against  revivals  is  that 
 of  Otterbein.  The  United  Brethren  have  declared  that  he 
 was  put  out  of  our  Church  because  he  was  a  revivalist  and 
 this  has  been  echoed  by  the  adherents  of  ]\Iercersburg  the- 
 ology in  their  opposition  to  revivals.  We  have  discussed  the 
 case  of  Otterbein  in  our  previous  book,*  to  which  the  reader 
 is  referred.  We  shall  only  add  a  few  additional  facts.  As 
 stated  there,  there  are  two  questions:  1.  Did  Otterbein  ever 
 leave  the  Reformed  Church?  2.  Was  his  church  Reformed 
 during  his  life?  We  there  proved  that  he  did  not  leave  the 
 Reformed  Church  and  that  his  church  was  Reformed.  The 
 following  additional  light  has  appeared : 
 
 1.  As  to  his  leaving  the  Reformed  Church.  We  have  re- 
 cently been  reading  the  diary  of  Bishop  Newcomer,  of  the 
 United  Brethren  Church.  He  bears  strong  testimony  to  the 
 impressive  preaching  of  Otterbein  and  also  describes  their 
 yearly  conferences.  But  from  his  diary  we  have  not  been 
 impressed  that  these  conferences  were  meetings  for  ecclesias- 
 tical action.  They  were  rather  sacramental  occasions  as  at 
 Antietam  1797,  1798,  1799,  1800,  1801,  1802,  1804  and  ISOo.f 
 Only  at  the  conference  Sept.  25,  1801,  were  l>usiness  matters 
 discussed  and  at  the  conference,  1802.  Oct.  6,  preachers  were 
 examined.  Otterbein,  Oct.  2,  1813,  irregularly  ordained  New- 
 comer to  the  office  of  elder  and  preacher  of  the  gospel.  All 
 that  can  be  made  from  these  facts  in  Newcomer's  diary  is 
 that  Otterl)ein  was  intimately  associated  with  Avhat  became 
 the  United  Brethren  movement.  But  there  is  absolutely 
 nothing  in  them  to  prove  that  he  left  the  Reformed  Church 
 in  order  to  do  this.     That  he  acted  irregularly  in  the  ordina- 
 
 *See  History  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  the  United  States,  p.  650-658. 
 
 fThe  discipline  of  the  United  Brethren  Church,  published  1817,  kindly 
 shown  us  hy  Rev.  A.  Stapleton,  U.T).,  speaks  of  only  four  conferences:   1, 
 at  Baltimore,   1789,  where   Otterbein   and   ducting   were  ])rcsent;    2,   at. 
 York,  1791,  where  Pfrimmer  was  also  present;  3,  in  Frederick  Co.,  1800, 
 where  also  Aurandt  was  present,  and  at  Mt.  Pleasant,  1815. 
 
Eevivai.s  During  This  Period.  129 
 
 tion  of  Newcomer  is  certainly  true,  for  he  had  no  ecclesiastical 
 authority  to  ordain  him.  This  may,  perhaps,  be  explained  by 
 his  great  age  and  nearness  to  death  though  even  that  does  not 
 excuse  him.  Otterbein's  nephew,  Rev.  Wm.  Hendel,  D.D., 
 says  Otterbein  never  intended  to  found  a  new  sect  but  simply 
 sought  to  elevate  his  own  church  and  infuse  new  life  into  her. 
 Rev.  Thomas  Winters,  who  had  been  converted  by  Otterbein, 
 says  he  was  often  urged  to  join  the  new  sect  of  United  Brethren, 
 but  ho  refused  for  the  same  reason  that  Otterbein  did,  namely, 
 that  he  did  not  believe  that  a  new  sect  was  called  for.  He  says 
 that  Otterbein  never  thought  of  leaving  his  church.  "I  have 
 often  heard  him  say  to  an  audience,"  says  Winters,  "I  do 
 not  ask  you  to  leave  your  church,  I  only  ask  you  to  forsake 
 your  sins.  I  do  not  know  that  he  was  ever  charged  with 
 having  left  his  church  while  living. '  '*  Rev.  Dr.  Schneck,  the 
 editor  of  the  Messenger,  says  he  had  a  letter  from  Otterbein 
 one  or  two  years  before  his  death  in  which  he  says  that  he 
 had  lived  and  would  die  a  German  Reformed  minister.f 
 These  facts  prove  he  was  Reformed  to  the  end  of  his  life. 
 
 2.  As  to  his  church  being  Reformed.  The  congregation  had 
 the  Presbyterial  form  of  government  like  the  Reformed,  by  a 
 consistory  composed  of  elders  and  deacons  together  with  the 
 pastor.  This  is  proved  by  the  constitution  drawn  up  June  1, 
 1785,  but  this  is  an  entirely  different  organizatioij  from  that 
 of  the  United  Brethren  which  knows  only  stewards,  class  lead- 
 ers, exhorters,  etc.  Again  this  constitution  insisted  on  cate- 
 chization  to  which  the  United  Brethren  have  always  been 
 opposed.  Again,  it  insisted  on  parochial  schools,  another  pe- 
 culiarity of  the  Reformed  over  against  the  United  Brethren. 
 The  stress  laid  by  it  on  the  baptism  of  children  is  contrary  to 
 the  United  Brethren  who  make  it  optional,  even  allowing  im- 
 mersion. Again,  the  constitution  requires  that  the  pastor  be 
 elected  by  the  congregation,  whereas  in  the  United  Brethren 
 Church  the  pastors  are  appointed  by  bishop.  The  United 
 Brethren  have  tried  to  argue  that  the  constitution  says  that 
 
 *See  Harbaugh's  Fathers  of  the  Reformed  Church,  Vol.  IV,  pages 
 140  and  144. 
 
 fSee  Messenger,  March  1,  1837. 
 
130        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 no  minister  wlio  holds  to  predestination  or  who  denies  falling 
 from  grace  shall  become  pastor  and  it  orders  class-meetings. 
 As  to  predestination,  we  have  Otterbein's  own  words  in  his 
 letter  to  Holland:  "I  believe  in  election  but  cannot  persuade 
 myself  that  God  has  absolutely  and  without  condition  pre- 
 destinated some  men  to  perdition."  As  to  the  class-meetings, 
 they  were  but  a  reproduction  of  the  prayer-meetings  [eccle- 
 siola  in  ecclesid)  commonly  held  by  the  Reformed  of  the 
 Northern  Rhine,  where  Otterbein  came  from.  These  facts, 
 together  with  what  are  given  in  our  previous  work  abund- 
 antly prove  that  the  Church  was  Reformed.  An  effort  was 
 made  by  the  Reformed  to  get  the  Otterbein  Church  at  Balti- 
 more back  by  legal  process,  but  the  court  finally  decided  that 
 the  United  Brethren  could  keep  it  provided  they  made  some 
 use  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism. 
 
 Section  2.     Revivals  During  This  Period. 
 
 We  have  searched  the  Messenger  and  other  sources  and 
 from  them  can  give  a  bird's-eye  view  of  the  revivals  of  this 
 period.  These  references  are  important  as  revealing  the  his- 
 tory of  many  of  the  congregations.  The  first  publication  of 
 the  church,  the  German  Reformed  Magazine,  from  the  begin- 
 ning, was  favorable  to  revivals,  giving  notices  to  them  espe- 
 cially in  the  foreign  fields.  Pietism  was  quite  evidently 
 recognized  here.*  In  1827  Rev.  Jacob  Mayer  published  a 
 German  translation  of  a  work  on  "Repentance,"  by  Thorn- 
 ton, his  object  being  to  clearly  state  what  repentance  was 
 and  to  emphasize  the  need  of  personal  experience.  In  1828 
 a  revival  is  reported  at  York  under  Reily  with  300  conver- 
 sions. In  1829  there  was  a  great  revival  in  the  Philadelphia 
 congregation,  where  Rev.  Dr.  Finney,  the  great  evangelist 
 of  that  day,  preached  his  terrible  law-sermons,  mowing  men 
 down  as  with  a  scythe.y     Dr.  Finney  Avas  endorsed  by  the 
 
 *In  1822  Zion's  classis  urged  the  introduction  of  prayer  meetings,  as 
 did   Susquehanna   classis  in   1823. 
 
 fOne  of  our  oh;ler  members  at  the  Heidelberg  Church  of  Philadelphia, 
 Miss  ilary  Hahn,  told  the  writer  that  Dr.  Finney  stayed  at  her  father's 
 house  and  was  always  praying.  She  was  converted  at  that  time  and  was 
 one  of  the  most  beautiful  Christian  characters  we  have  ever  known. 
 
Revivals  During  This  Period.  181 
 
 board  of  trustees  of  that  church  and  recommended  to  other 
 Reformed  congregations.  There  was  also  a  great  revival  at 
 Frederick,  Md.,  in  1829,  under  the  pastorate  of  Rev.  Jonathan 
 Helffenstein.  who  had  for  his  assistant  Rev.  Jacob  Helffen- 
 stein.  The  former  says  "there  were  eighty  conversions,  great 
 good  done  and  that  other  congregations  of  the  town  were  feel- 
 ing the  intiuence  of  this  revival  in  the  Reformed  Church." 
 IMaryland  Classis  (1829)  says  his  (Jacob  Ilelifenstein's)  la- 
 bors were  crowned  with  an  awakening.  In  1831  that  classis 
 reports  a  revival  at  Emmittsburg  and  states  that  revivals  are 
 the  only  hope  of  the  church. 
 
 In  1832  revivals  are  reported  at  Hagerstown,  Nittany  Val- 
 ley, Greencastle  with  fifty  conversions,  and  Chambersburg 
 with  sixty  confirmations.  A  revival  in  the  Presbyterian 
 Church  at  York  that  year  greatly  affected  the  students  of  the 
 German  Reformed  seminary  there.  In  1833  revivals  are  re- 
 ported at  Jonestown  and  at  Penn  Valley  mider  Schneck. 
 Maryland  Classis  (1833)  reports  a  number  of  revivals. 
 Ebaugh  published,  with  the  approval  of  the  synod,  an  Eng- 
 lish translation  of  Zollikofer's  Prayerbook,  as  an  aid  to  the 
 introduction  of  family  worship.  In  1834  revivals  are  re- 
 ported at  Lebanon,  where  Kroh  was  assisted  by  Scluieck,  and 
 reported  130  conversions.  Revivals  are  also  reported  that 
 3^ear  at  Davidson  County  and  Lexington,  N.  C.  In  1834  a 
 protracted  meeting  was  held  at  AVoodstock,  Va.,  just  before 
 the  meeting  of  Maryland  Classis  and  continued  by  it  through 
 its  sessions. 
 
 In  1835  revivals  are  noted  at  Penn  Valley,  near  Landis- 
 burg,  at  St.  Matthew's,  Brownback's  and  St.  Peter's  in 
 Chester  Coimty  under  Guldin  assisted  by  Smaltz  and  Davis. 
 St.  Peter's  received  15,  Brownback's,  61.  In  1836  Carlisle 
 reports  a  revival  imder  its  pastor,  Aurand,  assisted  by  Ra- 
 hauser,  of  Hagerstown,  and  Smaltz,  when  80-90  were  awak- 
 ened and  32  united  with  the  church.  Landisburg  reported  a 
 revival  under  Scholl.  At  Brick  Church,  N.  C,  Crawford 
 reported  a  revival  with  35  additions,  as  did  Penn  Valley,  Pa. 
 In  1837  the  York  congregation  had  a  great  revival  under 
 Cares,  assisted  by  Guldin.    Two  prayer-meetings  were  started, 
 
132        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 one  for  malos,  the  other  for  females,*  the  latter  taking  a 
 pledge  somewhat  like  tlie  Cliristian  Endeavor  of  to-day. f 
 This  revival  was  espeeially  imi)ortant  beeause  it  affected  the 
 students  of  our  Theological  Seminary  at  York.  Boehm's 
 Chureh  had  a  revival,  where  the  conversion  of  a  prominent 
 young  man  who  opposed  the  meetings  led  to  more  than  100 
 conversions.  Grindstone  II ill,  Bakersville,  Md.,  under  Re- 
 baugh ;  St.  JMatthew's,  Chester  Comity,  imder  Knipe,  report 
 revivals  as  do  Shepherdstown,  Va.,  and  Germantown  under 
 Osborne.  Wagner,  at  Lebanon,  reports  a  great  work  of  grace 
 — 100  conversions. 
 
 In  1838  the  religious  interest  continued  at  Lebanon.  The 
 Philadelphia  congregation,  under  Berg,  Liverpool,  Perry 
 County,  under  Gerhaj-t ;  St.  Peter's,  Ya.,  under  Ilensell,  with 
 30  conversions;  Trenton,  -under  Smaltz,  with  35  additions, 
 and  Attica,  Ind.,  report  revivals.  Guldin,  assisted  l\y  Jacob 
 Ziegler,  added  35  at  Trappe  and  reported  a  revival  at  Brown- 
 back's.  In  the  Fall  of  1838  Taneytown,  under  Feete,  aided 
 by  Freeze,  Fisher,  AVeiser,  AVagner  and  Keller,  added  21. 
 Germantown,  under  Osborne,  had  20  additions,  making  86 
 in  one  year. 
 
 In  1839,  Philadrlphia,  under  Berg,  Centre  County,  Pa., 
 Hagerstown,  under  A.  llelffenstein,  Germantown  and  Glade, 
 Md.,  imder  Freeze,  reported  revivals.  At  Waynesboro,  Gless- 
 ner  reported  100  serious  persons.  Boalsburg,  Centre  County, 
 under  P.  Fisher,  assist(>d  by  Yj.  KiefFer,  had  a  revival,  and  as 
 a  result  raised  $100  for  foreign  missions.  Stone  Church,  N. 
 C,  under  Crawford,  Lexington,  N.  C,  under  Crooks,  witli 
 30  additions,  had  revivals.  Ileiner  reported  that  he  had 
 shared  in  the  general  revival  in  Baltimore  under  Knapj),  the 
 great  evangelist.  lie  was  assisted  by  Berg  and  Cares  and 
 had  nearly  100  additions  and  the  church  was  greatly  bene- 
 fitted. Maryland  Classis  (1839)  reports  revivals  at  Hagers- 
 town and  Waynesboro. 
 
 *Eev.  A.  Helffenstein  had  the  first  female  prayer  meeting  in  our  Church, 
 begun  by  his  wife  in  the  Baltimore  congregation  as  early  as  1830. 
 fSee  Appendix  I  for  Rev.  Mr.  Cares'  letter  about  the  revival. 
 
Revivals  During  This  Period.  133 
 
 In  1840  the  interest  at  Baltimore  continued.  Carlisle, 
 under  Aurand,  had  30  conversions.  Hensell,  from  St.  Peter's 
 Church,  Jennings  Branch,  Va.,  reported  that  50  years  before 
 there  had  been  a  great  revival  in  his  church  and  so  again  now. 
 lie  had  meetings  at  St.  John's  Church,  where  he  was  assisted 
 by  Colliflower,  with  30  conversions.  Boehm's  Church  had  a 
 revival  under  Ewing.  A  revival  under  Ewiug  in  a  grove  near 
 Pleasantville  led  to  the  organization  of  a  Reformed  church 
 there.  Tarlton,  0.,  St.  Thomas,  Pa.,  under  Kremer,  reported 
 revivals.  Zion's  Classis  reported  revivals  at  Chambersburg, 
 also  Fayetteville,  York,  Shippensburg,  Carlisle  and  in  part  of 
 the  Gettysburg  charge. 
 
 In  1841,  Boonsboro  reported  40  conversions.  Berg's  con- 
 gregation in  Philadelphia  had  200  additions,  150  by  con- 
 version. Bethlehem,  0.,  under  Slosser,  Sugar  Valley,  Pa., 
 under  P.  S.  Fisher,  Gettysburg,  under  Gutelius,  Lebanon, 
 under  Wagner,  Maytown,  under  Hoffheins,  Waynesboro, 
 under  Bomberger,  assisted  by  Kunkle,  of  Greencastle  and 
 Jacob  Helffenstein,  of  Chambersburg,  reported  revivals. 
 Middletown,  under  Bucher,  assisted  by  Heiner  and  Bom- 
 berger, Shippensburg,  under  Kremer,  Grindstone  Hill,  mider 
 Guldin,  Mansfield,  0.,  under  Leiter,  reported  revivals. 
 
 In  1842,  Emmittsburg,  imder  Freeze,  AVaynesboro,  imder 
 Bomberger,  Glade,  under  Colliflower,  who  was  assisted  by 
 Zacharias,  Bucher  and  Hoifmeier,  Frederick,  under  Zach- 
 arias,  Dauphin  County,  under  Kooken,  Dayton,  0.,  Maytown, 
 and  Lebanon,  under  Wagner,  had  revivals.  Several  members 
 of  the  Hill  Church,  near  Lebanon,  attended  the  revival  serv- 
 ices in  Lebanon,  and  were  so  impressed  that  they  were  con- 
 verted and  begged  for  meetings  at  their  church.  Millerstown 
 had  50  conversions.  Tiffin,  under  Kroh,  Littlestown  and  Ab- 
 bottstown,  under  Sechler,  Dauphin  County,  under  Gerhart, 
 Centre,  Lancaster  County,  under  Hertz,  Friends'  Cove,  under 
 Leidy,  Schellsburg,  Landisburg,  imdei-  Leinbach,  had  revivals, 
 as  had  Mt.  Bethel,  Zulieh's  charge  in  East  Pennsylvania, 
 Tarlton,  0.,  and  nearly  every  charge  in  Maryland  Classis  also. 
 
 In  1843,  Bucher  reported  a  great  work  of  grace  at  Reading, 
 in  which  he  was  aided  by  Berg  and  Wagner.  Berg  at  Philadel- 
 
!134        History  of  Reformed  Ciiurcii  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 phia,  Wagner  at  Lebanon,  Tobias  and  J.  L r  at  Blooms- 
 burg,  report  revivals,  the  latter  with  200  saved.  ]\IcConnells- 
 town,  Harrisburg,  under  Mesick,  York,  under  Cares,  reported 
 revivals.  Bonnell,  at  Chambersburg,  assisted  by  Ramsey, 
 of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  added  43  to  the  church.  Near 
 jMcConnellstown  there  were  100  inquirers  in  a  district  without 
 
 a  church.    Tobias  and  J.  L r  held  meetings  at  Orangeville 
 
 and  Mifflinburg  under  E.  Kieffer.  There  was  a  revival  at 
 Milton.  The  Paradise  church  near  there,  sent  for  Kieffer  to 
 hold  a  revival,  which  resulted  in  300  converts.  Tobias  re- 
 ported a  revival  in  Mahoning  Township,  near  Danville,  with 
 100  conversions.  Lancaster,  under  Glessner,  had  65  conver- 
 sions. Manchester,  Md.,  under  Geiger,  aided  by  Sechler, 
 Gutelius  and  Philips,  Water  St.,  under  M.  Kieffer,  and  Me- 
 Connellstown,  with  100  converts,  reported  revivals.  Sechler, 
 at  Littlestown,  had  300  converts.  The  movement  spread  into 
 Eastern  Pennsylvania,  then  the  most  conservative  part  of  the 
 Church,  at  Mt.  Bethel,  Hamilton  and  Cherr}'^  Valley,  under 
 Hoffeditz.  Philadelphia  received  25,  New  Buffalo,  Perry 
 County,  50  converts.  Bethlehem,  0.,  had  a  revival.  A  great 
 increase  is  reported  in  our  Church  as  the  result  of  these 
 movements  during  1S43:  in  Pennsylvania,  3,47() ;  in  Ohio, 
 1,536;  total,  5,012. 
 
 In  1844,  Boehm's  reported  a  revival,  as  did  Reading, 
 under  Bucher,  where  there  were  300  conversions  and  85  added 
 to  the  chui'ch.  Orangeville  declared  it  would  take  no  min- 
 ister who  would  not  have  revivals.  Womelsdorf  and  Myers- 
 town  reported  30  converts  under  T.  Leinbach,  assisted  by  Rev. 
 Mr.  Chapman,  a  teacher  in  the  academy  there,  and  by  Rev. 
 J.  B.  Shade,  a  colporter  of  the  American  Tract  Society. 
 
 Such  are  the  facts  reported  in  the  Messenger  and  elsewhere. 
 It  is  to  be  remembered  that  in  those  days  church  papers  gave 
 very  few  items  of  local  news.  So  these  may  be  taken  as' an 
 evidence  of  many  more  not  mentioned.  We  thus  see  that  re- 
 vivals were  then  common  in  the  Church.  While  there  were 
 ministers  who  opposed  them,  as  Helffrich  and  others,  who 
 relied   only  on   catechization,    it   is   to   be   noticed   that   the 
 
Revivals  During  This  Period.  135 
 
 leaders  of  the  Church  held  revivals  and  thus  committed  the 
 Church  to  them. 
 
 We  have  not  especially  referred  to  revivals  in  the  West 
 during  this  period  for  two  reasons:  1.  There  is  very  little 
 information  about  them,  there  having  been  no  Western  church 
 paper  during  this  period.  2.  There  never  has  been  any  con- 
 troversy in  the  West  as  in  the  East  where,  under  Mercersburg 
 theology,  it  has  been  denied  altogether  that  the  Reformed 
 Church  was  a  revival,  yes,  even  a  prayer-meeting  church. 
 But  the  West  never  had  a  Mercersburg  controversy  to  chill 
 its  evangelistic  spirit.  The  English  portion  was  in  the  main 
 revivalistic,  although  there  were  a  number  of  ministers,  espe- 
 cially German,  who  opposed  them. 
 
 Later  the  Church  in  Ohio  was  more  inclined  to  revivals  than 
 our  eastern  Church,  and  many  are  reported.  There  were,  how- 
 ever, a  number  of  ministers,  (especially  the  Germans,)  and 
 congregations  who  opposed  revivals  in  any  form,  using  only 
 catechization,  while  others  endeavored  to  combine  both  as  by 
 holding  a  revival  meeting  before  organizing  a  catechetical  class 
 or  in  connection  with  the  class.  Some  of  the  revivalists,  how- 
 ever, began  to  go  to  great  extremes,  ignoring  catechetical  in- 
 struction altogether  and  introducing  the  mourners'  bench. 
 Often  what  one  pastor  had  done  would  be  undone  by  his  suc- 
 cessor, who  held  to  the  other  method.  Often  congregations  were 
 distracted,  yes,  divided,  so  that  in  a  number  of  places  there 
 would  be  two  Reformed  churches  almost  opposite  each  other, 
 the  one  old-measure,  the  other  new-measure,  as  conservatives 
 and  revivalists  were  then  called.  The  result  of  these  diverse 
 views  was  that  hardly  had  the  Ohio  synod  and  the  West 
 Pennsylvania  classis  united  when  it  was  deemed  wise  to  di- 
 vide the  synod  into  district  synods  until  the  church  coalesced 
 better.  So,  from  1840  to  1842,  three  district  synods  were  held 
 annually,  and  not  till  1842  was  a  general  synod  held.  As  a  re- 
 sult, the  two  extremes  came  to  collision  and  finally  matters 
 came  to  a  crisis.  In  1840  the  second  or  northern  district  took 
 action  stating  that 
 
 It  recognized  only  such  prayer-meetings  as  were  like  those  held  by  the 
 early  Christians  of  the  primitive  church,  but  not  such  as  were  held  in 
 
336        History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 these  days.  A  petition  from  some  members  of  Manchester  Church,  Sum- 
 mit County,  O.,  asked  their  next  meeting  in  1841  for  information  as  to 
 how  the  prayer-meetings  were  held  in  the  early  Christian  church.  The 
 synod  replied  that  it  considered  only  those  to  be  according  to  the  New 
 Testament  which  observed  proper  decorum. 
 
 The  matter  was  finally  settled  when  the  three  districts  of 
 the  Ohio  synod  again  met  in  united  session  in  1842.  Then  a 
 request  came  before  it  from  Wayne  and  Richland  Counties, 
 0.,  asking  it  to  take  extreme  measures — to  discountenance  new- 
 measures,  protracted  meetings,  the  mourners'  bench,  temper- 
 ance societies  and  all  fanaticism.  The  synod  took  the  wise 
 action  that 
 
 It  aimed  to  prevent  all  fanaticism  and  errors  contrary  to  the  customs 
 of  our  Church  as  by  the  instruction  of  the  youth  in  the  Heidelberg  cate- 
 chism. "We  ought,"  it  says,  "to  have  especial  regard  for  Acts  2:  24, 
 and  not  only  aim  to  preserve  ourselves  in  the  true  life  after  the  manner 
 of  the  early  church  but  also  to  produce  awakenings  where  the  congrega- 
 tions are  cold  and  lukewarm. ' ' 
 
 This  sane  action  seems  to  have  been  considered  too  gencrrd, 
 so  at  the  same  meeting  an  additional  action  was  taken : 
 
 "Resolved,  That  the  synod  disapprove  of  disorderly  protracted  meet- 
 ings, the  introduction  of  the  mourner's  bench,  the  public  praying  of 
 women  in  mixed  assemblies  or  the  praying  of  more  than  one  person  at 
 the  same  time.  But  this  action  is  not  to  refer  to  orderly  protracted  meet- 
 ings and  prayer-meetings." 
 
 Thus  the  synod  took  conservative  action,  clinging  to  catechi- 
 zation  and  disapproving  of  fanaticism,  but  approving  of 
 solemn  religious  and  protracted  meetings. 
 
 Section  3.     The  Support  op  Revivals  by  the  Institutions 
 OF  THE  Church. 
 
 The  leading  institutions  of  the  Church  at  that  time  were 
 the  seminary  and  college  and  also  the  church  paper.  The 
 Messenger,  and  its  predecessor  the  German  Reformed  Maga- 
 zine give  prominence  to  revivals,  whether  the  editor  was  Prof. 
 L.  Mayer,  Rev.  Mr.  Young,  Dr.  Schneck  or  Dr.  S.  R.  Fisher. 
 Not  merely  did  they  give  accounts  of  revivals  but  by  editorials 
 endorsed  them.     Thus,  in  1838,  when  a  conservative  German 
 
Revivals  During  This  Period.  137 
 
 Lutheran  paper,  The  Protest a)it,  attacked  Dr.  Winters'  re- 
 vivals at  Dayton,  0.,  it  took  up  their  case  and  attacked  the 
 assertions  made  by  it.    The  Messenger  says: 
 
 ' '  The  impression  is  attempted  to  be  made  that  revivals  are  of  recent 
 date.  So  far  as  our  denomination  in  this  country  is  concerned,  we  would 
 ask  who  were  Schlatter  and  Hendel  and  Helffenstein  and  Wagner  and 
 Runkel  and  Geistweit  and  Graves  and  a  host  of  the  departed  dead.  They 
 were  the  fathers  of  our  church,  and  who  were  more  zealous  in  promoting 
 genuine  revivals  of  religion, — who  more  anxious  to  see  souls  converted 
 to  God  than  they. ' ' 
 
 And  yet  while  favorable  to  revivals,  The  Messenger  never 
 favored  fanaticism.     Speaking  of  the  inquiry  room,  it  says : 
 
 "We  are  free  to  confess  that  there  have  been  extravagant  measures 
 connected  with  such  meetings  which  deserve  to  be  condemned.  But  the 
 abuse  does  not  set  aside  the  proper  use,  or  else  we  might  lock  up  our 
 churches  because  some  abuse  the  privileges  of  divine  worship."  It  then 
 goes  on  to  endorse  the  inquiry-room  method  for  personal  conversation 
 and  special  instruction  and  counsel  to  the  awakened.  It  states  that  dur- 
 ing the  centennial  year  (1841)  revivals  were  instrumental  in  raising 
 considerable  money  as  well  as  in  quickening  interest  in  the  congre- 
 gations. In  1843  it  devotes  an  article  in  praise  of  revivals  and  says, 
 "A  healthy  state  prevails  among  the  churches." 
 
 The  Seminary,  like  The  Messenger,  supported  revivals. 
 Prof.  Mayer  inherited  this  pietistic  tendency  from  Wagner, 
 whose  convert  and  student  he  was.  Ranch  had  not  been  ac- 
 customed to  them  in  the  part  of  Germany  where  he  came 
 from,  but  he  says  in  The  Messenger: 
 
 "As  to  revivals,  I  must  admit  that  many  Germans  are  opposed  to 
 them.  But  Germany  has  had  its  revivals  and  may  have  them  again ; 
 what  is  to  be  done  in  regard  to  the  Germans  of  this  country  is  to  re- 
 move the  causes  of  their  prejudice.  Let  the  good  proceeding  from 
 revivals  be  seen  and  the  Germans  will  be  sooner  blest  with  them  than 
 we  could  expect." 
 
 The  surroundings  of  the  seminary,  especially  at  York,  were 
 favorable  to  them.  The  revival  there  in  the  Presbyterian 
 Church  (1832)  and  afterward  the  revival  in  the  Reformed 
 Church  under  Cares  (1837)  greatly  affected  the  students.  In 
 1838,  according  to  accounts  in  The  Messenger,  special  prayer 
 was  offered  in  our  churches  for  a  revival  among  the  students 
 
138        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 at  Marshall  College  in  connection  with  the  day  of  prayer  for 
 colleges  in  Februar}^,  1838,  and  Berg  then  reports  consider- 
 able religious  interest  among  the  students.  In  1839,  The 
 Messenger  again  urged  the  church  to  pray  for  the  college  in 
 connection  with  the  day  of  prayer.  In  1840,  at  the  September 
 meeting  of  the  board  of  visitors,  Rev.  Jacob  Ilelffcnstein 
 preached  to  the  students  on  the  "Nature  and  Reality  of  Re- 
 vivals," which  was  published  in  full  in  The  Messenger. 
 Appel*  speaks  of  a  large  and  solemn  prayer-meeting  at  col- 
 lege, when  a  number  left  to  enter  the  ministry.  Another  ac- 
 count speaks  of  a  revival  in  IMarshall  College  in  1840.  Even 
 Appel,t  who  is  not  in  sympathy  with  revivals  because  of  his 
 Mereersburg  theology,  grants  their  existence  in  the  college 
 and  says  that  Dr.  Ranch  during  a  revival  (Appel  stigmatizes 
 it  as  "a  religious  excitement")  which  broke  out  among  the 
 students,  tried  to  turn  it  to  useful  account  by  visiting  them 
 from  room  to  room  and  speaking  to  them  about  their  spiritual 
 interests.  Dr.  Ranch,  in  a  letter  of  March  21,  1838,  to  his 
 father  in  Germany,  says: 
 
 "Our  land  is  blessed  with  a  revival  and  our  school  was  not  left  out 
 from  this  great  blessing.  Without  any  special  effort  on  our  part,  without 
 any  expectation  of  it,  suddenly  there  was  an  awakening  in  our  midst. 
 All  the  students  suddenly  became  earnest,  thoughtful,  asked  for  twice 
 as  many  services,  yes,  three  times.  They  held  prayer-meetings  among 
 themselves  and  there  was(  such  a  favorable  change  in  the  behavior  of 
 all,  in  their  diligence,  etc.,  and  their  desire  for  the  revelation  of  the 
 divine  Word,  that  no  one  who  would  only  preach  the  morality  of  the 
 Bible,  could  set  himself  against  such  a  blessing  of  God.  And  this  new 
 life  of  which  the  revival  was  a  part,  was  for  my  blessing  and  I  have  had 
 hours  of  greatest  joy  among  the  students  who  desire  to  give  themselves 
 to  God  in  the  bloom  of  life."    Later  in  the  letter  he  defends  the  revival. 
 
 A  student  of  the  college  in  those  days,  writing  about  twenty- 
 five  years  later,  says : 
 
 "We  have  a  distinct  recollection  of  the  Bible  class  and  prayer- 
 meeting,  both  in  the  college  chapel  and  tlie  private  houses  at  Mercers- 
 burg  in  those  days.  These  meetings  Avere  held  regularly  once  a 
 week  and  generally  conducted  by  Prof.  Green  or  the  tutors  of  the  col- 
 
 *ColIege  Eecollections,  page  160. 
 f  College  Eecollections,  157-8. 
 
Revivals  During  This  Period.  139 
 
 lege  and  sometimes  by  students  of  the  seminary.  Appel  says,*  ' '  The 
 practice  was,  of  course,  encouraged  by  Dr.  Nevin  and  the  faculty  of  the 
 college  and  by  leading  members  of  the  congregation.  They  were  at- 
 tended by  members  of  the  church  and  by  many  of  the  students.  The 
 students  and  laity  were  encouraged  to  take  part  in  prayer. ' '  Another 
 alumnus,  writing  of  those  days,  says:  "The  seminary  and  the  college 
 was  largely  nurtured  by  the  ministers  and  churches  who  in  that  day 
 were  styled  new-measures.  They  were  the  fruits  of  a  revival  from  dead 
 formalism  and  lifeless,  and  often  godless,  churchliness.  The  men  and 
 ministers  who  raised  the  first  endowment  of  $10,000  were  all  or  nearly 
 all  of  those  who  favored  revivals. ' '  If  this  is  true,  as  we  believe  it  is, 
 then  how  far  did  that  seminary  in  later  years  under  Mercersburg  the- 
 ology depart  from  the  expectations  of  its  founders  by  its  opposition  to 
 revivals. 
 
 Section  4.  Approval  of  Revivals  by  the  Classes  and  Synod. 
 
 Nothing  gives  a  clearer  indication  of  the  position  of  the 
 Church  than  the  official  action  of  its  governing  bodies.  These 
 bodies  were  quite  outspoken  about  revivals. 
 
 Maryland  Classis  was  perhaps  the  leader  in  this,  as  it  was  at  that  time 
 
 in  most  of  the  forward  moveinents  of  the  church.     In   1831  it   held  a 
 
 99 
 
 sunrise  prayer-meeting.     In  1832  it  requested  of  the  members  of  classis 
 
 that-  two  or  three  or  more  of  them  unite  in  holding  protracted  meetings. 
 
 In  1835  it  speaks  approvingly  of  revivals,  as  also  in  1836  and  1841. 
 
 Zion's  Classis  reports  revivals  in  1839.  Its  report  of  1843,  written 
 by  E.  V.  Gerhart,  says :  ' '  With  many  portions  of  our  church  we  must 
 record  a  grand  revival  of  true  piety  within  our  bounds.  The  Holy  Spirit 
 had  been  poured  out  in  answer  to  believing  prayer. ' ' 
 
 Virginia  Classis,  in  1840,  speaking  of  formalists  and  opposers  of  re- 
 vivals, says :  ' '  Blessed  be  God ;  his  grace  is  sufficient  for  every  emergency 
 and  will  bring  them  to  submission." 
 
 Lebanon  Classis  went  farther  than  the  others.  It  not  only  endorsed 
 revivals  but  attacked  their  opposers.  When  Dr.  Bucher,  the  pastor  at 
 Beading,  was  charged  by  some  of  his  members  with  departing  from  Ee- 
 formed  custom  by  having  a  revival,  the  classis  most  decidedly  upheld 
 him  and  sharply  rebuked  his  opponents.  It  went  farther  than  this; 
 it  ordered  prayer-meetings  to  be  introduced  into  the  congregations. 
 And  when  Eev.  William  Pauli  refused  he  was  disciplined  for  con- 
 tumacy.    Ills  name  was  finally  <lropped  from  the  classis. 
 
 When  Philadelphia  Classis  in  1838  had  concluded  its  sessions,  as  the 
 members  were  disappointed  in  being  conveyed  from  the  place  of  meeting 
 to  the  railroad,   they  returned   to  the  church,  where  Rev.   Mr.   Ebaugh 
 
 ^College  Recollections,  150-60. 
 
140 
 
 History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 preached  and  they  followed  it  with  another  meeting  of  exhortation  and 
 prayer  till  nearly  the  going  down  of  the  sun. 
 
 North  Carolina  classis  made  protracted  meetings  binding  in  1838 
 and  in  1840.  It  held  a  camp-meeting  at  St.  Matthew 's  Church,  which  took 
 place  for  many  years,  and  ordered  the  members  of  classis  to  attend  it. 
 
 St.  Matthew's  Arbor,  Lincoln  Co.,  N.  C,  Where  Reformed 
 Camp-meetings  Were  Held. 
 
 East  Pennsylvania  classis,  the  mast  conservati\e  of  all,  the  only  one 
 that  had  publicly  taken  action  again  against  such  aggressive  movements 
 in  1829,  commended  revivals  in  1842. 
 
 These  actions  of  the  classes  were  endorsed  and  echoed  by  the  Eastern 
 synod.  In  1838,  it  had  a.  prayer-meeting  every  morning.  In  1840  it 
 expressed  itself  favorable  to  revivals  of  religion  in  its  report  on  the 
 state  of  religion.  In  1843  it  rejoices  at  reports  of  revivals.  The  report 
 of  state  of  religion  of  1843  reads  thus:  "Most  of  the  classes  give 
 the  heart-cheering  intelligence  that  many  of  their  churches  have  en- 
 joyed special  outpourings  of  the  Holy  S])irit."  It  then  notes  especially 
 the  classes  of  Mercersburg,  Maryland  and  Ziou.  In  1844  it  again  ex- 
 presses gratification  at  them.  Berg  preached  a  sermon  at  the  synod 
 of  1844,  in  which  he  defends  new-measures  and  prayer-meetings,  saying, 
 they  had  always  been  soundly  Reformed.  It  met  with  so  much  favor  that 
 it  was  ordered  to  be  ])rinte(l  and  it  appeared  in  the  Messenger. 
 
 From  all  these  testimonies  it  is  very  evident  that  the  recent 
 attempts  to  read  out  revivals  as  not  Reformed  is  in  itself  un- 
 Reformed.    Not  only  have  they  been  pcriiiiltcd,  but  they  have 
 
Revivals  During  This  Period.  141 
 
 been  endorsed  by  the  various  courts  of  our  Church,  even  the 
 highest.  The  various  institutions  of  the  Church  approved  of 
 them.  The  seminary  and  college  at  Mercersburg  were  Jargely 
 the  outgrowth  of  the  inspiration  and  aggressiveness  developed 
 by  them.  These  revivals  are  just  as  legitimate  a  part  of  the 
 life  and  history  of  our  Reformed  Church  as  any  other.  And 
 the  more  we  have  quiet,  serious,  ehurchly  revivals  in  connec- 
 tion with  our  catechetical  classes  the  better. 
 
 Section  5.    The  "Anxious  Bench,"  by  Ur.  Nevin. 
 
 The  publication  of  the  "Anxious  Bench,"  in  1843,  by  Ur. 
 Nevin,  is  supposed  to  have  turned  the  tide  against  revivals  in 
 our  Church  in  the  East.  It  certainly  caused  a  sensation.  But 
 just  as  certainly  was  it  not  aimed  at  revivals  in  general  but 
 at  the  particular  kind  of  noisy  revival  known  as  the  anxious 
 bench.  Later  Dr.  Nevin  advanced  to  more  extreme  views 
 against  revivals  than  are  given  in  his  "Anxious  Bench,"  but 
 it  was  his  ^lercersburg  theology  and  not  the  "Anxious  Bench" 
 which  turned  the  tide  against  them  by  its  high  churchism 
 and  sacramentarianism,  for  when  he  wrote  this  book  he  was 
 favorable  to  genuine  revivals.  This  is  clearly  proved  by  his 
 writings  at  that  time.  In  his  series  of  articles  on  the  Heidel- 
 berg Catechism,  when  he  came  to  speak  of  our  Church  in 
 America,*  he  thus  berates  opposers  to  revivals  in  our  de- 
 nomination : 
 
 ' '  Loose  ideas  of  Christian  profession  and  church  discipline  were  preva- 
 lent. Confirmation  was  looked  upon  as  a  privilege  to  which  all  were 
 entitled  at  a  certain  age  on  the  condition  of  a  mere  outward  preparation 
 in  the  way  of  learning  the  catechism.  Great  value  was  attached  to  it 
 as  the  seal  and  certificate  of  membership  in  the  church,  although  in  most 
 cases  it  had  little  force  subsequently  as  a  bond  upon  the  soul  in  favor 
 of  righteousness.  To  be  confirmed  and  then  to  take  the  sacrament  oc- 
 casionally was  counted  by  multitudes  all  that  was  necessary  to  make  a 
 good  Christian,  if  only  a  tolerable  decency  of  outward  life  were  main- 
 tained besides,  without  any  regard  at  all  to  the  religion  of  the  heart. 
 True  serious  piety  indeed  was  too  often  treated  with  open  and  marked 
 scorn.  In  the  bosom  of  the  church  itself,  it  was  stigmatized  as  Schwer- 
 merei,  Kopfhaengerei  or  miserable  driveling  Methodism.     The  idea  of  the 
 
 *Messenger,  August  10,  1842. 
 
142        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 new  birth  was  considered  a  pietistic  whimry.  Experimental  religion  in 
 all  its  forms  was  eschewed  as  a  new-fangled  invention  of  cunning  im- 
 j)0sters  brought  in  to  turn  the  heads  of  the  weak  and  to  lead  captive 
 silly  women.  Prayer-meetings  were  held  to  be  a  sjiiritual  abomination. 
 Family  worship  was  a  species  of  saintly  affectation  barely  tolerable  in 
 the  case  of  ministers  (though  many  of  them  also  gloried  in  having  no 
 altar  in  their  homes),  but  absolutely  disgraceful  for  common  Christians. 
 To  show  an  awakened  concern  on  the  subject  of  religion,  a  disposition 
 to  call  upon  God  in  secret  prayer  was  to  incur  certain  reproach.  And 
 all  this  in  the  midst  of  a  professed  regard  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism 
 and  the  institutions  and  doctrines  generally  of  the  German  Reformed 
 Church.  As  if  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  did  not  inculcate  serious  heart- 
 religion, — the  necessity  of  the  new  birth,  the  duties  of  repentance, 
 faith  and  godly  living — from  beginning  to  end.  As  if  it  had  not  been 
 the  distinguishing  glory  of  the  Reformed  Church  from  the  days  of 
 Zwingli  and  Calvin  to  serve  God  with  the  spirit  in  the  gospel  of  his 
 Son  and  not  simply  in  the  latter.  It  is  treason  to  the  Cate<»hism  and  to 
 the  spirit  of  the  Church  thus  to  ])ut  reproach  on  Evangelical  godliness 
 and  brand  as  Methodism  those  forms  of  sentiment  and  conduct  pre- 
 cisely which  did  practical  homage  in  the  fullest  extent  to  both."* 
 
 Such  were  his  views  just  before  he  wrote  the  ''Anxious 
 Bench." 
 
 Two  events,  however,  were  the  direct  causes  for  the  pub- 
 lication of  this  book.  The  first  was  the  revival  at  Mer- 
 cersburg  toward  the  close  of  1842.  Rev.  Mr.  Ramsey,  a 
 returned  missionary  from  India  and  a  brother-in-law  of  Rev. 
 ]Mr.  Bonnell.  pastor  of  the  Reformed  church  at  Chambersburp:. 
 had  been  doing  considerable  evangelistic  work  in  our  church. f 
 Dr.  Nevin  had  known  him  as  a  student  at  Princeton  and  had 
 recommended  him  to  the  consistory  at  IMercersburg,  who  had 
 no  pastor  at  that  time.  Mr.  Ramsey  was  a  preacher  of  some 
 power,  being  later  pastor  of  the  Cedar  Street  Presbyterian 
 Church  of  Philadelphia.  Dr.  Xevin  invited  Ramsey  to  preach 
 at  Mercersburg  at  confirmation  services.    The  latter  came  and 
 
 *Dr.  Nevin,  when  he  came  into  our  church  from  the  Presbyterian,  seems 
 to  have  had  an  idea  that  our  church  was  suffering  greatly  from  formal- 
 ism. So,  soon  after  he  came  to  us,  he  began  a  series  of  articles  in  the 
 Messenger  on  "  Worldly-mindedness. "  They  were  written,  says  Api>el, 
 "in  the  style  of  his  Puritan  education."  He  later  reveals  the  same 
 idea  in  a  number  of  missionary  articles. 
 
 jHistorv  of  Mercersburg  congregation,  pages  8-9;  Appel,  College 
 Recollections,  317-23. 
 
Revivals  During  This  Period.  143 
 
 preached  several  days  before.  In  the  service  at  Mercersburg 
 on  Sunday  evening,  when  the  church  was  densely  crowded, 
 without  consulting  any  one,  on  the  spur  of  the  moment,  he 
 introduced  the  anxious  bench  and  called  for  persons  to  come 
 forward  to  it,  as  the  catechumens  had  boon  instructed  to  do 
 by  him.  He  then  called  on  Dr.  Nevin  to  make  a  few  remarks. 
 Dr.  Nevin  in  a  judicious  way  reminded  his  hearers  that  they 
 should  not  suppose  that  coming  to  Christ  and  to  the  altar 
 were  one  and  the  same  thing,  for  one  could  come  to  the 
 anxious  bench  and  not  to  God.  The  congregation  was  so 
 much  pleased  with  Mr.  Ramsey  that  they  were  about  to  elect 
 him  as  pastor.  Dr.  Nevin,  who  had  been  anxious  for  his  elec- 
 tion by  the  congregation,  however,  wrote  him  a  letter,  saying 
 that  if  he  accepted  he  would  have  to  adopt  the  catechetical 
 system  which  was  in  use  in  the  Reformed  Church  or  else  he 
 could  not  work  heartily  with  him.  Ramsey  took  offence  at 
 this  and  at  once  declined  the  call,  assigning  as  a  reason  for 
 it  Nevin 's  letter,  and  he  wrote  Dr.  Nevin  a  letter  severely 
 flaying  him  for  his  opposition  on  revivals.  The  students 
 generally  sided  with  Ramsey,  for  the  spirit  of  the  Theological 
 seminary  under  Prof.  IMayer  had  been  favorable  to  revivals. 
 One  student  undertook  to  write  a  petition  and  to  get  signers 
 to  it,  so  as  to  lay  it  before  Nevin,  asking  him  to  recall  what 
 he  had  said  about  the  anxious  bench.  Dr.  Nevin  was  forced 
 by  popular  opinion  to  defend  himself,  which  he  did  in  "The 
 Anxious  Bench."  Thus  Ramsey's  attack  was  one  of  the 
 causes  that  led  him  to  write  that  book. 
 
 The  second  event  that  led  to  its  writing  was  the  attack 
 made  on  Dr.  Nevin  by  Rev.  Mr.  Winobrenner,  the  founder 
 of  the  denomination  called  the  "Church  of  God,"  and  for- 
 merly, as  we  have  seen,  a  Reformed  minister.  Dr.  Nevin. 
 in  his  excellent  articles  in  the  Messenger  on  the  Heidelberg 
 Catechism,  was  led  in  the  issue  of  August  10,  1842,  to  refer 
 to  the  Winebrennarians  as  a  secession  from  the  Reformed. 
 He  said  Winebrenner 
 
 "Had  dexterity  enough  to  put  in  motion  a  similar  ball  (to  the  United 
 Brethren)  which  continued  rolling  to  this  hour,  not  without  abundance 
 of  sound.     This  latter  sect  especially  glory  in  being  the  patron  of  ignor- 
 
144         History  of  Reforihed  Cihrcii  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 ance,  rail  at  hireling  ministers,  encourage  all  sorts  of  fanatical,  iin- 
 scriptural  disorder  and  institute  their  own  fancies  and  feelings  for 
 the  calm  deep  power  of  faith." 
 
 He  also  added  that  thoir  doctrines  were  Pelagian.  For 
 this  severe  arraignment  Winebrenner  wrote  Dr.  Nevin  a 
 severe  letter  on  September  30,  1842,  which  Dr.  Nevin  did  not 
 publish  until  July  32,  1843.  AVinebrenner  declared  that  Nevin 
 erred  in  making  the  Winebrennarians  patrons  of  ignorance 
 and  substituting  their  own  feelings  for  the  calm,  deep  power 
 of  faith.  Winebrenner  very  shrewdly  made  use  of  Nevin 's 
 previous  articles  on  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  against  him  to 
 show  that  Nevin  himself  had  bewailed  the  coldness  of  the 
 German  Reformed  Church  in  this  country.  Winebrenner  con- 
 tinued this  attack  on  Nevin  in  the  Religious  Telescope,  the  or- 
 gan of  his  church,  in  a  very  severe  manner.  These  attacks 
 seemed  to  have  annoyed  Dr.  Nevin.  so  that  later,  in  pub- 
 lishing Winebrenner 's  letter  in  July  of  1843,  he  announced 
 (September  9,  1843)  that  he  was  about  publishing  a  book  of 
 revivals.  He  had  been  lecturing  to  the  students  in  the  semi- 
 nary on  pastoral  theology,  and  included  in  his  lectures  some 
 on  New-j\Ieasurism,  in  which  he  defended  his  position.  These 
 he  enlarged  into  "The  Anxious  Bench,"  and  "The  Anxious 
 I^ench"  appeared  before  October  4.  In  this  book  he  has  re- 
 peated references  to  Winebrenner,  showing  that  the  latter 
 was  a  cause  for  its  publication. 
 
 In  it  Dr.  Nevin  said  that  a  crisis  had  come  to  the  church, 
 namely,  whether  the  church  was  to  be  ruled  hy  the  anxious 
 bench  or  by  her  old  catechetical  method.  He  is  very  careful 
 to  distinguish  the  anxious  bench  with  its  noisy  excitements 
 from  true  revivals,  and  his  book  is  aimed  against  the  former, 
 especially  against  those  who  think  that  the  anxious  bench 
 in  itself  saves  and  is  an  act  without  which  there  is  no  salva- 
 tion. 
 
 The  book  is  divided  into  six  cliapters.  After  showing 
 (chapter  1)  that  the  anxious  bench  was  a  clearly  defined 
 system  distinguished  from  any  other,  he  (chapter  2)  shows 
 that  its  success  is  not  to  be  measured  by  its  popularity; 
 (chapter  3)   that  reliance  on  outward  forms  is  a  weakness; 
 
Revivals  During  This  Period.  145 
 
 (chapter  4)  that  it  creates  false  issues  for  the  conscience,  un- 
 settling true  seriousness  and  usurping  the  place  of  the  cross. 
 In  chapter  5  he  meets  the  arguments  for  the  anxious  bench, 
 as,  that  it  causes  decision  on  the  part  of  the  seeker  and  in 
 chapter  6  he  charges  it  with  tending  to  disorder. 
 
 As  compared  with  his  later  development  into  Mercersburg 
 theology,  it  is  interesting  to  notice  certain  things  in  the  book. 
 Thus  the  Romish  Church  is  not  to  him  a  true  Church,  as  it  ap- 
 peared later  when  under  the  influence  of  Mercersburg  the- 
 olog}^    He  says : 
 
 "What  might  seem  more  rational  and  becoming  than  the  sign  of  the 
 cross  as  used  by  Christians  on  all  occasions  in  the  early  church.  And  yet 
 when  the  corruptions  of  Eome  were  thrown  off  by  the  Protestant  world  in 
 the  sixteenth  century,  this  and  other  similar  forms  were  required  to 
 pass  away.  And  why  is  it  that  the  sign  of  the  cross  as  once  used  is 
 now  counted  a  dangerous  superstition  not  to  be  permitted  among  Pro- 
 testants. Simply  because  it  falls  naturally  over  to  the  vast  system  of 
 abuses  of  which  it  forms  a  part  in  the  Eomish  church. 
 
 Chapter  3,  where  he  attacks  the  anxious  bench  because 
 reliance  on  such  outward  forms  is  a  weakness,  reads  strangely 
 in  the  light  of  his  later  emphasis  on  outward  liturgical  forms. 
 His  later  emphasis  on  baptismal  grace  is  quite  in  contrast 
 with  what  he  says  here,  w'hen  speaking  on  the  anxious  bench 
 as  having  been  placed  instead  of  Christ,  he  says,  "So  the 
 Puseyite  and  Papist  disclaim  the  idea  of  putting  into  Christ's 
 place  the  baptismal  font,  but  in  both  eases  it  is  perfectly 
 plain  that  Christ  is  seriously  wronged  notwithstanding." 
 On  the  meaning  of  infant  baptism,  he  here  holds  to  the  old 
 Reformed  view  that  the  children  of  Christians,  being  born 
 into  the  covenant,  are  regarded  as  members  of  the  church 
 from  the  beginning,  and  this  privilege  is  something  more  than 
 an  empty  show.  Yet  later  he  charges  Prof.  Rust  with  being 
 a  Pelagian  for  holding  such  views,  for  he  later  held  that  the 
 child  became  a  member  of  church  not  by  virtue  of  its  birth, 
 as  here,  but  by  baptism. 
 
 But  while  in  these  respects  he  is  against  his  later  views  on 
 theological  points,  he  shows  signs  on  some  philosophical  points 
 of  veering  toward  his  later  positions.     He  is  beginning  to  ' 
 
146        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 love  the  figure  of  organism,  which  hiter  pla^axl  so  prominent 
 a  part  in  his  system.  He  reveals  realism  in  philosophy  in 
 his  emphasis  on  universals  and  says  that  humanity  in  general 
 must  go  before  the  particular.  His  empliasis  on  the  exact 
 parallelism  between  the  first  and  second  Adam  is  beginning  to 
 appear.  Christ's  generic  life  as  the  root  of  the  Church  is 
 incidentally  referred  to.  But  he  does  not  yet  make  this  gen- 
 eric life  dependent  on  the  objective  force  of  the  church  and 
 sacraments  as  he  did  later  (which  was  the  distinguishing 
 feature  of  the  Nevinistic  view  theologically),  but  on  the  Holy 
 Spirit.  "The  book  was  not  an  attack  on  revivals  of  religion 
 but  rather  intended  to  show  that  true  revivals  grow  out  of  the 
 true  life  of  the  church  and  must  not  be  imposed  upon  it  from 
 without  or  accompanied  by  what  the  author  calls  ]\Iontanistic 
 ^extravagance. '  '* 
 
 The  book  created  a  sensation.  So  rapid  was  its  sale  that  by 
 January,  1844,  a  new  edition  was  needed. f  Trying  as  he  did 
 to  hold  the  middle  position  on  revivals,  he  was  misunderstood 
 by  both  extremes.  Those,  who  were  opposed  to  all  revival 
 movements  hailed  it  as  a  new  ally  for  them,  while  those  who 
 either  used  or  were  lenient  to  the  Anxious  Bench  regarded 
 it's  moderate  positions  on  revivals  as  too  narrow.  It  was 
 bitterly  attacked,  especially  by  the  latter.  Replies  to  it  were 
 made  by  no  less  than  six  Writers,  representing  five  different 
 denominations:  United  Brethren,  Lutheran,  Albright,  Meth- 
 odist and  Presbyterian  (New  School ).$  Davis,  pastor  of  the 
 Fifth  Presbyterian  Church  of  Pittsburg,  wrote  a  pamphlet 
 against  it,  entitled  "A  Plea  for  New  Measures,"  in  which 
 he  said  there  had  been  many  revivals  witliout  the  use  of  an 
 anxious  bench,  such  as  the  great  revival  of  1800.  He  called 
 Nevin's  work  "the  product  of  a  theological  Rip  Van  "Winkle 
 and  an  icicle  pamphlet."  Denny,  of  the  United  Brethren 
 Church,  wrote  strictures  on  it.     Nevin,  in  replying  to  him, 
 
 *Says  Prof.  Dubbs,  "The  Ecfornied  Church  in  Ponnsylvriiiia,"  page 
 305. 
 
 fDr.  Nevin  consi(lerjiV)ly  modified  his  vieAvs  in  later  editions  when  his 
 Mercersbnrg  views  had  once  developed.  Thus  he  later  refers  to  a  re- 
 vival as  "a  religious  frenzy,"  Appel,  Life  of  Nevin,  page  160. 
 
 tSee  Appel,  College  EccoUections,  pages  322-8, 
 
Revivals  During  This  Period.  147 
 
 called  him  the  politico-theological  plough  manufacturer  (it 
 seems  he  was  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  ploughs).  The 
 Christian  Botschaffcr,  the  organ  of  the  Albright  or  Evan- 
 gelical Association,  severely  denounced  the  book.  Wyeth, 
 a  JMethodist,  attacked  it  in  the  Lebanon  Courier,  as  did 
 Rigdon  in  the  New  York  Christian  Advocate,  a  Methodist 
 paper,  who  facetiously  declared  that  Nevin  had  given  the 
 book  a  wrong  name,  as  it  was  not  the  bench  that  was  anxious. 
 Rev.  Dr.  Kurtz,  the  editor  of  the  Lutheran  Observer,  replied 
 to  it  in  the  Lutheran  Observer,  charging  him  with  vagaries 
 and  want  of  Scriptural  authority.  This  was  published  in  a 
 "Tract  for  the  People."  Rev.  Reuben  Weiser,  a  Lutheran 
 minister  of  Bedford  County,  Pa.,  published  a  reply  in  1844, 
 saying  that  forty  Reformed  ministers  were  using  the  anxious 
 bench  as  occasion  required.  Some  years  after,  about  1855,  he 
 published  in  the  Lutheran  Observer,  a  retraction.  The  book 
 was  approved  by  the  Christian  Intelligencer  and  the  Presby- 
 terian. .  The  Princeton  Beview  joined  Avith  him  against  the 
 view  that  makes  the  anxious  bench  a  sort  of  a  third  sacra- 
 ment. 
 
 In  our  own  church  it  was  generally  approved,  although 
 Stem  says  that  only  one  of  the  students  at  Mercersburg,  Har- 
 baugh,  had  the  courage  to  come  out  in  full  sympathy  Avith 
 Nevin  at  first,  for  it  seems  that  whole  institution,  as  we  have 
 seen,  had  been  pervaded  with  sympath}^  with  all  such  revival 
 movements  before.  The  Messenger  supported  it,  although, 
 says  Dubbs,  there  was  some  doubt  at  first  whether  Fisher,  the 
 editor,  would  do  so,  owing  to  his  previous  sympathy  with  re- 
 vivals. It  was  attacked  in  the  Messenger  by  Rev.  Jacob  Helf- 
 f  en  stein,*  who  claimed  that  such  movements  were  not  new 
 movements,  and  that  the  Methodists  do  not  call  it  the  anxious 
 bench,  but  the  mourners'  bench.  He  declared  that  the 
 anxioiLS  bench  was  not  wrong  in  itself  and  said  it  had  been 
 first  used  in  1804  at  Bashing  Ridge,  N.  J.,  by  Rev.  Robert 
 Finley.  The  Synod  of  Ohio,  led  by  David  Winters,  recom- 
 mended its  members  to  read  it  with  candor.     But  one  of  its 
 
 *Deceniber  6,  1843. 
 
148        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 members  declared  he  would  not  touch  the  wicked  thing  with 
 a  ten-foot  pole.  Dr.  Berg,  who  was  looked  upon  as  a  leader  in 
 revival  movements,  said  that  with  the  exception  of  unimport- 
 ant particulars,  he  could  subscribe  to  all  in  the  book.  Rev.  Dr. 
 Hacke,  one  of  our  conservatives  in  West  Penns.ylvania,  re- 
 joiced that  the  true  way  had  been  so  ably  described  and 
 proved.  Still  the  publication  of  the  "Anxious  Bench"  was 
 used  by  some  of  the  German  ministers  who  were  opposed  to 
 revivals  as  being  in  their  favor,  and  it  led  some  conservative 
 ministers  to  take  a  decided  stand  against  all  revivals.* 
 
 These  attacks  led  Dr.  Nevin  to  write  a  series  of  articles  in 
 the  Messenger  on  the  anxious  bench.  He  first  notices  the 
 various  attacks  made  on  his  book  and  then  goes  on  to  define 
 what  is  really  meant  by  New  IMeasures.  For  there  seems  to  be 
 a  difference  in  the  use  of  the  term  "anxious  bench."  Nevin 
 used  it  as  synonymous  of  the  peculiar  method  used  by  Method- 
 ists, while  others  use  new-measures  in  the  larger  sense  as  in- 
 cluding revivals  of  all  kinds,  prayer-meetings  and  everything 
 evangelistic.  Nevin  emphasizes  the  fact  that  the  anxious 
 bench  is  bastard  revivalism,  not  true  revivalism.  lie  claimed 
 that  the  system  of  the  bench  was  contrary  to  that  of  the 
 Catechism,  and  said  that  Jacob  Helffenstein  did  not  distin- 
 guish between  the  anxious  bench  and  tlie  true  form  of  re- 
 vivalism. Nevin  was  right,  but  Helffenstein  was  also  right  in 
 writing  against  the  underlying  tendency  of  such  a  work  as 
 Nevin 's  to  disparage  all  revivals,  wliich  tendency  appeared 
 later  in  the  Mercersburg  theology. 
 
 As  Jacob  Helffenstein  had  complained  that  Nevin  was  not 
 clear  in  his  statements  as  to  what  was  meant  by  the  "Anxious 
 Bench,"  Nevin  explains  the  difference  between  a  true  and  false 
 revival,  that  by  new-measures  he  meant  extra  meetings  out- 
 side of  prayer-meetings,  protracted  meetings,  revivals,  etc. 
 Thus  he  says : 
 
 "Even  those  who  iulinire  the  anxious  bench  in  the  proper  sense  must 
 admit  that  they  do  not  stand  inseparably  connected  with  the  idea  of 
 revivals,  prayer-meetings,  etc. ;   and  that  it  is  greatly  to  be  regretted, 
 
 *It  was  translated  into  German  by  Rev.  A.  Bierdcmann,  a  Lutheran 
 minister  in  Ohio. 
 
Revivals  During  This  Period.  140 
 
 therefore,  that  they  should  be  so  confounded  in  any  part  of  the  church 
 as  to  stand  or  fall  together  in  the  judgment  of  the  people.  Even  if  the 
 anxious  bench  be  a  good  thing  it  is  most  unfortunate  that  those  who 
 think  otherwise  should  consider  it  necessary  in  any  cause  to  condemn 
 and  reject  prayer-meetings  at  the  same  time.  All  should  wish  then  to 
 see  a  distinction  made  among  the  people  between  things  that  are  thus 
 confounded  without  reason  under  the  general  name  of  new-measures. 
 A  large  part  of  the  opposition  that  is  now  manifest  toward  revivals, 
 prayer-meetings,  etc.,  as  included  under  the  common  term  with  the 
 anxious  bench  noise  and  Methodistical  excesses,  would  at  once  become 
 silent  if  confronted  with  the  same  interests  in  the  proper  form.  I  can 
 not  persuade  myself  that  there  is  any  part  of  the  German  Eeformed 
 Church  for  instance  where  the  people  would  make  strenuous  opposition 
 to  a  prayer-meeting,  to  the  cause  of  missions,  to  the  idea  of  a  revival 
 or  any  other  Evangelical  interests,  if  only  proper  pains  were  taken  by 
 the  pastors  to  bring  them  forward  in  the  right  way." 
 
 He  also  adds :  ' '  Those  who  love  revivals  and  those  who  hate 
 them  will  come  to  see  before  long  that  they  constitute  an 
 interest  which  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  system  here  ex- 
 posed (the  anxious  bench).*  In  the  3l€sscnger-\  he  says  that 
 the  charge  of  Davis  and  others  that  it  is  a  blow  struck  against 
 revivals  and  prayer-meetings  is  false.  No  one,  he  says,  who 
 knows  what  a  revival  is,  can  believe  that  the  "Anxious  Bench" 
 was  intended  as  a  tract  to  represent  such  interests  as  these. 
 In  the  Messengerl  he  also  says  that  his  opponents  by  con- 
 founding things  which  do  not  belong  to  it  at  all  and  by 
 countenancing  in  its  name  all  sorts  of  extravagance  have 
 brought  all  into  discredit.  He  speaks  approvingly  in  this 
 article  of  Spener,  Whitfield,  the  Tennants  and  Edwards,  the 
 great  revivalists.  He  also,  in  the  second  edition  of  the 
 "Anxious  Bench"  answers  attacks,  adding  whole  paragraphs, 
 and  he  closed  the  edition  by  adding  the  last  chapter  on  the 
 system  of  the  catechism.  In  this  edition  he  reveals  his  newer 
 views  of  the  organic  and  generic  life  (page  125),  but  is 
 careful  to  favor  true  revivals.    He  says  page  140)  : 
 
 "The  churches  that  hate  revivals  may  be  said  emphatically  to  love  death. 
 Every  faithful  pastor  will  be  concerned  to  sec  his  ministrations  crowned 
 
 *For  further  extracts,  see  Beformed  Church  Monthly,  1876,  page  250. 
 fFebruary  21,  1844. 
 ^February  28,  1844. 
 
150        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 with  such  special  affusions  of  God's  Spirit.  Meetings  for  prayer  will  be 
 multiplied.  Protracted  meetings  will  be  required.  It  will  be  necessary 
 to  have  special  conferences  with  the  awakened. ' ' 
 
 He  declares  that  the  reformation  was  a  widespread  revival 
 and  enlarges  on  the  revival  at  Kidderminster  under  Baxter. 
 
 The  man  who  is  opposed  to  all  revivals  would  not  speak  thus. 
 This  volume  is  not,  therefore,  an  argument  against  all  re- 
 vivals but  an  argument  against  a  peculiar  type  of  them, 
 namely,  the  anxious  bench.  In  its  preface  he  declares  that 
 its  object  was  to  rescue  the  cause  of  revivals  from  abuse.  It 
 is  also  to  be  carefully  noted  that  in  it,  he  is  not  only  severe 
 against  those  who  hold  to  the  anxious  bench  but  also  against 
 those  formalists  who  opposed  all  revivals. 
 
 Section  6.    The  Effect  of  These  Revivals  on  the  Church. 
 
 The  effect  of  these  revivals  was  great  and  beneficial.  "While 
 there  may  have  been  some  extravagances,*  in  general,  how- 
 ever, they  aided  the  church.  The  church  hitherto  a  sleeping 
 giant  woke  up  from  its  lethargy.  Quite  a  number  of  valuable 
 results  are  mentioned  by.  pastors  as  coming  from  them.  They 
 led  to  the  estal)lishment  of  prayer-meetings  where  before  they 
 were  unknown.  In  many  congregations  a  weekly  i)rayer- 
 meeting  was  established  and  sometimes  two.  At  Cherry 
 Valley  the  new  converts  established  one  for  themselves.  Quiti^ 
 a  number  of  female  prayer-meetings  are  reported,  as  at  York 
 under  Cares.  The  number  of  those  wlio  would  take  part  in 
 public  prayer  was  greatly  increased.  Together  with  these 
 prayer-meetings,  family  altars  innumerable  arose,  often  in 
 places  where  they  were  unknown  before.  One  or  two  miji- 
 isters  report  that  family  altars  existed  in  almost  every  family 
 in  their  congregations.  Many  Sunday  schools  were  estab- 
 lished. Osborne  at  Germantown  reported  three  where,  before 
 the  revival,  there  was  one.  Bucher  reported,  at  Reading,  a 
 Sunday  School  teachers'  prayer-meeting,  at  that  time  a  nov- 
 
 *Occasionally  an  evil  result  appeared  as  when  tlioy  led  in  one  ease  to 
 the  desire  of  one  congregation  (Boehm's)  to  adoi>t  a  constitution  as  an 
 independent  church.  Still  such  independency  showed  itself  in  our 
 Church  more  frequently,  where  there  were  no  revivals  and  can  not  there- 
 fore be  made  a  charge  against  them. 
 
Revivals  During  This  Period.  151 
 
 elty.  These  revivals  brought  converted  teachers  into  the  Sim- 
 day  school  and  greatly  added  to  its  efficiency.  Large  addi- 
 tions were  made  to  the  churches  as  the  result  of  these  revivals. 
 
 In  the  various  public  operations  of  the  church  these  re- 
 vivals produced  important  results.  They  aroused  interest  in 
 missions  especially  foreign  missions.  Thus  a  protracted  meet- 
 ing at  Boalsburg  raised  $100  for  missions,  a  large  sum  at  that 
 time.  The  number  of  students  for  the  ministry  was  consid- 
 erably increased  and  the  young  men  who  entered  the  ministry 
 had  learned  by  experience  the  nature  of  conversion,  which 
 would  greatly  aid  their  usefulness.  These  revivals  led  to  the 
 suppression  of  vice,  especially  of  intemperance.  Thus,  in 
 1838,  all  the  bars  of  public  houses  at  Cherry  Valley  except 
 one  were  closed  as  the  result  of  a  revival.  But  the  special 
 cause  greatly  aided  by  these  revival  movements  was  the  Cen- 
 tenary of  the  Church  in  1841.  The  interest  they  caused,  led 
 to  the  gathering  of  a  much  larger  amount  of  money.  The 
 seminary  at  Mercersburg  owes  its  growth  largely  to  this 
 movement.  Mayer,  Rice,  Beeeher,  the  Ilelffensteins,  Berg 
 and  others  who  aided  it  in  its  infancy  were  of  this  stamp. 
 Yet  many  of  its  graduates  later,  under  the  influence  of  Mer- 
 cersburg theology',  have  minimized  and  some  even  sneered 
 at  revivals.  But  without  them,  their  seminary  would  not  be 
 what  it  is  to-day.  They  ought  to  be  thankful  to  the  worthy 
 men  and  for  this  great  movement  that  thus  laid  the  founda- 
 tions of  their  education. 
 
 Perhaps  the  best  witnesses  of  the  value  of  these  revivals  were 
 the  ministers  themselves.  We  select  two  of  the  most  prominent 
 testimonies  from  among  the  many  testimonies : 
 
 Kev.  J.  H.  A.  Bomberger,  thus  wrote  about  the  revival  at  Waynesboro 
 in  1841:  "We  feel  called  upou  to  acknowledge  our  conviction  that  so- 
 great  a  blessing  has  been  bestowed  by  God  measurably  in  view  of  the 
 removal  of  the  great  stumbling-block  which  hitherto  hindered  the  opera- 
 tions of  divine  grace,  namely,  sectarian  prejudice.  May  the  Almighty 
 God  pass  through  the  length  and  breadth  of  our  beloved  churches  and 
 revive  them  all. ' ' 
 
 Prof.  J.  W.  Nevin,  in  his  article  on  a  Visit  to  Reading,*  says:  "This 
 re\dval  has  served  to  vindicate  in  Reading  and  to  the  view  of  all  Berks 
 
 *Messenger,  July  4,  1843. 
 
152        History  of  Reformed  Church  ix  the  U.  S. 
 
 County  the  true  original  spirit  of  the  German  Kefomied  Church  as 
 it  regards  the  great  interest  of  Evangelical  piety.  The  men  who  oppose 
 heart-religion  and  prayer-meetings  in  the  German  Reformed  Church 
 are  the  enemies  of  the  Church.  "When  they  S£fy  that  prayer-meetings 
 are  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  Church,  they  lie  and  do  not  tell  the 
 truth.  The  Heidelberg  Catechism  inculcates  serious  heart-religion 
 from  beginning  to  end.  The  old  hymns  of  the  Church  are  full  of  it. 
 It  is  wretched  impudence  for  any  one  to  stand  up  in  the  face  of  our 
 hymns  and  our  Catechism  and  the  example  of  the  fathers  and  say 
 that  ministers  who  preach  repentance  and  the  new  birth  are  bringing 
 new  doctrines  and  new-measures.  The  mere  cry  of  new-measures  will 
 not  serve  to  keep  the  people  in  the  dark.  They  will  understand  that  the 
 use  of  new-measures  is  one  thing  and  the  serious  use  of  the  old-meas- 
 ures is  another.  They  will  be  able  to  distinguish  between  things  that 
 differ  as  light  and  smoke,  having  nothing  to  do  on  the  one  hand 
 with  anxious  benches,  shouting,  clapping  and  the  whole  Babelism  of 
 false  excitement,  while  they  hold  fast  on  the  other  to  all  that  is  vital 
 in  the  religion  of  the  closet,  the  family  and  the  social  circle  as  embodied 
 from  the  Bible  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism." 
 
CHAPTER  V. 
 
 Teie  Doctrine  and  Cultus  of  the  Church,  1793-1844. 
 
 Section  1.  The  Doctrine. 
 
 A.  Orthodoxy. — It  has  been  the  habit  of  the  historians  of 
 the  Mercersburg  school  to  claim  that  our  Church  passed 
 through  a  period  of  rationalism  before  1840,  and  that  the 
 Mercersburg  theology  was  the  savior  of  our  Church  by 
 bringing  it  back  to  the  Evangelical  position.  It  is  necessary, 
 therefore,  to  examine  and  see  whether  the  el^arge  be  true 
 or  not.  Thus  Schaff*  declares  that  our  Church  had  been 
 founded  at  a  time  when  German  theology  was  rationalistic 
 and  the  pious  elements  had  fled  to  the  chapels  of  Pietists  or  to 
 the  Moravians.  He  says  that  among  the  ministers  there  was 
 much  open  and  secret  rationalism.  In  this  charge  he  was  fol- 
 lowed by  Nevin  and  the  Mercersburg  men,  who  delighted 
 to  write  up  their  supernaturalism  by  writing  down  about  all 
 the  Reformed  who  went  before  them,  saying  that  the  latter 
 had  all  been  tinctured  with  low  views  of  the  Church  and 
 the  sacraments.  Gerhart,  too,t  says:  "From  1747  to  1819,  a 
 period  of  72  years,  neither  the  ministers  of  the  coetus  nor  of 
 the  synod  make  any  reference  either  to  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
 chism or  any  other  confession  of  faith.  Such  a  negative  atti- 
 tude is  in  sympathy  with  the  dominant  rationalism  in  Europe 
 of  the  eighteenth  century."  Gerhart 's  statement  about  the 
 Heidelberg  Catechism  has  since  been  disproved  by  the  publi- 
 cation of  the  coetus'  minutes,  where  the  Heidelberg  Catechism 
 is  often  spoken  of.  But  neither  Schaff  nor  Gerhart  are  right 
 in  making  our  early  church  to  be  rationalistic.  They  did  so 
 to  write  up  ]\Iereersl)urg  theology  as  having  saved  the  Church 
 from  rationalism.     No  doubt  to  them  with  their  ultra-high 
 
 *Palmblatter,  1846,  page  92,  also  1847. 
 tSesqui-centennial  Address,  1896,  page  36. 
 
 153 
 
154        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 views  of  the  Church  and  the  sacraments,  the  old  view  of  our 
 Church  would  seem  low,  and  so  they  charged  it  with  being 
 Puritanic  and  rationalizing.  But  it  was  nevertheless  the  old 
 Reformed  view,  as  old  as  the  reformation,  in  comparison 
 with  which  INIercersburg  Theology  was  "new-measureism." 
 But  let  us  look  at  the  facts  that  disprove  their  theory. 
 
 The  synod  very  early  took  its  position  against  infidelity. 
 The  minutes  of  1796^  say  : 
 
 "Domine  Hendel  brought  up  the  sad  consequences  of  Paine 's  blas- 
 phemous works.  It  was  resolved  that  the  ministry  endeavor  to  operate 
 against  these  results  by  watchfulness  and  prayer  according  to  the 
 example  of  the  apostles."  Hendel  at  the  same  meeting  called  attention 
 to  the  propositions  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  threatening  to  over- 
 throw the  instruction  of  the  youth  Ju  the  true  Christian  religion  and 
 proposed  to  take  into  consideration  how  it  may  be  defeated  or  amended. 
 It  was  resolved  that  the  standing  committee  be  requested  to  be  vigilant 
 and  as  soon  as  they  thought  encroachments  were  being  made,  to  have 
 a  petition  opposing  the  measure  or  asking  for  amendments  printed  and 
 sent  to  the  ministers  for  subscription  by  the  members  of  their  congre- 
 gations. 
 
 In  1797,  the  Reformed  and  Lutherans  joined  hands  against 
 the  public  school  bill  of  Pennsylvania,  because  they  thought  it 
 godless  and  would  lead  their  children  from  the  church.  Pauli, 
 in  a  letter  to  Helffrich,  September  20,  1800,  speaks  of  the  fear 
 by  Christian  people  of  Jefferson's  infidelity.    He  says: 
 
 "We  flatter  ourselves  here  with  the  hope  that  Adams  will  again  be 
 elected  president;  the  unbelief  of  Jefferson,  his  atheistic  efforts  are 
 clearly  to  be  seen,  so  that  every  one  who  names  himself  a  Christian 
 ought  to  be  ashamed  to  vote  for  him." 
 
 The  boldness  of  infidelity  was  so  great  that  the  character  of 
 Runkel,  pastor  at  Germantown,  was  openly  and  scandalously 
 attacked  in  the  Germantown  Democrat.  It  was  replied  to 
 by  Billmeyer's  paper  sharply.  The  synod  of  1802  put  itself 
 on  record  against  the;  introduction  of  infidelity  into  tlie  synod  : 
 
 ' '  Inasmuch  as  the  attention  of  the  synod  has  been  called  to  the 
 prevalence  of  neology,  especially  in  Euro])C,  it  was  resolved  to  guard 
 against  the  introduction  of  this  as  far  as  possible,  that  all  ministers 
 coming  from  Europe  as  well  as  those  ordained  in  this  country  shall 
 hereafter   for   a    period   of   three   years    be   merely    lionorary   members, 
 
Doctrine  and  Cultus  of  the  Church.  155 
 
 and  shall  ouly  after  the  expiration  of  that  period  and  in  ease  their  life 
 and  doctrine  harmonize  with  the  gospel,  be  permitted  to  vote."* 
 
 It  is  therefore  evident  from  this  that  our  synod  officially  was 
 sound  in  its  orthodoxy.     While  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this 
 country  had  rationalistic  elements  or  passed,  it  is  said,  through 
 a  rationalistic  era,  we  find  only  two  or  three  Reformed  minis- 
 ters in  connection  with  the  synod  against  whom  rationalism  is 
 charged.     One  of  them  was  Raschig,  who  spent  some  time  at 
 the  seminary  at  York,  was  licensed  1833  and  after  being  a 
 pastor  in  Dauphin  County,  went  to  Cincinnati  in  ]834  to  a 
 congregation  fomided  largely  on  a  unionistic  basis.     In  1835 
 he   endeavored  to   introduce  into   his  congregation,   because 
 many  of  them  were  from  the  Rhine,  the  Rhine-Bavarian  Cate- 
 chism.   This  was  attacked  by  Jacob  Gulich,  who  wrote  a  long 
 letter,  March  15,  1836,  to  Raschig,  who  ignored  his  letter  as 
 Gulich  was  not  a  member  of  his  congregation.     Gulich  then 
 had  his  letter  published.     Raschig  was  urged  by  his  congre- 
 gation to  continue  the  use  of  the  catechism.     Gulich  then 
 brought  complaint  before  the   Ohio  Synod  of  1836,  asking 
 them  to  pass  judgment  on  the  catechism.     The  synod  ap- 
 proved the  complaint  and  published  the  letter  as  an  appendix 
 to  its  minutes.     But  its  decision  had  little  effect  on  the  con- 
 gregation.    It  is  strange  that  the  synod  took  any  action  on 
 Gulich 's  complaint,   because  he  was  not  a  member  of   our 
 Church  and,   therefore,   his  complaint  had  no  ecclesiastical 
 standing.     The  Messenger  criticized  the  catechism  because  it 
 nowhere  states  Christ's  divinity,  total  depravity,  atonement 
 or  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  said  that  Raschig, 
 whom  it  believed  to  be  Evangelical,  ought  not  to  have  intro- 
 duced it.    Miami  Classis  reported  to  the  Ohio  Synod  of  1847 
 that  it  had  erased  Raschig 's  name. 
 
 Foersch  w^as  another  illustration  of  rationalism.  He  had 
 become  somewhat  prominent  by  the  publication  of  a  life  of 
 Zwingli  in  1837,  but  soon  after  became  a  rationalist.  For  this 
 he  was  promptly  deposed  fi'om  our  ministry  in  1839.  He 
 subsequently  repented  and  asked  to  be  reinstated  as  a  min- 
 
 *Eev.  Mr.  Dreyer,  of  onr  Clnucli,  liad  an  article  in  the  Evangelische 
 Zeitung  against  uuiversalism. 
 
156        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 ister,  which  was  done,  but  he  was  later  again  deposed.  The 
 Church  by  thus  casting  off  those  of  rationalistic  tendencies 
 declared  itself  orthodox. 
 
 Of  the  period  of  rationalism  in  tlie  Church,  as  charged 
 by  the  Mercersburg  historians,  we  can  find  scarce  a  trace,  not 
 even,  as  we  shall  see,  in  the  private  catechism's  published. 
 Nevin  declared  that  period  to  be  rationalistic  because  they 
 did  not  hold  a^  high  views  of  the  Church  and  sacraments  as 
 himself.  But  in  so  doing  he  set  up  a  man  of  straw  so  as  to 
 attack  it.  Our  forefathers  of  this  period  would  not  have 
 known  themselves  among  the  rationalists.  They  thoroughly 
 believed  in  the  divinity  of  Christ,  original  sin,  the  atonement 
 and  regeneration  more  fully  than  some  who  now  cast  the 
 charge  against  them.  They  w^ould  have  indignantly  repudi- 
 ated the  charge  of  being  rationalists. 
 
 The  following  illustrations  of  the  opposition  to  rationalism  are  told 
 of  some  of  the  ministers:  Wack  was  once  annoyed  by  a  Universalist 
 preacher  who  said:  "Our  doctrine  is  old;  it  was  preached  in  Para- 
 dise," and  quoted  as  his  proof  "The  seed  of  the  woman  shall  bruise 
 the  serpent's  head,"  to  which  Wack  made  prompt  reply,  "Yes,  it  is 
 old;  it  was  preached  in  Paradise  and  the  Devil  was  the  first  preacher 
 of  it  and  his  text  was  "Thou  shalt  not  surely  die."  To  another  such 
 preacher  who  held  that  all  will  ultimately  be  saved,  Wack  abruptly  re- 
 torted, "If  that  be  so,  I  don't  see  what  you  have  to  do  here,  where 
 I  am  doing  all  I  can  to  save  people  from  going  to  hell.  Your  proper 
 mission  is  in  hell  itself  preaching  the  gospel  of  prospective  deliv- 
 erance to  those  who  are  in  torment."  Reily  with  a  number  of  ministers 
 happened  to  stop  at  a  hotel  on  the  way  to  synod.  A  minister  of  an- 
 other denomination,  but  a  rationalist,  happened  to  dine  at  the  same 
 place.  Knowing  Mr.  Reily,  he  came  up  to  him  with  a  pompous  and 
 bantering  air  to  show  off  his  learning  and  lead  him  into  an  argument. 
 Drawing  himself  up  into  an  attitude  of  great  dignity,  he  addressed 
 Reily:  "What  is  reason?  Please  give  me  a  correct  and  full  definition 
 of  reason."  "O,  well,"  replied  Reliy,  his  eye  beaming  with  humor, 
 ' '  Reason !  reason  is  something  one  takes  by  the  nose  and  turns  any 
 way  one  listeth. "  The  discussion  was  brought  to  a  sudden  close  amid 
 the  half  suppressed  smiles  of  all  present. 
 
 B.  Catholicism. — The  Church  had  no  more  sj^mpathy  for 
 Catholicism  than  for  rationalism.  In  1840  the  synod  com- 
 mended Berg's  "Lectures  on  Romanism"  which  he  had  deliv- 
 ered before  publication  to  great  crowds.    Nevin  also  favorably 
 
Doctrine  and  Cultus  op  the  Church.  157 
 
 criticized  Berg's  book.  In  1841  Berg  published  "Auricular 
 Confession."  He  also  became  editor  of  the  Protestant  Ban- 
 ner, a  magazine  devoted  to  polemics  against  Romanism.  In 
 1841  he  published  a  synopsis  of  Den's  Moral  Theology  to  re- 
 veal the  awful  moral  standard  of  the  Catholics.  Berg  thus  be- 
 came a  leader  against  Romanism.  lie  tried,  in  1843,  to  have 
 the  synod  take  action  against  the  Catholic  Church  as  Anti- 
 christ, but  seems  to  have  failed. 
 
 In  that  year  Berg  engaged  in  an  open  discussion  in  the 
 Reformed  Church  at  Lebanon  with  a  Catholic  priest  at  Leb- 
 anon. It  seems  that  Rev.  Gardner  Jones,  who  had  left  the 
 Catholic  priesthood  and  become  a  minister  in  our  Church, 
 had  made  an  exposure  of  Catholicism  at  Lebanon.  This  led 
 the  Catholic  priest,  Steinbacher,  to  offer,  through  the  Leb- 
 anon Democrat,  a  challenge  to  enter  into  a  discussion  with 
 any  teacher  of  religion  who  might  think  differently  from 
 himself.  Jones  offered  to  meet  the  priest,  but  would  not 
 agree  to  the  conditions  and  refused  to  have  anything  to  do 
 with  him.  A  copy  of  the  paper  was  sent  to  Berg.  He  ac- 
 cepted the  challenge  and  came  to  Lebanon,  October  12,  1842. 
 The  controversy  was  arranged  for  October  17,  1842.  Two 
 questions  were  to  be  discussed,  the  first  prepared  by  Stein- 
 bacher, the  second  by  Berg:  1.  Are  the  marks  of  the  great 
 apostasy  as  found  in  the  Bible  found  in  the  doctrines  and  prac- 
 tices of  the  Church  of  Rome?  2.  Is  the  Church  of  Rome 
 an  idolatrous  church  ?  They  were  to  have  five  meetings  of  two 
 hours  each,  each  to  occupy  thirty  minutes  at  a  time.  Tlie  Re- 
 formed church  was  crowded  at  the  opening  of  the  discussion. 
 
 The  priest  opened  by  saying  that  he  had  been  persecuted  by  some 
 Protestants  entering  into  his  parish  at  Lebanon.  Berg  replied  that 
 there  was  no  persecution.  Berg  read  from  Den's  theology,  "Are  here- 
 tics rightly  punished  with  death?"  Steinbacher  shrewdly  took  the 
 position  that  Catholicism  could  not  be  called  an  apostate  faith  for 
 it  was  the  earliest  faith.  A  second  argument  that  it  was  not  apostate 
 was  that  as  it  was  infallible  it  could  not  be  so.  Berg  replied  that  they 
 did  not  know  what  infallibility  was,  as  they  differed  greatly  in  its 
 definition,  and  he  denied  that  the  Catholic  Church  had  been  founded 
 twenty  years  before  the  Book  of  Revelation  was  written,  as  the  priest 
 had  said. 
 
158        History  of  Reformed  Ceiurcii  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 On  Monday  evening  they  again  debated  before  a  crowded  audience. 
 TEe  priest  showe.l  that  the  Albigenses,  Manicheans  and  Waldenses 
 had  on  them  marks  of  Antichrist.  Berg  then  Avent  on  to  show  that 
 Catholics  were  idolatrous  in  praying  to  and  worshiping  the  Virgin 
 Mary,  quoting  Colossians  against  them.  The  priest  in  reply  tried  to 
 show  that  their  prayers  to  Mary  did  not  mean  that  they  worshiped  her. 
 He  went  on  to  show  that  the  Catholic  Church  did  not  possess  the  marks 
 of  apostasy  as  given  in  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  Eevelation.  Berg,  in 
 reply,  applied  the  seven-hilled  city  of  that  chapter  to  the  seven-hilled 
 city  of  Eome  and  ridiculed  their  doctrine  of  apostolic  succession. 
 
 They  met  again  on  Tuesday,  but  tlie  two  topics  agreed  upon  were 
 not  closely  adhered  to.  The  priest  defended  the  popes  and  declared  that 
 Berg's  statements  were  fallacious.  He  defended  the  Orders  and  the 
 relics  of  the  church,  basing  his  argument  on  tradition.  Berg  at  once 
 denied  that  there  was  any  proof  for  them  from  the  Bible.  He  then 
 attacked  the  Orders  and  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  works.  He 
 pointed  to  the  Ijang  wonders  of  Catholicism  as  the  House  of  Loretto. 
 He  declared  that,  as  the  priest  dared  not  reveal  a  secret  of  the  con- 
 fessional, he  might  keep  secret  a  plot  against  our  country.  The  i)riest 
 in  reply  defended  prayers  to  the  saints  and  the  celibacy  of  the  priest- 
 hood.    Berg  then  attacked  celibacy. 
 
 On  Tuesday  evening  the  priest  defended  the  priest's  oath  to  secrecy. 
 He  tried  to  prove  that  Eome  was  the  true  church,  while  Protestantism 
 was  not  the  true  bride  of  Christ.  Berg  then  spoke  of  the  fifth  mark 
 of  the  beast  forbidding  to  marry  and  showed  that  Rome  had  every  one 
 of  the  marks  of  the  apostasy.  Steinbacher  then  arose  and  referred  the 
 Antichrist  of  the  Bible  to  tlie  Manicheans  and  tried  to  show  tliat 
 Protestantism  had  apostatized  from  Rome.  Berg  applied  Paul's  mark 
 of  the  -worship  of  Antichrist  to  the  pope  and  spoke  a  solemn  warning 
 against  an  apostatizing  church. 
 
 On  Wednesday  afternoon  the  discussion  turned  upon  whetlier  Rome 
 was  an  idolatrous  church.  The  priest  attacked  the  Protestants  as  not 
 properly  commissioned  to  preach  the  gospel.  He  also  attacked  the 
 Protestant  doctrine  that  the  Bible  was  the  infallible  rule  of  faith  be- 
 cause he  said  the  Reformers  (lifl'crcd  so  much  in  its  interpretation. 
 Berg,  without  paying  attention  to  tlie  somewhat  rambling  charges  of 
 his  opponent,  then  went  directly  to  tiie  question  whether  Rome  was  an 
 idolatrous  church.  He  held  up  a  piece  of  the  true  cross  which  they 
 worshiped.  He  also  referred  to  their  worship  of  the  host,  quoting 
 the  second  commandment  against  them.  He  said  they  worshiped  the 
 saints  and  the  pope,  whereas  all  worshij)  was  forbidden  by  tiie  Bible 
 except  of  Christ.  The  priest  replied  somewhat  angrily  but  did  not 
 answer  Berg 's  arguments,  and  went  on  directly  to  defend  transub- 
 stantiation.  Berg  defended  the  differences  of  interpretation  among  the 
 Reformers  and   declared  they  did   right  in   leaving  the  Catholic   Church. 
 
Doctrine  and  Cultus  op  the  Church.  159 
 
 He  then  attut-ked  transubstantiation  and  closed  with  a  hope  that  all 
 priests  mijjht  see  the  ligiit  as  it  is  in  Protestantism  and  called  Rome  an 
 apostate  church. 
 
 All  through  the  argument  it  seemed  evident  that  the  priest 
 was  on  the  defensive.  As  he  had  had  the  lead  in  the  diseus- 
 sion  it  was  somewhat  rambling  in  its  character.  Berg  un- 
 doubtedly had  the  better  of  the  argument,  both  in  logic  and 
 as  to  the  facts.  The  influence  of  the  discussion  was  favorable 
 to  Protestantism.  _^ 
 
 C.  Calvinism. — The  Church  was  in  the  main  Calvinistic,  | 
 although  the  doctrine  of  election  was  never  greatly  empha- 
 sized. It  was  treated  as  it  is  in  the  catechism  in  an  irenic 
 way  and  as  a  spiritual  comfort  rather  than  as  a  metaphysical 
 speculation— as  God's  grace  rather  than  God's  sovereignty. 
 Nor  did  adherence  to  it  keep  the  church  from  having  some 
 Arminians  in  it.  And  there  were  also  some  who  boasted  that 
 they  were  Zwinglian  rather  than  Calvinistic.  Thus,  Prof. 
 Mayer,  in  1835,  says:  "The  issues  between  Calvinism  and 
 Arminianism  are  left  to  every  man's  conscience.  We  have 
 ministers  and  members  on  both  sides  of  the  question."  He 
 speaks  of  there  being  Armininans  especially  among  the  laity. 
 But  although  Dr.  Mayer  states  the  matter  thus,  in  his  dog- 
 matical lectures  as  we  have  seen,  he  is  Calvinistic,  although  it 
 is  in  a  mild  form.  ^ 
 
 But  other  facts  reveal  the  strength  of  Calvinism  in  the 
 Church.  Thus,  Thomas  Pomp,  in  his  article  in  the  Messen- 
 ger* reveals  very  strong  Calvinism.  The  Messenger,  in  an 
 editorial  June  19,  1844,  criticizes  Rev.  Dr.  Morris,  the  Lu- 
 theran, of  Baltimore,  who  said  that  the  only  difference  be- 
 tween the  Reformed  and  the  Lutheran  churches  was  that  the 
 one  said  in  German  "our  Father"  and  the  other  "Father  our" 
 in  the  Lord's  prayer.  The  editorial  gives  eleven  differences  be- 
 tween the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed.  Among  them  it  says 
 that  the  Lutherans  are  Armininans,  the  Reformed  moderately 
 Calvinistic  in  doctrine  like  their  standards,  which  are  mod- 
 erately Calvinistic. 
 
 *April  19,  1837. 
 
160        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 The  theological  position  of  the  teachers  of  the  three  pri- 
 vate theological  seminaries  is  significant.  As  to  the  type 
 of  doctrine  taught  in  these  schools  it  was  confessionally 
 Reformed  and  orthodox  based  on  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
 chism. Becker's  published  sermons  reveal  him  as  ortho- 
 dox but  broa'd  and  liberal  in  his  views  and  sympathies. 
 Becker's  theological  lectures*  reveal  fine  scholarship,  wide 
 learning,  clearness  of  thought  and  systematic  arrangement. 
 He  gives  a  good  deal  of  prominence  to  natural  theology,  plac- 
 ing it  first  and  emphasizing  ''healthy  reason."  But  Biblical 
 theology,  which  follows,  composes  the  larger  part  and  is  es- 
 sentially Evangelical.  He  has  no  sympathy  with  high-Cal- 
 vinism, calling  it  subjective  predestination  (that  is  subjective 
 in  the  mind  of  God).  He  inclines  toward  Arminianism — • 
 that  election  is  objective, — based  on  God's  foreknowledge. 
 He  also  holds  to  universal  atonement.  He  was  probably  in- 
 fluenced by  Mursinna,  his  teacher,  toward  freedom  of  dog- 
 matic thought  though  he  did  not  follow  him  in  his  rational- 
 ism, but  perhaps  under  his  teaching  some  of  our  ministers 
 became  Aveak  in  their  Calvinism  or  were  Arminian.  Dr. 
 Samuel  Helffenstein  was  a  strict  Calvinist  of  the  Federal 
 School,  as  is  revealed  by  his  theology,  "The  Doctrine  of  Di- 
 vine Revelation."  In  it  he  says  that  its  statement  of  doc- 
 trine was  what  had  always  been  common  in  the  German  Re- 
 formed Church.  This  book  was  commended  by  a  committee 
 appointed  by  synod  composed  of  Pomp,  Becker  and  Wolff. 
 Rev.  John  Ilelffrich  says  HclfFenstcin  used  Lampe's  (Cal- 
 vinistic   dogmatics   in   teaching  liis  students.     Dr.   Herman, 
 
 *We  found  a  cnj)y  of  Becker's  lectures  on  theology  in  nirinuscript  in 
 the  librar,y  of  Franklin  and  Marshall  College,  presented  to  it  by  Schaff- 
 ner.  Schaffner  was  the  son  of  Becker's  organist  at  Lancaster  and  began 
 his  studies  under  Becker  there.  The  dates  in  this  book  are  interesting. 
 8chaffner  began  stmlying  with  Becker  February  10,  180G,  and  went  with 
 Becker  to  Baltimore,  where  he  continued  his  studies  under  him,  closing 
 with  moral  theology,  January,  180S.  There  is  also  another  copy  in  the 
 library  of  the  Central  Seminary  at  Dayton,  presented  by  Rev.  A.  Helf- 
 fenstein. The  same  theology  in  a  somewhat  abbreviated  form  was 
 taught  by  his  son.  Rev.  J.  C.  Becker,  a  copy  of  which  is  also  in  the 
 Central  Theological  Seminary  library,  j)resented  by  Rev.  Dr.  Keinnierer. 
 Perhaps  it  was  to  get  this  unusually  fine  system  of  theology  that  so 
 many  of  his  father's  students  went  over  to  Rev.  J.  C.  Becker. 
 
Doctrine  and  Cultus  op  the  Church.  16] 
 
 who  was  head  of  the  third  private  theological  school,  al- 
 though a  pupil  of  the  rationalistic  Prof.  Mursinna  at  Halle, 
 yet  was  thoroughly  Evangelical  and  strong  on  the  doctrine  of 
 predestination,  as  is  revealed  by  his  theological  lectures,  some 
 of  which  were  published  later  by  Guldin  in  the  Christian  hitel- 
 Jigenccr  and  the  Messenger* 
 
 Section  2.  The  Private  Catechisms  op  Our  Early  Church. 
 
 Although  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  was  the  creed  adopted 
 by  our  Church  from  its  beginning  in  this  country,  yet. 
 especially  in  the  early  part  of  the  last  century,  a  number  of 
 ministers  prepared  catechisms  of  their  own,  which  they  used 
 in  the  instruction  of  the  youth  for  church-membership.  In 
 doing  so  they  were  but  following  the  example  of  our  Church 
 in  Germany,  where  Lampe  and  others  had  published  a  num- 
 ber of  such  aids  to  the  Heidelberg  Catechism. 
 
 None  of  these  catechisms  were  ever  officially  adopted  by 
 our  Church,  although  several  attempts  were  made  to  legitima- 
 tize some  of  them  at  the  synods.  In  the  constitution  of  1793 
 (published  in  1805)  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  was  not  men- 
 tioned. But  in  1820  the  synod  directed  that  the  Heidelberg 
 Catechism  be  exclusively  used  in  the  churches.  That  synod 
 appointed  a  committee  to  publish  in  English  an  Extract  of 
 the  Heidelberg  Catechism.  But  two  of  the  committee  were 
 already  using  catechisms  of  their  own,  so  nothing  came 
 of  it.  In  1822,  Samuel  Helfifenstein  reported  a  catechism 
 (which  may  have  been  his  own)  as  suitable  for  adoption  hy 
 the  synod,  but  it  was  not  adopted.  In  1823,  synod  appointed 
 another  committee  but  they  did  nothing.  The  new  constitution 
 of  1828  ordered  that  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  or  an  ab- 
 breviation of  it,  be  used,  but  this  did  not  stop  the  use  of 
 these  private  catechisms.     In  1833,  Rev.  J.  C.  Becker  sub- 
 
 *There  is  a  fourth  system  of  theology  that  has  come  down  to  us  in 
 manuscript  from  those  early  days.  It  is  a  theology  brought  to  this 
 country  by  Wynckhaus  and  is  credited  by  him  to  .Tanssen,  the  professor 
 of  theology  at  Uuisburg  in  Germany,  where  he  had  studied.  It  was  later 
 used  by  the  Wacks  (Casper  and  George)  in  training  those  who  studied 
 under  them.  Eev.  S.  E.  Fisher  and  Shenkle  also  had  copies.  It  is  also 
 Calvinistic. 
 
162        History  of  Reformed  CiinRCii  tn  the  U.  S. 
 
 mitted  his  catechism  to  the  synod,  but  the  committee,  to  whom 
 were  referred  several  such  catechisms,  never  seems  to  have 
 reported.  The  Synod  of  Ohio  in  1820  ordered  the  Heidelberg 
 Catechism  to  be  used;  but  in  1838,  though  refusing  to  adopt 
 Weisz  's  catechism,  its  use  was  allowed. 
 
 Several  of  these  private  catechisms  were  used  beyond  the 
 parish  of  their  authors,  especially  Helff enstein 's  and  Ra- 
 hauser's.  But  most  of  them  were  used  only  in  the  congre- 
 gations of  their  author.  It  is  important  to  note,  however,  that 
 while  these  private  catechisms  were  much  used,  yet  the  Hei- 
 delberg Catechism  does  not  seem  to  have  been  set  aside  or  to 
 have  lost  its  circulation,  as  quite  a  number  of  editions  were 
 published  during  this  period  by  different  printing  houses  in 
 different  places.  The  earliest  of  these  private  catechisms  pub- 
 lished was  by  Rev.  C.  L.  Becker,  of  Baltimore.  It  was  pub- 
 lished in  1805  at  Lancaster,  where  he  was  then  pastor.  But 
 his  catechism  does  not  seem  to  have  been  the  first  in  use, 
 for  the  Helffrich  catechism,  which  was  published  in  1826, 
 claims  in  its  preface  to  have  been  used  forty  years  before, 
 which  would  puts  its  use  back  to  1786.  In  1810,  two  private 
 catechisms  were  published,  one  by  Rev,  Mr.  Pliester,  of 
 Lebanon,  the  other  by  Rev.  Samuel  Helffenstein,  of  Philadel- 
 phia. In  1813,  Rev,  L.  F.  Herman,  of  Falkner  Swamp,  pub- 
 lished a  catechism  at  Reading.  In  1817,  Rev.  Jonathan  Ra- 
 hauser,  of  Hagerstown,  published  a  catechism  there.  In  1820. 
 a  catechism  appeared  at  Allentown,  known  as  the  "Dubl)s 
 catechism,"  In  1826,  the  Helffrich  catechism  was  published 
 at  Allento\\-n,  In  1833,  Rev.  J.  C.  Becker,  the  son  of  Rev. 
 C,  L,  Becker,  published  a  catechism  at  Allentown,  and  Rev, 
 Samuel  Hess  at  Easton  in  1843.  These  were  the  private  cate- 
 chisms of  this  period.  Others,  as  Fisher's,  Gerhart's,  Schaff 's 
 were  published  later,*  These  catechisms  are  interesting  be- 
 cause they  throw  a  side-light  on  the  doctrinal  history  of  our 
 Church  at  a  time  when  there  was  little  church  literature.  In- 
 cidentally they  reveal   some   facts  about  the   tendencies   of 
 
 *An  interestinfj  articlo  and  biMiof^rapliy  of  those  private  catechisnis  is 
 found  in  Prof.  W.  .T.  Hinke's  "Early  Catocliisnis  of  the  "Reformed  Church 
 in  the  United  States"  in  the  Kcformcd  Church  Kcview  of  1908. 
 
Doctrine  and  Cultus  of  the  Church.  163 
 
 their  authors.     These  catechisms  can  be  divided  into  three 
 .classes : 
 
 1.  Those  that  follow  the  Heidelberg  Cathechisni  in  its  ar- 
 rangement and  were  intended  merely  as  a  connuentary  on  it. 
 
 2.  Those  whose  arrangement  of  material  is  different  from 
 the  Heidelberg,  but  which  fre(iuently  refer  to  the  questions 
 and  answers  of  the  Heidelberg. 
 
 3.  Those  that  make  no  reference  to  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
 chism, but  which  have  their  own  arrangement  and  view  Chris- 
 tian doctrines  from  their  own  standpoint. 
 
 1.  Four  of  the  catechisms  belong  to  the  first  class :  llelffenstein  's,  Ra- 
 hauser's,  the  so-called  Dubb's  Catechism  and  Hess'. 
 
 Helflfenstein 's  was  jmblished  by  Rev.  Samuel  llelffenstein,  of  Philadel- 
 phia, and  most  closely  follows  the  order  of  the  answers  of  the  Heidelberg 
 Catechism.  It  is  entitled  "A  Short  Instruction  in  the  Christian  Re- 
 ligion according  to  the  Heidelberg  Catechism."  It  contains  about  500 
 questions  and  refers  directly  to  63  answers  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism 
 in  their  order.  It  has  55  quotations  from  Scripture.  After  a  brief 
 introduction  on  religion,  the  Scriptures  and  God,  it  takes  up  the  ques- 
 tions of  the  Heidelberg  one  after  the  other.  It  is  clear  and  logical  in 
 its  statements,  revealing  Dr.  Helffenstein  's  known  theological  ability. 
 Much  of  it  seems  to  be  taken  from  llelffrich's  Catechism.  For  it  is 
 to  be  remembered  that  the  older  Helffenstein  and  the  older  Ilelffrich 
 were  stepbrothers.  It  is  also  possible  that  both  of  these  catechisms 
 may  have  had  a  common  source  in  some  earlier  German  catechism  in 
 Germany,  familiar  to  these  older  ministers,  but  that  yet  remains  to  be 
 found.  This  catechism  seems  to  have  been  used  by  some  of  the  min- 
 isters who  studied  tlieology  under  Dr.  Helft'enstein.  Thus  Rev.  John  Brown, 
 in  A'irginia,  ])ublished  a  catechism  in  1830,  entitled  "A  Short  Instruction 
 According  to  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,"  at  Harrisonburg,  Va.,  in  Ger- 
 man and  English.  It  is  the  Helffenstein  Catechism  considerablj^  abbreviated, 
 having  about  340  questions.*  Rev.  George  Weisz,  in  1837,  at  Lancaster, 
 O.,  published  "A  Short  Instruction  According  to  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
 chism." It  is  also  the  Helffenstein  Catechism  somewhat  abbreviated, 
 having  339  questions.  Neither  Brown  or  Weisz  give  any  credit  in  their 
 publication  to  Helffenstein  as  the  author  of  the  catechism,f  although 
 catechisms  may  have  been  looked  upon  in  those  days  as  public  property 
 belonging  to  the  church. 
 
 The  next  catechism  to  closely  follow  tlie  Heidelberg  is  Rahauser's. 
 Rev.    Jonathan   Rahauser   was   the   pastor    of   the   Reformed    church    at 
 
 *A  copy  of  it  is  in  the  possession  of  General  J.  E.  Roller,  of  Harrison- 
 burg, Va. 
 
 fLet  us  hope  they  did  so  as  they  lectured  on  it. 
 
164        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Hagerstown,  Maryland.  Its  title  is  "Short  Extract  from  the  Heidel- 
 berg Catechism  in  Questions  and  Answers. ' '  Its  motto  on  its  title-page 
 is  "To  promote  the  knowledge  of  trutli,  wliicli  is  after  godliness."  It 
 has  421  questions.  Without  any  introduction,  as  in  the  Ilelffenstein 
 Catechism,  it  at  once  goes  into  the  questions  of  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
 chism. It  directl}'  refers  to  57  of  the  questions  of  the  Ileiilelberg  and 
 has  77  references  to  Scripture.  A  peculiarity  of  this  cHtechism  is  tliat 
 it  takes  up  the  ten  commandments  in  the  first  part  of  the  catecliisiu 
 instead  of  the  third  part,  as  in  the  Heidelberg.  Many  of  its  answers 
 are  based  on  the  Helffrich  Catechism. 
 
 The  so-called  Dubbs  Catechism  was  published  at  Allentown  in  1820, 
 but  it  is  evident  that  Dubbs  did  not  write  it,  for  he  did  not  enter  the 
 ministry  until  1822.  Who  its  author  was  is  a  problem.  Its  preface 
 is  dated  Weissenberg.  In  1819,  when  this  preface  was  written,  the 
 pastor  at  Weissenburg  and  around  Allentown  was  Kev.  John  Gobrecht ; 
 but  his  pastorate  was  short  and  he  was  not  a  man  of  much  education, 
 so  that  it  seems  to  us  likely  that  he  used  the  catechism  of  his  prede- 
 cessor, Eev.  Abraham  Blumer,  which  would  make  Blumer  the  author. 
 A  pointer  in  that  direction  may  be  the  fact  that  the  catechism  was  pub- 
 lished by  a  firm  whose  leading  member  was  a  son  of  Eev.  Mr.  Blumer. 
 Blumer  was  a  university  graduate  of  Europe  and  fully  able  to  prejiare 
 such  a  catechism.  Its  title  is  "Christian  Instruction  in  Eeligion  in 
 Questions  and  Answers. ' '  After  a  brief  introduction  of  seventeen  ques- 
 tions, it  takes  up  the  questions  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  in  their 
 order,  though  omitting  some  of  them.  Although  it  directly  refers  to 
 only  nineteen  questions  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  yet  under  these 
 questions  it  gathers  many  of  the  surrounding  answers  of  the  Heidelberg. 
 It  has  about  439  questions  and  refers  to  Scriptures  47  times. 
 
 Hess'  Catechism  was  prepared  by  Eev.  Samuel  Hess  and  publisiied 
 at  Easton  in  1843.  It  is  entitled  "Short  Instruction  in  the  Christian 
 Eeligion  in  Questions  and  Answers  for  the  Use  of  Children."  After 
 a  brief  introduction  of  ten  questions,  it  enters  on  the  second  question 
 of  the  Heidelberg  and  so  continues  throughout  the  wliole  Heidelberg, 
 embodying  many  of  its  answers  in  it.  It  refers  directly  to  26  questions 
 of  the  Heidelberg  and  has  about  441  questions.  It  refers  to  Scripture 
 66  times.     It  closes  with  a  confirmation  hymn.       , 
 
 2.  The  second  class  of  private  catechisms  are  tliose  wliicli  li.-ive  a  dilTcr- 
 ent  arrangement  of  materials  from  the  Heidell)erg,  but  frequently  refer 
 to  it  and  base  themselves  on  it.  Of  this  class  there  are  tiiree:  Helf- 
 frich's,  C.  L.  Becker's  and  Hiester's.* 
 
 Hiester's  Catechism  was  entitled  "A  Sunimnry  of  Cliristian  Doctrine 
 after  the  Order  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,"  Lebanon,  ISin.     It   does 
 
 *We  do  not  consider  the  "Short  Summary  of  Cliristian  Doctrine" 
 published  at  Lebanon,  1804,  as  a  catechism.  It  is  a  summary  of  doc- 
 trine rather  than  a  catechism.  It  seems,  liowever,  to  Iiave  li;i<l  a  <'oii 
 siderable  circulation,  as  six  editions  were  published. 
 
Doctrine  and  Cultus  of  the  Church.  165 
 
 not  give  the  name  of  the  author,  but  Eev.  Mr.  Hiester  was  the  pastor 
 at  Lebanon  at  that  time^  We  also  found  two  references,  one  by  a 
 writer  in  the  Messenger  to  it  as  Hiester 's  Catechism.  We  may,  there- 
 fore look  upon  Hiester  as  tlie  author.  It  has  about  325  questions, 
 refers  to  24  answers  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  and  has  44  Scripture 
 references.  The  order  of  its  sulijects  is  as  folhnvs, — after  an  intro- 
 duction, it  takes  up  God,  creation  and  the  fall  of  man,  redemption,  the 
 sacraments,  ten  commandments  and  prayer.  It  virtually  puts  the 
 first  answer  of  the  Heidelberg  Cateidiism  at  the  end.  It  has  some  like- 
 ness to  Ilelflfrich's  Catechism. 
 
 Ilelif rich's  Catechism  was  published  by  Eev.  John  Hclffrich  in  182(). 
 But  in  the  preface  he  says  it  had  been  used  for  forty  years  before.  It 
 was,  therefore,  the  work  of  his  father.  It  was  entitled  "Christian 
 Instruction  in  Eeligion  in  Questions  and  Answers,"  and  was  first  pub- 
 lished at  Allentown.  It  contains  about  485  questions  and  refers  to  21 
 answers  of  the  Heidelberg.  It  refers  to  Scripture  26  times.  The  order 
 of  its  subjects  is  salvation,  religion,  the  Bible,  the  creed  (under  which 
 are  God,  creation,  sin  and  salvation,  the  Christian  life  and  the  church), 
 justification,  the  sacraments,  the  ten  commandments  and  prayer.  Its 
 general  outline  is  very  much  like  Hiester 's.  Its  answers  are  generally 
 quite  brief. 
 
 The  catechism  of  Eev.  C.  L.  Becker  is  a  brief  catechism  of  ninety 
 answers.  It  is  entitled  "Short  Summary  of  Christian  Doctrine,"  and 
 w.iH  published  first  at  Lancaster,  1805,  where  Becker  was  pastor.  It 
 refers  to  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  28  times.  The  arrangement  of 
 its  subjects  is  as  follows:  religion,  God,  creation,  man,  redemption, 
 justification,  repentance,  the  ten  commandments,  faith  and  the  sacra- 
 ments. With  some  of  these  subjects  their  duty  is  enforced.  It  lacks  the 
 tiieological  arrangement  and  clear  definition  one  would  expect  from  such 
 a  scholarly  theologian  as  Dr.  Becker,  with  whose  private  theological 
 seminary  at  Baltimore  we  have  become  familiar.  But  it  is  quite  rich 
 in  quotations  from  Scripture,  having  53,  quite  a  number  for  its  small 
 size.  In  the  preface,  he  says  his  aim  is  solely  to  instruct  the  youtli  in 
 the  knowledge  of  the  Bible.  Though  Evangelical,  yet  it  reveals  tlie 
 rather  colder  type  of  the  Bremen  theology,  which  in  our  early  church  set 
 itself  against   pietistic  influences. 
 
 3.  The  third  and  last  class  of  catechisms  are  those  which  do  not  refer 
 at  all  to  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  and  which  look  at  religion  from  a 
 different  perspective.     They  are  Flerman's  and  J.  C.  Becker's. 
 
 Herman's  Catechism  Mas  jiublished  by  Eev.  F.  L.  Herman,  pastor 
 at  Falkner  Swamp  and  head  of  one  of  the  private  theological  semi- 
 naries. It  is  entitled  ' '  Catechism  of  the  Doctrines  and  the  Duties 
 of  Life  of  the  Christian  Eeligion."  It  was  published  at  Eeading,  1813. 
 In  his  preface,  he  says  he  composed  and  published  it  at  the  request  of 
 a  number  of  members  of  his  congregations,  so  that  they  might  have  a 
 
166        History  of  Reformed  Cht'rcii  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 catechism  more  easily  learned  and  understtiod  than  the  Heidelberg 
 Catechism. "  "If  any  one  -will  take  the  trouble, ' '  he  says,  ' '  to  compare 
 it  with  the  Heidelberg,  Lampe's  or  the  Basle  Catechism,  he  will  be  able 
 to  see  whether  the  desired  end  has  been  attained."  It  contains  about 
 369  questions  and  has  114  references  to  the  Bible,  ft  is  divided,  as  its 
 name  suggests,  into  two  parts,  first  doctrine  and  then  duties.  Under 
 doctrine  he  takes  up  religion,  the  Bible,  faith,  the  creed,  under  which 
 God,  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  considered.  Under  duties,  he  takes 
 up  repentance,  the  ten  commandments,  prayer,  the  sacraments  and  the 
 duties  connected  with  them.  It  closes  with  a  renewal  of  the  baptismal 
 covenant.  It  seems  a  little  confusing  to  tlio  reader  to  find  baptism 
 and  the  Lord 's  Supper,  which  are  generally  taken  up  as  doctrines, 
 placed  under  duties.  The  catechism  has  an  apologetical  tinge,  de- 
 manding and  giving  proofs  of  the  existence  of  God  from  nature  and 
 conscience.  But  it  accepts  as  proofs,  prophecy  and  miracles.  The 
 catechism  also  strongly  brings  out  the  ethical  side  of  religion  as  duties. 
 Faith  is  placed  among  the  duties  of  life  rather  than  as  a  doctrine.  The 
 catechism  is  orthodox,  but  it  inclines  to  dead  orthodoxy  like  the  Bremen 
 type  of  ministers  in  its  opposition  to  pietism  and  it  therefore  lacks  the 
 genial  warmth  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism. 
 
 The  catechism  of  J.  C.  Becker  was  entitled  ' '  Short  Sketch  of  Christian 
 Faith  in  Qviestions  and  Answers. ' '  It  was  published  first  at  Allentown  in 
 1833.  It  contains  about  217  questions  and  has  213  Scripture  references, 
 having  more  than  any  other  catechism.  The  last  part  of  the  catechism  on 
 the  sacraments  and  confirmation  are  taken  from  the  catechism  of  his 
 father.  Rev.  C.  L.  Becker.  Like  Herman's  Catechism  it  empliasized  the 
 apologetical  and  ethical;  but  Herman's  em])hasized  natural  theology; 
 Becker's,  dogmatic  and  Biblical  theology.  The  arrangement  of  its  sub- 
 jects is  as  follows:  God,  Christ  as  redeemer,  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  benefits 
 of  redemption,  repentance  and  faith,  the  sacraments,  followed  by  an 
 ethical  part  concerning  duties  to  God,  one's  self  and  our  neighbor.  It  was 
 intellectual  rather  than  experimental,  sonu^times  using  the  third  person  in 
 the  question  instead  of  the  second  as  in  the  Heidelberg,  thus  making  it 
 rather  like  a  theological  treatise  than  a  catechism.  Like  HtMiiiaii 's,  it 
 lacked   the  wannth   of  the  Heidelberg  ('ate<-hisin. 
 
 Such  is  a  brief  stateiiu'iit  oi"  the  ])i'ivate  eateehisins  of  oiir 
 Church.  They  throw  considerable  light  on  a  period  of  our 
 Church's  history  about  which  the  .sources  of  infoi-mation  are 
 few.  They  reveal  that  the  ministry  of  that  day  were  diligent 
 in  educational  religion  and  were  careful  in  Ihc  eatechization 
 of  the  youth.  It  is  somewhat  interesting  to  note  that  this 
 period  of  the  private  catechism  began  just  a  little  before  and 
 ran  into  the  period  of  the  revivals  in  our  Church.    Catechiza- 
 
Doctrine  and  Cultus  of  the  Church.  167 
 
 tion  and  revivals  go  together.  Pietism  prevents  catechiza- 
 tion  from  being  purely  intellectual  and  cold,  while  catechiza- 
 tion  prevents  piety  from  being  merely  emotional  and  un- 
 stable. Both  have  gone  together  in  the  Reformed  Church. 
 Indeed  it  was  to  Pietism  that  our  Church  in  Germany  owed 
 the  origin  of  its  weekly  catechization.*  We  can  not  agree 
 with  the  claim  of  the  historians  of  the  Mercersburg  theology 
 that  this  period  of  our  Church  M'as  rationalistic,  from  which 
 the  coming  of  Mercersburg  Theology  saved  it.  And  this  view, 
 we  regret  to  say,  is  hinted  at  in  some  statements  made  by 
 Prof.  A¥.  J.  Hinke,  in  his  article  on  "The  Early  Private 
 Catechisms  in  the  Reformed  Church  Review. ' '  We  take  issue 
 with  any  such  statements,  for  these  catechisms  do  not  bear 
 out  such  statements.  Not  one  of  these  catechisms  is  ration- 
 alistic. That  there  was  dead  orthodoxy  we  do  not  deny, 
 but  dead  orthodoxy  is  not  rationalism.  Rationalism  denies 
 or  ignores  the  fundamentals  of  Christianity,  which  orthodoxy, 
 though  dead,  grants.  It  is  a  presumptuous  assumption  by 
 these  writers,  that  if  a  church  is  not  evangelically  orthodox 
 it  is  therefore  rationalistic.  There  is  a  phase  between,  namely, 
 dead  orthodoxy.  That  there  was  dead  orthodoxy  in  our 
 Church  at  that  time  and  that  some  of  these  catechisms  reveal 
 it,  we  do  not  deny,  especially  in  those  which  depart  farthest 
 from  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.  But  take  even  C.  J.  Beck- 
 er's, or  Herman's,  or  J.  C.  Becker's,  the  fundamental  doc- 
 trines of  Evangelical  faith  are  there.  None  of  them  denies 
 the  trinity,  the  divinity  of  Christ,  the  fall  of  man  or  the 
 atonement,  as  we  see  some  of  our  theological  writers  do  to-day. 
 Thus,  J.  C.  Becker  says  of  Jesus  Christ,  that  he  is  from 
 eternity  the  Son  of  God  and  that  through  his  sufferings  and 
 death  he  reconciled  us  to  God.  Herman's  catechism  is  also 
 clear  on  the  Evangelical  fundamentals.  He  calls  Christ  the 
 eternal  natural  son  of  God  and  says  he  died  to  expiate  for  our 
 sins  and  to  make  satisfaction  to  God.  What  if  some  of  them 
 did  emphasize  the  ethical,  that  does  not  necessarily  make 
 them  rationalists.  In  doing  so,  they  were  but  following 
 Osterwald,  who  wrote  one  of  the  leading  catechisms  of  Switzer- 
 *See  my  History  of  the  Eeformed  Church  of  Germany,  page  398. 
 
168        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 land.  So  that  it  is  not  right  to  call  any  of  them  rationalists 
 when  their  catechisms  fail  to  reveal  it.  But  still,  while  we 
 thus  defend  the  orthodoxy  of  these  catechisms,  we  feel  that 
 none  of  them  rises  up  to  the  plane  of  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
 chism, which  is  such  a  rare  combination  of  doctrine  and  life, 
 of  belief  and  experience,  so  that  it  satisfies  our  hearts  as 
 well  as  our  heads,  yes,  our  ethical  nature  too.  They  have, 
 therefore,  all  passed  away  and  the  Heidelberg  remains  as  the 
 catechism  of  our  Church, 
 
 J — 
 
 Section  3.     The  Cultus  or  Worship  of  the  Church.* 
 
 A.  The  Liturgy. — The  worship  of  the  Church  was  semi- 
 liturgical.  It  was  not  liturgical  like  the  Episcopalian,  because 
 no  liturgy  was  used  at  the  regular  Lord's  day  services  or  at 
 the  prayer-meetings.  The  claim  of  the  Mercersburg  theo- 
 logians that  our  early  church  in  this  country  was  liturgical 
 is  false.  It  was  semi-liturgical,  that  is  partly  liturgical, 
 because  only  at  extraordinary  services,  as  the  sacraments, 
 marriage,  confirmation,  and  ordination  was  there  a  liturgical 
 form  used.  But  even  in  these  there  were  no  responses.  All 
 antiphonal  worship,  whether  in  prayer  or  praise,  was  un- 
 known in  our  early  Reformed  Church  in  America.  The 
 \ordinary  services  were  free  worship.  As  in  the  previous 
 period  of  our  history, — under  the  coetus,  they  used  the  free 
 service.f  Buettner  says  "that  a  liturgy  was  not  used  at  all 
 by  many  ministers.  "|  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  no  edition  of 
 the  Palatinate  liturgy  was  ever  published  in  the  English 
 language  before  the  days  of  the  liturgical  controversy.  So 
 our  English  congregations  never  knew  what  it  was  to  use  a 
 liturgy. 
 
 Three  liturgies  have  come  down  to  us  from  this  period : 
 ].  A  brief  liturgy  published  at  Germantown  in  1708.     It 
 contains  no  prayers  for  the  Sabbath  services  and  only  services 
 for  the  following  special  occasions :  baptism,  preparatoi-y  scrv- 
 
 *For  Church  Government,  see  page  — . 
 
 fSee  my  "History   of  the  Ret'ormetl   Clnirch   in   the   United   States," 
 pages  678-682. 
 
 JHistory  of  German  Reformed  Church,  page  95. 
 
Doctrine  and  Cultus  of  the  Church.  169 
 
 ice,  comin union,  marriage,  excommunication,  restoration,  the 
 ordination  of  ministers  and  elders  and  deacons.  The  first  four 
 of  its  forms  are  taken  from  the  Palatinate  liturgy.  The  rest, 
 says  Prof.  Ilinke,  are  taken  from  the  Xorth(n'n  Rhine  Re- 
 formed liturgy,  somewhat  ahhreviated. 
 
 2.  A  liturgy  was  published  at  Lancaster,  0.,  by  Rev. 
 George  Weisz  in  1828.  This,  like  the  former,  had  no  liturgical 
 forms  for  the  regular  Lord's  day  service,  but  only  for  special 
 occasions.  These  were  baptism,  the  preparatory  service, 
 communion,  marriage,  the  ordination  of  ministers,  and  the  in- 
 stallation of  a  consistory.  Strangely  enough  it  contains  a  form 
 for  the  installation  of  trustees  as  well  as  elders  and  deacons, 
 an  office  never  recognized  in  our  Church.  These  forms  largely 
 followed  the  Palatinate  Liturgy. 
 
 3.  The  so-called  Mayer  Liturgy  of  1841.  It,  like  the  others, 
 contained  no  forms  for  the  Lord's  day  service,  but  only  for 
 the  special  occasions  as  marriage,  the  ordination  of  min- 
 isters and  their  installation,  baptism,  adult  baptism,  confirma- 
 tion, communion,  the  installation  of  elders  and  deacons,  to- 
 gether with  the  laying  of  a  corner-stone,  the  dedication  of  a 
 church  and  the  burial  of  the  dead. 
 
 Of  these  three  liturgies,  the  last  two  alone  had  ecclesiastical 
 sanction,  having  been  compiled  and  adopted,  the  last  by  the 
 Eastern  Synod,  the  second  by  the  Ohio  Synod.  The  first  was 
 a  private  liturgy,  prepared  for  the  minister's  personal  use 
 and  sold  to  ministerial  friends.  The  united  testimony  of 
 these  three  liturgies  is  that  the  Reformed  Church  was  semi- 
 liturgical,  that  is,  it  used  no  forms  for  the  Lord's  day  service 
 but  only  for  the  sacramental  and  special  occasions.  This  testi- 
 mony is  unanimous.  And,  again,  the  number  of  these  litur- 
 gies was  so  few  that  anything  like  a  responsive  service  by  the 
 congregation  could  not  be  thought  of;  for  there  were  not 
 enough  liturgies  printed  to  be  put  into  their  hands  that 
 they  might  know  when  to  respond.  These  liturgies  were 
 merely  pulpit-liturgies ;  that  is,  for  the  minister's  use  only. 
 An  altar-liturgy,  with  its  ornate  and  responsive  service,  was 
 unknown  until  1857  or  about  125  years  after  the  first  organi- 
 zation of  our  Church,    So  little  did  the  ministers  think  of  the 
 
170        History  of  Reformed  Ciii^Rcri  in  the  IT.  S. 
 
 importance  of  a  liturgy,  that  in  the  first  synod  they  ordered 
 the  publication  of  a  hymn-book  and  arranged  for  the  pu])li- 
 cation  of  a  catechism.  Bnt  not  a  word  is  said  abont  the  pub- 
 lication of  a  liturgy.  It  does  not  look  as  if  the  Churcli  had 
 always  hankered  for  liturgical  forms,  as  the  IMercersburg 
 men  declared  in  the  liturgical  controversy. 
 
 The  only  liturgical  movement  in  this  period  of  which  any 
 record  is  given  is  the  one  that  ultimately  produced  the  Mayer 
 liturg3^  As  the  aim  of  this  liturgical  movement  has  been  mis- 
 construed by  tlie  historians  of  the  IMercersburg  School,  who 
 wrongly  say  that  the  Church  was  continually  desiring  more 
 liturgy,  we  will  give  the  history  of  it  in  full. 
 
 The  movement  began  about  1820.  Then  Maryland  Classis, 
 at  that  time  the  most  English  Classis  in  the  Church,  asked 
 that  the  liturgy,  the  Palatinate,  which  had  been  the  old 
 liturgy  of  the  Church  brought  over  from  Germany,  be  im- 
 proved and  translated  into  English  and  published  in  both 
 languages.  Susquehanna  Classis  the  same  year  asked  for 
 an  improved  liturgy,  either  shortened  or  enlarged,  with 
 appendices,  and  requested  that  each  classis  tlirough  the  synod 
 appoint  a  member  on  the  liturgical  committee.  The  synod 
 appointed  a  committee  to  consider  this  and  report  next  year. 
 Evidently  it  was  not  in  a  great  hurry  about  it.  The  com- 
 mittee was  Hendel,  Ilinsch,  Helffenstein,  Rahauser  and 
 Becker,  five  of  the  leading  ministers.  They  fairly  represent 
 the  different  sections  and  interests  of  the  Church,  English 
 and  German.  They  reported  to  the  next  synod  that  nothing 
 had  been  done.  Evidently  there  was  not,  as  has  been  as- 
 serted, a  great  cry  on  the  part  of  the  Church  for  liturgical 
 services.  At  the  Synod  of  1822,  Helffenstein  reported  that 
 their  opinion  was  that  the  old  liturg>-  (Palatinate),  with  some 
 improvements,  be  retained.  Synod,  at  the  suggestion  of  Sus- 
 quehanna Classis,  appointed  a  new  committee,  who  were  to 
 send  to  each  classis  a  copy  the  next  spring.  Evidently  the 
 synod  did  not  expect  that  many  changes  would  be  made  by 
 the  committee,  or  it  would  not  have  expected  it  to  have  its 
 work  done  by  Spring,  especially  as  it  was  difficult  for  com- 
 mittees to  meet  in  those  days,  when  there  were  no  railroads. 
 
Doctrine  and  Cultus  of  the  Ciiurcii.  171 
 
 The  committee  consisted  of  Wack,  Sr.,  Helffenstein  and  Van- 
 dersloot.  The  change  of  the  committee  was  probably  due  to 
 the  difificulty  of  getting  the  former  committee  together.  Th^se 
 did  not  live  so  far  apart.  To  the  Synod  of  1823  the  commit- 
 tee reported  through  Helffenstein  that  they  favored  the  Pa- 
 latinate liturgy  with  some  improvements.  To  the  synod  of 
 1824,  Helffenstein  reported  that  they  had  not  been  able  to  fulfil 
 their  duty.  The  synod  did  not  seem  to  be  pleased  with  their 
 delay,  and  declared  it  awaited  its  appearance  the  next  year.  A 
 committee  was  appointed  to  examine  the  liturgy  prepared  by 
 Helffenstein.  This  committee  consisted  of  Becker,  Hinsch 
 and  Dechant.  This  was  the  last  heard  of  a  liturgy  at  synod 
 for  nearly  ten  years.  Evidently  there  was  no  great  desire 
 on  the  part  of  the  Church  for  the  "enrichment  of  liturgical 
 services,"  as  has  l)een  claimed  1)y  the  IMercersburg  historians. 
 The  Church  greatly  needed  an  p]nglish  pulpit-liturgy,  as  its 
 congregations  were  continually  becoming  more  and  more  Eng- 
 lish, and  it  had  no  forms  in  English  even  for  the  sacraments; 
 but  in  spite  of  this,  the  matter  rested. 
 
 In  1834  the  matter  came  up  again.  Susquehanna  Classis 
 asked  that  the  liturgy  (the  Palatinate)  be  published  in  Ger- 
 man and  English.  Synod  appointed  a  committee  consisting  of 
 Mayer,  Ranch,  Hoffeditz,  Fries  and  Geiger.*  In  1835,  Mary- 
 land Classis  asked  synod  to  hasten  the  publication  of  a  liturgy 
 adapted  to  the  Church.  To  the  synod  of  1835  the  committee 
 reported  that  they  were  not  in  a  position  to  fulfil  this  duty. 
 In  1836,  Dr.  Mayer,  as  the  chairman,  reported  progress,  but 
 that  owing  to  his  ill-health  he  had  not  been  able  to  complete 
 his  work.  In  1837,  he  submitted  to  synod  in  manuscript  the 
 liturgy  he  had  prepared.  A  considerable  part  of  it  was  read 
 to  the  synod.  It  was  then  placed  in  the  hands  of  several  com- 
 mittees. These  eonunittees  made  verbal  reports  to  synod  and  a 
 committee  composed  of  Cares,  Gutelius  and  Zacharias  was  ap- 
 pointed to  make  l<iiown  to  IMayer  the  views  of  the  synod  on  this 
 subject  and  seiul  the  copies  down  to  the  classes  for  action.  At 
 the  meetings  of  th(^  classes  in  1838,  various  actions  were  taken. 
 
 *An(l  Ilacke  also,  says  Wolff. 
 
172        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 East  Pennsylvania  Classis  gave  it  into  the  hands  of  a  committee, 
 ■u-ho  reported  to  a  special  meeting.  The  committee  reported  that  the 
 forms  were  too  diffuse  and  that  in  some  of  them  the  author  had  given 
 expression  to  his  own  private  views,  not  sanctioned  by  the  Church.*  It 
 also  criticized  it,  because  it  had  been  prepared,  not  by  the  committee 
 a])pointed,  but  by  Dr.  Mayer  aloiu".  It  iiskcl  that  oitlier  tlio  ofirlier 
 committee  or  a  new  committee  be  ap})ointed.  Lebanon  Chissis  accepted 
 tlie  liturgy  but  said  that  if  the  other  classes  made  alterations,  it  would 
 not  consider  itself  bound  to  accept  them.  Susquehanna  Classis  wanted 
 the  word  "negative"  taken  out  of  the  phrase  "Jesus  possessed  not 
 only  the  negative  virtues  of  innocence,"  in  the  form  for  the  Lord's 
 Supper.  It  also  asked  for  twelve  more  forms,  but  it  is  significant  that 
 none  of  the  forms  asked  for  was  for  the  regular  Sunday  service.  It 
 also  asked  Mayer  to  put  into  it  a  form  for  the  installation  of  trustees. 
 When  synod  met,  it  was  found  that   five  classes  liad  ado])ted  it. 
 
 The  next  synod  (1838)  took  action  tluit  for  the  sake 
 of  unity  in  the  Church,  it  ought  to  be  revised  again  and  ap- 
 pointed a  committee  consisting  of  Mayer,  Raueh,  lloffeditz, 
 Schneck  and  Berg  to  do  so.  It  reported  to  the  Synod  of  1830 
 that  for  various  reasons  it  had  not  fulfilled  its  duty.  The 
 synod  then  appointed  a  new  committee,  consisting  of  Smaltz. 
 J.  Helffenstein,  Schneck,  'Cares  and  Elder  J.  C.  Bucher,  to 
 revise  it  again  and  to  send  the  revised  draft  to  the  different 
 classes,  so  tliat  at  their  next  meetings  it  might  be  accepted 
 or  rejected.  Tlie  committee  met  in  March,  1840,  at  Ilarris- 
 burg,  and  completed  their  work.  The  classes  approved  of  it 
 and  the  Synod  of  1840  ordered  the  approv<'d  liturgj^  to  be 
 published  in  English  and  German,  wliich  was  done  in  1841. 
 Ohio  synod  adopted  it  in  1842. 
 
 So,  after  twenty  years  of  agitation,  the  Chni-ch  had  a  liturgy 
 sanctioned  by  synod.  But  it  did  not  give  full  satisfaction.  I^hila- 
 delphia  classis  is  mentioned  as  not  greatly  admirino  i1.  Koiii- 
 berger  saysf  that  the  reason  why  the  INIayer  liturgy  had  not 
 proved  acceptable  to  the  Church  was  because  it  was  prepared 
 in  an  independent  way  (that  is,  mainly  by  Dr.  Mayer  alone, 
 without  the  aid  of  his  committee.— .4.),  or  Ixvanse  there  was 
 
 *This  seems  to   reflect   Rev.  Bernard    Wolff's    (of    Easton)    continued 
 opposition  to  Prof.  Mayer. 
 iLiturgical  Question,  page  88. 
 
Doctrine  and  Cultus  of  the  Church.  17;} 
 
 a  feeling  of  indifference  or  opposition  to  a  liturgical  service 
 in  many  sections  of  the  Church.  Rev.  F.  W.  Kremer  says 
 that  the  dissatisfaction  with  the  Mayer  liturgy  was  be- 
 cause it  was  deficient  in  comprehensiveness  and  also  di- 
 dactic and  tedious.  The  reason  given  in  later  years 
 i'ov  tliis  by  the  friends  of  Mercersburg  theology  was  that 
 the  liturgy  was  not  full  enough,  that  the  Church  wanted 
 fuller  liturgical  forms  for  the  Lord's  day  services.  But  we 
 nowhere  find  that  reason  given  during  this  period.  We  find 
 that  just  the  contrary  is  repeatedly  stated.  Over  against  the 
 desire  for  more  liturgical  forms,  the  action  of  the  classes  show 
 that  they  wanted  less  liturgy  rather  than  more.  In  1838, 
 East  Pennsylvania,  in  reporting  unfavorably  to  the  liturgy, 
 gives  as  one  of  its  reasons  that  the  forms  were  too  long. 
 Susquehanna  also  criticized  it  as  being  too  long,  as  also  did 
 Zion's.  Indeed,  the  desire  seems  to  have  been  to  shorten  the 
 liturgy  first  drawn  up  by  Dr.  Mayer.  The  committee  ap-V 
 pointed  to  revise  it  reduced  it  to  about  one-half.  Dr.  Fisher 
 says,  in  1866,  that  when  the  ]\Iayer  liturgy  was  sent  down 
 to  the  classes  it  was  cut  up  and  mutilated  by  almost  every  one 
 of  them.  It  was  not  the  book  as  it  came  at  first  from  the 
 hands  of  Dr.  ]\Iayer  but  carved  away,  mutilated  until  reduced 
 to  half  of  its  original  dimensions.  Another  writer  in  the 
 Messenger*  says: 
 
 ' '  We  have  been  trying  to  cut  down  the  forms  for  Avork  in  question 
 for  these  two  or  three  years.  Some  of  us  thought  the  forms  entirely 
 too  long  and  with  all  the  pruning  they  received  by  two  different  com- 
 mittees, I  think  they  are  still  not  too  short.  Some  of  them  are  still 
 too  long.  But  they  may  be  abbreviated  when  circumstances  require, 
 for  I  view  the  work  as  a  directory,  a  guide  which  makes  it  by  no  means 
 obligatory    upon    us    to    make    use    of    it    verbatim    on    every    occasion. 
 
 Dr.  Fisher  in  18()6  declared  it  was  not  considered  as  of 
 binding  authority.  He,  however,  makes  a  remark  that  there 
 was  the  poison  of  a  rationalistic  kind  in  it.  This  charge  is  not 
 true.  The  INIayer  liturgy  was  Evangelical.  Dr.  Fisher's  re- 
 mark must  be  interpreted  by  the  habit  the  Mercersburg  men 
 had  of  saying  that  all  were  rationalists  who  took  any  lower  views 
 
 •June  2,  1841. 
 
174        History  of  Reformed  Cuurch  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 on  the  Church  and  sacraments  than  themselves.  In  doing  so, 
 they  would  read  out  as  rationalists  all  the  fathers  of  our 
 early  Church  and  make  us  a  rationalistic  church  in  our  early 
 history.  The  term  was  used  by  them  with  a  false  meaning 
 and  falsely  applied  in  this  case.  The  dissatisfaction  with  the 
 Mayer  liturgy  evidently  did  not  come  from  the  fact  that  its 
 forms  were  too  few.  The  Reformed  Church  of  that  day  had 
 no  inclination  to  ritualism.  Summing  up,  the  causes  of  dis- 
 satisfaction, as  revealed  by  its  history  were: 
 •/  1.  It  was  prepared  originally  by  Dr.  Mayer  liimself  and  not 
 by  the  connnittee  appointed  to  do  the  Mork.  Dr.  Iloffeditz  pro- 
 tested against  its  being  reported  as  the  work  of  a  connnittee.  It 
 may  have  been  necessary  for  Dr.  IMayer  to  prepare  it  thus  on 
 account  of  his  ill-health  and  of  the  difficulty  of  getting  the 
 committee  together.  But  he  should  have  laid  his  work  bc'fore 
 his  committee.  Unfortunately,  this  act  of  Dr.  Mayer  x^^'^- 
 duced  prejudice  against  it  in  certain  quarters. 
 
 /  2.  A  second  objection  was  a  constitutional  one.  On  two 
 points  there  were  irregularities  in  the  method  of  its  adoption : 
 a.  The  classes  in  1838  had  adopted  it  and  that  adoption  was 
 recognized  by  the  synod  of  that  year.  Yet  it  ai)pointed  a  com- 
 mittee to  again  revise  it  after  it  had  been  constitutionally 
 adopted.  It  was  then  sent  down  to  the  i-lasses  for  examination. 
 Their  decision  could  only  be  on  the  amendments  to  it,  as  synod 
 had  already  acted  on  it.  ^.  AVhi^i  the  final  at-tion  was  takon. 
 only  four  classes,  East  Pennsylvania.  Zion's  Snsiiuchanna  aiul 
 Philadelphia,  a  minority  of  the  classes,  really  adopted  it. 
 Maryland  complicated  things  by  not  passing  a  yea  and  nay 
 vote,  but  by  asking  synod  to  consider  its  amendments  to  it. 
 Nevertheless  synod  considered  it  adopted  and  it  was  printed. 
 
 .  3.  There  were  personalities  that  entered  into  the  matter.  A 
 remark  is  somewhere  made  that  the  liturgy  was  never  popular 
 with  the  Helffensteins ;  why  we  know  not  unless  perhaps  be- 
 cause of  the  treatment  Dr.  Ilelffenstein's  previous  revision 
 of  the  Palatinate  had  received.  He  may  have  thought  the  Pa- 
 latinate was  better;  and  the  Helffensteins,  as  there  were  so 
 many  of  them,  had  great  influence  in  our  church  in  those  days. 
 
Doctrine  and  Cult  us  of  the  Church.  175 
 
 But  wkatever  the  cause,  it  was  not  because  it  was  too  short 
 and  needed  forms  for  Simday  services.     The  cause  generally 
 assigned  is  that  it  was  too  doctrinal  in  its  form  and  was  argu-  ^ 
 mentative  rather  than  devotional.     The  liturgy  was  so  simple 
 in  its  forms  that  it  did  not  have  the  Apostles'  Creed  in  it, 
 which  was  considered  its  crowning  sin  by  the  Nevinites.     It 
 did  not  have  any  forms  for  the  regular  Lord's  day  services, 
 only  forms  for  special  occasions,  as  the  sacraments,  etc.     The! 
 official  adoption   of  such  a  liturgy   clearly   shows   that   our 
 church  was  accustomed  to  have  the  free  service  on  the  Lord'sii 
 day. 
 
 The  fact  that  all  its  published  liturgies  harmonize  on  this 
 one  point  is  proof  conclusive  that  our  Church  used  the  simple 
 free  service.  Our  history  of  this  subject  shows  that  our 
 Church  was  not  desirous  of  more  forms  for  worship) ;  but  that 
 our  Church  as  it  became  English  felt  the  want  of  an  English 
 liturgy  to  supply  its  needs,  as  it  had  no  forms  at  all  in  Eng- 
 lish. The  problem  that  the  Church  was  facing  was  not  so 
 much  one  of  liturgy  as  one  of  language. 
 
 The  Synod  of  Ohio  (1827)  appointed  a  committee  of  three, 
 Revs.  Weisz,  Konig  and  Long,  to  prepare  a  copy  of  the  liturgy 
 and  lay  it  before  the  next  synod.  To  the  Synod  of  1828,  this' 
 committee  reported  that  the  liturgy  be  published.  It  was 
 published  at  Lancaster,  0.,  in  1828.  Most  of  its  forms  were 
 from  the  Palatinate  liturgy,  but  it  is  peculiar  in  having  a 
 brief  form  for  the  intallation  of  trustees,  an  office  not  recog- 
 nized in  pure  Reformed  Church  government.  It  had  no  forms 
 for  the  regular  Sabbath  services  but  only  for  sacraments, 
 ordination  and  other  special  services. 
 
 B.  The  Hymnhooks. — The  hymnbook  in  common  use  in  our 
 Church  before  the  sj^nod  was  organized  was  the  INIarburg 
 Hymnbook,  published  privately  at  Germantown  by  Saur. 
 But  it  was  never  officially  adopted  by  the  coetus.  After  our 
 synod  was  organized  one  of  its  first  acts  was  the  publication 
 of  a  hymnbook  in  1797.  It  claims  to  have  in  it  the  best 
 hymns  of  the  Marburg  and  Palatinate  hymnbooks.  It  was 
 commonly  known  as  the  "Hen del"  hymnbook,  because  the 
 chief  labor  rested  on  Dr.  Hendel,  and  he  bore  tlie  financial 
 
176        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 burden  of  it.  The  most  marked  peculiarity  of  this  hymnbook 
 as  contrasted  with  the  IMarburg  book,  published  by  Saur.  was 
 that  it  omitted  the  high-church  peculiarities  of  that  book, 
 such  as  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  for  each  Sunday. 
 
 About  1817,  when  the  union  of  the  Reformed  and  Lutheran 
 Churches  occurred  in  Europe,  there  was  a  Union  Hymnbook 
 published  at  Baltimore  by  Schaeffer,  a  Lutheran  publisher, 
 which  was  considerably  used  in  union  corifjregations,  where  both 
 Lutherans  and  Reformed  worshiped  in  the  same  building.  But 
 this  liymnbook  was  never  officially  adopted  by  our  synod  and 
 our  Church  can  not  be  hekl  responsible  for  its  weak  points.* 
 In  1811,  our  synod  appointed  a  committee  to  prepare  an  im- 
 proved edition  of  our  hymnbook  and  in  1812  it  was  published, 
 entitled  "The  Collection  of  Evangelical  Hymns,"  which  was 
 popularly  known  as  the  " Chambersburg  Hymnal."  The 
 h^annbooks  above  mentioned  were  in  German.  As  the  Church, 
 however,  became  English  a  demand  arose  for  an  English 
 hymn])ook.  At  first  the  English  congregations  pretty  gen- 
 erally used  the  hymnbook  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church, 
 but  in  1828  Maryland  Classis,  one  of  the  most  English  of  the 
 classes,  appointed  a  committee  of  five  (Brunner,  J.  Helffen- 
 stein,  Beecher,  S.  Helffenstein  and  A.  Ilelffenstein)  to  prepare 
 a  hymnbook  and  lay  it  before  the  synod  for  adoption.  This 
 hymnbook  was  adopted  by  the  Synod  of  1830.  The  first  edi- 
 tion having  been  sold  within  three  years,  synod  ordered  an- 
 other edition  to  be  publislied  and  authorized  an  appendix  to 
 it  of  hymns  on  various  subjects.  In  addition  to  these  hymn- 
 books  officially  adopted  l)y  the  synod,  several  other  smaller 
 ones  appeared  in  our  Church.  Rev.  Daniel  Hertz  publislied 
 "A  Poetical  Way  to  Heaven,"  1828  and  1830;  Rev.  Ilein-y 
 Kroh  published  "Selected  Ilynnis  from  the  Reformed  Hynni- 
 book,"  1829;  Rev.  J.  F.  Berg  pul)lished  "The  Saint's  Harp," 
 
 *rn  the  introduction  of  the  Union  lIyniii-])Ook,  among  tlio  reconinicnda- 
 tions  from  prominent  ministers  is  one  by  Bev.  C.  L.  Becker,  pastor  of  the 
 Keformed  Church  at  Baltimore,  although  the  publisher  claimed  that  a 
 number  of  the  Reformed  ministers  had  privately  expressed  themselves 
 favorable  to  this  hymn  book.  The  Ohio  Synod,  1831,  recommended  this 
 Union  Hymn-book. 
 
Doctrine  and  Cultus  of  the  Church.  177 
 
 1843.  The  first  German  Sunday  school  hymnbook  was  gotten 
 out  by  the  Sunday  school  of  Salem's  Reformed  Church,  Phila- 
 delphia, 1840,  under  the  direction  of  a  committee  of  synod.* 
 
 *Several  tunebooks  were  published,  one  in  1818,  by  Rev.  I.  Gerhart, 
 of  Freeburg,  Pa.,  and  Henry  Eyer.  The  latter,  in  1833,  published  at 
 Harrisburg,  another  tune  book  prefaced  by  a  recommendation  by  Rev.  JL>. 
 Weiser,  of  our  church  at  Selinsgrove. 
 
CHAPTER  VI. 
 
 Union  and  Disunion. 
 
 Section  1.    Union  and  Disunion  Within  Our  Church. 
 
 In  1824  the  Ohio  classis  separated  from  the  old  synod, 
 forming  a  s\Tiod  of  its  o\^ti,  to  which  later  the  classis  of  West- 
 ern Pennsylvania,  of  the  old  synod,  joined  itself.  The  divi- 
 sion occurred  in  this  way:  In  1823,  the  classis  of  Northamp- 
 ton, in  eastern  Pennsylvania,  asked  synod  for  permission  to 
 ordain  ministers,  as  a  candidate  (Zeiser)  had  applied  to  it. 
 Sj^nod  declined  to  grant  the  request,  claiming  that  such  an  act 
 could  only  be  performed  by  synod.  This  action  struck  home 
 more  seriously  many  miles  laway.  It  seems  that  three  yoimg 
 men,  David  Winters,  Jacob  Descombes  and  John  Pence,  had 
 applied  for  admission  to  the  ministrj^  to  the  Ohio  classis. 
 This  classis  declared  (1824)  its  inability  to  require  its  candi- 
 dates to  go  to  the  expense  of  traveling  to  Pennsylvania  for 
 ordination.  It,  therefore  (June  14,  1824),  declared  its  inde- 
 pendence of  the  mother  synod.  It  contained  eleven  ministers, 
 of  whom  eight  were  present,  and  had  about  2,500  members. 
 Three  of  the  Reformed  ministers  of  this  classis  did  not  go 
 out  of  the  mother  synod  with  it,  Reiter,  at  New  Philadel- 
 phia; Larose,  of  Preble  Coimty,  Ohio,  and  Riegel,  of  Miamis- 
 burg,  Ohio.  They  connected  themselves  with  the  West  Penn- 
 sylvania classis,  the  nearest  classis  of  the  old  synod.  (Still 
 it  is  to  be  remembered  that  in  eastern  Ohio,  Mahnenschmidt 
 and  Sonnendccker  were  still  members  of  the  West  Pennsyl- 
 vania classis.)  The  Ohio  s.ynod  then  ordained  Pence,  AViii- 
 ters  and  Descombes.  It  adopted  the  Heidelberg  Catechism 
 and  the  constitution  of  the  German  Reformed  Church,  which 
 it  adhered  to  till  the  adoption  of  its  own  constitution  in  1832. 
 In  1842  it  adopted  the  constitution  of  the  Eastern  synod  and 
 
 178 
 
Union  and  Disunion.  179 
 
 later  its  revision  in  1846.    As  late  as  1840  it  was  called  by  its 
 members  a  coetus. 
 
 The  Eastern  synod  asked  the  Ohio  synod  to  come  back, 
 but  they  declined.  In  1833  and  1834  some  efforts  were  made 
 to  have  them  again  united,  especially  as  the  Eastern  synod 
 had  in  the  meantime  granted  to  its  classes  the  very  thing  it 
 had  refused  to  Ohio  classis  in  1823,  namely,  the  right  of  the 
 classis  to  ordain  ministers.  In  1834,  Lebanon,  Susquehanna 
 and  JMaiyland  classes  expressed  a  desire  for  a  union  with  the 
 Ohio  synod,  but  nothing  came  of  it.  In  1840  the  second 
 and  third  districts  of  the  Ohio  synod  discussed  the  question 
 of  reuniting  with  the  mother  synod,  because  the  causes  of  the 
 separation  no  longer  existed,  but  postponed  action  till  their 
 General  Synod  of  Ohio  should  again  meet  in  1842.  So  the 
 synod  of  Ohio,  1842,  decided  to  open  correspondence  by 
 delegates  with  the  mother  synod.  Two  delegates  were  to  be 
 sent  from  each  body  who  were  to  have  a  seat  and  a  vote  in  the 
 other  body.  They  also  agreed  to  interchange  their  reports 
 of  th(^  state  of  religion  and  statistics.  This  was  adopted  by 
 the  Eastern  synod  with  joy.  It  prepared  the  way  for  them 
 to  enter  the  more  heartily  into  the  movement  culminating  in 
 the  Triennial  convention  l)etween  the  Dutch  Reformed,  the 
 Eastern  synod  and  tlie  Ohio  synod. 
 
 Section  2.    Union  With  Other  Churches. 
 
 The  German  Reformed  Cliureh,  like  its  founder,  Zwingli  at 
 I\larburg  (who  there  reached  out  his  hand  to  Luther  but  was 
 refused),  has  always  been  irenic  and  favorable  to  church 
 union.  She  very  early  revealed  this  tendency  to  union  in 
 America.  In  doctrine  and  government,  she  naturally  inclined 
 toward  union  with  the  Dutch  Reformed,  while  in  language  she 
 was  nearer  the  Lutheran. 
 
 A.  Union  ivitli  the  Dutch  lu j'onital. — Between  the  Dutch 
 and  the  German  Reformed  Chureli  there  was  always  a  most 
 cordial  feeling  during  this  period  (1793-1844).  Nurtured 
 originally  by  the  same  mother,  the  Reformed  Church  of  the 
 Netherlands,  their  associations  have  always  been  very  close. 
 Dr.   Corwin   says  that  "at  the  first  meeting  of  the  Dutch 
 
180        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 General  Synod  in  1794  union  with  the  German  Church  was 
 looked  forward  to  as  a  desirable  consumiuation  and  a  com- 
 mittee was  appointed  to  take  effectual  measures  to  bring 
 so  desirable  a  thing  into  effect."  In  1803,  Rev.  Dr.  Living- 
 ston, of  the  Dutch  Church,  sent  a  letter  to  the  synod  asking 
 that  young  ministers  of  our  church  be  sent  to  the  destitute 
 parts  of  New  York  state,  Avhere  Germans  were  settling  and 
 suggested  that  fraternal  correspondence  be  opened  with  our 
 synod,  which  was  begim  the  next  year  (1804).  This  was 
 the  first  form  of  imion  with  the  Dutch — ^by  correspondence, 
 which  continued  doAMi  to  1813.  Then  came  delegate-union; 
 two  delegates  from  the  Dutch  Synod  appeared  before  our 
 synod  and  suggested  that  in  addition  to  correspondence  by 
 letter  it  should  be  by  delegates.  The  synod  agreed  to  this 
 and  appointed  Gloninger  and  S.  Helffenstein  delegates  to  the 
 Dutch  Synod,  1813,  and  Helffenstein  and  Hendel,  1814. 
 This  was  continued,  although  sometimes  the  delegates  were 
 not  able  to  go.  In  1817.  this  union  tendency  grew  still  closer. 
 Our  synod,  feeling  the  need  of  a  theological  seminary,  ap- 
 pointed a  committee  consisting  of  Pomp  and  Helffenstein  to 
 confer  Avith  the  Dutch  Synod  on  the  subject.  They  sent  a 
 letter  to  the  Dutch  Sj-nod  of  1818,  expressing  a  wish  to  unite 
 with  them  in  a  theological  seminary.  In  1818,  Rev.  Peter 
 Labagh  also  presented  an  overture  from  the  Dutch  Synod 
 to  our's,  that  the  two  Reformed  Churches  imite  in  support- 
 ing the  Dutch  Reformed  Theological  seminary  at  New  Bruns- 
 wick. Our  committee  reported  to  our  synod  that  as  negotia- 
 tions were  in  progress  among  the  Germans  toward  ostablisli- 
 ing  a  school  in  connection  with  Franklin  College,  in  which 
 both  Lutherans  and  Reformed  had  an  interest,  the  coiiuuittec 
 therefore  declared  nothing  could  be  done  toward  union  with 
 the  Dutch.  As  our  Church  started  its  own  seminary  project 
 in  1820,  there  was  therefore  no  further  attempt  at  union  l)e- 
 tween  these  two  denominations  on  the  basis  of  a  one  semi- 
 nary.* Correspondence  by  means  of  delegates,  however,  con- 
 tinued until   in   1842  the  time  seemed  ripe  for  a  still  closer 
 
 *In  1834  Susquchaiiiia  C'lassis  ovortuvod  Symxl  to  unite  witli  tlic  Piiteh. 
 
Union  and  Disunion.  181 
 
 union.  Then  Rev.  Drs.  Heiner  and  Berg,  the  delegates  from 
 our  synod  to  the  Dutch  fSynod,  suggested  it.  It  was  very 
 cordially  taken  up  b}^  the  Dutch  Synod  and  an  overture  pre- 
 pared to  our  synod.  A  connnittee  of  the  Dutch  Synod  was 
 ;i])p(>inted  to  confer  with  us,  consisting  of  Revs.  Drs.  Har- 
 (li'iihcrg,  Ludlow,  Knox  and  Strong,  together  with  Elders  Fre- 
 linghuysen,  Van  Nest  and  llardenberg.  Our  synod  replied 
 favoral)ly  and  appointed  a  connnittee  to  confer  with  the 
 Dutch  about  closer  union.  The  committee  consisted  of  Revs. 
 B.  C.  Wolff,  Schneck,  Heiner,  Berg  and  Elder  J.  C.  Bucher. 
 The  committees  on  conference  met  at  Philadelphia  in  March, 
 
 1843,  and  drew  up  an  elaborate  plan  of  co-operative  union 
 in  five  articles — that  the  three  churches,  Dutch  and  German 
 (the  latter  in  its  two  synods,  Eastern  and  Ohio)  should  hold  a 
 Triennial  convention  of  thirty-six  delegates,  to  which  the 
 Dutch  Church  appointed  one-third  and  the  German  two- 
 thirds.     The  first  convention  met  at  Plarrisburg  in  August, 
 
 1844.  Dr.  Nevin  preached  the  opening  sermon.  After  a 
 free  interchange  of  opinion,  a  committee  of  seven  was  ap- 
 pointed to  introduce  any  proposals  for  action.  The  following 
 were  proposed  by  it  and  adopted  by  the  convention  : 
 
 1.  The  licentiates  of  either  of  the  theological  schools  of  the  three  de- 
 nominations should  be  considered  as  candidates  in  either  church.  Each 
 seminary  must  send  to  the  faculty  of  the  other  seminaries  a  list  of  recent 
 graduates. 
 
 2.  A  corresjiondenee  must  be  kept  up  among  the  various  institutions 
 of  the  respective  churches  by  the  students  to  cultivate  affection  and 
 awaken  a  mutual  interest  in  the  rising  ministry  of  the  respective  bodies. 
 
 3.  That  the  system  of  instruction  in  the  several  seminaries  should  be 
 as  nearly  alike  as  possible.  The  same  text-books  in  didactic  theology 
 should  be  used. 
 
 4.  The  liturgies  should  be  conformed  to  each  other  as  nearly  as  pos- 
 sible. 
 
 5.  Domestic  missionary  operations  should  be  blended  together  as  much 
 as  possible. 
 
 In  closing,  the  convention  adjourned  to  meet  in  1847,  a 
 Dutch  minister  to  preach  the  opening  sermon.  Its  actions 
 were  adopted  by  tlie  different  synods  except  that  relating  to 
 text-books  on  didactic  theology  in  the  seminaries.    High  hopes 
 
382        History  of  Reformed  Church  ix  the  U.  S. 
 
 were  entertained  of  the  success  of  this  plan  that  it  would 
 draw  the  two  denominations  closer  together  until  their  co- 
 operative union  would  result  in  an  organic  imion.  The  Dutch 
 Church  at  once  appropriated  $10,000,  to  be  expendecl  in  the 
 domestic  field  of  the  German  Church.  The  rest  of  the  his- 
 tory of  this  Triennial  convention  will  be  told  later  in  this  book. 
 
 B.  Tlie  Lutheran  Church. — The  Lutheran  Church  was  also 
 near  the  Reformed  because  they  used  the  same  language,  they 
 very  often  worshiped  in  tlie  same  church  building  and.  be- 
 sides, they  had  a  common  interest  in  one  of  the  educational 
 institutions  of  Pennsylvania,  the  High  School  at  Lancaster. 
 The  union  tendency  was  early  shown  by  the  synod,  as  it 
 approved  a  resolution  (1812)  to  support  "The  Evangelical 
 Magazine,"  founded  by  Rev.  Dr.  Ilehnuth,  of  the  Lutheran 
 Church.  But  as  a  synod,  it  inclined  more  toward  the  Dutch 
 than  toward  the  Lutherans,  as  Buettner,  the  earliest  of  our 
 historians,*  says.  He  himself  was  strongly  in  favor  of  union 
 with  the  Lutherans  but  declared  he  made  little  progress.  As 
 a  significant  fact  he  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  while  the 
 synod  accepted  correspondence  with  the  Presbyterians  in  1824, 
 although  a  member  offered  a  resolution  for  a  luiion  hymnbook 
 with  the  Lutherans,  it  was  voted  down. 
 
 The  relation  between  the  two  churches  comes  out  promi- 
 nently in  1817  on  the  anniversary  of  the  Lutheran  Reforma- 
 tion, when  the  Lutheran  ministerium  sent  an  invitation  to 
 our  synod,  inviting  them  to  unite  with  the  Lutherans  in  ob- 
 serving this  Tercentenary  on  October  31,  1817.  Our  synod  ap- 
 pointed a  conniiittee  on  this  overture.  It  reported  favorably 
 on  it.  But  evidently  there  was  a  strong  difference  of  opinion 
 in  our  synod  for  there  was  considerable  discussion  and  the 
 final  action  of  synod  was  less  favorable,  namely,  not  to  of- 
 ficially observe  it  but  to  leave  to  each  minister  the  option  to  do 
 as  he  wished.  Iloffmeier,  as  the  secretary,  was  ordered  to 
 prepare  a  report  of  the  origin  of  the  festival.  But  Bu<'ttncr 
 says  he  did  not  believe  a  single  Reformed  minister  held  such 
 a  service. 
 
 *Page  37,  History  of  German  Reformed  Church. 
 
Union  and  Disunion.  183 
 
 It  was  hoped  by  some;  that  the  uiiiou  movement  that  went 
 over  Germany  and  united  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed  in 
 a  United  Evangelical  Church,  would  favorably  affect  those 
 churches  in  this  country  and  incline  them  to  unite.  As  a  re- 
 sult of  such  a  request  of  the  Lutherans  to  our  sj^nod,  there 
 came  negotiations  with  them  in  reference  to  a  joint  theological 
 seminary.  The  Synod  of  1817  appointed  a  committee  consist- 
 ing of  Hendel,  Hoffmeier  and  Wack,  Sr.,  to  confer  with  the 
 Lutheran  Synod,  as  was  to  be  done  by  a  similar  committee 
 with  the  Dutch  Reformed.  The  Lutheran  General  Synod  ap- 
 pointed a  committee  of  five  to  meet  with  this  committee  and 
 asked  that  a  similar  committee  be  appointed  by  our  synod. 
 Synod  appointed  Hoffmeier,  Herman,  Hendel,  Pomp  and  S. 
 Helffenstein.  This  committee  reported  to  the  synod  of  1819 
 a  plan  and  requested  that  the  plan  of  union  be  printed  and 
 laid  before  each  of  the  synods  interested,  our  synod  to  bear 
 half  the  expense.  But  in  1820  our  synod  went  ahead  without 
 the  Lutherans  and  founded  its  own  seminary,  so  that  union 
 in  a  seminary  failed. 
 
 The  matter  of  church-union  came  up  again  in  1822.  The 
 Lutheran  Synod  made  overtures.  This  time  it  was  not  merely 
 union  in  a  theological  seminary  but  a  union  of  the  synods. 
 Dr.  Henry  H.  Muhlenberg,  the  secretary  of  the  Lutheran 
 Synod  of  Pennsylvania,  wrote  a  letter  seeking  for  the  union 
 of  the  Reformed  and  Lutherans  and  the  appointment  of  a 
 committee  for  that  purpose.  A  letter  was  also  received  from 
 D.  F.  Schaeffer,  secretary  of  the  Lutheran  Synod  of  Maryland 
 and  Virginia,  asking  for  a  fraternal  understanding  with  the 
 Reformed.  The  Reformed  synod,  however,  postponed  action 
 on  account  of  the  gravity  of  the  case. 
 
 In  1824,  the  Lutheran  Synod  appointed  a  committee  of 
 three,  among  them  Muhlenberg,  to  confer  with  a  like  commit- 
 tee of  our  Eastern  synod  concerning  the  publication  of  a 
 common  hymnbook.  One  of  the  Reformed  made  a  motion, 
 says  Buettner,  to  appoint  such  a  committee,  but  the  motion 
 was  not  passed  and  so  the  matter  fell. 
 
 The  subject  of  union  then  rested  until  1828.  Then  again, 
 on  motion  of  Hinseh,  of  Zion's  classis,  an  overture  was  sent 
 
184        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 up  to  sj^nod  asking  for  union.    Susquehanna  classis  also  over- 
 tured  the  synod.     But  synod  did  not  find  it  timely  to  act 
 upon  it.    In  1832,  the  synod  went  into  a  union  German  period- 
 ical   published    by    Revs.    Dreyer,    of    the    Reformed,    and 
 Schmucker,   of  the  Lutheran   Church.     In  1833,  the  union 
 movement  again   appeared.     jMayer  called  the  attention  of 
 East  Pennsylvania  classis  to  it.     The  classis  declared  that  it 
 heartily  desired  it  but  believed  that  at  present  the  movement 
 would  have  many   difficulties.     Lebanon   classis    (1833)    re- 
 plied to  Mayer  that  it  was  not  prepared  to  state  its  mind  in 
 regard  to  union.     He  had  asked  for  a  conference  the  third 
 Simday   in    June    at   York   and   Lebanon    classis   appointed 
 Zacharias,  Kroh  and  Hertz  to  attend.    jMaryland  classis,  1833, 
 approved  of  the  union  on  the  basis  published  in  the  Messenger 
 of  March,  1832,  but  said  it  would  be  dissatisfied  with  the  miion 
 of  the  institutions  of  the  Churches  before  the  Churches  were 
 united.     So  this  was  the  animus — the  union  of  institutions. 
 Doubtless  Rauch's  early  union  sympathies  influenced  Mayer 
 at  the  time  and  started  ambitions  for  a  larger  university. 
 Frequent  articles  on  the  subject  appear  at  this  time  in  the 
 Messenger.     Finally  the  Messenger  states  that  the  Lutheran 
 Observer  attacked  the  Reformed  and  Dr.  Mayer  then  says  that 
 there  would  be  no  union,  if  union  meant  absorption.    Rev.  Mr. 
 Brobst,  of  the  Lutheran  Church,   an  enthusiast  for  union, 
 wanted  the  American  churches  to  follow  the  union  in  Ger- 
 many.   He  wrote  a  book  on  Union  and  as  a  delegate  from  the 
 Lutheran  Church  to  our  synod  urged  it.     In  1836,  the  Lu- 
 theran Synod  of  Pennsylvania  again  took  action  for  union 
 and  asked  their  delegates  to  the  Reformed  synod  to  bring  the 
 matter  before  it.     If  a  union  were  not  possible,  then  they 
 would  attempt  to  form  a  United  Church  as  in  Germany.     It 
 appointed   a   committee   of   four   ministers.      The   Reformed 
 synod  this  time  went  so  far  as  to  appoint  a  committee  of  four 
 ministers.  In  1837,  the  committee  on  union  reported  favorably 
 to  our  synod  but  synod  dropped  the  matter  because  it  found 
 that  the  minutes  of  the  Lutheran  Synod  contained  no  refer- 
 ence to  union.     Thus  the  Lutherans  failed  to  respond  to  the 
 
Union  and  Disunion.  185 
 
 subject  of  union  after  having  begun  the  movement.  When 
 the  Lutherans  were  favorable,  the  Reformed  were  slow  and 
 when  the  Reformed  were  favorable  the  Lutherans  were  silent. 
 The  Lutheran  Observer  says  it  thought  Dr.  Mayer,  when  editor 
 of  the  Messenger,  to  be  favorable  to  union,  but  that  Schneck, 
 the  new  editor,  was  not.  Sehneck  replied  tliat  thus  far  the 
 union  had  been  of  a  vague,  indefinite  kind,  not  needing  a 
 newspaper  discussion, — that  when  the  Lutheran  Church  re- 
 sponded in  her  ecclesiastical  capacity  it  would  be  worth  while 
 to  discuss  it.  The  synod  of  1837  refused  union  and  so  the 
 subject  was  dropped,  never  to  be  resumed. 
 
 East  Pennsylvania  classis  (1840)  asked  synod  that  more 
 copies  of  the  Zurich  Bible  be  gotten  from  Germany  for  the 
 use  of  the  theological  seminary,  and  also  for  the  ministers  who 
 desired  to  use  it.  This  looks,  says  Buettner,  as  if  that  classis 
 wanted  to  break  the  bond  between  Lutherans  and  Reformed 
 by  the  use  of  the  Zurich  Bible  instead  of  the  Luther  Bible, 
 wliich  was  commonly  used  by  the  Germans. 
 
 Li  1823,  Ohio  classis  asked  synod  to  appoint  a  committee 
 on  union  but  synod  refused  to  act  because  among  the  many 
 Lutheran  synods  no  one  is  named  with  which  the  classis 
 sought  a  union. 
 
 The  Ohio  synod  at  its  first  meeting  (1824)  opened  cor- 
 respondence with  the  Lutheran  synod  of  Ohio  by  interchange 
 of  minutes,  and  by  1832  appointed  a  delegate  to  the  Lutheran 
 Synod.  In  1834,  the  Ohio  Synod  was  invited  by  the  Lutheran 
 Synod  to  send  their  students  for  the  ministry  to  the  Lutheran 
 theological  seminary  at  Columbus  for  their  education,  as  the 
 Reformed  had  no  theological  seminary.  Rev.  George  Long, 
 one  of  our  ministers  received  his  training  there.  In  1837, 
 the  Evangelical  congregation  at  Pittsburg,  Pa.,  asked  West 
 Pennsylvania  classis  to  do  all  in  its  power  in  favor  of  imion. 
 It  replied  by  saying  there  was  no  difficulty  from  the  side  of 
 the  Reformed.  In  1839,  the  Ohio  synod  appointed  a  com- 
 mittee on  union  with  the  Lutherans,  probably  led  into  it  by 
 Buettner,  who  was  strong  in  his  union  views.  Buettner  was 
 made  chairman  of  the  committee.    But  nothing  came  of  it. 
 
186        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Finally  a  quietus  was  put  on  all  such  efforts  for  close  union 
 by  Schneck's  visit  to  Europe  in  1843.  He  wrote  an  article  on 
 the  Union  in  Germany.* 
 
 ' '  The  attempt  to  unite  the  Lutheran  and  Eef  ormed  churches  in  Ger- 
 many has  been  anything  but  productive  of  good  results.  To  attempt 
 to  bring  about  an  outward  union  without  the  inward  spirit  of  union 
 must  always  fail.  It  led  the  Lutherans  in  some  parts  to  react  into  ex- 
 treme ultra-orthodoxy,  a  sort  of  Puseyism  in  Germany.  One  thing  he 
 siiys,  there  is  no  union  in  reality.  The  Lutherans  hold  their  view  and 
 so  do  the  Eef  ormed.     It  is  an  outward  union  with  an  inward  disunion, ' ' 
 
 Still  although  these  various  efforts  toward  union  failed,  yet 
 correspondence  between  the  Lutherans  and  the  Reformed  was 
 kept  up  regularly  during  this  period. 
 
 C.  The  Presbyterians. — In  1822,  negotiations  toward  closer 
 relations  began  with  the  Presbyterians.  A  committee  consist- 
 ing of  S.  Helffenstein,  Hinsch,  Brunner  and  Rev.  John  M. 
 Duncan,  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  met  the  committee  of  the 
 Presbyterian  Church,  October  1,  1828.  They  decided  that  or- 
 ganic union  was  not  possible  and  agreed  to  a  yearly  inter- 
 change of  delegates,  also  that  ministers  and  members  under 
 discipline  in  either  denomination  should  not  be  received  by 
 the  other.  The  interchange  of  delegates  began  in  1824.  "When 
 the  Presbj^terian  Church  split  into  Old  and  New  School,  our 
 sjTiod  was  at  a  loss  what  to  do.  It  did  not  feel  competent  to 
 decide  which  of  the  General  Assemblies  was  the  proper  one, 
 with  which  to  correspond.  This  perplexity  is  revealed  at  the 
 Reformed  synod  of  1838,  when  Rev.  John  Grant  appeared 
 as  the'  delegate  of  the  New  School  General  Assembly.  The 
 synod  finally  took  action  that  it  could  not  decide  which  was 
 the  proper  General  Assembly,  but  that  interchange  of  dele- 
 gates should  take  place  with  both  of  them.f 
 
 *See  Messenger,  Nov.  1,  1843. 
 
 fOceasionally  a  little  local  friction  occurred,  however,  betwoon  tl)oni  as 
 in  Maryland  classis  at  Loudon,  Va.,  where  Eev.  E.  C.  Hutchinson  wtis 
 trying  to  draw  away  our  congregation  to  the  Presbyterians.  But  the  cor- 
 responding delegate  to  our  synod  in  1831  assured  our  synod  that  as 
 soon  as  it  appointed  a  supply,  Mr,  Hutchinson  would  withdraw.  Synod 
 appointed  J.  C.  Bucher  as  supply.  As  Hutchinson  persisted  in  su})])ly- 
 ing  them,  Maryland  classis  took  action  and  in  1832,  as  ho  still  con- 
 tinued, it  ordered  a  remonstrance  to  be  placed  before  the  Presbytery 
 of   Winchester.     In   1833  Maryland   classis  took   action   because   several 
 
Union  and  Disunion.  187 
 
 D.  Foreign  Correspondence. — There  seems  to  have  been  no 
 correspondence  with  the  churches  abroad  until  Mr.  Reily's 
 visit  to  Europe  to  collect  money  for  the  seminary.  The  officers 
 of  the  sjTiod  of  1824,  Hendel  president  and  Ilinsch  secre- 
 tary, issued  a  circular  appeal  to  the  foreiun  churches,  April 
 (i,  3825,  endorsing  Reily's  appeal  to  them.  And  the  Hol- 
 land church  gave  $400,  in  the  hope  that  correspondence 
 with  our  Church  would  be  resumed.  But  nothing  came  of  it. 
 In  1826  Reily  was  ordered  by  synod  to  express  the  warmest 
 thanks  of  the  synod  for  the  zeal  and  kindness  of  the  foreign 
 friends.  In  3828,  a  committee  consisting  of  Ilinsch,  S.  Hel- 
 ffenstein  and  Prof.  Lewis  Mayer  was  appointed  to  correspond 
 with  various  friends  in  Europe  and  prepare  a  letter  to  them. 
 In  1833,  a  new  impulse  to  this  movement  came  to  the  synod 
 through  the  coming  of  Ranch.  The  synod  ordered  that  a 
 circular  be  prepared  giving  an  accoimt  of  the  condition  of  the 
 theological  seminary  which  was  to  be  sent  to  the  Christian 
 friends  in  Europe  and  that  Mayer  and  Ranch,  together  with 
 the  president  and  secretary  of  the  synod,  prepare  it.  But 
 they  reported  in  1835  that  because  of  the  press  of  other  busi- 
 ness, it  had  not  been  attended  to.  In  1838,  Susquehanna 
 classis  asked  synod  to  open  correspondence  with  Europe  and 
 .synod  appointed  a  committee  of  three,  with  Willers  as  chair- 
 man, to  open  correspondence  with  the  Ministerium  of  the 
 Reformed  Church  of  Bremen.  Willers  prepared  an  accomit 
 of  the  origin  of  our  Church  and  its  present  condition  and  sent 
 it,  with  two  copies  of  our  religious  papers  and  the  minutes 
 the  synods  of  1838  and  1839,  through  a  l^altimore  house.  The 
 ship  sank  in  the  Weser,  Germany,  Jan.  26,  1840.  The  letters, 
 etc.,  it  is  said,  were  saved,  but  no  answer  came.  The  synod 
 ordered  Willers  to  continue,  and  in  the  Centennial  of  the 
 Church  in  1840  to  send  a  circular  letter  to  the  fathers  and 
 
 Presbyterian  ministers  had  created  disturbances  in  several  of  its  con- 
 gregations by  persuading  tliem  that  the  Presbyterians  and  the  Re- 
 formed were  the  same.  It  took  action  that  the}'  were  not  the  same,  that 
 there  was  no  such  thing  as  a  German  Presbyterian  Church  and  urged 
 that  where  titles  of  property  were  made  in  the  name  of  the  German 
 Presbyterians  that  they  be  changed.  In  1835  it  ordered  its  ministers  to 
 preach  on  the  differences  between  the  German  Reformed  and  the  Pres- 
 byterians. 
 
188        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 brethren  of  Germany,  inviting  them  to  join  with  us,  but  Ger- 
 many gave  no  response.  The  synod  of  1842  appointed  the 
 editors  of  the  religious  papers  a  committee  to  open  corres- 
 pondence with  the  Reformed  Church  of  Germany.  Finally,  in 
 1843,  the  delegation,  Drs.  Schneck  and  Ilolfeditz,  sent  abroad 
 to  lay  the  call  of  the  professorship  before  Dr.  Krunnnacher, 
 were  ordered,  wherever  opportunity  offered,  to  present  the 
 friendly  greetings  of  the  Church  and  tliey  were  kindly  re- 
 ceived everywhere. 
 
 E.  Conclusion. — From  this  survey  of  our  Church  in  regard 
 to  union,  it  is  evident  how  our  Church  stood  in  relation  to 
 other  denominations.  AVhile  liberal  and  fraternal  in  spirit, 
 she  yet  placed  herself  squarely  on  the  position  that  she  was  a 
 Reformed  Church.  She  also  revealed  whither  her  theological 
 sympathies  went.  Although  there  was  much  to  make  her  tend 
 toward  union  with  the  Lutherans — they  had  a  common  lan- 
 guage, were  of  a  common  race,  often  worshiped  in  the  same 
 church-buildings  and  were  linked  by  intermarriage,  yet  al- 
 though overtures  were  made  toward  their  imion,  our  Church 
 nevertheless  got  nearer  in  fact  to  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church 
 than  any  other.  For  with  her  she  was  not  only  in  corres- 
 pondence as  with  the  Lutheran,  but  she  entered  into  a  closer 
 relation  by  forming  the  Triennial  convention  in  1844.  This 
 close  alliance  with  the  Dutch  in  spite  of  the  difference  of  lan- 
 guage and  the  separation  of  their  territory  from  ours,  shows 
 that,  as  Buettner  says,  our  Church  was  closer  to  the  Dutch 
 in  doctrine,  etc.  Our  Church  was  not  IMelancthonian  in  spirit 
 or  her  closer  affiliation  would  have  been  with  the  Lutheran. 
 But  she  was  in  the  main  Calvinistic  and  took  her  place  with 
 the  Calvinist  Churches  (the  Dutch  Reformed  and  Presby- 
 terians). 
 
CHAPTER  VII. 
 
 Missions. 
 
 Section  1.    History  op  Domestic  Missions. 
 
 It  took  considerable  time  to  develop  the  organization  of 
 Home  or  Domestic  Missions.  Many  had  been  the  calls  from 
 congregations  on  the  l)orders  even  in  the  days  of  the  coetus. 
 But  no  official  action  was  taken  by  the  Church  toward 
 home  mission  work  until  the  synod  of  1812.  Then  a  collec- 
 tion was  taken  up  for  the  congregations  west  of  the  Alle- 
 gheny ]\Iountains.  The  first  suggestion  for  Home  Missions 
 came  in  the  parochial  school-room  at  Philadelphia,  when  it 
 was  proposed  to  send  a  missionary  to  Ohio.  The  suggestion 
 was  received  with  silent  amazement.  "What!  leave  family 
 and  home  and  venture  on  so  long  and  perilous  a  journey  as 
 a  missionary?"  laconically  remarked  one  of  the  brethren.  But 
 before  synod  had  adjourned,  it  had  commissioned  Hendel  to 
 go.  Dechant  went  a  year  later.  Whitmer  says  that  in  the 
 North  Carolina  Churches  there  is  a  tradition  that  Captain 
 AVilliam  Albright  appeared  before  that  synod  in  1812,  begging 
 for  pastors  for  North  Carolina.  In  1813  calls  came  to  synod 
 from  various  parts  of  North  Carolina.  As  a  result,  Reily 
 was  appointed  missionary  to  Carolina  at  a  salary  of  thirty 
 dollars  a  month  for  traveling  expenses  and  what  the  congre- 
 gations raised.  Dr.  Becker,  with  whom  Reily  had  studied, 
 rose  Hud  in  a  touching  wfiy,  ]iled  for  tliese  North  Carolina 
 congregations  and  proposed  that  synod  kneel  in  prayer  for 
 Reily,  which  was  done.  Reily  went  on  a  missionary  tour  to 
 North  Carolina  in  1813.*  To  this  synod  also  came  Winters, 
 having  traveled  six  hundred  miles,  bringing  three  petitions 
 from  Miami  Valley,  Starke  County  and  Lancaster,  0.  The 
 synod  was  not  able  to  give  a  favorable  answer  to  these  requests 
 
 *S(n'    iraiKaujih 's   FatluTs   of   the  Reformed   Church,    p.  2o0. 
 
 189 
 
190        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 from  Ohio.  But  these  appeals  deeply  impressed  the  synod 
 and  it  ordered  that  all  licentiates  before  accepting  a  congre- 
 gation should  make  missionary  tours  for  two  or  three  months 
 under  the  direction  of  the  synod,  and  that  all  pastors  should 
 take  up  collections  to  pay  the  traveling  expenses  of  these 
 missionaries.  Isaac  Gerhart,  during  his  theological  studies  at 
 Philadelphia  which  closed  1813,  spent  three  months  in  mis- 
 sionary work  in  western  Pennsylvania. 
 
 The  synod  of  1814  received  a  communication  from  several 
 congregations  in  South  Carolina,  who  asked  for  Hauck.  It 
 licensed  him  for  three  years  and  paid  him  thirty  dollars  out 
 of  the  home  missionan-  fund.  The  synod  of  1815  appointed 
 Weinel  to  go  to  North  Carolina  and  Habliston  to  Greensburg, 
 Pa.  The  synod  of  1816  appointed  Weisz  to  Ohio.  To  the 
 synod  of  1817  there  came  a  letter  from  North  and  South 
 Carolina  which  gave  favorable  testimonials  to  Hauck,  and 
 asked  for  the  renewal  of  his  license.  Synod  raised  sixty  to 
 seventy  dollars,  of  which  half  was  to  go  for  missions.  It  de- 
 cided to  send  Reily  and  Zulich  to  North  Carolina  as  soon  as 
 money  came  in.  A  special  collection  was  taken  up.  amounting 
 to  $67.  At  the  synod  of  1818.  Boger  from  the  Carolinas,  ap- 
 peared as  a  regular  member.  Diefenbach  was  permitted  to 
 resign  his  charge  so  as  to  go  as  a  missionary'  to  North  Caro- 
 lina. The  synod  ordered  licentiates  Daniel,  J.  H.  Kieffer  and 
 Jacob  Scholl  to  go  to  North  Carolina,  but  they  failed  to  go. 
 Reily  and  Zulich  r('y)()rtod  that  they  had  not  been  able  to  go 
 to  North  Carolina,  and  were  excused.  In  1819.  the  synod 
 took  another  step  forward  toward  organizing  the  work  of 
 missions — it  appointed  a  Home  ]\rissi(mai'y  committee  consist- 
 ing of  Lewis  Mayer,  Jonathan  Helffenstein,  Reily  and  F. 
 Rahauser.  In  response  to  an  appeal  from  North  Carolina,  it 
 appointed  Leidy  to  go  there.  In  February  the  missionary 
 committee  issued  an  earnest  address  calling  attention  to  the 
 fact  that  in  1819  eighteen  pastoral  charges  were  vacant,  of 
 which  fifteen  contained  eighty  congregations.  The  total  vacant 
 congregations  in  New  York.  Pennsylvania  and  Ohio  were  200, 
 representing  30,000  souls  destitute  of  religious  ministrations. 
 It  was  a  powerful  appeal.     To  the  synod  of  1820,  Reily  gave 
 
Missions.  191 
 
 an  account  of  Leidy's  tour  in  the  South.  The  synod  of  1821 
 not  only  ordered  ministers  to  take  up  collections  in  their 
 churches  for  missions  but  also  to  explain  to  the  people  the  ob- 
 jects of  the  work  and  their  duty  towards  it.  To  the  synod  of 
 1822,  Reily  gave  an  account  of  his  missionary  tour  to  the 
 West,  in  which  he  traveled  1,400  miles.  The  synod  of  1823 
 voted  $200  toward  the  traveling  expenses  of  men  who  an- 
 swered the  calls  that  came  to  synod,  and  to  the  synod  of  1824 
 Rudy  gave  an  account  of  his  tour  to  South  Carolina. 
 
 Up  to  1826  the  synod  had  only  a  committee  on  missions,  but 
 then  it  took  another  step  forward  and  organized  a  Missionary 
 society,  September  28,  1826,  at  Frederick.  Every  one  who  paid 
 a  dollar  was  a  member,  $25  making  a  life  member,  $100  a  di- 
 rector and  $200  a  vice-president.  It  adopted  a  constitution 
 for  itself  and  for  auxiliary  societies.  Its  first  treasurer  was 
 Jonathan  Helffenstein.  The  next  year,  S.  Ilelffenstein  was 
 made  president  and  John  P.  Ilelffenstein  secretary.  At  first, 
 owing  to  the  strong  popular  prejudice  against  all  enterprises 
 of  general  benevolence,  synod  was  careful  to  explain  that  these 
 movements  were  wholly  voluntary  and  it  was  Imown  as  a 
 Missionary  society,  not  as  a  board  of  the  synod.  Soon  auxili- 
 ary societies  began  to  be  formed.  The  first  was  organized 
 at  Frederick,  ]\Id.,  1827,  a  ladies  auxiliary,  the  second  at  Ger- 
 mantown,  July  2,  1827,  also  of  ladies,  and  the  third  of  both 
 sexes  at  Philadelphia.  Other  auxiliaries,  as  at  York  and 
 Hagerstown,  were  formed  and  many  classes  formed  themselves 
 into  auxiliary  societies.  The  synod  of  1827  was  full  of  mis- 
 sions and  contains  the  report  of  IMaryland  classis  on  the 
 Churches  of  North  and  South  Carolina  and  the  constitution 
 of  the  missionary  society  and  its  yearly  re])ort.  Susque- 
 hanna classis  was  the  first  to  become  an  auxiliary  classical 
 missionary  society  in  1832,  every  minister  and  charge  being 
 members.  The  first  annual  sermon  before  the  society  was 
 preaclied  by  Rev.  J.  W.  Dechant.  In  1828,  the;  missionary  so- 
 ciety branched  out  into  publication  and  published  "The  Maga- 
 zine of  the  German  Reformed  Church, ' '  the  forerunner  of  the 
 Messenger.  Up  to  1832,  the  society  was  auxiliary  to  the  synod 
 because  of  lack  of  interest  by  some  members  of  the  synod  and 
 
192        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 also  open  opposition  on  the  part  of  some  to  the  cause  of  mis- 
 sions. But  in  1832  the  synod  determined  to  take  it  directly 
 under  its  care.  It  formally  elected  a  board  of  missions  of 
 eighteen  members,  two  from  each  classis  and  four  from  the 
 church-at-large.  In  1834  it  came  into  friendly  relation  to 
 the  American  Home  ]\Iissionary  Society  and  co-operated  with 
 it.  But  a  difficulty  had  already  begun  to  grow  up.  The 
 classes  kept  their  missionary  work  in  their  own  hands  and 
 the  board  had  little  to  do.  Besides,  as  the  members  of  the 
 board  were  from  so  many  classes  widely  dispersed,  it  was  diffi- 
 cult to  get  the  board  together.  So  the  board  was  greatly  ham- 
 pered though  still  doing  excellent  work,  which  was  continued 
 year  after  year.  In  1837,  the  board  reported  thirteen  mission- 
 aries, but  some  were  under  the  care  of  classes,  some  were  aided 
 by  the  American  Homo  ^Missionary  Society.  Its  income  was 
 $675,  its  outlay  $503.*  The  great  difficulty  was  the  unwilling- 
 ness of  classes  to  let  the  board  do  their  work.  In  1841,  it  had 
 only  three  missionaries  and  its  income  only  $306.  The  Centen- 
 ary of  the  Church  brought  no  relief,  as  that  money  went  into 
 the  institutions  of  the  Church.  So  unsuccessful  was  the  work 
 of  the  board,  that  IMercersburg  classis  in  1844  overtured  synod 
 to  dissolve  the  board  and  let  its  work  be  done  by  the  classes. 
 The  Church  had  not  yet  learned  how  to  get  the  classes  and  the 
 board  to  work  together.  The  foreign  missionary  work  of  our 
 Church,  whose  board  was  elected  by  Synod  of  1838,  and  who 
 chose  Rev.  Benjamin  Schneider  as  our  missionary  to  Turkey, 
 we  will  take  up  later. 
 
 Section  2.    Varjous  Mission  Fields. 
 
 A.  Wcsfern  Pennsylvania. — f 
 
 To  this  wild  westorn  district,  Weber  went  as  the  luoiioer  niissiuiiary 
 in  1782,  usually  going  armed  because  of  the  danger  of  wild  animals  and 
 Indians.  According  to  Schopf,  Fort  Pitt  had  no  churches  at  that  time 
 (1782),  but  there  was  a  German  minister  who  preached  to  the  people 
 of  different  confessions.  This  minister  is  generally  supi)osed  to  have 
 been    "Weber,    who    was    pastor    at    Harrold    Settlement,    Westmoreland 
 
 *See  Whitmer,  One  Hundred  and  Fifty  Years  of  Home  Missions. 
 fSee  History  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  the  Bounds  of  Westmorelaml 
 Classis,  1877. ' 
 
Missions.  193 
 
 County.     He  is  said  to  have  preached  in  Pittsburg   (1782-1812).     After 
 he  had  preached  one  year  he  organized  the  German  Evangelical  Church.* 
 Tliey   bought   property   in    1788   and   their   church   was   dedicated    1834. 
 Weber 's   labors  extended   over   Somerset,   Westmoreland,   Fayette,   Arm- 
 strong, Venango,  Butler  and  Crawford  Counties,  while  that  part  of  the 
 country   was   a   wilderness   and   Avhen   the   people   went   to   church   with 
 rifles  and  placed  a  sentinel  at  the  door  against  the  Indians.     Eev.  Henry 
 Giesy  went   west  in   1794   from  Virginia  and   founded   our  churches   in 
 Somerset  County,  organizing  Stony  Creek,  Levanville,  Centreville,  Wel- 
 lersburg  and  Salisbury.     Eev.  Mr.  Aurandt  went  to  Huntingdon  County, 
 1803-4. f      It    is    said    he    preached    also'  in    Washington    and    Allegheny 
 Counties.      Rev.    Mr.   Mahnenschmidt   preached    in    Washington    County, 
 1806-1812.        He     also     from     Ohio     visited     northwestern     Pennsylva- 
 nia,  as   Mercer   County,   occasionally.      In    1811   he   went   to   the   synod 
 for   licensure,  where   he   expressed   regret   that  he   had  acted   disorderly 
 in   baptizing  without   ordination,   and   was  licensed   as   a  catechist.     In 
 1812  he  was  licensed  and  ordained  1817.     Rev.  Mr.  Weinel  accepted  a 
 call  to  Westmoreland  County  in  1815.:{:     Hableston  went  to  Greensburg, 
 1815.      In    1819,   Hacke   and   Koch   went   to   Western   Pennsylvania,   the 
 former  to  Greensburg.     He  also  preached  at  St.  Paul's,  near  Mt.  Pleas- 
 ant, Pleasant  Unity,  Brush  Creek,  Harrolds  and  Manor.     Koch  was  the 
 first  minister   in   Clarion   County.      His   first   sermons   were  preached   in 
 cabins  in  winter  and  in  the  -noods  in  summer.     Said  an  old  man,  who 
 told  this:    ''We  did  not  deem  it  too  far  to  go  twelve  miles  to  church 
 with  guns  in  our  hands."     Koch  on  one  occasion  leaped  from  ice-cake 
 to  ice-cake   across   the   Allegheny  River  to   reach   his   family  in   winter, 
 two  miles  from  any  neighbor.     He  organized  St.  Paul's,  Beaver  Town- 
 ship,  St.   John's   at   Churchville,   Trinity   at   Red   Bank,   St.   Peter's   at 
 Petersburg    and    Sugar    Creek    in    Armstrong    County    between    1820-8. 
 P.  Zeiser  came  to  Mercer  and  Crawford  Counties  in  1825.     He  organized 
 Zion's,   near  Mercer,  also   Good  Hope  and   another   at   Conneaut   Lake, 
 all  in  182.5,  and  Meadville  1826,  Reichel's  1830,  Jerusalem,  Christ  1837, 
 and    St.    John's    Salem    1843,    organizing    ten    congregations    in    eight 
 years.§     In  1824,  Zwisler  went  to  Washington  County;   in  1825,  D.  Ra- 
 hauser,  to  Butler  and  Mercer  Counties ;  in  1826,  Mayerhoft'er,  to  Meadville 
 and  Crawford  County.     Kemmerer  was  at  Pittsburg  1827-41.     Voight, 
 in  1833,  went  to  Westmoreland  County.     In  1830,  Berentz  was  at  Johns- 
 town,  Cambria   County;    in    1831,   Ibbeken   was   in   Somerset,   Erie   and 
 Crawford   Counties;    in   1838,   Douglass   went  to   Pittsburg   for   a  year; 
 in  1839,  J.  F.  Dieffenbach  at  Harmony,  Butler  County.     In  1837  West 
 Pennsylvania  classis  joined  the  Ohio  synod. 
 
 *Mcssenger,  Feb.  10,  1875. 
 
 fSee   list   of   his   congregations,    llarbaugh    Fathers  of   the   Reformed 
 Church,  Vol.  Ill,  page  196-7. 
 
 JSee  list  of  congregations,  Harbaugh,  IV,  150. 
 ^Messenger,  April  11,  1858. 
 
194        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 B.  Ohio.— 
 
 In  1803  the  acquisition  of  the  Louisiana  Purchase  threw  open  the 
 great  West  and  emigration  began  to  pour  westward.  North  Carolina 
 nobly  gave  three  of  its  ministers  to  western  missions,  Weyberg,  Christ- 
 man  and  Larose.  S.  Weyberg  went,  1803,  to  Missouri,  then  called  the 
 Louisiana  Territory,  and  preached,  it  is  said,  the  first  Protestant  ser- 
 mon west  of  the  Mississippi  Kiver,  where  before  only  Catholic  priests 
 had  been  in  control,  lie  preached  (1803)  in  a  house  one  mile  below 
 where  Jackson  now  stands,  in  Cape  Girardeau  County,  Mo.  He  had 
 catechization,  1804-5,  although  he  reported  that  there  were  Indian 
 towns  within  ten  miles  of  his  settlement,  and  no  civilized  inhabitants 
 nearer  than  forty  miles.  In  1823  he  began  visiting  Anna,  Southern 
 Illinois,  preaching  there  once  a  month  each  year,  riding  on  horseback 
 over  five  hundred  miles.  After  him  came  Kroh,  in  1840,  and  then  Stone- 
 berger.  Weyberg  died  1833  and  his  work  was  dissii)ated  because  no  min- 
 isters went  there  to  take  it  up. 
 
 Rev.  Jacob  Christman  began  preaching  January  29,  1804,  at 
 Springboro,  Warren  County,  O.,  where  the  first  congregation  in 
 Ohio  was  organized.  The  first  administration  of  the  I^ord's  Sujiper 
 occurred  May  29,  1804.  In  1805,  the  apostolic  Jacob  Larose  came 
 from  North  Carolina  and  began  preaching  in  Montgomery,  Preble 
 and  Warren  Counties,  O.  (then  called  the  Northwest  Covmty),  at 
 St.  John 's,  Stettler  's,  Twin  Creek.  As.  catechisms  were  few,  he  copied 
 the  catechism  he  used  for  his  catechumens.  He  had  been  licensed 
 by  the  Presbyterians  in  the  South  and  preached  as  a  licentiate  until  he 
 was  ordained  by  the  Ohio  Classis  in  1821.  He  became  pastor  at  High- 
 land County,  O.,  later,  1821,  in  Columbiana  and  Preble  Counties,  O.* 
 In  1809,  T.  Winters  went  west  and  preached  at  Beaver,  Green  County,  O. 
 He  returned  east  in  1815  to  be  licensed  by  synod  and  later,  in  1819,  to 
 be  ordained.  He  preached  around  Germantown,  Beaver  Creek,  West 
 Alexandria,  etc.,  preaching  in  Green,  Montgomery,  Preble,  Warren, 
 Butler  and  Hamilton  Counties,  and  as  far  down  as  Cincinnati.!  In 
 1812  Mahnenschmidt  went  to  Ohio  and  preached  at  Springfield,  Salem, 
 Good  Hope,  St.  James,  Rollers  and  Ackertown,  Liberty,  Canton  and 
 Canfield.^  J.  W.  Dechant  labored,  1815,  in  Butler  and  Montgomery 
 Counties;  George  Weisz  labored,  1817,  at  Lancaster;  Benjamin  Poust, 
 1818,  at  Canton;  Foust's  congregations  were,  Uniontown,  St.  James', 
 Canton,  Osnaburg,  Paris,  Martin's,  Sherman's,  Zion's  and  Bethlehem. 
 Sonnedecker  was  at  Wooster  (1819)  and  Mansfield.  These  founders  of 
 our  Church  organized  the  first  classis  in  April  30,   1820,  by  order  of 
 
 *For  list  of   congregations,   see   Ilarbaugh   Fathers   of  the  Reformed 
 Church,  Vol.  Ill,  30-1. 
 
 fSee  list  of  congregations,  Ilarbaugh  Fathers,  Vol.  IV,  page  141. 
 JHarbaugh,  Vol.  Ill,  213. 
 
Missions.  195 
 
 the  Eastern  Synod.  Five  ministers  were  present  at  the  organization : 
 Mahnenschmidt,  Winters,  Sonnendecker,  Weiss  and  Faust,  together 
 with  four  elders:  Jacob  Mayer,  John  King,  George  Wertz  and  Peter 
 Waltz.  Mahnonscliniidt  was  elected  president  and  Winters,  secretary. 
 The  classis  had  fifty  congregations  and  1,800  communicants.  In  1821, 
 Peter  Dechant  went  west  but  died  soon  after.  As  ministers  were 
 greatly  needed  to  meet  the  rapid  increase  of  congregations,  the  min- 
 isters began  training  them  for  the  ministry  privately.  Weisz  trained 
 a  number,  as  King  1825,  Long  1825,  and  Keller  1826.  Winters  trained 
 Pence  1823  and  others;  Sonnendecker  trained  Reiter,  1822.  The  classis 
 had  four  meetings  at  Canton  1821,  Gennantown  1822,  Lancaster  1823, 
 New  Philadelphia  1824.  During  the  four  years  the  number  of  ministers 
 doubled  and  the  number  of  congregations  and  of  the  membership  rap- 
 idly increased.     In  1824  the  classis  organized  itself  into  a  synod. 
 
 Several  subjects  caused  a  good  deal  of  friction  in  this  synod:  the 
 conflict  of  languages,  about  the  introduction  of  the  English  into  the 
 German  congregations,  the  controversy  between  those  who  wanted  to 
 unite  with  the  Lutherans  and  those  who  wanted  to  stay  Eeformed,  the 
 controversy  about  revivals  and  also  temperance  between  the  extremes 
 of  Oberlin  teetotalism  and  foreign  German  tolerance  of  drinking.  We 
 will  pass  over  the  strife  about  revivals,  as  we  have  already  referred  to  it. 
 There  was  lack  of  unanimity  in  regard  to  union  with  the  Lutherans. 
 There  had  been,  as  we  noticed  in  connection  with  the  life  of  Rauch, 
 an  effort  to  form  union  congregations  in  the  West  after  the  pattern  of 
 the  United  Church  of  Prussia  in  Germany,  and  thus  do  away  with  the 
 Lutheran  and  Reformed  churches  as  separate  denominations.  There 
 was  a  considerable  element  favorable  to  this  in  the  Reformed  Church  of 
 Ohio  and  Western  Pennsylvania.  At  West  Pennsylvania  classis  (1837), 
 the  Pittsburg  congregation  urged  the  classis  to  labor  for  the  union  of 
 the  Reformed  and  Lutherans.  And  at  the  synod  of  1838  petitions  came 
 in  from  various  congregations  urging  a  union  of  Eeformed  and  Luther- 
 ans. Some  of  the  ministers  did  not  believe  in  or  use  the  Heidelberg 
 Catechism,  although  the  great  majority  did.  But  there  was  sufficient 
 laxity  to  make  the  confessionalists  anxious.  The  synod  of  1842  was  one 
 of  the  most  important  held  in  Ohio.  It  not  only  harmonized  differences 
 but  matured  a  plan  of  correspondence  with  the  Pennsylvania  Synod  and 
 adopted  a  constitution.  It  divided  itself  not  into  synods,  but  into  six 
 classes:  Miami,  Lancaster,  Columbiana,  Sandusky,  Westmoreland  and 
 Erie.  In  1844  it  took  very  decided  action  against  intemperance  and  for 
 teetotalism  and  discouraged  the  use  of  liquor  by  the  ministers. 
 
 C.  The  North.— 
 
 In  1802  a  number  of  Pennsylvania-Germans  settled  in  German  Valley 
 between  Geneva  and  Waterloo.  In  1803,  Rev.  Anthony  Hautz,  after  a 
 dangerous  journey,  arrived  there  from  Pennsylvania  as  pastor.     He  lo- 
 
196        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 cated  three  miles  from  Union  Springs  and  began  to  i^reach  at  two  ])laces, 
 Merkel  's  school-house  and  Burg,  the  latter  being  named  after  an  Indian 
 fort.  He  then  left,  1805,  for  Tenoa,  in  Tompkins  County,  where  many 
 Germans  had  settled  near  Cayuga  Lake.  lie  preached  in  two  school- 
 houses  in  Lansing  and  Salmon  Creek,  forming  there  two  congregations. 
 lie  preached  in  Seneca  County  till  1813,  and  being  then  seventy-one  years 
 old,  he  limited  his  work  to  Lansing  and  Salmon  Creek,  where  he  lived. 
 He  died  in  18.S0.  In  1821,  Rev.  Dietrich  Willers,  a  soldier  of  the  battle 
 of  Waterloo,  accepted  a  call  to  Zion  's  and  Christ  ( 'hurches,  later  serving 
 Lansing  and  Salmon  Creek.  He  first  located  at  Bearytown  (Fayette), 
 where  Rev.  John  Pulfish  had  been  pastor,  1814-19.  This  congregation 
 dated  from  1809.  He  served  six  preaching  points  in  tliat  county  and 
 seven  or  eight  in  Tomjjkins,  Cayuga,  Wayne,  Livingston  and  Niagara 
 Counties.  He  frequently  wrote  excellent  home  missionary  articles  in  the 
 Messenger,  pleading  for  more  laborers,  as  in  1829,  when  he  asks  for  a 
 pastor  at  Dansville,  Hanneyhey,  Groveland  and  Flint  Creek.  In  it  he 
 speaks  of  the  Lockport  church  as  being  served  by  a  Mr.  Meyerhorfer,  but 
 the  members  desired  a  minister  of  the  Reformed  Synod.  At  other  places 
 Pennsylvania-Germans  and  Swiss  were  moving  in. 
 
 Section  3.    The  South. 
 A.  Virginia. — 
 
 Tiiere  had  been  congregations  in  Virginia  very  early,  the  oldest 
 German  Reformed  congregation  having  been  founded  there  by  Rev.  Mr. 
 Haeger  in  171-1  at  Germanna  Ford,  in  the  Rapidan.  During  the  period  of 
 the  coetus  the  congregations  in  Virginia  had  no  regular  ])astor,  excei)t 
 some  independents,  like  Willy,  who  seemed  to  have  redeemed  his  former 
 character  in  Pennsylvania  by  a  long  and  excellent  work  in  Virginia. 
 Yet  the  ministers  of  the  coetus  made  large  tours  through  that  state, 
 preaching  and  performing  ministerial  acts.  Especially  the  Maryland 
 ministers,  as  Otterbein,  did  this.  However,  about  the  time  of  the  be- 
 ginning of  the  synod,  regular  pastors  began  to  be  sent  to  them  from 
 the  synod.  Tlie  father  of  the  Virginia  Reformed  Churches  was  Rev. 
 John  Brown.  Before  him,  Willy  had  been  operating,  1786-1810,  and  a 
 Mr.  Hoffman  had  laborc<l  in  Rockingham  County.  Giesy  also  preached 
 in  Virginia  1782-1794,  being  pastor  of  German  Settlement,  Short  Hill 
 and  Great  River  congregations,  lie  also  occasionally  visited  other  places, 
 as  Winchester,  Staunton,  Lexington,  Peaked  Mountain  and  Fried- 
 ens,  but  left  for  Pennsylvania.  Brown  was  licensed  and  then  called  by 
 the  congregations  in  Rockingham  County,  1800,  as  their  pastor.  After 
 being  a  licentiate  for  three  years  he  was  ordained  May  10,  180.3.  He 
 traveled  and  preached  omt  six  counties:  Frederick,  Shenandoah,  Page, 
 Rockingham,  Pendleton  and  Augusta.  He  preached  regularly  once  a 
 month  at  Friedens,   St.   Michael's,   Peaked   Mountain,   now   McGacheys- 
 
Missions.  197 
 
 ville,  Roeder's  Church  in  Rockingham  County,  Zion's,  St.  John's, 
 Salem  and  The  Branch,  in  Augusta  County.  He  visited  other  counties 
 as  often  as  he  could,  once  or  twice  a  year.  For  thirty-five  years  he  was 
 the  only  Reformed  minister  in  this  field.  He  published,  1818,  at  Har- 
 risonburg, a  small  book,*  entitled  ''A  Circular  Letter  to  the  Germans  of 
 Rockingham,  Augusta  and  Neighboring  Counties. ' '  It  deals  with  a 
 number  of  subjects  as  Bible  societies,  but  is  interesting  because  in  it  is 
 the  first  published  discussion  of  slavery  by  any  one  in  our  Church. 
 Diefenbach  labored  in  Augusta  C^ounty  in  1800,  where  the  congregations 
 asked  synod  to  give  him  as  their  pastor.  But  he  seems  to  have  soon 
 passed  on  to  North  Carolina.  Others  followed.  Lewis  Mayer  preached, 
 1808,  in  Jefferson  and  Berkley  Counties,  Va.,  and  Washington  County, 
 Md.  J.  Scholl  made  a  missionary  tour  here  in  1819.  Ilauck  labored 
 in  Wythe  County,  1819-30;  Leidy  was  missionary  there  in  1820,  as  was 
 D.  Rahauser,  sent  there  by  West  Pennsylvania  classis.  In  1822,  S. 
 Helflfenstein  was  at  Shepherdstown,  Martinsburg  and  Sharpsburg,  Md. 
 In  1824,  Vandersloot  was  at  Roeder's  Church  and  seven  other  congrega- 
 tions. In  1826  Boger,  Graves  and  Groh,  and  1829,  Charles  Helffenstein 
 had  charges  in  A^irginia. 
 
 B.  North  Carolina. — 
 
 The  North  Carolina  churches,  like  the  Virginia  churches,  were 
 founded  early.  In  1759  Martin,  a  Swiss,  in  1764  Du  Pert,  preached 
 there.  Suther  in  1770  founded  St.  Paul's  Church,  but  remained  only  a 
 year,  when  lie  went  to  Guilford  County,f  where  he  was  succeeded  by 
 Schwurin  and  he  by  Pithan  in  1780.  He  organized  Second  Creek, 
 Rowan  County.  After  being  in  North  Carolina  for  eight  or  nine  years 
 he  removed  to  South  ('arolina.  He  was  succeeded  (1787)  by  Jacob  Snyder 
 in  Davidson  County,  for  whom  the  German  Reformed  sent  to  Pennsyl- 
 vania and  bouglit  liim  a  farm.     The  Brick  Church  sent  Suther  and  his 
 
 *A  copy  was  presented  to  the  author  by  General  Roller. 
 
 fSuther  preached  in  a  small  log  house  for  the  Reformed  and  Lu- 
 therans, where  the  Lutheran  church  now  stands,  about  a  mile  south  of 
 the  Brick  Church,  until  the  revolution,  when  a  quarrel  ensued,  the 
 Reformed  almost  to  a  man  being  patriots  and  the  Lutherans  being 
 loyalists.  A  detachment  of  Britisli  on  the  way  to  Guilford  Court  House 
 encami)ed  on  Sutlier's  farm  in  old  Salisburg  Road,  two  miles  east  of 
 the  church.  They  devastated  it,  destroying  his  grain  and  cattle,  while 
 he  was  forced  to  flee  for  his  life  and  hide.  They  ravageil  tlie  farms, 
 abusing  the  people  because  their  fathers  were  patriots.  Peter  Cortner, 
 from  behind  a  tree,  fired  twenty-one  shots  at  Tryon 's  men  in  battle. 
 Captain  Weitzell  was  a  member  of  the  Brick  Church  and  had  his  com- 
 pany at  the  battle  of  Guilford  Court  House.  During  the  time  of 
 General  Greene's  presence  four  of  them  were  sent  to  Hillsboro  to  carry 
 powder  to  the  army.  Through  their  excellent  knowledge  of  the  road 
 they  escaped  the  many  Tories  and  got  back  with  it  to  camp. 
 
198        History  of  Reformed  Church  ix  tite  TT.  S. 
 
 elder,  George  Cortner,  north  for  aid.  The  Bern  Church,  near  Reading, 
 presented  them  with  a  communion  cup. 
 
 Then  came  Loretz  at  Lincolnton,  in  1786,  the  first  to  establish  the  Re- 
 formed in  Western  Carolina.  He  labored  in  five  regular  charges  and  did 
 missionary  work  in  Burke,  Cabarras  and  Guilford  Counties.  He  partly 
 educated  Boger.  Larose,  licensed  by  the  Presbyterians,  also  preached  as 
 a  licentiate,  1795-1804,  to  some  congregations  in  Guilford  County. 
 
 The  first  minister  to  go  south  after  our  synod  was  organized  was 
 Samuel  Weyberg  in  1795.  He  preached  to  the  congregations  in  Burke, 
 Lincoln,  Rowan  and  Cabarras  Counties.  He  partly  educated  George 
 Boger  (born  December  15,  1782,  died  June  19,  1865),  who  became  his 
 successor.  Boger  was  ordained  1803,  and  served  four  congregations  in 
 Rowan  and  Cabarras  Counties,  1803-1830,  Grace,  Cold  Water,  Lantz 
 and  Bear  Creek.  He  was  the  one  who  held  our  churches  in  North  Carolina 
 together — the  only  Reformed  pastor  for  a  number  of  years,  as  Guilford 
 and  Lincolnton  were  served  by  a  Presbyterian.  J.  Christman  was  pro- 
 posed to  the  Synod  of  1794  for  ordination,  but  was  not  ordained  till  1798, 
 and  at  the  petition  of  six  congregations  went  to  North  Carolina,  where 
 he  remained  till  1803,  when  he  went  west,  as  did  Larose,  leaving  Boger 
 alone.  In  1802,  H.  Diefenbaeh  labored  in  Guilford,  Orange  and  Randolph 
 Counties.  In  1818  Reily*  remained  a  little  over  three  months  and  con- 
 firmed 169  and  baptized  113.  It  is  said  that  his  missionary  tour  sug- 
 gested to  the  synod  the  idea  of  a  board  of  Missions.  Hauck  was  in  North 
 Carolina  1814-19. 
 
 In  1818,  Ebaugh  was  in  North  Carolina.  In  1819,  J.  Scholl  made  a 
 missionary  tour.  Rudy  went  South  in  1821,  laboring  several  yeavs, 
 serving  the  Guilford  charge  for  four  years.  Knaus  went  with  Rudy  but 
 soon  after  returned.  After  that  Hauck,  Boger  and  Rudy  held  the  fort 
 till    1828,    when    Fritchey    appeared.      With    the    organization    of    the 
 
 *His  diary  is  interesting,  as  liis  trip  proved  adventurous.  One  day  he 
 lost  his  way  and  as  night  overtook  him  he  obtained  permission  to  stay 
 at  a  cabin  over  night.  Only  an  old  woman  was  there,  so,  after  eating 
 supper,  he  ascended  the  ladder  to  Ids  room  under  the  roof.  But  before 
 retiring  he  inserted  the  blade  of  his  knife  above  the  latch  of  the  door. 
 About  midnight  he  was  awakened  by  two  men  entering  the  cabin,  who 
 entered  into  subdued  conversation  with  his  hostess.  Soon  after  they 
 crept  up  the  ladder  and  tried  the  latcli.  Finding  it  locked,  they  de- 
 manded entrance.  He  refused  and  told  them  he  M-as  ready.  He  opened 
 the  door,  but  as  it  opened  they  saw  by  the  dim  light  of  the  moon  that 
 he  was  standing  in  the  middle  of  the  room  with  a  pistol  in  each  hand. 
 They  turned  and  hastened  down  the  ladder  and  left.  He  followed 
 them  down  and  charged  the  woman  with  conspiracy.  He  did  not  retire 
 again,  but  waited  armed  till  morning,  when  he  left.  He  afterwards 
 learned  that  the  cabin  was  a  ' '  noted  black  corner, ' '  where  peisons  were 
 put  away.     God  watched  over  his  messenger. 
 
Missions.  199 
 
 missionary  society  in  the  synod  now  interest  began  to  be  taken.  In  1826, 
 Bassler  went  to  Guilford  and  preached  a  year.  Beecher  made  a  brief 
 missionary  tour  to  North  Carolina  some  time  between  1826  and  1831, 
 trying  to  regain  his  health,  during  which  time  he  preached  to  vacant 
 congregations.  The  representative  to  the  synod  of  1827  says  "Lin- 
 colnton  and  vicinity  has  called  Mr.  Bell,  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
 Guilford  and  vicinity  has  called  Mr.  Preston,  of  the  Presbyterian 
 Church.  Cabarras  and  vicinity  have  Boger,  who  is  the  only  minister  of 
 our  denomination  in  North  and  South  Carolina.  There  are  in  North  and 
 South  Carolina  about  1,500-1,600  members."  In  1828,  Crawford  and 
 Fritchey  went  South,  Crawford  to  Guilford,  Catawba  and  Orange  Coun- 
 ties, Fritchey  to  Lincolnton,  where  he  labored  twelve  years.  Boger 
 was  still  at  Eowan,  and  Hauck  in  Davidson.  Lerch  went  South  in  1830, 
 Lantz  in  1837,  at  Eowan,  1837-51,  when  he  went  to  Newton.  Bennet 
 was  at  Davidson  1834-7.  Ilauck  got  into  a  controversy  with  him  and 
 was  deposed,  although  Welker*  says  he  pitied  him  because  he  was 
 badgered  like  a  wild  beast.  Bennet  preached  at  St.  Matthew's,  Zion, 
 Upper  Hollow  and  Little  Hollow  Creeks,  in  Newberry  district,  and  in 
 Zion  and  Bethlehem,  in  Lexington  district.  Crooks  was  in  Davidson, 
 1839-45,  Leopold  1832-3,  Crawford  iu  Lincoln  1840-57.  North  Carolina 
 classis  was  organized  in  1831,  consisting  of  sixteen  congregations  and 
 five  ministers. 
 
 This  classis  expressed  itself  early  about  slavery  in  1838: 
 
 Whereas,  There  are  yet  some  churches  in  our  bounds  without  room 
 for  colored  people  in  the  sanctuary  and  without  provision  for  their  re- 
 ception into  the  communion  of  the  Church; 
 
 Resolved,  That  all  such  churches  be  recommended  to  follow  the  ex- 
 ample of  their  sister  Reformed  Churches  and  the  churches  of 
 other  denominations  generally  in  the  South  in  providing  room 
 and  pews  for  the  colored  people  in  the  house  of  God  and  in  opening 
 the  door  for  their  reception  into  the  communion  of  the  church  whenever 
 their  knowledge  of  the  truth  and  personal  piety  shall  render  them  fit 
 subjects  for  Christian  communion;  and,  if  slaves,  by  and  with  the  addi- 
 tional requisition  of  the  consent  of  their  masters. 
 
 The  classis  in  1845  urged  ministers  and  ?lders  to  give  special  attention 
 to  the  spiritual  instruction  and  training  of  the  servants  in  the  families 
 of  the  Church  and  ordered  that  any  cruelty  to  servants  be  punished 
 according  to  our  constitution.  In  1848,  when  the  bitterness  of  slavery 
 was  rising,  it  reminded  its  members  that  the  relation  of  Christian  master 
 and  slave  makes  them  part  of  one  household  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
 head  of  the  family,  as  toward  his  own  children,  to  look  after  the  spiritual 
 interests  of  their  servants. 
 
 *See  his  History  of  North  Carolina  Classis. 
 
200         History  of  Reformed  Chtrch  in  the  U.  S. 
 C.  South  Carolina. — 
 
 The  history  of  the  German  Eeformed  in  South  Carolina  has  been  in 
 confusion  until  cleared  up  by  Rev.  Prof.  W.  J.  Ilinke,  D.D.*  Their  settle- 
 ments were  Purysburg  1732,  Orangeburg  1735,  New  Windsor  and  Saxe- 
 Gotha  1737,  and  Amelia  1739.  The  second  having  no  minister  prevailed 
 on  a  goldsmith  named  Giesseudanner  to  act  as  minister.  The  third 
 brought  with  them  Rev.  B.  Zuberbuehler,  who  died  soon,  but  his  work  was 
 taken  up  by  his  son  of  the  same  name,  who  was  later  ordained  in 
 London  by  the  Anglican  Society.  Saxe-Gotha  had  Rev.  Christian  Theus, 
 and  Amelia  Rev.  John  Joachim  Zubli,f  the  most  brilliant  of  the  Re- 
 formed ministers  of  the  eighteenth  century  as  a  pulpit  orator,  who  later 
 became  pastor  of  the  Reformed  at  Savannah.  Rev.  John  Gasser  also 
 served  Amelia  and  Orangeburg  later.  Of  these  Theus  did  the  most 
 for  the  Reformed  Church  in  that  state.  He  came  from  Switzerland 
 as  a  candidate  of  theology  and  was  ordained  by  the  Presbyterians.  In 
 1787  he,  together  with  another  Reformed  minister,  Froelich,  entered  into 
 a  union  movement  with  the  Lutherans,  called  the  Corpus  Evangelicum, 
 which  lasted  only  a  short  time  (1794).  His  last  appearance  was  at  a 
 meeting  of  this  union  in  1789.  After  Tlieus'  death  the  congregations 
 remained  vacant  for  many  years.  They  were  served  four  times  a  year 
 by  Loretz  from  North  Carolina,  who  preached,  l)aptized  their  children, 
 confirmed  their  young  people  and  administered  the  Lord's  Supper.  Then 
 they  were  again  pastorless  for  many  years,  during  which  time  many 
 joined  the  Lutheran  and  Methodist  Churches.  Many  died,  leaving  only 
 a  handful  to  be  served  occasionally  by  traveling  ministers.  In  1812, 
 eighteen  Reformed  and  thirteen  Lutheran  members  asked  the  Lutheran 
 synod  to  ordain  Ilauck  as  a  Reformed  minister.  They  refused.  Other 
 ministers  were  ordained  by  the  Presbyterians  and  some,  it  is  said,  by  the 
 Episcopalians.  Hauck,  licensed  1814,  ordained  1818,  became  their  pas- 
 tor. But  he  was  comparatively  uneducated  and  revealed  unfitness  for 
 the  ministry.    He  was  suspended  1830. 
 
 Rudy,  when  he  went  South,  found  eight  congregations  in  Newberry, 
 Lexington  and  Richland  districts  and  lyreached  to  them.  But  the  synod 
 was  unable  to  send  them  a  permanent  i)astor.  In  LS27,  the  committee 
 who  presented  the  synod  with  a  report  of  the  southern  cliurches,  referred 
 to  the  fragment  of  the  Reformed  congregation  in  Dutch  Fork,  formed  by 
 the  Saluda  and  Broad  rivers,  which  had  been  originally  settled  by  Ger- 
 mans almost  exclusively  Reformed,— that  in  the  Newberry  district  there 
 were  100-200  mostly  indifferent,  but  some  were  anxious,  who  bogge«l 
 the  visiting  minister  with  tears  in  their  eyes  for  the  synod  to  send  tliem 
 a  pastor.     In  1832,  Bennet  was  sent  to  them  l>y  the  synod's  missionary 
 
 *See  Journal  of  Presbyterian  Histdriciil  Socioty,  Docombor,  1906, 
 fSee  my  History  of  the  Reformed  Cliunli  in  I  he  V.  S.,  pnge  256. 
 
Missions.  201 
 
 society  and  labored  for  a  year  or  two  among  six  congregations.  Bennet 
 made  an  ajipeal  to  tlie  synod  for  these  congregations  in  Soutli  Carolina 
 that  they  had  had  no  pastor  for  twenty  years,  and  that  in  Burk  County 
 there  were  thirty  persons  waiting  to  be  confirmed.  Because  there  was 
 no  pastor  after  he  left,  the  congregations  gradually  disappeared  until 
 not  a  vestige  of  the  German  Reformed  Church  is  to  be  found  in  that 
 state.  If  they  and  their  descendants  had  been  gathered  into  our  Church, 
 we  would  have  tliousands  of  members  there  now. 
 
PART  II. 
 The  Liturgical  Controversy    (1844-1878.) 
 
 Book  I.    The  Theological  Preparation. 
 
 CHAPTER  I. 
 
 The   Controversy  About  "The  Principle  of  Pro- 
 testantism." 
 
 The  theological  controversy  was  the  first  sign  of  the  later 
 liturgical  controversy,  which  did  not  begin  to  show  itself  until 
 about  1858.     For  the  doctrinal  was  underlying  the  liturgical 
 ^    and  came  first.  . 
 
 f  Section  1.     Preparatory  Tendencies. 
 
 1.  The  first  tendency  that  may  be  said  to  have  prepared 
 the  way  for  the  liturgical  movement  was  the  anti-revival  feel- 
 ing that  arose  in  the  Church,  after  the  publication  of  the 
 "Anxious  Bench"  by  Dr.  Nevin.  Tliis  book  aimed,  as  we  have 
 seen,  to  strike  a  medium  between  the  noisy  revivals  of  the 
 anxious  bench  and  the  opposition  to  all  revivals.  But  in  his 
 intense  attack  on  the  anxious  bench,  he  may  be  said  to  have 
 failed  to  sufficiently  guard  himself  on  the  other  side,  so  that  it 
 started  a  reaction  against  all  revivals  and  led  to  a  tendency 
 toward  formalism  and  liturgism.  This  book  may  therefore  be 
 called  a  negative  preparation  for  a  liturgy,  because  it  set  in 
 motion  a  tendency  that  lowered  the  value  of  experimental 
 and  subjective  religion. 
 
 2.  The  second  prei)aratory  influence  was  the  call  of  I'rof. 
 Schaff  from  Gi'rmany.  His  inaugural  address  on  the  "Prin- 
 ciple of  Protestantism"  started  another  controversy  in  1845, 
 to  be  followed  by  an  attack  on  liis  views  of  the  intermediate 
 state.    This  may  be  called  the  historical  preparation. 
 
 202 
 
The  Principle  of  Protestantism.  203 
 
 3.  The  theological  preparation  was  the  formulation  of  the 
 principles  of  Mereersburg  theology  in  1846.  This  was  done 
 on  the  theological  side  by  the  publication  of  the  "Mystical 
 Presence"  by  Dr.  Nevin,  and  on  the  historical  side  by  the 
 publication  of  "What  is  Church  History"  by  Prof.  Schaff. 
 The  controversy  was  later  increased  by  the  publication  of 
 "Antichrist,  or  the  Spirit  of  Sect  and  Schism,"  by  Nevin, 
 and  by  the  foundation  of  the  Mercersburg  Review  in  1849,  in 
 which  the  theological  controversy  may  be  said  to  have  cul- 
 minated in  Nevin 's  articles  on  Early  Christianity  and 
 Cyprian.  -i 
 
 Dr.  Schaff  says,*  "The  Mercersburg  controversy  did  not 
 originate  the  liturgical  movement  in  the  German  Reformed 
 body,  but  it  gave  it  new  impulse  and  direction  and  carried 
 it  to  a  practical  result."  We  take  issue  with  his  statement  as 
 not  quite  right.  The  German  Reformed  Church  never  before 
 had  been  a  liturgical  church  but  a  semi-liturgical  church.  The 
 facts  we  have  gathered  upf  reveal  that  she  had  no  such  con- 
 tinued hankering  after  a  ritualistic  service  as  the  liturgical 
 men  have  claimed.  There  must  have  been  some  other  cause 
 for  it.  This  was  the  ]\Iercersburg  theology  which  was  the 
 originator  of  the  effort  to  make  our  Church  a  liturgical  church. 
 Historically  and  logically  the  liturgy  came  out  of  the  Mercers- tl 
 burg  theology. 
 
 4.  The  liturgical  tendency.  This,  beginning  in  1847,  was 
 at  first  so  slight  that  we  postpone  its  consideration  until  later. 
 
 Section  2.    The  Call  op  Prop.  Philip  Schafp  to  America. 
 
 A  special  meeting  of  the  Eastern  Synod  was  held  Jan.  24, 
 1843,  at  Lebanon,  to  elect  a  successor  to  Prof.  Ranch,  as  pro- 
 fessor of  theolog.y.  The  idea  of  calling  so  prominent  a  for- 
 eigner as  Rev.  Dr.  F.  AV.  Krununacher,  pastor  of  the  Great 
 Reformed  Church  at  p]lberfeld,  Germany,  is  said  to  have  orig- 
 inated with  Dr.  Zacharias,  of  Frederick,  Md.  Rev.  F.  W. 
 Krummaeher,  D.D.,  was  pastor  of  the  largest  Reformed  con- 
 
 *Mercersburg  Review,  1858,  page  208. 
 fSee  pages  1G8-175. 
 
204        History  of  Reformed  Ciiurch  in  the  V.  S. 
 
 gregation  in  Germany,  and  was  one  of  the  most  eloquent 
 pulpit  orators  of  the  19th  century.  He  had  been  privately 
 corresponded  with  before  the  synod  and  was  supposed  to 
 lend  a  favorable  ear  to  the  proposal.*  At  this  synod.  Dr. 
 Nevin  very  earnestly  urged  his  election  in  a  letter,  as  did  Revs. 
 B.  C.  Wolff,  Schneck  and  others.  The  synod  unanimously 
 elected  him  and  appointed  Rev.  Drs.  Schneck  and  IToffeditz  as 
 its  commissioners  to  go  to  Europe  and  lay  the  call  personally 
 before  Dr.  Krummacher.  This  action  of  the  synod  created 
 great  interest  in  the  Church  and  subscriptions  toward  the 
 chair  began  to  come  in,  some  in  considerable  amounts.  Drs. 
 Schneck  and  IToffeditz  sailed  5n  May,  1843,  for  Havre, 
 France.  They  left  Havre  (July  5),  going  to  Strasburg,  Ger- 
 many. There  they  separated,  Schneck  going  to  Basle,  in 
 Switzerland,  and  Hoft'editz  to  Cassel,  from  which  he  had 
 come  to  America  thirty-eight  years  before.  But  they  met 
 again  at  Elberfeld,  July  8,  to  formally  present  the  call  to  Dr. 
 Krummacher.  (They  seem  to  have  made  a  fine  impression  on 
 him,  as  indeed  they  did  everywhere  else,  for  the  Elector  of 
 Cassel  and  King  of  Prussia  were  greatly  impressed  by  their 
 tallness  and  wanted  to  know  if  all  Americans  were  as  tall  as 
 they  were.  The  King  of  Prussia,  Frederick  William  IV,  be- 
 came so  interested  through  them  in  our  Church  that  he  gave 
 them  1,500  thalers  for  the  seminary  at  Mercersburg.)  Dr. 
 Krummacher  replied  to  them  that  he  would  carefully  C(m- 
 sider  the  call,  and  they  left  Elberfeld  for  a  tour  through 
 Germany.  But  on  August  12,  Dr.  Schneck  wrote  home  that 
 he  had  received  word  from  Dr.  Ki'uinmacher,  that  after  con- 
 sidering the  call  for  four  weeks,  he  had  finally  decided  to  de- 
 cline it.  His  main  reason  was  that  he  felt  his  sphere  was 
 in  the  pulpit  rather  than  in  the  professor's  chair.  And  he 
 was  somewhat  fearful,  that  at  his  time  of  life,  he  might  not 
 succeed  in  a  new  sphere  of  work.  It  is  said,  liowever.  that 
 other  influences  were  at   work.     Various  niinors.  gross  exag- 
 
 *Dr.  Krummacher  in  liis  cliurcli  ])apor,  The  Palm-Lenvcs,  declared 
 that  when  he  first  hear<l  from  Rev.  Mr.  ({iddin,  of  New  York,  the  rumor 
 of  his  call  to  America,  he  disai)i>rov<'d  of  it  and  wlien  the  call  finally 
 came  to  him  he  was  greatly  surprised. 
 
The  Principle  of  Protestantism.  205 
 
 gerations.  had  gotten  abroad  about  his  call  to  Amorica.  The 
 Chureh-paper  of  Dr.  Ileiigstenberg  reported  that  his  salary 
 at  Mercersburg  would  l)e  $20, ()()()  a  year.  The  Germans  be- 
 came greatly  exeited,  as  they  were  anxious  to  retain  so  valua- 
 ble a  preacher.  It  is  said  that  the  King  of  Prussia  intluenced 
 him  against  going  by  giving  him  a  hint  that  he  would  later 
 receive  some  prominent  position  in  Prussia :  which  was  ful- 
 filled by  his  election  as  court-preacher  to  the  King  at  Pots- 
 dam.* Ilis  father,  Rev.  Prof.  F.  A.  Krummacher,  also  op- 
 posed his  acceptance,  as  it  would  be  a  change  of  occupation 
 and  he  was  no  longer  young.  Prof.  Dubbs  sa^'s  his  declination 
 was  a  blessing  in  disguise.  lie  was  47  years  of  age,  imper- 
 fectly accpiainted  with  the  English  language  and  accustomed 
 to  social  conditions  which  in  those  days  could  hardly  have 
 been  reproduced  in  America.  In  this  country  at  least  his 
 magnificent  German  sermons  would  not  have  been  appreciated. 
 Prof.  Rupp  agrees  with  him  that  it  was  best  he  did  not  come, 
 for  he  saj's  "he  would  have  brought  with  him  his  high-Cal- 
 vinism." from  which  IMercersburg  theology  was  emancipated 
 by  Schatf.  (Dr.  Krummacher  was  a  strict  Calvinist  and  later, 
 in  1846,  attacked  Prof.  J.  B.  Lange  (also  Reformed)  for  not 
 being  sufficiently  Reformed  because  the  latter  inclined  too 
 much  to  the  Mediating  theology  of  Germany.)  If  Dr.  Krum- 
 macher had  come,  IMercersburg  theology  would  never  have 
 played  the  role  it  did  in  the  history  of  our  Church.  It  was 
 probably  best  for  Dr.  Krummacher  that  he  did  not  come,  but 
 we  believe  it  was  worse  for  our  Church.  For  had  he  come,  her 
 later  controversies  would  probably  never  have  occurred. 
 
 Drs.  Sclnieck  and  Hoffeditz  returned  to  America  October  8, 
 184.S.  The  former  attended  the  Eastern  synod  of  1843  and 
 reported  of^cially  that  Dr.  Krummacher  had  declined.  He 
 also  reported  that  Dr.  Hoffeditz  and  himself  had  spent  some 
 time  in  the  leading  universities  of  Germany,  seeking  some  one 
 suitable  for  the  chair  which  Dr.  Krummacher  had  declined. 
 They  believed  they  had  found  a  man  suited  to  take  the  place 
 of  Ranch  in  Philip  Schaff,  a  ])rofessor-extraordinary  at  the 
 
 *Diibbs,  Eefornicd  Church  in  Pennsylvania,  page  305,  says  that  the 
 king  of  Prussia  forbade  his  coming. 
 
JOG 
 
 History  op  Reformed  Cjiurcii  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 University  of  Berlin.*  He  was  hifjlily  recommended  by  Prof. 
 Neander,  the  great  ehurch-liistorian,  by  Hengstenberg,  the 
 editor  of  the  German  Chureh  paper  the  Kirchenzeitung ,  hy 
 Professors  Thohiek  and  Julius  IMuller  of  Halle,  by  Sti-anss  the 
 court-preacher  of  Berlin  and  by  Dr.  Krummacher  himself. 
 The  synod  then  elected  Prof.  Schatf.  only  one  vote  being  cast 
 against  him,  which  was  done  out  of  fear  lest  some  German 
 neology  might  through  him  find  an  entrance  into  our  Church. 
 
 Rev.  Prof.  Philip  Schaff,  D.D 
 
 Philip  Schaff  was  born  January  1,  1819,  near  Chur,  the 
 capital  of  the  canton  of  the  (irisoiis,  in  eastern  Switzerland. y 
 After  attending  the  pul)lic  scliools  at  ( -luir,  he  went  to  Korn- 
 thal  in  Wurteml)erg,  Germany,  a  pietistic  school  of  high  rank. 
 There  he  was  confirmed  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  going  later 
 to  the  gymnasium  at  Stuttgard,  and  then  to  the  Lutheran 
 uni\'ei"sitv  of  Tuebingen.     Tuel)ingen  was  then  divided  into 
 
 *Prof.  Ebrard's  name  had  been  sugscstod  but  Schaff  was  preferred 
 because  he  was  a  Swiss  and  would  therefore  the  more  easily  accommodate 
 himself  to  our  republican  ways. 
 
 fFor  Dr.  Schaff 's  life,  see  the  excellent  biography  "Life  of  Philip 
 Schaff,"  by  his  son,  Kev.  Prof.  D.  S.  Schaff,  1897. 
 
The  Principle  of  Protestantism.  207 
 
 two  camps,  the  critical  school  of  Baur  and  the  Evangelical  of 
 Schmidt,  Schaff  ranging  himself  with  the  latter.  From  Tueb- 
 ingen  he  went  to  the  imiyersities  of  Ilalle  and  Berlin.  Schaff 
 spent  six  months  in  Tlioluck's  house  at  Ilalle,  and  was  greatly 
 influenced  by  him.  The  two  teachers  who  left  the  greatest 
 impression  on  him  were  Schmidt,  the  Lutheran  professor  of 
 theolog;^^  at  Tuebingen,  and  Neander,  the  famous  professor  of 
 church-histoiy  at  Berlin,  a  member  of  the  Evangelical  or 
 United  Church.  In  history  he  claimed  to  follow  Neander 
 but  confessed  that  he  gained  his  first  idea  of  "historical  de- 
 velopment" which  he  afterwards  so  much  emphasized,  from 
 Prof.  Bauer,  the  famous  Hegelian  at  Tuebingen.  In  1841  he 
 had  completed  his  course  of  studies  at  the  university  at  Berlin. 
 For  his  degree  of  bachelor  of  divinity  he  published  his  first 
 book,  '  *  The  Sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost. ' ' 
 
 It  was  dedicated  to  liis  honored  teacher  Thereniim,  the  famous  and  elo- 
 quent Reformed  court-preacher  of  Berlin.  Ohlshausen  had  advocated 
 three  degrees  of  sin  against  God,  corresponding  to  the  three  persons  of 
 the  Godhead.  Schaff  denied  this  threefold  distinction  and  claimed  that 
 the  sin  of  blasphemy  was  not  committed  against  the  second  person  of  the 
 trinity  but  against  the  Son  of  Man  in  his  earthly  manifestation.  So  the 
 sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  against  him  in  the  trinity  but  as  he 
 operates  on  the  human  soul.  "Blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the 
 rejection  of  the  divine  itself  as  it  manifests  itself  in  the  soul."  At  the 
 end  of  the  pamphlet,  as  an  illustration  of  this  sin,  he  recounts  the  life 
 and  remorse  of  Francis  Spiera,  the  reprobate  of  the  Reformation.  Though 
 written  by  so  young  a  man,  Prof.  Julius  Muller,  in  his  great  work  on 
 "Sin,"  says  it  is  a  complete  discussion  of  the  topic  and  entitled  to  re- 
 spect and  confidence.  One  of  Schaff  's  fellow-students  at  Berlin  attacked 
 this  pamphlet  for  its  scholasticism. 
 
 In  the  fall  of  1842  he  returned,  after  traveling' in  southern 
 Europe,  to  Berlin  to  become  private-docent  in  the  university. 
 He  began  lecturing  there  on  "The  Apostolic  Type  of  Doc- 
 trine" and  "The  Nature  and  Aims  of  Theology,"  and  then 
 advanced  to  lecturing  on  the  "Catholic  Epistles"  and  the 
 "Theology  of  Schleiermacher. "  In  1843  he  published  another 
 pamphlet,  "The  Relation  of  James  the  brother  of  our  Lord 
 to  James  the  son  of  Alpheus."  He  held  that  James  was  the 
 natural  brother  of  our  Lord  but  not  one  of  the  twelve  and 
 
208        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 that  he  hitcr  took  the   phice   of  James  the   son   of   Alpheus 
 among  the  diseiples. 
 
 Prof.  Schaff  aeeeptcd  the  e;ill  to  Ainci'iea,  although  other 
 ])ositions  were  beginning  to  apfx'ar  for  him  in  Eui'ope,  as  at 
 Zurich,  to  whieh  professorship)  Ebrard  was  later  ealled.  Eieh- 
 liorn,  the  Prussian  minister  of  education,  told  him  that  a 
 position  would  always  be  open  to  him  if  he  retui-ned  from 
 America  to  Germany.*  Preparatory  to  his  coming  he  at  once 
 began  the  study  of  English,  in  which  he  acquired  remarkable 
 fluency  later.  He  was  ordained  April  12,  1844,  in  the  Great 
 Reformed  Church  at  Elberfeld,  by  the  Pastors'  Aid  Society, 
 which  had  been  organized  at  Langenberg,  in  the  Wupperthal, 
 June  7,  1839,  to  aid  the  Germans  in  America,  and  which  had 
 branch  societies  at  Bremen,  Basle  and  Hanau.  The  super- 
 intendent of  the  Society,  Rev.  Dr.  ITuelsman.  delivered  an 
 address  on  "The  harvest  is  great  and  laborers  are  few."  The 
 act  of  ordination  was  performed  by  the  ministers  present, 
 including  Prof.  Kling,  of  Bonn.  After  the  oi'dination  Dr. 
 Krummachcn-  preached  on  Jer.  1 :  17 :  "Thou  therefore  gird  up 
 tiiy  loins  and  arise  and  speak  unto  them  all  that  I  command 
 thee."  The  sermon  produced  a  profound  impression  on  the 
 audience  by  its  eloquence.  Then  the  134th  Psalm  was  sung 
 and  Prof.  Schaff  preached  a  sermon  on  "Paul's  Vision  of  the 
 ]\Ian  of  Macedonia. "  Like  Dr.  Krummacher  he  took  a  low  view 
 of  the  religious  condition  of  the  Germans  in  America  because 
 so  many  adults  among  them  were  unbaptized,  which  was 
 counted  a  great  scandal  in  Germany.  Three  foes,  he  said, 
 thi'eatened  the  Germans  in  America,  paganism, f  Romanism 
 and  sectarianism.  The  service  was  very  long,  twilight  setting 
 in  before  Schaff  concluded  and  the  church  becoming  so  dark 
 that  the  speaker  could  be  seen  only  in  outline. 
 
 *As  KinfJ^  Frederick  William  III  hail  <,Mveji  money  to  Kev.  Mr.  Kelly 
 for  the  Hemiiiary  at  Mercersljury,  so  King  Frederick  William  IV  gave 
 l.-iOO  thalers  (.^97'))  when  Sclialf  came.  It  was  applied  to  the  exjiense 
 of  the  two  delegates  to  Europe,  Schneck  and  Ilolfeditz,  and  the  small 
 balance  that  remained  was  given  to  the  lil)rary.^l)nl)bs'  History  of 
 F.  &  M.  College,  199,  note. 
 
 fThe  Germans  in  America,  he  said,  were  in  danger  of  a  return  to 
 lieathenism. 
 
The  Principle  op  Protestantism.  209 
 
 On  his  way  to  America  he  spent  six  weeks  in  England,  where 
 he  attended  the  May  anniversaries  of  the  various  religious  so- 
 cieties. He  also  examined  the  Puseyite  movement,  meeting  per- 
 sonally Pusey  and  Newman  of  the  higli-churchmen  and  Stanley 
 and  Jowett  of  the  broad-churchmen.  He  arrived  at  New  York, 
 July  28,  where  he  was  met  by  Rev.  B.  C.  Wolff,  of  Easton. 
 On  his  way  to  Mercersburg  he  attended  the  first  Triennial 
 convention  of  the  Dutch  and  German  Reformed  Churches  at 
 Ilarrisburg,  and  arrived  at  Mercersburg  August  3  2,  where 
 he  was  Avarmly  welcomed  by  the   professors  and  students. 
 
 He  had  hardly  arrived  in  America  before  he  was  severely  at- 
 tacked (the  forerunner  of  many  controversies  to  come).  His 
 sermon  at  Elberfeld  had  been  published  in  Dr.  Krummach- 
 er  's  chiu'ch  paper,  entitled  ' '  The  Palm-Leaves. ' '  The  German 
 secular  press  of  America  had  gotten  hold  of  it  and  from 
 New  York  to  Wisconsin  and  the  Mississippi  Valley  they  at- 
 tacked him  with  great  bitterness  because  of  his  low  views 
 about  the  Germans  in  America,  denouncing  him  as  a  slanderer 
 of  his  countrymen  and  a  traitor  to  his  country.  Some  of  them 
 warned  parents  against  sending  their  children  to  the  school 
 where  he  taught.  In  some  places  indignation  meetings  were 
 held  in  vindication  of  German  honor.  Dr.  Nevin  wrote  a 
 defence  of  him  and  gradually  the  excitement  subsided. 
 
 From  this  sketch  of  his  life  it  should  however  be  noticed 
 that  Prof.  Schaff,  though  traditionally  Reformed,  was  not 
 confessionally  so ;  that  is,  he  was  bom  in  a  Reformed  comitry 
 (Switzerland),  but  confirmed  as  a  member  of  the  Lutheran 
 Church.  His  theological  views  were  from  the  Lutheran  uni- 
 versity at  Tuebingen,  his  historical,  from  Neander  of  the 
 Evangelical  Church  of  Germany,  composed  of  Lutherans  and 
 Reformed.  It  was  not  until  he  came  to  this  country  that 
 he  promised  adherence  to  the  Pleidelberg  Catechism  and  our 
 Reformed  doctrines.  lie  therefore  did  not  come  to  us  bring- 
 ing the  old  theology  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Germany  as 
 represented  by  her  leaders  in  the  past,  Ursinus  and  Olevianus, 
 Parens  of  Heidelberg,  Wendelin  of  Anhalt,  Lampe  of  Bremen, 
 or  of  the  Reformed  in  their  conferences  with  the  Lutherans 
 at  Leipsic  1631   and  Cassel   1661,  -wiiere  they  were  strictly 
 
210        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Calvinistic  on  predestination  and  the  sacraments.  But  lie 
 came  representing  a  new  and  different  theology — the  IMediat- 
 ing  theology  of  Sclileiermacher,  but  of  the  right  wing,  that  is 
 inclining  toward  orthodoxy.  Schleiermacher  had  tried  first 
 to  mediate  between  pantheism  and  orthodoxy  and  then  l)e- 
 tween  the  Reformed  and  the  Lutherans.  His  mediating  the- 
 ology' had  given  np  most  that  was  distinctively  Reformed 
 therefore  and  was  ver}'  different  from  the  old  doctrine  of  the 
 Reformed  of  Germany.  Some  of  the  Reformed,  like  Ullman. 
 had  tried  to  mediate  betw'een  Schleiermacher 's  view  and  the 
 old  Reformed  position.  And  Schaff  may  be  said  in  the  main 
 to  follow  him.  Prof.  Jacobs,  of  the  Lutheran  Theological 
 Seminary  of  Philadelphia,  says  Dr.  Schaff 's  ideal  on  coming 
 to  Mercersburg  was  the  foimdation  of  a  German-American 
 Church,  uniting  the  Reformed  and  the  Lutheran,  that  is,  he 
 was  unionistic  rather  than  Reformed. 
 
 Dr.  Schaff 's  biographer  in  comparing  him  with  Dr.  Nevin, 
 says  (page  103)  : 
 
 ' '  To  the  German  spirit  which  Dr.  Nevin  never  could  fully  assimilate, 
 he  added  that  historic  temper  which  is  tolerant  and  irenic.  He  did  not 
 possess  the  gift  of  the  theological  disputant;  his  was  the  power  of  the 
 churchly  historian.  The  wonder  is  that  with  their  sharp  differences  of 
 originality,  temper  and  education,  these  two  men  should  have  studied 
 together  for  a  score  of  years  in  friendly  co-operation.  It  will  appear, 
 however,  that  this  very  relation  put  Dr.  Schaff  more  than  once  in  posi- 
 tions where  his  real  views  were  subject  to  serious  misconstruction." 
 
 Section   3.     Dr.   Nevin 's   Sermon  on  "Catholic   Unity" 
 
 (1844). 
 
 Although  this  sermon  was  not  pul)lished  until  1845  it  merits 
 notice  here  Ix'causc  it  reveals  Dr.  Nevin 's  views  at  the  time  ot 
 Schaff 's  ai-rival  and  before  he  was  influenced  by  Schaff.  It 
 was  preached  at  the  Triennial  convention  of  the  Dutch  and 
 German  Reformed  Churclies  at  Ilai-risburg.  August  7,  1844, 
 and  was  i)u])lishe(l  tlie  next  year  with  Schaff's  "Principle  of 
 i*rotestantism"  at  Schatf  "s  reciuest.  This  sermon  reveals  that 
 Nevin  was  already  coming  out  from  his  old  Calvinism  and 
 inclining  toward  tlei'nian  |)liilosopliical  and  theoloi^iciil 
 positions.     This  was  ])roI)ahly  due  to  Raueli's  inlluenee. 
 
The  Principle  op  Protestantism.  211 
 
 The  sermon  is  in  two  parts,  (1)  the  nature  and  constitution 
 of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  (2)  the  duty  of  Christians  as 
 regards  the  unity  by  which  it  is  declared  to  be  Catholic  and 
 true.  Krenier,  one  of  Nevin's  biographers,  says  Nevin  held 
 there  could  not  be  a  true  Christian  spirit  of  unity  without  a 
 true  Church-spirit  and  correct  views  in  regard  to  the  Church 
 itself, — there  must  be  organic  unity.  Kremer  fails  to  notice 
 that  his  statement  is  Dr.  Nevin's  later  view  of  the  Church, 
 as  revealed  in  his  articles  about  1851  and  later,  but  not  here. 
 The  new  position  of  Nevin  here  is  his  emphasis  on  the  organic 
 in  dealing  with  the  Church  and  Church  unity. 
 
 ' '  The  wliole  humanity  of  Christ,  soul  and  body,  is  carried  by  the  pro- 
 cess of  the  Christian  salvation  into  the  jierson  of  the  believer.  Ilis 
 resurrection  is  only  his  regeneration  fully  revealed  at  last- — complete. 
 Union  with  Christ  is  organic,  is  not  a  mere  aggregation  or  abstrac- 
 tion, not  an  all  but  a  whole.  Individual  Christianity  is  not  older  than 
 generic  Christianity,  but  the  general  in  this  case  goes  before  the  par- 
 ticular. ' '  He  thus  taught  Adam 's  generic  humanity,  that  he  was  not 
 a  man  but  the  man.  In  the  light  of  this  organic  unity  what  is  the 
 church  and  its  union? 
 
 But  Dr.  Nevin  was  proceeding  beyond  Ranch.  The  spir- 
 itualistic idealism  of  the  German  mind  as  in  Rauch  was  deli- 
 cate and  beautiful.  Nevin,  with  his  Scotch  mind,  aimed  to 
 grasp  it,  but  did  not  quite  do  so.  Like  the  Scotch,  he  uncon- 
 sciously emphasized  the  real  over  against  the  ideal,  while 
 Rauch  emphasized  the  ideal  like  the  Germans.  And  although 
 Nevin  believed  himself  to  have  gotten  into  the  German  frame 
 of  mind,  his  Scotch-Irish  heredity  led  him  to  produce  a  crass 
 reflection  of  Ranch's  idealistic  positions.  Rauch  taught  the 
 distinction  between  the  subjective^  and  objective,  which  was 
 then  much  emphasized  by  German  philosophy ;  but  he  empha- 
 sized the  subjective.  Nevin  followed  him  on  making  the  same 
 distinction,  but  he,  on  the  other  hand,  luiduly  emphasized  the 
 objective.  In  his  later  doctrine  of  the  Church  and  the  sacra- 
 ments he  minimizes,  if  not  ignores,  the  subjective  and  experi- 
 mental when  he  says  the  grace  of  baptism  does  not  depend  on 
 subjectivity.  It  is  possible  that  had  Dr.  Rauch  lived  longer, 
 he  might  have  corrected  this  tendency  in  Dr.  Nevin,  but  Nevin 
 
212        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 was  with  him  at  Mercersbiir^  Init  ten  months  before  Ranch 
 died,  and  much  of  that  time  Ranch  was  sickly  and  part  of  it 
 away.  Nevin  undertook  to  develop  Rauoli's  philosophy  but 
 developed  it  beyond  him.  Ranch's  philosophy  and  theology 
 would  never  have  caused  the  controversy  that  Nevin 's  did,  for 
 Rauch  leaned  not  to  high  ehurchism  or  to  Romanizing  but 
 toward  simplicity,   even    Quakerism   in   his  emphasis  on   the 
 
 ^subjective.  Nevin,  in  this  sermon  on  Cntliolic  Unity,  there- 
 fore reveals  that  he  hnd  adopted  the  realism  of  the  German 
 philosophy  over  against  nominalism.  And  he  reveals  in  this 
 sermon  germs  of  his  future  theology  in  his  application  of  his 
 realism  to  the  Church  and  the  sacraments.*  In  the  Church, 
 generic  Christianity  is  before  the  individual.  Christ  took 
 upon  himself  generic,  not  individual  hunmnity.  He  took  the 
 race  on  himself  as  Adam  had  at  the  beginning.  The  second 
 Adam  comprised  in  himself  humanity  redeemed  as  a  whole. 
 "A  divine  seed  is  implanted  in  the  Christian,  the  germ  of  a 
 
 [new  existence. "t 
 
 Here  we  notice  another  difference  between  Raucli  and 
 Nevin.  They  not  merely  differed  in  their  emphasis  on  the 
 objective  and  subjective  but  they  also  differed  in  their 
 idea  of  organism.  An  organ  may  be  the  avenue  or  channel 
 through  which  the  life  comes.  Or  the  organ  may  be  more  than 
 a  channel ;  it  may  be  the  force  of  that  life  itself.  Both  Nevin 
 and  Ranch  emphasized  the  organic  process  but  they  differed 
 in  their  emphasis.  Rauch  emphasized  the  organ  as  a  channel 
 or  avenue,  while  Nevin  gives  it  intrinsic,  objective  power  in 
 itself.      Ranch    called    attention    to    the    organic    connection, 
 
 *Realism  in  philosophy  over  against  nominalism  is  quite  a  different 
 thing  from  realism  in  philosophy  over  against  idealism"  to  which  we  re- 
 ferred above.  Nominalists  emphasize  the  name,  realists  the  thing. 
 Nominalists  say  the  reality  lies  in  the  name,  which  is  the  conception 
 of  the  thing  in  our  own  mind.  Realists  say  the  reality  lies  in  the  thing 
 itself,  of  which  our  name  is  merely  the  reflection.  Nominalism  places 
 the  individual  before  the  universals  and  makes  the  individual  to  be  the 
 basis  or  norm  ;  realism  says  that  the  universal  existed  before  individuals 
 and  is  the  basis  of  them. 
 
 fThe  generic  possessed  a  reality  to  which  the  individual  can  never  at- 
 tain. The  Church  is  not  a  voluntary  but  a  divine  institution  and  order 
 as  real  as  anytliing  eye  can  see  or  hand  feel,  says  Callender  in  Dubbs' 
 American  Church  History,  pages  369-70. 
 
The  Principle  of  Protestantism.  213 
 
 Nevin  to  the  organic  force.     Thus  Nevin  begins  to  place  in- 
 trinsic power  in  the  sacrament  and  Church. 
 
 Nevin  in  this  sermon  held  that  Christ's  generic  huraanit}^ 
 comes  down  to  us  in  the  Church  and  sacraments  and  unites 
 iLs  to  him  in  a  mystical  imion.  If  his  views  were  considered 
 too  high  he  reminded  his  hearers  that  they  were  Calvin's  views. 
 Ill'  j)i'()l)ahly  hoped  thus  to  ward  t)tif  criticism  at  the  conven- 
 tion. And  there  were  a  few  nuitterings  of  criticism  even  as 
 early  as  that  Triennial  convention. 
 
 Having  thus  hiid  his  philosophic  basis,  he  proceeds  to  dis- 
 cuss the  unity  of  all  believers  and  dt^claims  against  the  evil 
 of  so  many  sects  in  the  Protestant  Church.  His  subject  wasj 
 timely,  suited  to  a  convention  to  promote  union  between  the 
 Dutch  and  German  Reformed;  but  his  peculiar  method  of 
 handling  it  was  not  the  happiest,  for  it  roused  the  suspicions 
 of  some  of  the  Dutch  ministers  against  what  they  called  his 
 German  Hegelianism.  Still  it  was  a  profound,  stimulating  dis- 
 cussion of  the  subject. 
 
 Certain  peculiarities,  however,  need  to  be  noticed  in  the 
 sermon,  showing  he  had  not  yet  come  to  the  theological  posi- 
 tions he  later  took.  Mercersburg  theology  was  a  growth  and 
 he  was  evolving  it  gradually.    Thus, 
 
 1.  He  calls  the  Pope  Antichrist.    This  is  very  different  from 
 his  position  in  his  pamphlet  published  only  four  j^ears  later,   ■ 
 when  Antichrist  is  not  the  pope,  but  the  Spirit  of  Sect  and 
 Schism  in  the  Protestant  Church. 
 
 2.  He  calls  the  German  and  Dutch  Reformed  the  same 
 in  spirit  and  doctrine.  "The  faith  of  Switzerland,  the 
 faith  of  the  Palatinate  and  the  faith  of  Holland  in  the  six- 
 teenth century  were  emphatically  one  faith."  Later  he  held 
 that  the  Reformed  Church  of  Germany  was  different  from  all 
 the  other  Reformed  Churches  by  being  Melancthonian  and  not 
 Calvinistic.  This  latter  view  he  got  from  Prof.  Schaff.  Dr. 
 Nevin  in  this  sermon  still  believed  (and  rightly)  that  our 
 Church,  having  been  nurtured  in  the  eighteenth  century  by 
 the  Reformed  Church  of  Holland,  was  Calvinistic.  He  extols 
 Dutch  Calvinism.  "The  Reformed  liad  glorious  representa- 
 tives at  the  ev<'r  memorable  Synod  of  Dort."  (He  spoke  quite 
 
214        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 the  opposite  about  that  synod  later.)  He  rejoiced  that  this 
 convention  revealed  to  the  world  that  the  two  divisions  of  the 
 Reformed  Church  proclaimed  themselves  inwardly  as  well  as 
 outwardly  united. 
 
 This  sermon  revealed  that  Dr.  Nevin  had  ])een  moving 
 out  from  the  old  Priiicf^on  Calvinism  of  the  Federal 
 School  toward  German  theology.  He  was  at  this  time  in  a 
 receptive  state  of  mind,  wide  open  to  receive  impressions  from 
 Germany.  Just  at  that  moment  Prof.  Schaft*  came  to 
 strengthen  his  i)hih)sophieal  and  theological  leanings.  And 
 ^together  they  l)uilt  up  jMercersburg  theology. 
 
 Section  4.     "The  Principle  of  Protestantism,"  by 
 Prof.  Sch.vff. 
 
 Prof.  Schaff  was  received  into  the  Eastern  Synod  at  Al- 
 lentown,  October  17-23,  1844.  Immediately  after  the  close  of 
 the  synod  he  was  inaugurated  professor  of  theology  at  Read- 
 ing, where  he  delivered  his  inaugural  address  on  "The  Prin- 
 ciple of  Protestantism."  "When  it  was  heard  there  was  a 
 slight  murmur  of  dissatisfaction  at  some  of  its  positions. 
 But  the  criticisms  did  not  appear  until  it  was  published  (in 
 German  in  March,  1845,  and  in  English  in  June,  1845).  It 
 had  been  careful!}'  enlarged  and  revised  because  of  these  criti- 
 cisms, 
 r"  To  understand  the  significance  of  Schaff 's  Address,  it  is  to 
 be  remembered  that  there  have  been  several  ways  of  vindi- 
 cating Protestantism  against  Catholicism.  There  were  in  the 
 main  two  Protestant  theories : 
 
 1.  The  connnon  Protestant  view  that  Protestantism  was  a 
 return  to  the  j)rimitive  Church  of  the  New  Testament.  After 
 the  first  century  the  Church  became  more  and  more  corrupt 
 until  the  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century  revived  apos- 
 tolic times.  This  view  looked  on  the  Catholic  Church,  espe- 
 cially of  the  IMiddle  Ages,  as  evil  and  corrupt.  Nevin  later 
 calls  this  the  Pui-itanie  theory. 
 
 2.  The  Anglican  or  Ki)iscopali{in  view.  This  held  that  Pro- 
 testantism was  a  return  not  to  the  first  century  but  to  the 
 early  Church  of  the  first  four  or  five  centuries.     This  view 
 
The  Principle  op  Protestantism.  215 
 
 allowod  room  for  the  development  of  Church  government 
 by  bishops  and  also  of  some  rites  not  Biblical  but  ecclesiastic- 
 ally sanctioned,  which  were  rejected  by  the  other  view.  This 
 view,  like  the  first,  looked  upon  the  Catholic  Church  as  a  cor- 
 rupt Church  but  not  as  Antichrist,  for  it  had  preserved  in  the 
 midst  of  it  a  remnant  of  truth. 
 
 3.  The  third  view  which  Schaff  proposed,  was  that  neither 
 were  right,  that  there  was  still  another  view,  namely,  his- 
 torical development.*  The  Protestant  Church  was  not  a 
 return  to  either  the  first  century  or  to  the  first  five  cen- 
 turies, but  it  was  different  from  both,  yet  connected  with 
 them  by  historical  development.  Church  history  is  organic. 
 It  was  not  a  collection  of  facts  promiscuously  thrown 
 together  but  an  organism  unfolding  its  j^owers.  The  Church 
 is  an  ever-living  organism,  "with  a  continuous  flow  of 
 life  in  which  every  succeeding  age  is  a  true  develop- 
 ment of  its  own  organic  will  from  the  life  preceding."  This 
 was  contrary  to  the  first  view  for  it  denied  that  the  Catholic 
 Church  was  only  evil  and  corrupt.  It  held,  on  the  contrary, 
 that  the  Protestant  Church  was  a  development  right  out  of  the 
 good  forces  within  the  Catholic  Church  before  the  Reforma- 
 tion. Prof.  Schaff  however  added,  "This  development  would 
 continue — the  Protestant  Church  would  not  stop  with  the 
 Church  of  the  Reformation,  but  would  continue  developing 
 until  Protestantism  and  Catholicism  would  approach  and 
 finally  unite.  His  Principle  of  Protestantism  was  "Historical 
 Development."  -J 
 
 The  pamphlet  was  divided  into  two  parts: 
 
 1.  The  Principle  of  Protestantism  in  its  original  relation  to 
 the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 
 
 2.  The  Principle  of  Protestantism  in  its  relation  to  the  later 
 development  and  present  state  of  the  Protestant  Church. 
 
 Under  tho  first  part,  he  discusses  the  two  elements  that  made  nji  the 
 Principle  of  Protestantism,  Justification  by  Faith  on  the  one  hand  and 
 
 *Ullman,  in  the  Studien  and  Kritiken  (18.59),  in  rcviewinjj  Schatf 's 
 History  of  the  Ajiostolic  Cluirch,  says  that  tliis  idea  of  devidojiment  was 
 first  enunciated  by  Herder,  l)ut  is  in  the  Schelling  philosophy  and 
 especially  in  Hegel's  conception  of  history,  from  which  doubtless  Schaff, 
 through  Baur,  received  it. 
 
216        History  of  Reformed  Ciiurcii  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 the  Authority  of  the  Scriptures  as  the  rule  of  faith  on  the  other.  The 
 Lutherans  emphasized  the  former,  the  Eeformed  the  latter.  But  both 
 were  inseparable — different  aspects  of  the  same  principle.  He  later 
 on,  says  his  biographer,  added  a  third  principle,  the  priesthood  of  all 
 believers.*  (If  he  had  emphasized  this  last  principle  then,  he  would  have 
 saved  our  Church  from  controversy  and  from  Mercersburg  theology, 
 which  emphasized  the  priesthood  of  the  ministry,  to  which  the  priesthood 
 of  all  believers  would  have  been  an  antidote. — A.)  He  describes  the  rela- 
 tion of  this  principle  to  the  Romish  Church  before  the  Eeformation.  The 
 Reformation  was  not  a  violent  revolution  against  the  previous  order  nor 
 was  it  a  restoration  to  the  original  apostolic  Christianity.  It  was  a 
 development  out  of  the  Middle  Ages,  the  ripe  fruit  of  better  tendencies 
 in  the  Catholic  Church.  The  Eeformation  is  the  legitimate  offspring, 
 the  greatest  act  of  the  Catholic  Church,  but  that  Church,  instead  of 
 following  the  historical  development,  stuck  to  its  law  of  commandments 
 like  the  Jews  in  Christ's  time,  and  refused  to  develop  with  the  ages. 
 
 In  the  second  part  of  his  book  he  discusses  the  principle  of  Protestant- 
 ism in  its  relation  to  the  present  state  of  the  Protestant  Church.  He 
 describes : 
 
 A.  The  diseases  or  caricatures  of  Protestantism.  These  are:  1. 
 Rationalism  or  one-sided  theoretic  subjectivism.  This  develops  into 
 a  papacy  more  tyrannical  than  the  hierarchial  papacy  of  Rome.  2. 
 Sectism  or  one-sided  practical  subjectivism.  He  inveighs  against  the 
 many  denominations  of  America,  calling  this  sectism  * '  a  second  plague. ' ' 
 
 B.  The  Remedies.  1.  The  first  was  Puseyism,  which,  however,  is  not  a 
 jemedy  but  a  reaction  caused  by  the  disease.  Puseyism  had  deep  moral 
 spiritual  earnestness,  but  failed  to  appreciate  the  significance  of  the 
 Reformation.  It  looks  backward,  not  forward.  2.  The  secontl  is  liistorical 
 development,  or,  as  he  calls  it.  Protestantism,  which  would  heal  all  its 
 diseases.  And  it  would  ultimately  bring  it  into  union  with  Catholicism 
 to  form  a  grander  Christianity.  The  final  form  of  Protestantism  is  yet 
 to  come.  It  will  not  come  through  outward  unity,  as  the  Puseyites  hold, 
 but  from  within  Protestantism. 
 
 The  pamphlet  closes  with  112  tlu'scs,  which  siiinmarize  his 
 positions.  It  reveals  his  wide  scholarship  and  encyclopaedic 
 mind.  For  a  young  man  only  25  years  old,  it  is  a  very  re- 
 markable production.  But  it  also  reveals  the  inexperience 
 and  false  hopes  of  youth.  lie  would  fain  be  a  new  Luther 
 summoning  the  Protestant  world  to  a  new  reformation,  as  did 
 Luther  in  1517.  His  hope  that  historical  development  would 
 unite  Protestantism  and  Catliolieisui  into  a  larger  Clu-istiau- 
 
 *Christ  and  Christianity,  pages  128-134. 
 
The  PiiiNCiPiiE  OF  Protestantism.  217 
 
 ity  was  the  impractical  dream  of  a  young  enthusiast.  The 
 publication  of  this  work  at  once  attracted  attention  to  his 
 ability  and  brilliancy  as  a  church-historian.  Dr.  Nevin,  in  the 
 preface  to  the  pamphlet,  evidently  feeling  that  it  would  be 
 attacked,  tries  to  ward  off  the  coming  attacks.  He  defends 
 Schaff:  1.  Against  the  attacks  of  the  German  secular  press 
 on  his  address  at  Elberfeld.  2.  Against  any  charge  of  Ro- 
 manizing, by  granting  that  there  was  trutli  in  tlie  midst  of 
 the  errors  of  Rome. 
 
 Eomanism  in  every  one  of  its  errors  included  vast  truth.  Protestants 
 erred  in  their  view  of  liberty  of  private  judgment  and  Catholics  in  their 
 view  of  Church  authority.  Each  complemented  the  other.  The  papacy 
 was  the  womb  out  of  which  was  formed  the  life  of  the  Reformation; 
 and  the  Middle  Ages  was  not  the  great  apostacy  but  the  Catholic  prepa- 
 ration for  the  Eeformatiou.  The  view  of  some  that  the  Protestant 
 Church  was  derived  from  the  early  Church  through  heretical  sects,  the 
 Waldenses,  etc.,  he  derided.  He  held  that  Schaff 's  argument  was  the 
 strongest  that  could  be  produced.  He  closes  by  developing  Schaff 's 
 historical  development  more  fully  into  his  own  view  of  organic  religion 
 through  the  Church,  emphasizing  the  organic  as  Schaff  emphasized  de- 
 velopment. 
 
 Some  of  the  positions  of  the  book  at  once  attracted  criti- 
 cism. The  most  prominent  was  its  Romanizing  tendency.  In- 
 stead of  calling  Rome  the  great  apostasy,  Babylon,  the  Sink- 
 of  Iniquity,  he  made  the  Catholic  Church  a  true  Church, 
 which  connected  the  Protestant  Church  with  the  early  apos- 
 tolic Church.  Again,  he  was  criticized  for  his  emphasis  on 
 tradition  as  a  rule  of  faith  with  Scripture.  He  divided  tradi- 
 tion into  ecclesiastical,  historical  and  dogmatical.*  Tradition 
 should  not  be  separated  from  Scripture  as  Protestants  hold. 
 It  was  the  contents  of  the  Bible  as  settled  by  the  Church 
 against  heresies.  In  stating  tradition  he  fails  to  guard  himself 
 sufficiently  against  the  Catholic  view.  (See  page  108).  An- 
 other sign  of  Romanizing  charged  against  him  was  his  com- 
 
 *Under  his  discussion  of  the  Bible  as  the  rule  of  faith,  he  states  its 
 relation  to  tradition  and  defines  the  different  kinds  of  tradition,  ritual, 
 historical,  dogmatic-moral  and  formal-dogmatic  tradition.  Ritual  refers 
 to  the  ancient  customs  of  the  (Jhureh,  historical  to  the  testimony  of  an- 
 tiquity— to  the  genuineness  of  sacred  books,  dogmatic-moral  comprehends 
 doctrines  ascribed  to  Christ  and  the  apostles  whicli  the  Bilile  rejects  and 
 formal-dogmatic  incluiles  the  ancient  creeds  and  tli(>  onward  movement  of 
 church  doctrine  and  life  from  age  to  age. 
 
218        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 mendation  of  Puseyisin,  its  moral  earnestness,  reverent  so- 
 lemnity, holding  fast  to  the  sacraments  "that  hang  not  on  the 
 preearions  side  of  the  subjective  but  include  the  actual  pres- 
 ence of  Christ  as  really  as  when  he  stood  before  his  disciples." 
 But  although  he  makes  such  statements  he  is  not  satisfied  with 
 the  position  of  the  Romish  Church  because  its  fornuilas  are 
 fixed  and  allow  no  room  for  the  historical  d(nM'loi)ment  which 
 is  the  corner-stone  of  his  system.  For  the  same  reason  he 
 criticizes  Puritanism.  lie  errs  in  not  guarding  himself  against 
 Romanism.  While  he  is  so  easy  with  Rome,  he  is  very  severe 
 on  Protestantism  for  its  disease  of  sects  and  its  Puritanism. 
 
 Another  criticism  was  on  his  philosophy.  He  was  charged 
 with  Hegelianism.  It  was  evident  that  he  was  opposed  to  the 
 destructive  school  of  Strauss  but  still  be  used  Hegelian 
 methods.  Thus,  in  thesis  17,  he  shows  it  by  holding  to  its  dia- 
 lectic contra-positions,  and  on  page  186,  where  he  makes  cor- 
 poreity the  scope  of  God's  ways.  On  page  169  Schaff  says, 
 "the  unity  must  proceed  from  within,  from  the  deepest  ground 
 of  the  religious  life  and  then  it  will  provide  itself  a  suitable 
 form."    This  is  the  Hegelian  method  of  development. 
 
 Another  criticism  of  the  book  was  that  it  was  more  Lutheran 
 than  Reformed.  In  a  letter  to  Dr.  Mann  he  says,  "my  Ger- 
 man Reformed  friends  used  to  call  me  a  Lutheran  theologian 
 and  were  displeased  with  my  eulogy  of  Luther  in  this  book." 
 And  there  was  ground  for  this  charge,  for  he  almost  entirely 
 ignored  Zwingli,  whom  the  Reformed  in  America  had  always 
 idolized.  While  he  refers  occasionally  to  Calvin,  yet  Luther 
 and  the  Lutheran  Reformation  figure  by  far  most  prominently 
 in  this  book.  His  education  in  Germany  led  him  to  magnify 
 the  Lutheran  Reformation  and  minimize  the  Zwinglian. 
 '  Finally,  another  criticism  on  the  book  was  on  its  optimistic 
 hope  of  a  final  union  of  Protestantism  and  Catholicism.  This 
 was  the  dream  of  an  idealist,  not  yet  rcndized,  for  they  are 
 farther  apart  to-day  than  then,  because  the  pa])acy  has  since 
 then  promulgated  the  doctrine  of  infallibility.  The  truth  is 
 that  there  is  no  middle  ground  between  these  two  great  faiths. 
 Every  attempt  to  bring  Protestantism  nearer  Rome,  as  Pusey- 
 ism,  has  failed. 
 
The  Principle  of  Protestantism.  219 
 
 Many  years  after,  D»\  Sehaff  says  he  confessed  that  he 
 tiling  this  book  as  a  firebrand,  l)iit  it  was  not  understood. 
 ' '  ^ly  little  book  was  a  harmless  book,  and  I  had  not  the  remotest 
 thought  that  I  was  out  of  accord  with  the  views  of  the  Re- 
 formed Church  in  this  country. "  It  is  very  evident  that  as  a 
 foreigner  he  failed  to  understand  fully  the  American  hostility 
 to  Rome  at  that  time,  which  made  many  look  on  his  conces- 
 sions to  Rome  as  treason  to  Protestantism.  For  it  is  to  be 
 remembered  that  his  address  was  delivered  just  at  the  time 
 of  the  bitterest  feeling  against  Catholics.  On  May  3,  1844, 
 the  Irish  Catholics  of  Kensington,  Philadelphia,  had  attacked 
 a  meeting  of  the  American  party  at  which  a  number  were 
 killed  and  wounded.  The  American  party  afterward  paraded 
 with  the  American  flag,  which  they  had  taken  from  the  Catho- 
 lics in  the  riot  and  on  it  they  placed  the  inscription,  "This  is 
 the  flag  trampled  upon  by  Irish  papists. ' '  This  feeling  was  so 
 bitter  that  a  fire  broke  out  which  consumed  thirty-nine  houses 
 and  the  militia  were  called  out.  Two  Catholic  churches  in 
 Philadelphia  were  burned.  This  bitterness  was  caused  to  some 
 extent  by  the  efforts  of  the  Catholics  to  gain  possession  of  the 
 public  schools.  As  the  grand  .jury  did  not  make  its  returns 
 on  these  Philadelphia  riots  till  July  1st,  Sehaff 's  irenic  ad- 
 dress came  too  soon  after  this.  His  subject  was  therefore  ill- 
 timed  and  his  method  of  treatment  laid  him  open  to  criticism 
 of  which  he  never  dreamt.  TIk^sc  political  events  are  a  for- 
 gotten element  in  the  controversy  against  him  in  our  Church. 
 
 Section  5.  The  Attacks  on  "The  Principle  op  Protestant- 
 ism BY  the  Different  Church  Papers. 
 
 A.  The  rroiestant  Quartcrhj. — The  first  attack  on  the 
 pamphlet  is  said  to  have  been  in  the  Protestant  Banner  in  the 
 summer  of  1845  by  Berg.  He  continued  his  attack  on  it  in 
 the  Protestant  Quarterly,  of  which  he  was  then  editor.  He 
 was,  as  we  have  already  seen,  a  warm  champion  of  anti- 
 Romanism.  He  had  had,  as  we  have  already  noted,  an  open 
 debate  with  a  Catholic  priest  at  Lel)anon.  He  had  also  for  a 
 number  of  years  been  publishing  a  number  of  books  against 
 Romanism.     At  the  Synod  of  1843,  he  had  tried  to  get  that 
 
220 
 
 History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 synod  to  commit  our  Church  against  the  validity  of  Romish 
 baptism.  Nevin  later  charged  that  the  synod  refused  to 
 sustain  Berg's  position.  Heiner,  however,  says  that  the  synod 
 was  very  much  divided  on  the  subject,  many  voting  )wh  liquit, 
 
 Rev.  Joseph  F.  Berg,  D.D. 
 
 and  when  the  synod  decided  to  recognize  the  validity  of  Rom- 
 ish baptism,  it  was  only  by  a  small  majority.  The  minutes  of 
 the  synod  report  no  action  on  the  suliject,  so  that  officially  the 
 synod  could  not  well  be  quoted  either  way,  as  Nevin  claimed. 
 Dr.  Berg  therefore  was  one  of  the  first  to  scent  any  ten- 
 dencies toward  Romanizing  in  Sehatf 's  address.  He  had  pub- 
 lished "The  Old  Paths"  in  the  spring  of  1845,  in  which  he 
 takes  the  usual  Protestant  view  of  his  time,  that  the  reforma- 
 ti(m  was  a  return  to  the  Church  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
 that  the  Catholic  Church  was  the  great  apostasy.  Over  against 
 Schaff's  view  of  historical  development  he  attempts  to  trace 
 the  connection  of  Protestantism  with  the  Apostolic  age  through 
 John's  disciple  Polycarp,  Ireneus,  tlu^  Waldenses  and  other 
 
The  Principle  of  Protestantism.  221 
 
 sects.  The  Messenger,  in  reviewing  the  book,  donbts  the 
 trnth  of  his  theorj^,  and  J.  II.  Good  soon  after  Avrote  against 
 it  in  the  Messenger.  Berg  replied  that  if  the  reformers  ought 
 to  claim  the  Papal  Church  as  their  mother  because  they  came 
 out  of  it,  on  the  same  principle  he  must  regard  Father  Lot 
 as  deriving  his  patriarchal  succession  through  Sodom.  It 
 needs  hardly  be  added  that  Berg's  theory  since  then  has  been 
 given  up  as  untenable,  for  the  historical  connection  of  Pro- 
 testantism with  the  primitive  Church  lay  not  through  the 
 heretical  sects,  as  Berg  said,  or  through  the  visible  Church,  as 
 Schaff  and  Nevin  declared,  but  rather  through  the  invisible 
 Church. 
 
 Dr.  Berg  charged  Schaff  with  exalting  tradition  above  the 
 Bible,  the  Church  above  Christ,  the  sacraments  above  personal 
 faith ;  and  that  both  Professors  Schaff  and  Nevin  had  violated 
 their  oaths  as  professors  by  not  teaching  the  doctrines  of 
 the  Heidelberg  Catechism.  The  passage  in  the  "Principle  of 
 Protestantism"  that  gave  so  much  offence  was  on  page  87, 
 ending  with  ' '  The  tradition  w^as  not  a  part  of  the  divine  Word 
 separately  from  what  is  written,  but  the  contents  of  Scripture 
 itself  as  apprehended  and  settled  by  the  Church  against 
 heresies  past  and  always  new  appearing."* 
 
 B.  The  attack  in  the  Lutheran  Observer. — This  paper,  the 
 organ  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  reviewed  Schaff 's  pamphlet, 
 April  11.  1815,  and  slightly  criticised  it,  saying  that  a 
 longer  stay  in  America  would  modify  his  views.  On 
 July  11  it  criticised  Nevin 's  sermon  on  Church  Unity  as 
 too  transcendental  to  be  understood  and  charged  him  with 
 being  an  ultra-Lutheran.  After  that,  the  paper  came  out 
 squarely  against  Nevin 's  views.  On  September  26,  1845,  the 
 editor  said : 
 
 "Wc  have  been  acquainted  witli  many  distinguished  divines  of  the 
 German  Keformed  Church,   such   as  the   Helfifensteins,   Sr.   and  Jr.,  Ka- 
 
 *Just  about  this  time  occurred  the  Leahy  episode.  Edward  Leahy 
 was  an  ex-monk  of  La  Trappe,  whom  Berg  had  converted  and  sent  to 
 Mercersburg  to  study  theology  (1844).  Leahy  was  surprised  to  be 
 taught  there  that  the  Church  of  Rome  was  a  part  of  the  Church  of 
 Christ  and  that  Christ  was  really  and  truly  present  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 
 Such  Eomanizing  he  reported  to  Berg. 
 
222        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 hausers,  Hendels,  Hiester,  Glotiinger,  Iloffineier  and  many  others,  and 
 last  but  not  least  that  clear-headed,  strong-minded  and  by  no  means 
 'small'  theologian,  Dr.  Mayer.*  Not  one  of  them  understood  the 
 Heidelberg  Catechism  as  Nevin  does,  but  all  believed  in  a  real  spiritual 
 presence. ' ' 
 
 In  the  same  issue  and  in  October  10,  this  new  pet  phrase  of 
 Nevinism  "spiritual  real  presence"  was  discussed.  The  phrase 
 "real  presence"  had  been  used  in  Catholic  theology  and  in 
 none  of  the  Protestant  confessions  except  the  larger  West- 
 minster. Real  presence  was  but  another  name  for  transub- 
 stantiation.  "We  would  note  that  Nevin 's  opponents  were  al- 
 ways willing  to  use  the  phrase  "real  spiritual  presence"  as 
 over  against  an  imaginary  spiritual  presence.  But  Nevin 
 always  put  the  real  after  spiritual,  making  it  "spiritual  real 
 presence."  He  clung  to  the  Catholic  phrase  "real  pres- 
 ence," only  he  tried  to  Protestantize  it  by  putting  the  word 
 spiritual  before  it  so  as  to  distinguish  it  from  the  corporeal 
 presence  which  was  the  Catholic  view.  As  he  would  not  ac- 
 cept real  spiritual  presence,  it  is  evident  that  "real  presence" 
 meant  something  more  than  merely  spiritual  presence,  namely, 
 the  presence  also  of  Christ's  humanity. 
 
 C.  The  attaclx  of  the  Clu-islian  IntdJigenccr.^  The  editor 
 says  a  copy  of  Schaff's  Pamphlet  had  come  into  his  office  in 
 July  accompanied  with  a  note  from  Dr.  Nevin.  He  notices  it 
 first  (Aug.  7),  saying  it  revealed  great  learning,  honesty  and 
 l)oldness.  On  August  14  he  goes  farther,  saying  "that  some 
 of  the  principles  of  Puseyism  which  Schaff  praises  contain  the 
 seeds  of  Romish  errors.  Wliile  Schaff  might  be  far  from 
 affinity  to  Rome  yet  others  taking  up  these  principles  would 
 be  led  to  undesirable  results. "$  "Schaff  holds  that  not  only 
 is  Rome  a  part  of  the  true  Church  of  Christ  but,  previous  to 
 tlie  reformation,  a  depository  of  the  Christian  faith."  This 
 was  very  different  from  the  general  view  of  the  Dufch  Cliui-cb 
 that  the  Romish  Church  was  an  apostasy.     On  Sei)t('mb('r  11. 
 
 *This  refers  to  the  common  statenieiit  of  iniiiiy  Neviiiists  in  iiiiiiiiiiizing 
 Prof.  Lewis  Mayer. 
 
 fThe  official  organ  of  the  Dutcli   licformcd  (  lunili. 
 
 JThis  proyed  a  true  prophecy,  tor  later  a  nundjcr  of  the  pujjils  of 
 Schaff  and  Nevin  went  over  to  Rome. 
 
The  Principle  op  Protestantism.  223 
 
 S.  N.  attacks  another  aspect  of  Nevinism,  namely,  its  error 
 about  the  ministry — 
 
 That  it  holds  to  a  sort  of  apostolic  succession  not  in  the  Catholic  or 
 Episcopalian  sense  but  modified  to  suit  Presbyterianism, — that  grace 
 from  Christ  through  the  apostles  conies  to  every  minister  at  ordination, 
 so  that  by  the  imposition  of  hands  he  becomes  a  depository  of  that 
 grace  and  has  the  remarkable  power  of  transmitting  this  grace  to  others 
 after  the  fashion  of  a  Leyden  jar  full  of  electricity  which  discharges 
 its  electricity  by  coming  into  contact  with  objects  that  are  conductors. 
 
 The  whole  theory,  he  claimed,  was  a  fanciful  speculation. 
 In  the  same  issue  the  editor  says  the  saddest  impression  made 
 on  him  by  Schaff's  address  and  Nevin's  sermon  is  that  its 
 principles  would  be  a  barrier  to  the  union  of  the  two  churches, 
 which,  alas,  proved  only  too  true,  as  they  later  became  sepa- 
 rated more  and  more  on  account  of  Nevinism.* 
 
 The  editor  disclaims  (October  16)  the  charge  made  by  some 
 of  the  Nevinists  that  his  paper  was  gratuitously  circulated 
 among  the  ministers  of  the  German  Reformed  Church  to 
 prejudice  them  against  Nevin.  He  says  that  a  worthy  individual 
 procured  some  twenty  or  thirty  copies  of  the  Intelligencer 
 from  the  office  and  circulated  them,  but  that  the  editor  was 
 not  responsible  for  it.  As  the  Messenger  had  now  opened  its 
 columns  to  both  parties  in  the  German  Reformed  Church  he 
 would  hereafter  abstain  from  editorial  comment.  But  articles 
 continued  to  appear  in  the  Intelligencer  against  Nevin  and 
 Schaff  by  Berg  and  Helffenstein  and  Ilciner.  Ilelffenstein  has 
 an  article  (Dec.  18)  quoting  Schaff  as  favoring  Puseyism, 
 when  he  said  *'he  goes  with  young  Oxford."  Guldin,  for- 
 merly of  our  Church  but  now  in  the  Dutch  Church,  jniblished 
 extracts  from  the  theological  lectures  of  the  late  Prof.  F.  L. 
 Herman  to  show  that  the  German  Reformed  Church  was  orig- 
 inally Calvinistie  and  against  tlie  newer  views  of  Nevin. 
 
 *One  of  the  writers  in  the  TntcUigcvccr,  arguing  against  tliis  emphasis 
 of  Mercersburg  theology  on  the  necessity  of  outward  church  rites,  sup- 
 poses a  case  of  careless,  unbaptized  ])ersons  on  a  desert  island,  who 
 were  converted  by  reading  the  Bible,  organized  themselves  into  a 
 church,  elected  a  pastor  from  their  number,  lived  and  died  without  any 
 other  means  of  grace.  He  asks  would  they  be  lost  because  they  had  re- 
 ceived none  of  the  rites  of  the  Church  from  a  projierly  accredited  minis- 
 try. This  supposition  evidently  annoyed  Nevin,  for  he  refers  to  it  in  one 
 of  his  articles  but  fails  to  answer  it. 
 
224        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 D.  Aitaclis  on  Schaff  hij  Other  Church  Papers. — The  Pro- 
 testant church  papers,  except  the  Episcopalian,  disapproved 
 of  Schaff 's  position.  The  Princeton  Repertory  (Presby- 
 terian), reviewed  it  favorably  as  to  its  ability,  ])ut  criticised 
 him  for  his  tendency  toward  Puseyisni,  for  givintjj  more  weiojht 
 to  tradition  than  was  done  by  l*rotestants ;  also  for  his  finding 
 fault  with  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland  because  it  seceded 
 from  the  State  Church;  also  criticised  his  secti(m  about  the 
 sects  as  being  marred  by  false  principles.  The  CaihoUc  Her- 
 ald (Episcopalian)  went  into  raptures  over  it,— that  a  Protest- 
 ant should  concede  so  much  to  the  Catholic  Church  as  to  say 
 it  was  a  true  Church.  The  True  Catholic  of  Maryland  went 
 into  ecstasies  that  now  the  German  Reformed  sect  was  on  the 
 eve  of  joining  the  Church.  In  Germany  the  Palm-Leaves, 
 published  by  Dr.  Knunmacher,  said  Schaff  was  charged  with 
 mysticism,  transcendentalism,  Puseyism,  yes,  with  a  Romaniz- 
 ing tendency. 
 
 E.  Nevin's  Reply  in  His  Atiicles  on  Pseudo-Protestantism. 
 '^In  the  Messenger  of  August  13,  1845,  Nevin  began  a  series 
 
 of  articles  replying  to  these  attacks.  He  tried  to  show  that 
 the  views  of  his  opponents  were  not  true  Protestantism  but 
 a  false  or  Pseudo-Protestantism— an  extreme  Protestant  view. 
 He  defined  the  distinction  between  a  true  and  a  pure  Church. 
 The  true  church  was  one  that  had  a  regular  ministry,  where 
 the  Word  of  God  was  preached  and  the  Christian  sacraments 
 were  properly  administered.  The  Roman  Church,  he  claimed, 
 ijH'as  a  true  church.  He  refused  over  against  his  opponents 
 to  uncluirch  the  entire  Romish  conununion  as  such  by  denying 
 the  validity  of  their  baptism.  In  this  Prof.  ( -luirles  Hodge,  of 
 Princeton  Tbeological  Seminary,  agreed  with  liiiii  and  had 
 opposed  the  action  of  the  Presbyterian  General  Ass('ml)ly  in 
 1845  when  it  denied  the  validity  of  Romish  baptism.  Dr. 
 Nevin  thus  tried  to  answer  Berg's  first  charge,  namely,  that 
 his  views  had  a  Romanizing  tendency.  He  then  replies  to 
 Berg's  second  charge,  namely,  that  he  held  to  a  "spiritual 
 real  presence"  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  He  grants  this  and 
 claims  it  is  the  doctrine  of  tlu;  Reformed  confessions.     "Real 
 
The  Principle  of  Protestantism.  225 
 
 presence,"  lie  defines,  "is  a  literal  concorporation,  an  actual 
 insertion  into  the  substance  of  Christ's  humanity."  lie  claims 
 that  he  represents  Calvin's  doctrine  that  Christ's  humanity 
 had  a  vivitic  presence  (streaming  from  his  body  to  earth  like 
 the  rays  of  the  sun — A.).  Nevin  however,  grants  that  he  goes 
 beyond  Calvin  in  his  psychology  for  he  tries  to  correct  Cal- 
 vin's false  psychology  by  a  proper  conception  of  organism 
 and  a  proper  distinction  between  the  genus  and  the  individual, 
 M'hich  was  made  by  realism.  It  had  been  suggested  by  his  op- 
 ponents that  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a 
 real  spiritual  presence  not  a  spiritual  real  presence  as  he  held. 
 They  charged  that  the  latter  phrase  came  from  the  Catholics. 
 He  replies  that  he  can  not  accept  their  phrase : 
 
 "Because  Christ  is  tliere,  by  virtue  of  his  ever-living  present  divinity 
 and  it  may  be  by  the  efficacious  presence  of  the  Spirit  just  as  he  is 
 present  in  the  rolling  stone  and  the  evening  zephyr." 
 
 Section  6.    The  Action  on  it  Within  Our  Church. 
 
 A.  The  Attack  of  Philadelphia  Classis. — The  previous  at- 
 tacks were  non-official.  This  was  more  serious  because  by  an 
 official  body  of  the  Church.  Philadelphia  classis,  at  a  meet- 
 ing September  16,  1845,  appointed  a  committee  to  examine 
 the  "Principle  of  Protestantism."  This  committee,  of  which 
 Berg  was  the  chairman,  reported  against  it.  The  report  ob- 
 jected to  Schaff's  imdervaluation  of  Scripture  in  favor  of  tra- 
 dition, to  his  emphasis  on  the  sacraments  rather  than  on  faith 
 as  the  life-giving  principle  of  Christianity^  and  to  his  views 
 of  Christ's  corporeal  presence  at  the  Lord's  Supper.  Over 
 against  this,  it  held  that  the  Bible  was  the  rule  of  faith,  that 
 the  sacraments  were  only  a  channel  of  grace  and  that  their 
 efficacy  depended  on  the  subjective  state  of  the  believer, 
 namely,  faith.  It  considered  Schaff's  divergences  so  serious 
 that  classis  called  the  attention  of  synod  to  them.  These  reso- 
 lutions were  adopted,  only  one  voting  against  all  of  them, 
 Foulk,  although  Kessler,  Young  and  Kooken  voted  against 
 some  of  them.  But  the  Helffensteins,  of  whom  there  were 
 four,  w'ith  Berg  and  Bibighaus,  were  the  majority.  Nevin 
 used  to  say  it  was  the  Helffenstein  faction  who  opposed  him 
 
226        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 in  the  Church.  But  the}-  were  not  the  only  ones,  for  the  con- 
 troversy was  more  than  a  personal  one;  great  principles  and 
 doctrines  were  at  stake. 
 
 The  classis  also  expressed  regret  that  the  Messenger  should 
 close  its  columns  to  the  opponents  of  Nevin  and  Schaff,  while 
 surrendering  its  pages  to  Nevin  for  such  a  long  and  severe 
 series  of  articles  against  his  opponents  as  Pseudo-Protestant- 
 ism. (This  was  the  reason  why  a  number  of  our  ministers,  as 
 Berg,  J.  Helffenstein  and  Ileincr  were  compelled  to  write 
 in  the  Lutlieran  Observer  and  Christian  Intelligencer,  because 
 their  articles  were  not  accepted  by  the  Alessenger.)  The 
 classis  concluded  its  action  by  declaring  itself  in  favor  of  the 
 doctrine,  which  Schaff  and  Nevin  opposed,  namely,  that  the 
 Romish  Church  was  the  great  apostasy,  the  man  of  sin,  the 
 mother  of  abominations,  etc.,  and  as  such  was  destined  to 
 utter  and  fearful  destruction. 
 
 B.  The  Action  of  East  Pennsylvania  Classis. — While  Phila- 
 delphia classis  attacked  Nevin  and  Schaff,  East  Pennsylvania 
 Classis  defended  them.  At  its  meeting  (Oct.  1)  it  passed  a 
 resolution,  defending  the  professors  at  Mercersburg  and  or- 
 dering its  delegates  to  synod  to  do  so  on  the  floor  of  synod. 
 The  action  was  not  quite  unanimous.  Wack,  one  of  the  oldest 
 and  most  influential  ministers,  voted  against  it,  thus  joining 
 the  Helffensteins  in  Philadelphia  classis  in  their  opposition  to 
 Nevin. 
 
 C.  The  Discussion  in  Our  Church  Papers. — 
 
 After  the  protest  of  Philadelphia  classis,  the  Mcsscnrjer  opened  its 
 columns  to  articles  on  the  other  side,  and  published  an  article  from  the 
 Lutheran  Observer  on  the  "real  presence,"  which  had  been  written  by 
 Berg.  Nevin  replied  by  an  article  on  ' '  The  Mystical  Union. ' '  Heiner  wrote 
 an  article  against  Nevin  and  Schaff,  calling  attention  to  a  distinction 
 to  be  made,  in  the  historical  connection  of  Protestantism  with  Apostolic 
 Christianity,  between  the  visible  and  invisible.  There  was  no  visible 
 Evangelical  Church  from  the  first  to  the  sixteenth  centuries,  but  the 
 invisible  church  existed  in  all  true  believers.  In  the  next  issues  of  the 
 Messenger,  Nevin  finds  a  number  of  defenders  as  Sechler,  Bomberger, 
 Glessner,  Brettell  and  B.  Wolff  (of  whom  the  first  three  afterwards  be- 
 came his  strong  opponents  in  the  liturgical  controversy).  Heiner  in  a 
 second  article  contrasts  the  Protestantism  of  Mercersburg  with  the  Pro- 
 
The  Principle  op  Protestantism.  227 
 
 testantism  of  the  Bible  and  of  the  German  Reformed  Chiircli.  He  espe- 
 cially attacks  Schaff  's  statement  that  Puseyism  was  a  legitimate  reac- 
 tion against  the  rationalistic  Psendo-Protestantism  as  well  as  against 
 the  religious  subjectivism  of  the  low-church  party  of  the  Episcopalians. 
 He  ironically  declares  that  Schaff  has  the  honor  of  introducing  the 
 American  Church  to  Oxford  and  then  to  Rome.  He  also  criticised 
 Schaff  for  suggesting  as  cures  of  the  evils  of  Protestantism,  the  revival 
 of  pictures,  images,  crosses,  beautifying  the  sanctuaries  and  altars  and 
 emphasizing  the  objective  in  the  sacraments,  but  the  German  Reformed 
 Church  says  we  are  ('hristians  not  by  being  in  the  Church  but  by  being 
 in  Christ.  He  closes  by  saying  that  since  the  publication  of  Schaff 's 
 "Principle  of  Protestantism"  and  Nevin 's  "Catholic  Unity"  there  had 
 been  a  woeful  lack  of  unity  in  the  German  Reformed  Church. 
 
 Section  7.     The  Action  op  the  Eastern  Synod  on  the 
 "Principle  op  Protestantism"  (1845). 
 
 Such  was  the  condition  of  affairs  when  the  synod  met  at 
 York,  Oct.  16,  18-15.  It  received  the  complaint  of  Philadel- 
 phia elassis,  also  two  letters  from  Revs.  Strassburger 
 and  I.  Gerhart,  expressing  their  belief  that  the  charges 
 were  nnfomided.  It  declared  the  complaint  of  Philadelphia 
 elassis  irregular,  because  not  first  presented  to  the  board  of 
 visitors.  The  professors,  however,  waived  this  constitution- 
 ality and  the  synod  proceeded  with  the  case.  It  was  referred 
 to  a  committee  of  one  from  each  elassis :  Wolff,  Bibighaus, 
 Iloffeditz,  Leinbach,  Ziegler,  Kreiner,  Seibert,  Ilensell  and 
 Welker.*  The  investigation  lasted  four  days.  This  was  the 
 only  meeting  of  the  Eastern  synod  that  lasted  over  two  Sim- 
 days.  The  committee's  report  vindicated  the  book  and  its 
 position  on  tradition,  etc.  It  also  criticised  the  action  of 
 Philadelphia  elassis  as  revealing  an  absence  of  consideration 
 and  forethought,  and  it  reconunended  that  the  professors  of 
 the  seminary  receive  the  support  and  confidence  of  the  Church. 
 Berg  spoke  for  two  hours,  Nevin  for  two,  Schaff  for  three, 
 mainly  in  German.  Berg  replied  and  Schaff  replied  in  Eng- 
 lish to  hiuL  The  report  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  37  to  3,  Berg 
 being  the  only  minister  voting  in  the  minority.     There  were 
 
 *It  is  interesting  to  note  that  four  of  these,  almost  one-half  of  the 
 committee,  later  became  strong  op]>onents  of  Nevin  in  the  liturgical 
 controversy:   Bibighaus,  Holi'editz,  Ziegler  and  Welker. 
 
228        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  TJ.  S. 
 
 however,  other  ministers  sympathizing  with  Berg,  some  of 
 whom  were  present  at  the  synod  but  who  were  not  members 
 and,  therefore,  had  no  vote,  as  Ileiner  and  Prof.  Lewis 
 IMayer.*  This  partly  explains  why  Nevin  and  bis  followers 
 detracted  continually  from  Prof.  Lewis  ]\Iayer's  ability  and 
 work.  It  Avas  because  Mayer  opposed  them.  Bei-g  entered  an 
 eloquent  protest  against  the  report,  concluding  witli  tbe  his- 
 toric words  of  Luther,  ''Here  I  stand,  I  can  not  do  otherwise." 
 The  synod  appointed  a  committee  to  reply  to  Berg's  protest. 
 Schaff  and  his  book  were  thus  vindicated  by  synod.  The  de- 
 bate was  sharp,  but  Berg  at  the  end  of  it  said,  "It  makes  me 
 sad  that  Proff.  Schaff  and  I  must  strike  at  each  other,  and  I 
 must  grant  he  has  a  very  hard  head.  But  at  tbe  same  time 
 I  can  draw  his  heart  to  mine  with  the  utmost  love. '  'f 
 
 Schaff  afterwards  said  that  if  the  result  had  been  otherwise, 
 he  would  have  gone  right  back  to  Berlin,  Germany.  He  wrote 
 gleefully  to  Dr.  Krummacher's  church  paper  the  "Palm- 
 Leaves,"  of  his  victory  at  synod,!  also  stating  that  in  many 
 German  Reformed  churches  in  America  there  was  no  catechi- 
 zation,  no  confirmation,  no  observance  of  the  Church  festivals, 
 no  congregational  singing,  and  that  in  Berg's  chilrch  the  mode 
 of  worship  was  likc^  the  Presbyterian.  Schaff  says§  that  the 
 synod  of  1845  did  not  adopt  the  Principle  of  Protestantism, 
 He  had  not  expected  that.  But  it  declared  the  charges  against 
 him  as  mi  founded  and  that  his  views  were  not  a  departure 
 from  those  of  the  German  Reformed  Church.  It  had  not  de- 
 clared Nevin 's  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as  the  only  true 
 one,  but  it  had  refused  the  Zwinglian  views  of  liis  opponents. 
 He  says  the  German  Reformed  Church  adopted  a  principle 
 whose  consequences  would  be  remarkable,  viz,  giving  up  I'uri- 
 tanism  and  Methodism  and  going  back  to  the  C-hui-cli-tbeory. 
 Dr.  Schaff  in  this  article  shoots  beyond  the  action  of  tlie  synod. 
 
 *Sce  Valm-Leaves  of  Krununaclicr,  1S4(),  ims*'  l^f*- 
 
 fThe  Ohio  synod,  1845,  exaniinod  SdialT's  i);nnplil«'t  and  rccoiiiiiicndcd 
 it  for  circulation. 
 
 JAppcl  says  it  was  a  victory  of  lof^ic  over  rhotoric.  lie  misses  entirely 
 the  gravity  of  the  situation,  for  great  principles  were  at  stake,  as  is 
 evidenced  "by  the  length  and  severity  of  the  controversy  that  followed. 
 
 IPalmUatter,  1847,  114. 
 
The  Principle  op  Protestantism.  229 
 
 when  carefully  examined,  for  some  of  the  things  he  refers  to 
 never  came  up  Ix'fore  that  synod  for  action. 
 
 Philadelphia  classis  met  September  16,  1846.  It  took  no- 
 tice of  synod's  statement  that -they  liad  shown  want  of  fore- 
 thought and  consideration  in  their  action.  This  they  deny 
 and  they  renew  their  action: 
 
 1.  That  Scripture  over  against  tradition  is  the  only  rule  of 
 faith  and  practice. 
 
 2.  That  the  sacraments  have  no  inherent  efficacy. 
 
 3.  That  the  actual  humanity  of  Christ  is  not  on  earth  and 
 that  his  presence  is  none  the  less  real  "because  divine  and 
 spiritual. 
 
 They  approved  of  Berg's  protest.  They  oppose  Schaff's 
 advocacy  in  his  pamphlet  of  the  use  of  images  as  aids  to  devo- 
 tion, as  a  dangerous  innovation,  contrary  to  the  simplicity  of 
 Reformed  worship  and  to  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  (Answers 
 97  and  98).  As  to  Schaff's  theory  of  historical  development, 
 while  they  admitted  there  was  truth  in  all  ages  in  the  Romish 
 Church,  yet  they  could  not  regard  it  as  the  main  stream  but 
 as  the  great  apostasy,  the  opposite  of  the  Reformed  Church 
 and  the  Heidelberg  Catechism. 
 
 The  complaint  of  Philadelphia  classis  against  the  editor 
 of  the  Messenger  for  not  admitting  the  articles  of  Schaff's  op- 
 jionents  also  came  before  this  synod.  Synod  refused  to  cen- 
 sure the  editor  but  suggested  that  the  colunms  of  the  paper 
 should  be  impartially  accessible  to  all  temperate  and  judicious 
 communications  on  any  doctrine  and  practical  subject  agitat- 
 ing the  Church.  D.  E.  F.,  a  friend  of  Nevin,  in  the  Messenger, 
 April  21,  says  the  synod  left  the  great  question  (about 
 Schaff's  principles)  open  and  undecided, — it  simply  declared 
 that  there  were  no  grounds  for  charges. 
 
 The  action  of  the  synod  failed  to  quiet  the  Church.  There 
 was  a  small  but  a  very  respectable  minority,  composed  of  the 
 Helffenstcins,  Berg,  Heiner,  Zacharias,  Wack,  Prof.  Mayer 
 and  othei's  outspoken  in  their  opposition  to  Nevin. 
 
 The  discussion  continued  in  the  church  papers.  Nevin  continued  writ- 
 ing in  the  Messenger.  Hudson  defended  Nevin,  making  the  Church  and 
 tradition  equal.     Jacob  Helffenstein  wrote  in  the  Lutheran  Observer  on  the 
 
230         History  op  Reformed  CnuRcn  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 likenesses  of  Mereersburg  theology  to  Puseyism  (1)  on  the  real  presence, 
 (2)  the  inherrtit  efficacy  of  the  sacraments,  (3)  the  mystical  union,  (4) 
 tradition,  etc.  (the  editor  of  the  Messenger  having  refused  the  article). 
 J.  G.  Z.  defends  Nevin  and  ffttacks  J.  llelffenstein  in  the  Messenger. 
 Nevin,  on  January  14,  attempts  to  quote  Ursinus  in  his  favor,  and 
 charges  his  opponents  with  being  rationalists  because  holding  to  the  low 
 Zwinglian  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  (This  is  not  a  true  charge,  for 
 the  memorial  view  grants  the  supernatural,  which  the  rationalists  do  not. 
 — .4.)  By  January  21  Nevin  finds  a  new  supporter  and  that  in  the 
 Dutch  Church  in  Prof.  Taylor  Lewis,  of  Union  College,  Schenectady, 
 N.  Y.  He  claims  that  the  resemblances  between  Mereersburg  theology 
 and  Puseyism  were  more  a])parent  than  real,  and  that  its  authors  were 
 honest  in  their  devotion  to  Protestantism.  lie  approves  of  their  theory 
 of  Christianity  as  a  life  rather  than  a  doctrine,  but  can  not  believe  that 
 through  the  black  line  of  popes  the  true  vitality  of  Christ's  mystical 
 body  could  have  flowed.  He  differed  from  Schaff  on  some  points,  as 
 when  he  says  that  the  Keformation  is  a  return  to  primitive  Christianity, 
 ■ — that  the  papacy  was  necessary  to  such  a  rude  era  as  the  Middle  Ages 
 and  is  still  a  necessity  in  Spain,  Italy  and  Ireland.  He  defends  Puritan- 
 ism, which  Schaff  had  so  severely  attacked  and  believed  Schaff  had  not 
 done  full  justice  to  the  Evangelical  tendencies  of  the  day  in  the  United 
 States.  He  agreed  with  Nevin 's  positions  l)ut  he  was  inclined  to  make 
 the  mystical  union  to  be  with  the  human  soul  of  the  Eedeemer,  rather 
 than  with  his  humanity.  On  January  28,  1846,  Berg  and  Nevin  began 
 a  controversy  in  the  Messenger  on  the  Mystical  Union.  It  began  with 
 organic  unity  viewed  spiritually  and  went  on  to  organic  unity  viewed 
 bodily.  The  controversy  lasted  until  March  25.  Sechler  defends  Nevin, 
 saying  Nevin  held  Calvin's  views.  Prof.  W.  W.  Nevin  tried  to  popular- 
 ize Nevin 's  views  by  a  dialogue  in  the  Messenger  between  'Squire 
 Schlosser  and  Solomon  Traxler,  to  which  S.  llelffenstein,  Jr.,  replied 
 in  another  dialogue.  Guldin,  of  the  Dutch  Church,  also  published  in  the 
 Messenger  a  translation  of  Stajifer,  the  Swiss  theologian,  against  Nevin, 
 and  S.  Helffenstein  quotes  Hci<legger,  of  Switzerland,  against  him. 
 
Marshall  College. 
 
 Chapter  II. 
 
 The  Dogmatical  Preparation — The  Formulation  of  the 
 Mercersburg  Theology. 
 
 Further  discussion  in  the  Messenger  was  now  overtopped  by 
 the  publication  of  two  books  which  were  intended  to  define  the 
 system  of  tlie  Mercersburg  Theoh^gy,  the  one  from  a  historical 
 standpoint,  the  other  from  a  doctrinal.  The  first  was  "What 
 is  Church  History,  a  Vindication  of  Historical  Development," 
 by  Schaff;  the  other  was  "The  Mystical  Presence,"  by  Nevin. 
 The  preface  of  both  books  was  dated  the  same,  April,  1846, 
 showing  that  they  intended  to  publish  them  together  and 
 thus  formulate  the  new  theology.  They  had  evidently  felt 
 themselves  strengthened  by  the  action  of  the  last  synod  and 
 now  went  farther  on  the  offensive.  The  year  1846  was,  there- 
 fore, epochal  for  their  dogmatics,  as  1857  was  later  for  their 
 liturgy. 
 
 231 
 
232        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 ►Section  1.    "What  is  Church  History"  by  Schaff. 
 
 This  pamphlet  was  intended  to  be  a  vindication  of  the 
 tlieory  of  historical  development  as  already  announced  in  his 
 ' '  Principle  of  Protestantism. ' ' 
 
 "He  opens  with  a  fine  review  of  the  methods  of  studying  Church  his- 
 tory.* He  then  gives  a  historic  description  of  the  various  methods  of 
 studying  church  history. 
 
 The  first  form  of  church  liistory  was  a  simple  record  of  events.  Out 
 of  this  grew, 
 
 1.  The  orthodox  historiography,  which  appears  in  two  forms:  A.  The 
 Eomish  method,  w^hich  regarded  the  Church  in  its  system  of  doctrine  and 
 life  as  complete  from  the  start.  B.  The  old  Protestant  method.  This 
 was  freer  and  more  spiritual  than  the  Romish,  but,  like  it,  looked  upon 
 history  as  fixed, — the  Catholic,  by  the  Church,  the  Protestant,  by  the 
 Bible.     All  advances  must  be  made  within  these  limits. 
 
 2.  Eationalistic  (the  other  extreme).  It  regarded  nothing  as  fixed  but 
 everything  as  changing.     This  he  divided  into  two  forms : 
 
 a.  Pietistie.  Although  this  claims  to  hold  to  the  supernatural,  yet  its 
 low  views  of  the  church  and  sacraments  makes  it  powerfully  serve  the 
 cause  of  skepticism.f 
 
 b.  Eationalistic.  This  made  history  a  purely  subjective  play  of 
 human  passion.  Hegelianism  makes  history  the  self-evolution  of  the 
 absolute  spirit.  But  this  ignores  the  divine  presence  in  history  and 
 made  evil  a  necessity,  a  negative  condition  of  moral  progress. 
 
 3.  The  last  method  is  the  modern  method  of  historical  development, 
 midway  between  the  orthodox  and  rationalist.  Historical  development  is 
 history  in  growth, — organic, — a  process  of  life,  springing  from  the  vital 
 energy  imparted  by  Christ.  Against  the  orthodox,  it  insisted  that  his- 
 tory was  not  fixed  by  the  past,  but  developed  with  the  ages.  Over 
 against  the  rationalists,  it  insisted  on  an  organic  connection  with  the 
 past,  so  that  history  was  not  mere  chance.  This  organic  development 
 was  carried  on  by  dialectic  opposites  and  extremes.  Development,  which 
 is  the  key  to  all,  takes  places  along  three  lines,  restoration,  revolution 
 and  reformation.  The  two  first  are  opposites  and  tlie  latter,  standing 
 midway  between  the  two,  is  the  true  one. 
 
 *In  its  topics  and  arrangement,  it  reminds  one  of  the  masterly  article 
 by  Prof.  Ranch  on  "The  Historiography  of  Germany,"  published  in  tlie 
 Biblical  Repository,  1837,  only  it  is  fuller  and  more  recent. 
 
 fPietistic-rationalism  is  a  contradiction.  Even  a  historian  like  Schaff 
 could  not  put  pietism  and  rationalism  together.  Schaff  and  his  followers 
 charged  Puritanism  with  rationalism  because  it  held  lower  views  on  the 
 sacraments  and  the  church  than  they.  But  of  all  men  the  Puritans  could 
 not  be  called  rationalistic.     Their  pietism  saved  them  from  it. — A.) 
 
Formulation  of  Mercersburg  Theology.  233 
 
 Prof.  Schaff  in  this  book  reveals  the  same  wide  grasp  of  his 
 subject  that  he  did  in  the  "Principle  of  Protestantism."  But 
 the  work  does  not  come  up  to  it  hi  breadth  of  thought,  perhaps 
 because  its  theme  is  narrower.  Some  parts  of  it,  as  his  eulogy 
 of  Herder,  are  beautiful.  lie  follows  Neander  in  his  historical 
 development,  but  grants  that  Neander  was  not  churchly  (p. 
 75)).  So  Dr.  Schaff  must  have  gotten  his  high-church  ideas 
 somewhere  else  than  from  his  teacher.  His  later  development 
 shows  that  he  had  been  affected  by  the  Puseyism  of  England. 
 But  while  his  work  is  open  to  criticism,  we  cannot  agree  with 
 the  judgment  of  Prof.  Proudfit,  of  the  Dutch  Church,  that 
 Prof.  Schaff'  was  not  a  historian.  He  was  a  historian,  but  his 
 method  of  history  included  in  it  some  wrong  principles.  He 
 is  open  to  criticism  : 
 
 1.  For  his  Hegelian  methods.  Although  he  criticises  Hege- 
 lianism  for  its  rationalism,  yet  he  constantly  used  its  methods 
 himself,  indeed  grants  them  (p.  76).  Thus  he  states  Hegel's 
 principle  of  history,  that  the  historian  should  resign  himself 
 without  prejudice  to  his  subject  and  let  it  become  a  living  re- 
 •production  of  its  own  according  to  its  nature.  We  reply  that 
 even  Hegel  could  not  fultil  his  ideal  here,  for  he  came  to  the 
 study  of  history  with  certain  pre-judgments ;  one  was  his  pan- 
 theism, another  his  extreme  philosophical  realism,  and  a  third 
 his  lack  of  historicity.  This  so-called  "scientific  spirit"  is  a 
 farce,  because  it  fails  to  note  its  own  predilections  and,  there- 
 fore, blinds  its  owners  to  their  own  errors. 
 
 There  have  been  three  kinds  of  idealism  in  Germany :  1 , 
 subjective  (Fichte),  which  emphazied  our  idea  of  a  thing  as 
 being  the  only  reality,  2  objective  (Sehelling),  which  empha- 
 sized the  real  existence  of  the  objective,  that  nature's  reality 
 is  the  foundation  of  our  own;  3,  absolute  (Hegel),  which  said 
 that  the  reality  existed  neither  in  the  subjective  nor  in  the 
 objective,  but  in  their  relation  ;  the  relation  existing  between 
 both  was  the  great  reality,  more  so  than  either  subjective  or 
 objective.  Thus,  take  as  an  illustration  a  tree :  As  we  think 
 of  it,  it  has  three  aspects,  the  idea  of  it  in  our  mind  (sub- 
 jective, Fichte),  the  tree  itself,  (objective,  Sehelling),  and 
 the  relation  between  the  tree  and  our  idea  of  it   (absolute, 
 
234        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Hegel).  Schaff  reveals  the  latter  (p.  93),  where  he  says,  "de- 
 velopment is  carried  on  bj'  dialectic  opposites  and  extremes" 
 (p.  96), — truth  lies  not  in  extremes  but  in  the  middle  of  the 
 place  where  they  meet. 
 
 But  all  this  is  false.  Truth  is  not  always  double  and 
 lying  as  the  medium.  Truth  is  often  single.  The  reality 
 does  not  depend  on  the  relation  of  things,  it  can  exist 
 without  relations  as  God  does,  who  is  The  Truth  and  ex- 
 isted before  he  had  any  relations.  Dr.  Schaff 's  attempt  to 
 find  the  truth  midway  between  two  extremes  by  placing  them 
 opposite  to  each  other,  has  made  his  many  histories  excellent 
 rhetorically,  but  so  diffuse  that  one  is  oftcm  uncertain  of  his 
 exact  meaning.  For  the  sake  of  bringing  out  the  two  sides  of 
 truth  according  to  the  Hegelian  method  he  sacrifices  clearness 
 aiul  directness  of  thought.  In  always  trying  to  establish  rela- 
 tions he  has  overloaded  his  histories  with  unnecessary  ma- 
 terials.*! 
 
 Section  2.    "The  Mystical  Presence,"  by  Nevin. 
 
 This  book  is  a  profound  and  scholarly  statement  of  the  doc- 
 trine of  our  Union  with  Christ,  especially  through  the  Lord's 
 Supper  and  the  Church.  It  is  an  elaboration  of  his  previous 
 views  as  expressed  in  his  sermon  on  Catholic  Unity  and  as 
 developed  in  the  controversy  into  which  he  was  drawTi  by  the 
 publication  of  the  "Principle  of  Protestantism."  It  purports 
 to  be  a  vindication  of  the  Reformed  or  Calvinistic  doctrine  of 
 tiie  Lord's  Supper. 
 
 *The  Puritan  Recorder  says  Schaff 's  "What  is  Church  History"  did 
 not  mention  Klieforth  and  yet  tliere  is  a  strong  affinity  when  Klieforth's 
 article  is  compeared  with  Schaff 's  pamphlet. 
 
 fThe  biographer  of  Scliaff  (page  127)  gives  the  following  humorous 
 incident  about  Schaff 's  emphasis  on  historical  development:  Some 
 cfdored  men  working  at  the  college  grounds  at  Mercersburg  overheard 
 the  discussions  of  the  students  about  historical  development.  Greatly 
 perplexed  about  them,  they  had  recourse  to  Brooks  as  to  "what  this 
 here  devilment  theory  meant  which  them  thar  students  war  talking 
 about  so  much  in  the  hall."  Brooks  was  a  loader  among  the  colored 
 population  of  the  village  and  also  a  constant  champion  of  Nevin  and 
 Schaff.  "Devilment,"  said  he;  "devilment,  I  guess  they  have  been 
 enough  devilment  already.  If  them  siudents  don't  look  out,  the  old 
 devil  will  get  hold  of  them  sure." 
 
Formulation  of  Mercersburg  Theology.  235 
 
 He  opens  with  a  translatiou  of  an  article  by  Prof.  Ullman,  of  Heidel- 
 ])€Tg  University,  Germany,  in  the  German  theological  publication  "  Stu- 
 dien  and  Kritiken,"  of  January,  1846,  on  "The  Distinguishing  Char- 
 acteristic of  Christianity. ' '  This  makes  religion  to  be  a  life  and  to 
 be  organic.  On  this  article  as  a  basis,  Nevin  builds  up  his  doctrine 
 of  the  Mystical  Presence.  Pie  develops  the  subject  first  historically 
 and  then  dogmatically.  He  first  describes  the  Calviuistic  doctrine  of  the^ 
 Lord's  Supper,  attempting  to  prove  it  from  the  Reformed  creeds.  He 
 then  in  contrast  gives  the  modern  Puritan  theory,  charging  it,  first  as  a 
 departure  from  the  faith  of  the  church  of  all  ages,  and,  second,  with  an 
 affinity  with  rationalism  and  the  sects.  He  then  goes  to  the  dogmatic 
 statement  of  his  positions,  first  scientifically  defining  the  mystical  union 
 and  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord  's  Supper,  and  then,  secondly,  building  up  a 
 Biblical  argument  on  the  incarnation,  the  new  creation,  the  second  Adam, 
 Christianity  a  life,  the  mystical  union,  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  is  an 
 elaborate  program  for  a  new  theology,  which  he  claims,  however,  was  a 
 repristination  or  restatement  of  Calvin's.  His  doctrine  involved  the  fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 1.  The  incarnation.  The  Divine  took  generic  humanity  on  him- 
 self and  the  divine  and  the  human  were  so  closely  united  as  to  form  a 
 tertiam  quid  (a  third  entity). 
 
 2.  Christianity  is  a  life,  not  a  doctrine  or  a  work.  By  this  life  Christ 
 is  united  to  us  through  the  Church.  This  theanthropie  (divine-human) 
 life  is  introduced  into  us  as  a  germ  at  regeneration,  it  is  nurtured  by  the 
 Lord  's  Suj)]ier  and  comi)leted  only  at  our  resurrection^ 
 
 3.  The  sacraments  are  real  participation  in  his  humanity  as  well  as  in 
 his  divinity  and  this  gives  them  objective  force  or  intrinsic  grace  in 
 themselves.*  _i 
 
 In  glancing  over  the  book  the  first  thing  that  impresses  one 
 is  his  elevation  of  Calvin  as  the  great  Reformer  of  our  Church. 
 In  contrast  with  this  is  his  lowering  of  the  authority  of 
 Zwingli  as  the  founder  of  the  Reformed  Church.  He  says 
 Zwingli's  relation   was  exceedingly   external   and  accidental. 
 
 *Sonie  one  has  summarized  the  five  points  of  difference  between 
 Nevin  's  view,  which  he  claimed  to  be  Calvinistic,  and  what  he  called  the 
 modern  Puritan  view,  as  follows:  1.  Calvin  made  the  Lord's  Sui)per 
 different  from  all  other  forms  of  worship  by  a  peculiarity  of  its  own. 
 2.  It  was  looked  on  as  a  mystery,  nay,  in  some  sense  as  an  actual 
 miracle.  3.  It  had  objective  force,  i.  e.,  was  potential  in  itself.  It  had 
 intrinsic  efficacy, — its  grace  was  j)resent  where  not  excluded  by  unbelief. 
 4.  It  was  a  real  ))articipation  in  (,'hrist's  presence.  It  was  not  merely  a 
 communion  with  his  divinity  which  is  everywhere  present,  but  also  with 
 his  liunianity.     H.  It  was  participation  in  Christ's  body  and  blood. 
 
236         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  X'^.  S. 
 
 It  is,  however,  to  be  noticed  that  it  is  only  on  the  Lord's 
 Supper  that  he  agrees  with  Calvin  and  not  on  predestination, 
 which  he  later  severely  attacks.  Here,  however,  he  claims 
 that  his  theory  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  reproduction  of 
 Calvin's  view  of  the  vivific  power  of  Christ's  glorified  l>ody 
 in  heaven  streaming  out  to  us  like  the  rays  of  the  sun.  And 
 yet,  while  claiming  to  reproduce  Calvin  he  also  states  that  he 
 differs  from  Calvin  owing  to  Calvin's  false  psychologj\  He 
 grants  that  some  of  his  views  were  additions.  PI  is  aim,  however, 
 Avas  to  bring  the  great  Reformer  up  to  date.  (Three  men  have 
 .claimed  to  do  this  in  the  nineteenth  century,  Schweitzer  of 
 Switzerland,  Schleiermacher  of  Germany,  and  Nevin  in  Amer- 
 ica. Schweitzer  represents  the  mediating  theology  of  Ger- 
 many, but  inclined  toward  rationalism.  He  claimed  that 
 God's  eternal  decree  must  be  taken  in  a  pantheistic  sense. 
 Schleiermacher  claimed  he  was  Reformed  because  he  too  be- 
 lieved in  God's  decree,  but  that  decree  was  universal,  for  God 
 had  elected  all.  This  was  universal  ism.  Xevin  endeavored  to 
 re-state  not  the  decrees  of  Calvin  as  they  had  done,  but  his 
 doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  In  the  first  two  cases,  the 
 effort  was  unsatisfactory.  Over  against  Schweitzer  Calvinism 
 is  not  pantheism.*  Schleiermacher 's  view  was  false,  for  Calvin 
 always  held  to  particular  election  not  universal.  It  remains 
 to  be  seen  whether  Nevin  will  be  more  successful. — -.4..)  He 
 claims  Calvin's  philosophy  is  false  on  three  points  and  makes 
 three  additions  to  Calvin. 
 
 1.  Calvin  did  not  sufficiently  distinguish  between  law  as  a  life-force 
 and  law  as  a  method  of  procedure.  In  the  former  it  has  oV)jective  force, 
 in  the  latter  only  the  subjective  idea  of  the  mind.f  2.  Calvin  failed  to 
 insist  on  the  absolute  unity  of  the  person.  We  are  not  two  distinct 
 natures,  body  and  soul,  but  these  are  blended  and  intermingled  in  one 
 personality.  So,  too,  Christ  is  not  a  union  of  two  distinct  natures,  for 
 that  would  be  Nestorian.  He  is  a  blending  and  intermingling  of  the 
 two  in  a  third  form,  called  the  theanthroi)ic  life.  3.  Calvin  does  not 
 distinguish  between  the  generic  and  the  universal,  which  Nevin  does  by 
 distinguishing  between  the  generic  and  individual  luimanity.  (He  thus 
 adds  his  intense  realism  to  Calvin. — A.) 
 
 *Fairbairn  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 
 
 fHere  Nevin 's  adherence  to  Schelling's  philosophy  comes  into  view. 
 
Formulation  op  Mercersburg  Theology,  237 
 
 We  might  also  add  to  these  points  that  he  differs  from 
 Calvin  in  his  explanation  of  Calvin's  figure  of  the  vivific 
 rays.  Neviu  claimed  that  that  figure  was  a  reality,  that  those 
 rays  were  Christ's  real  body  coming  down  to  earth.  Calvin, 
 however,  uses  them  as  figurative.  The  reality  was  not  in 
 Christ's  humanity  coming  down  to  us,  as  Nevin  held,  but 
 those  rays,  according  to  Calvin,  were  the  Holy  Spirit  stream- 
 ing down  upon  us.  while  Christ's  glorified  body  remaiiu>d  in 
 heaven. 
 
 We  give  the  statement  of  Dr.  E.  V.  Gorhart,  one  of  Kevin's 
 followers.  It  agrees  with  our  statement,  only  it  is  couched  in 
 their  language : 
 
 "Calvin  fails,  however,  to  distinguish  between  the  idea  of  the  organic 
 law  which  constitutes  the  identity  of  a  human  body  and  the  material 
 volume  it  embraces  as  exhibited  to  the  senses.  He  does  not  insist  with 
 proper  freedom  and  emi)hasis  on  the  absolute  unity  of  w'hat  we  denomi- 
 nate person,  both  in  the  case  of  Christ  and  his  people.  And  he  makes 
 no  clear  distinction  between  the  individual  life  of  Christ  and  the  same 
 life  in  a  generic  view.  Hence,  while  Calvin  emphasized  the  absence  of 
 Christ 's  humanity  from  earth,  the  elevation  of  the  soul  to  him  by  the 
 power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  a  real  participation  of  his  flesh  by  which 
 the  believer  is  nourished  to  eternal  life,  Nevin  emphasized  the  presence 
 of  the  humanity  of  Christ  in  his  Church  on  earth — that  is  of  the  vivific 
 virtue  of  the  human,  hypostatically  one  with  the  divine,  nature — the 
 participation  of  the  believer  in  the  entire  humanity  of  Christ,  the  soul 
 no  less  than  flesh  and  blood."* 
 
 Nevin  therefore  departs  from  Calvin  on  several  fundii7 
 mental  points.  Though  he  claims  to  be  Calvinistic,  it  is  evi- 
 dent that  he  is  not.  He  adds  to  Calvin,  fundamental  philo- 
 sophical principles  that  Calvin  never  knew,  for  Hegelianism 
 and  kSchellingism  had  not  appeared  in  his  day.  These  later_( 
 philosophical  views  added  by  Nevin  changed  everything. 
 Nevin  endeavors  to  pour  these  views  into  Calvinism  or  rather 
 to  state  (Calvinism  according  to  these  later  views.  This  was  a 
 grand  conception,  but  it  could  not  be  done.  Nevin 's  position 
 is  no  longer  that  of  Calvin  because  his  philosophic  position 
 is  entirely  different.  It  was  Calvinism  plus  rationalizing 
 philosophy.     His  realism  was  different;  his  view  of  organism 
 
 *" German  Reformed  Church,"  1863. 
 
238         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 different;  his  view  of  law  different  and  these  were  funda- 
 mental differences.  Wlien  he  goes  to  apply  these  differences 
 to  the  doctrine  of  Christ  he  leaves  Calvin  far  behind. 
 
 In  this  new  system  of  doctrine,  it  is  to  })e  noticed  that  it 
 differs  from  the  old  Reformed  doctrine  on  a  nuiii])er  of  i)()ints.* 
 Old  Reformed  theology  held  that : 
 
 1.  At  the  incarnation  Christ  took  u[)ou  liiinself  individual- 
 ized humanity,  not  generic  as  Nevin  claimed.  But  Nevin 
 claimed  that  he  united  himself  directly  with  the  race  and  only 
 mediately  with  individuals. j 
 
 2.  Christ  was  a  person  of  two  natures,  huuian  and  divine. 
 each  of  which  preserved  its  own  integrity.  Nevin  calls  this 
 Nestorianism,  but  it  was  the  creedal  statement  of  our  Church. 
 Nevin  claimed  that  these  two  natures  are  so  united  in  the  per- 
 son of  Christ  as  to  be  interfused  and  mixed.  On  p.  181  he 
 seems  to  hold  that  Christ  had  one  nature,  not  two.  He  was. 
 therefore,  later  charged  with  Eutychianism  and  pantheism  be- 
 cause he  failed  to  properly  preserve  tiic  distinction  between 
 the  divine  and  the  human.  This  distinction,  pantheism  al- 
 ways blurs  and  in  its  extreme  form  obliterates. 
 
 3.  The  union  with  Christ  was  mediated  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
 Nevin 's  opponents  never  denied,  as  he  chargi'd,  that  religion 
 was  a  life.  They  hold  it  was  a  life,  but  it  was  the  life  of  the 
 Holy  Spirit  in  -us.|  Nevin  added  to  the  old  Reformed  view 
 (that  this  uuion  was  mediated  by  the  Holy  Si)irit)  another 
 view  that  it  was  mediated  by  Christ's  humanity.  The  old  Re- 
 formed view  was  that  Christ's  humanity  was  in  heaven  (see 
 
 ^Although  Nevin  claimecl  to  repristinate  and  coinpletn  Calvin,  yet  the 
 later  Merccrsburg  theologians,  as  Ilarbaugh,  grant  that  Nevinisni  is  an 
 advance  on  old  Reformed  theology.  See  Mercersburg  Review,  1867, 
 page  400. 
 
 fOn  this  Schneck  (Mercersburg  Theology,  page  42)  says  that  all  this 
 is  a  pure  assumption,  1,  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  generic  humanity; 
 2,  that  Christ  took  it;  3,  that  Christ  took  it  for  our  redemption. 
 
 JThey  never  hold  it  was  merely  a  doctrine,  as  Nevin  asserts.  It  was 
 both  life  and  doctrine.  The  doctrine  produced  life,  the  life  crowned  the 
 doctrine.  Nevin,  by  minimizing  doctrine,  knocked  out  the  very  basis 
 of  life  because  life  is  always  intelligent  in  man. 
 
Formulation  of  Mercersburg  Theology.  239 
 
 Heidelberg  Catechism,  answers  47  and  76),  while  Nevin's 
 view  was  tliat  by  virtue  of  its  close  imion  with  the  divine, 
 Christ's  humanity  came  down  to  earth  and  is  present  in  the 
 Lord's  Supper.*  He  here  misunderstands  the  old  Reformed 
 creeds  which  always  state  that  the  union  was  by  the  Holy 
 Spirit, — they  clearly  state  that  Christ's  humanity  was  in 
 heaven  and  not  on  earth  in  the  sacraments.  This  they  espe- 
 cially denounce  as  the  Lutheran  view. 
 
 Indeed  Nevin,  in  the  very  quotations  from  the  Reformers 
 and  our  creeds  in  his  own  book,  reveals  that  it  is  the  Holy 
 Spirit  that  mediates  between  Christ  and  us.  His  own  extracts 
 are  therefore  against  him.  Thus  Calvinf  says  the  union 
 with  Christ  is  only  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  So  does  Beza,$  also 
 the  Gallic  Confession,!  the  Belgic,||  the  Second  Helvetic,^ 
 Ursinus,**  and  Hospinian,ff  as  well  as  quotations  on  pages 
 80,  81,  82,  83,  92,  93.  In  none  of  these  is  Christ's  humanity 
 said  to  come  down  to  us,  but  all  is  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  And 
 yet  Nevin,  from  these  extracts,  tries  to  build  up  proof  for  his 
 system.  He  says±  that  "The  flesh  of  Christ  or  his  humanity 
 forms  the  medium  and  the  only  medium  by  which  it  is  possible 
 for  us  to  be  inserted  into  his  new  life."  But  the  Reformed 
 said  that  all  this  was  done  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  not  by  the  hu- 
 manity of  Christ.  Appel§§  confesses  that  Nevin  is  somewhat 
 contradictory  to  himself  in  saying  now  that  it  is  the  Holy 
 Spirit  who  mediates  between  Christ  and  us  and  at  other  times 
 saying  that  it  is  the  humanity  of  Christ  that  does  this. 
 
 *Nevin  says  Christ  is  related  to  his  people  by  organic  conjunction. 
 "This  makes  him  the  actual  life  principle  of  believers.  It  is  the  sub- 
 stantial conveyance  of  the  very  substance  of  the  incarnate  Christ  to  be- 
 lievers that  saves  them.  The  regeneration  of  believers  flows  from  the 
 general  regeneration  of  humanity  by  the  incarnation. ' ' 
 
 f" Mystical  Presence,"  page  69. 
 
 I" Mystical  Presence,"  page  78. 
 
 §" Mystical  Presence,"  page  79. 
 
 II" Mystical  Presence,"  page  81. 
 
 ^' '  Mystical  Presence, ' '  page  82. 
 
 **" Mystical  Presence,"  page  84. 
 
 ff"Mystical  Presence,"  page  70. 
 
 %%' '  Mystical  Presence, ' '  page  68. 
 
 §§Life  of  Nevin,  page  274. 
 
240         IIisTORv  OF  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 4.  There  is  also  another  distinction  between  the  old  Re- 
 formed view  and  Nevinisni.  Nevin  held  that  Christ's  hnnian- 
 ity  must  come  down  to  ns.  The  old  Reformed  view  was  the 
 opposite,  that  our  hearts  must  be  lifted  up  to  Christ  in  heaven 
 where  Christ's  glorified  body  was.  This  is  the  statement  of 
 their  old  liturgies.  Of  course  this  lifting  up  of  our  hearts  is 
 subjective,  too  subjective  for  Dr.  Nevin,  who  alwa.ys  empha- 
 sized the  objective.  And  yet  (m  page  124  he  grants  that 
 Calvin  says  "I  teach  that  Christ  raises  us  to  himself  so  as 
 to  transfuse  into  us  the  vivific  vigor  of  his  flesh." 
 '  5.  In  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper  the  old  Reformed  view 
 was  that  there  was  no  objective  efficacy  in  the  sacrament. 
 The  reality  in  it  lay  not  in  the  mere  bringing  together  of 
 an  invisible  grace  and  visible  signs,  as  Nevin  held,  but  its 
 reality  to  us  lay  in  bringing  the  believing  heart  into  contact 
 with  the  signs  and  through  them  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  Nevin 
 laid  emphasis  on  the  objective,  the  Reformed  on  the  subjective, 
 side  of  the  act.  The  amount  of  grace  in  the  sacraments  de- 
 pends not  on  the  amount  of  intrinsic  grace  in  the  elements 
 themselves,  as  he  held,  but  on  the  amount  of  faith  in  the  be- 
 liever. The  more  faith  we  have,  the  greater  blessings  we  re- 
 ceive. But  Nevin  held  that  the  sacraments  had  grace  in  them 
 before  the  worshiper  partook  of  them, — that  grace  came  into 
 them  when  they  were  consecrated  by  the  minister  and  that  the 
 grace  did  not  depend  on  the  recipient's  faith  or  act. 
 
 All  this  was  very  different  from  the  views  of  the  Reformed 
 ministers  in  this  country  on  the  Lord's  Supper.  Some  of 
 them  were  so-called  Zwinglians,  holding  the  low  memorial 
 view  and  glorying  in  it  because  it  was  the  view  of  Zwingli, 
 the  founder  of  our  Church.  (3thers  held  a  higher  view,  the 
 spiritual  view  of  Calvin,  but  that  the  grace  in  the  saei-Mineiits 
 came  thi-ough  the  Holy  Spirit.  Christ's  humanity  was  not 
 especially  emphasized  except  as  the  Holy  Spirit  mediated  our 
 connection  with  it.  Prof.  Maj^er  said  in  1844  that  "the  theory 
 of  Calvin  on  the  Lord's  Supper  (the  spiritual,  not  the  Nevin- 
 istic  view)  was  generally  rc^ct^ved  in  our  Church  but  that  that 
 of  Zwingli  had  many  friends.    The  latter  was  gaining  ground 
 
Formulation  of  Mercersburg  Theology.  241 
 
 and  was  probably  the  predominant  theory  in  the  United 
 States." 
 
 In  regard  to  this  doctrine  Nevin  says  that  the  sacrament 
 of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  in  the  elements  as  such  but  in 
 the  transaction.  The  sacramental  mystery  as  a  whole  makes 
 present  objectively  the  true  life  of  Christ.  Nevin  thus  places 
 the  reality  in  the  union  of  the  two,  and  not  in  either  the 
 elements  or  in  the  soul  of  the  believer.  We  see  here  Hegel 's 
 absolute  or  relative  idealism, — that  the  reality  lies  in  the  rela- 
 tion of  two  opposites.  Thus  Nevin  says  "the  Lord's  Supper 
 is  the  outward  sign  of  inward  grace.  Its  reality  lies  not  in 
 either  the  outward  sign  or  the  inward  grace  but  in  their 
 relation."*  Again,  he  claims  the  reality  lies  not  in  either 
 faith  or  objectivity  but  both  must  go  together.f  But  he 
 claims  over  against  Lutheranism  that  his  views  are  not  Lu- 
 theran. Lutheranism,  he  says,  brings  the  body  of  Christ  to 
 the  elements.  "What,  however,  he  means  by  body  is  the  spirit 
 of  Christ's  humanity,  not  his  fleshly  humanity.  The  Luther- 
 ans, however,  would  hardly  grant  that  they  held  this  carnal 
 Capernaitic  doctrine  with  which  he  charges  them.  They,  too, 
 claim  that  it  is  the  spirit  of  Christ's  humanity,  not  his  fleshly 
 body,  that  is  present.  Nevin  also  claims  that  he  differs  from 
 them  on  another  point.  They  hold  that  Christ's  body  enters 
 the  mouth,  which  he  denies.  He  says  it  is  spiritually  received 
 because  it  is  spiritual.;}: 
 
 Several  other  points  might  be  noticed  where  his  view  de- 
 parts from  the  old  Reformed.  He  places  the  atonement  in 
 Christ's  person  rather  than  in  his  work  especially  on  the 
 cross, — an  atonement  in  life  rather  than  an  atonement  by  his 
 death.  He  therefore  emphasizes  the  incarnation  rather  than 
 the  atonement. 
 
 Again,  the  old  Reformed  view  of  justification  was  that  of 
 forensic  imputation,  that  Christ's  merits  are  charged  over  to 
 
 *Page  178. 
 
 fSee  pages  178-9  and  186. 
 
 JFor  the  most  trenchant  review  of  Nevin 's  doctrine  of  the  sacraments, 
 see  Fritschel  "The  Mercersburg  Theology,"  in  the  Theological  Monat- 
 schrift,  published  by  Brobst,  of  Allentown  (1870-1).  We  shall  refer 
 to  it  in  a  subsequent  section. 
 
242         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 our  account  as  the  ground  of  our  salvation.  Over  against  this 
 Nevin  placed  the  theory  of  implantation,  that  we  are  justified 
 by  the  impartation  of  Christ's  theanthropic  life  to  us.  This 
 virtually  means  that  we  are  justified  only  so  far  as  we  are 
 sanctified.  Our  justification  must  be  "in  Christ,"*  not  by 
 Christ.  On  pages  166,  180  and  191  he  attacks  the  old  forensic 
 view  as  a  fiction,  saying  justification  rests  not  on  the  objective 
 merits  of  Christ,  but  that  to  become  ours,  justification  must 
 insert  us  in  Christ's  life. 
 
 We  thus  see  the  contrast  between  the  old  Reformed  views 
 and  the  new  Mercersburg  theology,  which  is  outlined  by  these 
 two  books.  They  completed  the  formulation  of  the  Mercers- 
 burg theology  at  its  beginning  and  became  its  working  basis. 
 It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Dr.  Nevin  had  not  as  yet  pro- 
 ceeded any  farther  in  his  development  of  doctrine  than  that 
 of  the  union  with  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  Its  refer- 
 ence to  baptism  did  not  come  up  till  later,  when  the  doctrine 
 of  the  baptismal  germ  and  of  bajitismal  grace  appears. 
 
 But  these  two  books  were  hardly  completed  when  another 
 storm  broke  over  the  head  of  Dr.  Schaff. 
 
 *Pages  180  and  189. 
 
CHAPTER  III. 
 
 The   Second  Controversy   About  Prof.    Schaff — His 
 Views  on  the  Middle  State. 
 
 Section  1.  The  Attack  in  the  "Christian  Intelligencer." 
 
 The  first  eoutroversy  had  hardly  tdeared  up,  indeed  tlie 
 Church  was  just  in  the  midst  of  the  surprise  occasioned  by  the 
 publication  of  Schaflf's  and  Nevin's  recent  books  on  Church 
 History  and  the  Mystical  Presence,  when  this  new  controversy 
 burst  on  them,  and  it  proved  a  more  serious  thing  for  Prof. 
 Schaff  than  did  the  first. 
 
 The  Christian  Intelligencer*  published  a  translation  by  Rev. 
 ]\Ir.  Guldin,  of  Schaff 's  tract  on  "The  Sin  against  the  Holy 
 Ghost"  in  which  he  taught  a  doctrine  akin  to  purgatory  (page 
 145), — "For  all  men  there  is  an  intermediate  state  beginning 
 with  death." 
 
 The  extract  he  quoted  was  as  follows : 
 
 1.  "Those  who  already  have  despised  the  salvation  published  and 
 offered  to  them  were  immediately  at  death  provisionally  judged  and 
 come  into  prison  in  Hades,  about  whose  How  and  Where  it  is  not  be- 
 coming for  us  to  wish  to  be  given  greater  disclosures.     *     *     * 
 
 2.  For  the  undecided  who  had  not  here  an  opportunity  to  learn  to 
 know  the  way  of  eternal  life,  also  especially  for  the  heathen  and  Turks 
 and  such  Christians  as  are  jtlaced  under  the  touch  of  heathenism  as  the 
 Armenians  and  Abyssinians,  there  is  after  death  a  season  of  grace  in 
 which  is  the  possibility  of  forgiveness  of  sin  and  conversion,  but  only 
 under  the  same  conditions  as  here,  namely,  the  penitent  faith  in  the 
 Saviour  of  the  world.  In  a  wider  sense  there  falls  under  the  same  cate- 
 gory also  those  in  whom  faith  was  truly  begun  before  death,  but  without 
 any  fault  of  their  own  was  not  developed  to  maturity  in  the  full  com- 
 munion with  the  Lord.  These  must  on  their  side  pass  through  a  like 
 school  as  is  here  necessary  for  the  development  of  the  future  Christian 
 life.  All  sensual  ideas  of  a  material  fire  are  entirely  to  be  cast  aside 
 as   figurative   and   as  prejudicial   to   the   all-sufficient   merits   of   Christ. 
 
 *July  16,  1846. 
 
 243 
 
244        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 According  to  the  Bible  all  salvation  is  alone  and  entirely  to  be  sought 
 and  found  in  the  justifying  faith  in  the  sufficient  and  redeeming  merit 
 of  Christ." 
 
 Prof.  Scliaff  replied  to  this,*  trying  to  explain  the  matter 
 by  saying 
 
 That  his  tract  had  been  written  before  he  left  the  university,  when 
 he  was  only  twenty  years  old, — it  was  a  juvenile  performance  considered 
 quite  proper  in  Germany,  where  much  freedom  of  thought  is  allowed, — 
 it  was  written  to  gain  the  degree  of  bachelor  of  divinity  and  had  been 
 approved  by  Neander,  Hengstenberg,  Twesten  and  Marheineke.  He 
 did  not  think  it  fair  that  he  should  be  judged  by  a  production  of  his 
 youth.  Since  that  time  he  had  learned  much  that  would  enable  him  to 
 treat  the  subject  in  a  more  careful  and  thorough  manner.  When  he 
 came  to  America  he  had  not  concealed  his  views  on  this  subject,  but  had 
 made  them  known  to  the  German  Eeformed  Church  before  coming  to 
 Mercersburg.  He  had  declared  that  he  did  not  wish  to  be  judged  by 
 it  and,  therefore,  had  not  had  it  translated.  He  claimed  that  the  trans- 
 lation of  the  extract  from  it  in  the  Christian  Intelligencer  was  not  a 
 good  one,  as  it  omitted  extracts  from  Luther,  Melancthon,  Zwingli, 
 Calvin  and  others  in  favor  of  the  Middle  State. 
 
 A  writer  in  the  Christian  Intelligencer^  asked,  what  does  Schaff 
 mean  when  he  assigned  to  Hades  ' '  those  who  had  a  beginning  before 
 their  death  and  must  develop. to  maturity."  What  does  he  mean  by  the 
 middle  condition  of  souls  not  yet  j)urified.  The  influence  of  such  a 
 view  on  missions  would  be '  disastrous.  The  motive  given  by  James  is 
 that  "he  would  save  a  soul  from  death."  If  that  sinner  be  a  heathen, 
 James'  weighty  argument  is  converted  into  a  bubble.  Schaff  says  the 
 saving  activity  of  Christ  enters  and  extends  to  Hades.  "The  blessed  jire- 
 pare  themselves  for  their  own  resurrection  and  glorification  by  tlieir 
 continual  sinking  into  the  essence  of  God."  (This  last  remark  is  dan- 
 gerously near  to  Pantheism. — A.) 
 
 In  the  same  paper  of  July  .30,  Guldin  rej)lies  to  SclialT.  He  says  that 
 Schaff 's  book,  in  spite  of  his  desire  that  it  should  not  be  sold  in 
 America,  was  on  sale  in  the  chief  German  bookstores  of  New  York;  it 
 had  been  recommended  to  him  ])y  Schatf's  friends  as  an  excollont 
 work.  It  had  been  advertised  Jill  over  the  country,  in<lecd  had  1)eon 
 advertised  in  one  of  the  leading  authorized  periodicals  of  the  German 
 Eeformed  Church.  His  object  was  not  the  detraction  of  Scliatl'  but 
 to  force  him  publicly  to  retract  the  doctrine  for  his  own  sake.  As  to 
 his  omissions  in  his  translation,  he  had  miiittod  the  notes.  This,  how- 
 ever, did  not  alter  the  doctrine  as  stated  l)y  Schaff,  as  they  were  used 
 
 *Christian  Intelligencer,  July  23. 
 fJuly  16. 
 
Second  (Controversy  About  Prop.  Schapp.  245 
 
 only  as  proofs.  (Schaff  evidently  held  a  view  at  variance  Avith  the 
 STth  answer  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  which  said  that  saints  at  death 
 iiiinu'diately  go  to  heaven.— J.) 
 
 Section  2.    The  Eastern  Synods  op  1846-7. 
 
 The  classis  of  Philadelphia  at  its  meeting,  September  6, 
 ]846,  asked  synod  to  inquire  into  Prof.  Sehaff's  views  on  the 
 Middle  State, — whether  he  believes  that  death  ends  the  pro- 
 ])ation  of  all  men.  "When  this  overture  came  before  the  synod 
 of  1846  it  threw  out  the  overture  as  irregular  and  expressed 
 regret  that  the  method  recommended  by  the  last  synod, 
 namely,  of  bringing  all  complaints  first  to  the  attention  of  the 
 board  of  visitors  before  bringing  them  to  synod,  had  not  been 
 iollowed.  Berg  replied  *  that  he  had  not  brought  the  charges 
 first  to  the  board  of  visitors  because  this  rule  had  not  been 
 incorporated  in  the  old  constitution  of  the  Church, 
 
 The  matter  also  came  before  the  synod  in  the  report  of 
 the  board  of  visitors.  They  had  held  a  meeting  several  weeks 
 before  the  synod  and  also  during  the  sessions  of  the  synod, 
 when  they  investigated  the  matter.  Schaff  to  them  modified 
 his  views  as  stated  in  his  pamphlet, — 
 
 1.  "That  the  scriptural  and  philosophical  argumentation  is  by  no 
 means  in  all  respects  satisfactory  to  me  at  present. 
 
 2.  That  the  statement  is  too  general,  and 
 
 3.  That  it  is  too  positive  and  categorical.     I  now  hold 
 
 1.  That  in  the  case  of  those  heathen  who  have  died  without  the 
 knowledge  of  the  gospel,  either  before  the  coming  of  Christ  or  since, 
 and  who  have  been  at  the  same  time  properly  predisposed  to  embrace  the 
 Christian  religion,  the  opportunity  of  doing  so  (and  thus  completing  the 
 work  already  commenced)  will  not  be  withheld  from  them  by  an  in- 
 finitely merciful  God  in  the  world  to  come. 
 
 2.  That  if  persons  thus  described  are  saved  at  all,  they  can  not  be 
 saved  on  the  ground  of  any  personal  merit,  but  only  through  Jesus 
 Christ,  as  there  is  absolutely  no  salvation  without  him. 
 
 3.  This  involves  the  idea  that  Christ  previously  unknown  to  them  must 
 be  exhibited  to  them  in  some  way  as  the  object  of  their  knowledge  and 
 faith. 
 
 4.  All  this,  however,  and  the  whole  subject  of  the  Middle  State  of 
 the  heathen  and  of  infants  universally  is  involved  in  great  obscurity, 
 nor  can  it  ever  be  made  properly  the  subject  of  doctrinal  and  symbolical 
 teaching. ' ' 
 
 *Christian  Intelligencer,  June  1,  1848. 
 
24C)        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  IT.  S. 
 On  this  the  board  reported  the  following  action : 
 
 Besolved,  Whilst  the  board  cannot  endorse  the  view  of  Dr.  Schaff 
 as  set  forth  in  the  above  statement,  they  nevertheless  do  not  deem  it  of 
 sufficient  importance  to  call  for  any  special  action  of  synod.  The  board 
 deem  it  necessary  to  add  that  the  view  has  not  been  taught  nor  is  it 
 contemplated  ever  to  be  taught  in  the  theological  seminary. 
 
 The  committee  of  synod  to  whom  the  report  of  the  board 
 of  visitors,  of  whom  Reid  was  chairman,  however,  evidently- 
 considered  it  of  graver  importance  than  did  the  board.  Tliey 
 did  not  agree  with  the  board  of  visitors  that  it  was  not  of 
 sufficient  importance  to  be  brought  l)efore  synod,  for  in  their 
 report  they  recommend  it  to  synod  for  such  action  as  synod 
 may  see  fit  to  take.  Tlie  synod  tlien  took  the  following  action  : 
 that  whilst  the  board  of  visitors  did  not  consider  that  the  ease 
 of  Schaff  demanded  special  action  on  the  parr  of  synod,  they 
 nevertheless  cannot  endorse  the  reported  modification  of  view 
 by  Schaff. 
 
 The  matter  came  up  again  at  the  synod  of  1847,  when  the 
 board  of  visitors  reported  that  Rev.  Alfred  Helffenstein,  Jr., 
 had  brought  charges  of  heresy  against  the  professors  of  the 
 theological  seminary.  The  board  did  not  entertain  them  be- 
 cause they 'were  not  sufficiently  definite  and  also  were  pre- 
 sented to  the  board  at  too  late  an  hour  to  admit  of  action. 
 The  board  also  received  a  document  from  Rev.  Dr.  Berg,  call- 
 ing attention  to  certain  points  of  doctrine  at  which  the  pro- 
 fessors were  at  variance  witli  the  standards  of  the  Church 
 and  the  Word  of  God  and  asking  for  an  expression  of  the 
 professors  on  those  doctrines.  But  his  specifieations  were  also 
 dismissed  by  the  ])oard  as  not  sufficiently  distinct.  The  synod 
 took  no  action  on  them. 
 
 The  synod  therefore  was  adverse  to  Schaff 's  doctrines. 
 He  was  permitted  to  continue  teaching,  although  with  the 
 understanding  that  he  would  not  teach  the  doctrine  of 
 the  Intermediate  State.  But  it  was  a  virtual  rebuke  by 
 synod,  as  they  censured  Schaff 's  view,  though  they  took 
 no  action  about  him  personally.  This  he  felt  keenly,  and 
 many  years  after  at  the   General  Synod  of  1893,  referred 
 
Second  Controversy  About  Prof.  Sctiaff.  247 
 
 to  it  in  his  last  address  to  our  Church.  But  though  he  prom- 
 ised not  to  teach  those  views,  they  gradually  became  current 
 in  the  Mercersburg  theology.  Many  years  after,  at  President 
 James  Buchanan's  funeral,  Dr.  Nevin  expressed  very  much 
 the  same  views.  The  action  of  the  synod  was,  therefore,  an- 
 other step  toward  permitting  larger  liberty  of  doctrine  for 
 the  Mercersburg  theologians.  Although  it  appeared  a  victory 
 "for  the  conservatives  and  the  Old  Reformed,  who  held  to  the 
 doctrines  of  their  fathers,  yet  Dr.  Schaff  remained  in  posses- 
 sion of  the  field  as  professor. 
 
 Another  important  action  of  the  synod  was  on  the  duty  of 
 the  Church  to  unbaptized  children.  It  was,  that  as  they  were 
 members  of  the  Church  they  were  under  the  Church's  super- 
 vision and  should  be  carefully  cared  for  by  her.  Dr.  Heiner 
 led  in  this  movement  and  synod  issued  a  pastoral  letter  on  the 
 subject,  which  later  became  the  subject  of  considerable  dis- 
 cussion in  the  heat  of  the  liturgical  controversy. 
 
 Dr.  Nevin 's  sermon  at  the  opening  of  this  synod  on  "The 
 Church,"  also  created  a  sensation.  In  it  he  takes  the  same 
 high  ground  in  favor  of  the  objective  force  and  intrinsic 
 grace  of  the  sacraments.  He  emphasized  the  importance  of 
 the  visible  Church,  minimizing  the  invisible  Church,  saying 
 that  an  invisible  Church  can  never  satisfy  the  requisites  of 
 the  case. 
 
 "Christ's  humanity,"  says  Nevin,  "consisted  of  body  and  soul.  This 
 whole  humanity  of  Christ  is  carried  over  by  the  process  of  Christian  sal- 
 vation into  the  person  of  the  believer  so  that  in  the  end  his  glorified 
 body  no  less  than  his  glorified  soul  wiU  appear  as  the  natural  and  neces- 
 sary product  of  a  life  in  which  he  is  made  to  participate." 
 
 The  Wdchter,  the  German  paper  of  the  Eeformed  in  the  West,  says  that 
 this  sermon  of  Nevin 's  was  an  echo  of  Mohler  's  Symbolics  which  was  the 
 Catholic  defence  against  Protestantism.  It  says  Nevin  takes,  in  his  sermon, 
 the  attributes  of  the  Church  from  Mohler.  Following  him,  Nevin  makes 
 Christianity  and  the  Church  identical  and  attacks  the  invisible  Church  so 
 as  to  save  the  visible  Church.  The  Church  is  the  incarnation  of  Christ 's  life. 
 Faith  in  Christ  is  with  him,  faith  in  the  Church.  Nevin  derides  the  idea 
 (page  27)  that  religion  is  a  personal  thing — a  transaction  between  each 
 individual  separately  and  his  Lord,  as  this  would  depreciate  the  privileges 
 and  ordinances  of  the  Church.  The  Church  of  the  creed  (rather  than 
 Christ)   (says  page  18)  is  the  proper  object  of  Christian  faith. 
 
248         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 The  sermon  Avas  noticed  and  quoted  approvingly  by  the 
 Catholic  Herald,  which  said  it  was  Puseyism  adjusted  to  the 
 measure  and  condition  of  liis  sect.  That  paper  closes  by  say- 
 ing that  "on  the  supei-natural  power  of  the  Church,  the  efifi- 
 cacy  of  the  sacraments  and  the  authority  of  the  priesthood  he 
 expresses  his  views  as  strongly  as  Catholics  are  in  the  habit 
 of  doing."  The  Catliolic  Churchman  added,  that  if  he 
 (Nevin)  will  only  travel  straight  forward,  it  will  lead  him,  as 
 it  has  led  others,  to  the  city  of  God.  He  is  like  the  man  in 
 the  gospel  whose  partially  opened  eyes  saw  men  as  trees  walk- 
 ing. 
 
 After  the  synod  was  over,  Schatf  wrote  a  letter  to  Rev.  Dr. 
 Krummacher,  which  was  published  in  his  Palm-Leaves* 
 Schaff  claimed  a  victory  at  the  synod, — that  he  had  satisfied 
 the  board  of  education,  before  the  matter  was  brought  before 
 synod,  that  his  "Sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost"  was  a  juvenile 
 production, — that  the  synod  unanimously  adopted  the  report, 
 — that  Berg  raised  no  objection  to  it  but  rather  had  acknow- 
 ledged his  attacks  to  be  unconstitutional  and  had  taken  them 
 back.  He  says  that  the  Reformed  Synod  took  more  favorable 
 action  for  Mercersburg  theology  than  before;  yes,  Berg  and 
 Heiner  had  laid  down  their  arms  and  would  in  future  work  in 
 harmony  with  him.  The  controversy,  he  said,  instead  of  di- 
 viding the  Church,  had  united  it. 
 
 The  facts  we  have  given  above  do  not  bear  out  this  rosy 
 view  by  Schaff,  and  his  letter  was  soon  attacked  by  writers 
 of  our  Church. 
 
 Berg,  in  the  Christian  Intelligencer,  of  June  answers  this 
 letter,  denying  that  he  surrendered  in  discretion,  that  he 
 rather  supposed  that  the  sjTiod  endorsed  his  view  instead  of 
 Schaff 's  by  endorsing  the  proposition  of  Philadelphia  classis, — 
 that  the  Scriptures  are  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 
 He  says  that  not  only  did  synod  not  give  a  stronger  statement 
 in  favor  of  Mercersburg,  but  it  had  modified  its  expression  of 
 1846.    As  to  his  raising  no  objection,  that  was  not  true.    He 
 
 *1847,  page  84.  For  translations  of  this  letter,  see  Christian  Intdli- 
 gencer,  Feb.  17,  1848. 
 
Second  Controversy  About  Prof.  Schapp.  249 
 
 never  dreamt  such  a  construction  would  be  given  to  his  acts. 
 That  he  made  a  public  withdrawal  of  his  attack  on  the  seminary 
 and  confessed  his  method  in  doing  so  was  unconstitutional, 
 he  denied,  and  said  that  no  attack  had  been  made  on  the 
 seminary  from  first  to  last,  but  only  on  Prof.  Schaff's  doc- 
 trine. He  granted  the  irregularity  of  calling  synod's  atten- 
 tion to  the  charges  by  going  to  synod  direct  and  not  first  to 
 the  board  of  visitors.  But  while  he  granted  that,  he  did  not 
 acknowledge  that  his  objections  were  unfounded,  for  he  had- 
 withdrawTi  none  of  them.  Schaff's  letter  said  "Berg  had  him- 
 self given  in  considerably."*  That  was  a  misstatement,  for 
 he  had  not  given  up  his  objections,  but  it  meant  that  he  had 
 given  back  a  contribution  pledged  to  the  seminary  some  time 
 before.  It  was  very  ungenerous  in  Prof.  Sehaff  to  place  a  man 
 in  such  a  false  position  after  he  had  contributed  the  money  to 
 the  seminary.  He  explained  his  gift, — that  before  the  origin 
 of  the  Mercersburg  controversy  he  had  subscribed  to  the  en- 
 dowment at  Mercersburg,  but  that  owing  to  the  controversy 
 he  had  been  disposed  to  cancel  it.  However,  after  talking  the 
 matter  over,  he  had  paid  the  obligation  to  the  college,  interest 
 as  well  as  principal. 
 
 Heiner  alsof  replied  to  this  published  letter  of  Schaff,  for 
 Schaff  had  said  in  it  that  ' '  Heiner  was  now  inclining  towards 
 Mercersburg,"  because  at  the  synod  he  had  championed  the 
 duty  of  the  Church  toward  baptized  children. |  He  replied  that 
 those  were  his  views  long  before  Mercersburg  theology  had 
 come  into  existence,  and  that  he  had  not  by  voice  or  vote  ex- 
 pressed himself  as  favorable  to  Mercersburg.  He  called  atten- 
 tion to  the  error  of  Schaff's  statement  that  the  Board  had 
 adopted  Schaff's  views  of  the  intermediate  state.  On  the  con- 
 trary, the  synod  unanimously  repudiated  Schaff's  views,  even 
 in  their  modified  form.  As  to  the  statement  in  Schaff's  letter, 
 that  Berg  had  said  Heiner  "out-Mercersburged  Mercersburg" 
 by   championing  the   Church's   care   for   baptized   children, 
 
 *Berg  hat  bedeutend  eingereicht. 
 ^Christian  Intelligencer,  May  4. 
 
 JSehaft"  said  that  Ber^  had  said  of  Heiner  for  doing  this,  "he  out-Mer- 
 eersburgs  Mercersburg,"  and  carries  out  its  ideas. 
 
250        History  of  Eeformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Heiner  grants  that  on  this  doctrine  he  differed  from  Berg, 
 namely,  on  the  rights  and  privileges  of  children  born  of  bap- 
 tized parents.  He  held  that  relation  and  not  character  gave 
 the  right  to  baptism.  But  he  declared  that  Schaff  acted 
 wrongly  in  mentioning  as  a  serious  fact  a  merely  passing  re- 
 mark, as  when  Berg  jokingly  said  that  ''he  (Heiner)  had  out- 
 Mercersburged  Mercersburg. "  He  also  objected  to  Schaff 
 calling  Berg  and  the  Helffensteins  turbulent  spirits. 
 
CHAPTER  IV. 
 
 Significant  Events  (1847-50). 
 Section  ].    Dr.  Nevin's  Controversies. 
 
 Into  the  different  controversies  into  which  Dr.  Nevin  came 
 because  of  the  publication  of  these  books,  etc.,  there  is  little 
 time  to  enter.  We  can  only  refer  to  one  or  two  of  the  most 
 important,  especially  where  there  is  a  development  of  a  new 
 phase  of  Mercersburg  theology.  In  March,  1846,  Dr.  Nevin 
 came  into  controversy  with  Dr.  Berg.  A  Baptist  paper  had 
 charged  Berg  with  sympathy  with  Romanism  because  he  held 
 to  infant  baptism,  for  the  Baptists  claim  that  infant  baptism 
 is  a  product  of  the  Catholic  Church.  This  was  too  good  an 
 opportimity  for  Dr.  Nevin  to  miss— that  Berg — the  arch-Pro- 
 testant— should  be  charged  with  being  a  Romanist.  Nevin 
 used  this  against  Berg.  But  Berg  was  his  equal  in  controversy 
 and  he  sharply  suggested  that  Nevin  either  give  up  his  Roman- 
 izing views  or  resign  liis  professorship  at  the  Reformed  semi- 
 nary,— that  Nevin  was  in  a  far  worse  dilemma  as  a  Reformed 
 professor  by  teaching  Catholic  views  than  he  was,  if  the  Bap- 
 tist charge  against  him  were  true. 
 
 Then  the  controversy  between  them  deepens  and  they  engage 
 in  a  discussion  on  their  points  of  difference  as  to  the  right  of 
 private  judgment,  the  person  of  Christ,  and  justification. 
 Nevin  asks  Berg  four  questions : 
 
 1.  Has  the  humanity  of  Christ  no  organic  part  in  his  personality  aa 
 Mediator?  Is  the  union  not  \vpostatical  or  only  in  outward  show?  Does 
 it  admit  two  centers  of  thought  and  feeling  in  the  same  person?  or,  did  it 
 not  constitute  a  common,  i.  e.,  a  single  indivisible  self-consciousness. 
 
 2.  Is  Adam's  sin  made  over  to  posterity  by  a  purely  abstract  act  of 
 God's  imputation  with  no  further  connection  between  the  parties  than 
 such  as  springs  from  God's  covenant.  Or  does  this  imputation  depend 
 upon  the  life  of  Adam  involve  the  presence  of  this  organic  stream. 
 
 251 
 
252         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 3.  In  justification,  is  the  sinner  viewed  by  God  in  justifying  him  as 
 in  Christ  or  out  of  Christ?  Can  the  objective  side  be  sundered  from  the 
 subjective? 
 
 4.  Is  the  active  obedience  of  Christ  inijmted  to  us  or  only  his  passive 
 obedience.  If  so,  can  it  be  counted  ours  any  further  than  we  are  inserted 
 into  his  life. 
 
 Berg  replies  to  the  first  question  that  if  the  natures  were  so  closely 
 united,  as  Nevin  suggests,  he  would  ask  how  could  the  divine  nature 
 suffer.  The  divine  nature  was  not  made  finite  or  the  human  nature 
 made  infinite  according  to  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  (Answer  48).  In 
 regard  to  the  second  question,  imputation  was  not  only  imputed  but 
 inherent  because  of  the  covenant  with  Adam.  As  to  the  third  question, 
 justification  must  be  sundered  from  sanetification.  It  is  a  forensic  act. 
 But  every  justified  person  must  be  regenerated,  although  regeneration  is 
 not  the  ground  of  the  justification.  As  to  the  fourth,  both  active  and 
 passive  righteousness  are  imputed  to  us. 
 
 '        We  have  already  noticed  that  in  his  last  Ijook.  Nevin  was  be- 
 ginning to  apply  his  doctrine  of  objectivity  to  liaptism  as  well 
 las  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 
 
 Quite  a  discussion  arises  on  this  subject  in  the  Messenger  in  1847. 
 Inquirer  asks  whether  Nevin  means  by  baptismal  grace  the  same  as  bap- 
 tismal regeneration.  He  replied  that  objective  grace  was  not  regen- 
 eration, as  the  case  of  Simon  Magus  stood  in  the  way.  He  generally 
 avoided  the  phrase  "baptismal  regeneration"  because  obscure.  But  on 
 the  other  hand  in  denying  that  it  was  regeneration,  he  did  not  wish  to 
 be  classed  with  those  who  deny  all  objective  grace  in  the  sacrament. 
 Between  the  two  extremes  he  held  the  mean  that  there  was  grace  in  bap- 
 tism, but  not  necessarily  regenerative.* 
 
 Aleph  in  August  11  asks  if  baptismal  grace  is  given  and  the  baptized 
 fall  from  it,  would  there  be  the  necessity  of  reconversion.  Reconver- 
 sion the  Scripture  nowhere  teaches.  He  claims  that  the  religion  of  the 
 Christian  is  not  most  prominently  the  outward,  as  Nevin  holds,  but  it  is 
 the  subjective  and  personal,  as  where  the  individual  is  united  to  Christ. 
 He  quotes  as  proof,  answers  1  and  54  of  our  Catechism,  "a  member  of 
 Christ  by  faith,"  i.  e.,  by  a  living,  personal  experience. 
 
 Inquirer,f  who  asked  the  first  question  of  Nevin,  says  he  is  not  satisfied 
 with  his  reply  and  propounds  three  more  questions  to  him :  1.  Is  bap- 
 tismal grace,  saving  grace  or  not?  2.  If  saving  grace  is  bestowed  by 
 baptism,  on  what  is  the  bestowment  of  that  grace  founded, — on  the  faith 
 of  the  parent  of  the  baptized  child  or  on  the  objective  force  of  the  sac- 
 rament  itself?      3.  If   by   baptismal   grace,   something   short   of   saving 
 
 *What  he  seemed  to  emphasize  was  that  there  was  grace  in  baptism 
 regardless  of  the  subjective  attitude  of  the  person  baptized. — A. 
 
 f  August  25. 
 
Significant  Events  (1847-50).  253 
 
 grace  be  meant,  wherein  docs  Dr,  Nevin's  view  on  baptism  differ  from 
 that  of  his  opponents. 
 
 Dr.  Nevin  replies  to  the  first,  that  if  tiio  question  meant  grace  that 
 actually  saves  he  would  answer  no.  But  if  it  meant  grace  that  is  able 
 through  faith  to  save  him,  he  would  answer,  yes.  As  to  the  second,  the 
 grace  depends  on  the  objective  force  of  the  sacrament,  which,  if  truly 
 administered,  was  not  the  act  of  the  minister  or  of  the  parent,  but  of 
 Christ.  As  to  the  third,  baptism  was  a  definite  act,  having  force  as  such 
 in  its  own  nature  when  not  frustrated  by  unbelief.  He  entirely  dissented 
 from  the  low  view,  which  made  baptism  merely  a  human  act  of  no  force 
 except  as  a  dead  token  of  something  else  (as  in  the  parental  covenant. — 
 A.) 
 
 This  is  about  the  clearest  statenient  of  baptismal  grace, 
 according  to  their  early  views,  that  we  have  found,  although 
 the  doctrine  is  further  developed  by  Apple  and  Gerhart.  We 
 would,  however,  suggest  three  difficulties  with  Nevin's  view. 
 
 1.  A  philosophical  one, — the  philosophy  underlying  the 
 doctrine.  He  so  entirely  emphasizes  the  objective  that  the 
 subjective  is  lost  sight  of.  But  the  true  philosophical  position 
 is  that  the  subjective  has  as  much  a  place  as  the  objective. 
 
 2.  A  historical  difficulty.  He  forgets  that,  midway  between 
 his  high  view  and  the  very  low  view  which  he  attacks  is  a 
 middle  view — the  old  Reformed  view,  which  holds  that  there 
 is  grace  in  baptism  but  its  efficacy  depends  not  on  the  objective 
 force  of  the  sacrament  but  on  the  subjective  element, — on  the 
 amount  of  faith  present. 
 
 3.  There  is  also  a  liturgical  difficulty,  lie  claims  that  the 
 grace  peculiar  to  baptism  comes  with  the  application  of  the 
 water.  We  ask  when?  In  his  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
 the  grace  of  it  is  placed  in  the  bread  and  wine  when  the 
 minister  by  prayer  consecrated  them  before  administering 
 them.  Hut  there  is  no  such  preliminary  prayer  of  consecra- 
 tion ill  baptism.  The  water  is  used  in  baptism  without  previ- 
 ous consecration.  Indeed,  there  is  no  reference  to  any  cons(>- 
 cration  of  the  water  in  any  of  the  baptismal  forms.  AVhen  and 
 how  does  the  special  grace  come  into  it;  when  the  minister 
 touches  it  or  when  it  touches  the  head  of  the  person  baptized  ? 
 The  omission  of  any  such  preliminary  praja^r  of  consecration 
 in  the  Reformed  liturgies  is  against  any  special  grace  inher- 
 
254        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 ently  in  it.  How  can  it  have  objective  grace  or  get  it,  if  the 
 water  has  not  been  first  prayed  over  just  as  the  bread  and 
 wine  are  in  the  Lord's  Supper?  If  it  be  replied  that  the  grace 
 comes  into  it  when  the  name  of  the  trinity  is  spoken  over  the 
 child,  that  is  putting  a  magical  meaning  into  the  words 
 Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  such  as  the  Catholics  hold. 
 
 4.  There  may  be  said  to  be  a  practical  difficulty.  If  this 
 grace  is  so  easily  lost  by  many  who  are  baptized  because  they 
 fall  away,  of  what  practical  use  is  it.  If  it  can  be  so  easily 
 frustrated  by  unbelief,  it  can  not  be  great  grace.  The  covenant 
 idea  of  baptism,  which  was  the  old  Reformed  view,  put  a 
 meaning  into  it  which  this  one.  leaving  out,  leads  to  an  ab- 
 surdity, making  baptism  virtually  a  nil  in  its  effect. 
 
 Dr.  Nevin  also  came  into  a  long  controversy  with  Kev.  Dr.  C.  Hodge, 
 of  Princeton  Theological  seminary,  who  attacked  his  book,  "Mystical 
 Presence,"  in  the  Princeton  Eepertory  in  1848.  Hodge  grants  Nevin 's 
 ability  but  takes  exception  to  his  views  on  the  Lord's  Supper.  He 
 quotes  in  support  of  his  position,  as  Dr.  Nevin  had  done  for  his,  the 
 Reformers  and  the  creeds  of  the  Eeformed  Church.  He  says  that  there 
 had  been  in  the  Reformed  Church  two  views  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
 reception  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  at  the  sacrament.    Its  virtue  was: 
 
 1.  In  the  crucified  body  and  blood;  or, 
 
 2.  In  the  vivifying  influence,  not  from  the  crucified  body,  but  from 
 the  glorified  body.  The  first  emphasized  the  crucified  body,  the  second 
 the  glorified  body. 
 
 Both  were  supported  by  the  Refonned  creeds.  But  the  first  was  more 
 strongly  supported  and  was  the  most  Scriptural.  The  second,  which 
 was  the  view  of  Calvin,  was  not  held  even  by  Calvin's  successors,  Beza, 
 Turretin  and  Pictet. 
 
 The  controversy  was  also  carried  on  in  the  Lutheran  Observer.  A.  H. 
 wrote  on  Mercersburg  Theology,  saying  the  name  "mystical"  is  very  suit- 
 able because  it  is  hard  to  be  understood.  Hoes  Nevin  in  some  places  cnm- 
 jjrehend  his  own  phraseology?  The  editor  of  the  Ob)<ervrr  says  he  had  been 
 a  minister  for  thirty-five  years  and  that  the  German  Reformeil  ministers 
 had  leaned  more  to  the  Zwinglian  view  on  the  Lord's  Supper, — that  they 
 had  attacked  the  Lutherans  for  their  high  views  of  that  sacrament  and 
 had  prided  themselves  on  their  more  rational  Zwinglian  view.  He  says: 
 "The  golden  days  of  Helffenstein,  Hoffmeyer,  Wack,  Hendel,  Mayer, 
 Eauch,  etc.,  were  days  of  Christian  dignity  and  harmony  compared  with 
 the  new  regime. ' '  The  Observer  quotes  the  Puritan  Eecorder,  which  says 
 that  the  main  characteristic  of  the  Mercersburg  theology  is  an  idolatry 
 of  what  is  improperly  called  the  "Apostles'  Creed."     This  is  carried 
 
Significant  Events  (1847-50).  255 
 
 so  far  as  to  amount  to  a  denial  that  the  Bible  is  the  ouly  rule  of  faith 
 and  so  tradition  is  foisted  in.  It  refers  to  the  Mercersburg  Keview, 
 July,  1849,  which  places  tradition  above  the  Bible. 
 
 For  a  somewhat  favorable  review  of  Nevinism,  see  Prof.  Taylor  Lewis' 
 review  of  the  Principle  of  Protestantism,  Mystical  Presence,  etc.,  in  the 
 N.  Y.  Literary  World,  April  14,  1849.  He  says  Nevinism  is  based  on 
 German  idealism  in  its  view  of  the  generic  over  against  the  individual. 
 Yet  he  reminds  Nevin  of  the  weakness  of  that  view  that  in  some  respects 
 a  moral  union  is  higher  than  a  generic  one.  He  differs  from  Nevin  by 
 making  the  atonement  instead  of  the  incarnation  the  prominent  doctrine 
 and  criticizes  him  for  speaking  too  contemptuously  of  his  opponents. 
 He  is  the  first  to  call  attention  to  the  likeness  of  Nevin 's  view  to  Sweden- 
 borg,  the  first  sign  of  Nevin 's  tendency  to  incline  to  Swedenborg  in  his 
 later  years.  But  his  criticism  is  in  the  main  friendly  as  to  Dr.  Nevins' 
 principles. 
 
 SECTtON   2.     The   Controversy  about   Dr.   Krummacher's 
 
 Letter. 
 
 Rev.  Dr.  Krummacher  wrote  a  letter  to  Prof.  Sehaff,  which 
 was  XHiblished  in  the  Messenger,  as  his  vindication.  But  it  was 
 considered  by  Sehaff 's  opponents  as  against  him. 
 
 Dr.  Krummacher  had  met  Kev.  Dr.  Kurtz,  editor  of  the  Lutheran  Ob- 
 server, at  Berlin  on  several  occasions^  and  from  him  had  learned  that 
 Sehaff  had  been  charged  with 
 
 1.  A  new  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper  like  the  Lutheran. 
 
 2.  Many  of  other  denominations,  especially  the  Dutch  and  Presby- 
 terians, suspected  he  had  not  come  to  a  full  apprehension  of  the  Evan- 
 gelical doctrine  of  justification  by  faith. 
 
 3.  He  had  not  always  avoided  the  ajipearance  of  leaning  to  Romanizing 
 views  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Church. 
 
 Dr.  Krummacher,  in  his  letter,  said  he  believed  Sehaff  held  to  the 
 Evangelical  doctrine,  but  he  could  not  but  wish  he  had  expressed  himself 
 more  clearly  and  agreeably  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  He  objected 
 to  Sehaff 's  sentence,  "It  is  not  possible  for  God  to  declare  a  man  right- 
 eous and  treat  him  as  such  when  he  is  not  so  in  fact."  This  looked 
 as  if  he  placed  the  efficient  cause  of  justification  in  the  new  life-principle 
 divinely  planted  in  him  at  regeneration,  in  which  God  discerns  the 
 full  perfection  of  holiness  as  a  plant  wrapped  up  in  a  germ.  Krum- 
 macher said  he  would  have  stated  it  better,  had  he  said  that  God  esti- 
 mates the  sinner  rather  by  the  measure  of  Christ's  righteousness  set 
 over  objectively  to  his  account.  As  to  the  charge  that  Sehaff  was 
 Romanizing,  he  knew  the  charge  was  false;  but  he  was  not  surprised  at 
 it,  because  he  identified  the  visible  church  with  the  mystical  body  of 
 Christ  and  confounded  the  congregation  of   the  baptized  with  that  of 
 
256         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 the  sanctified.  He  appeals  to  Sehaff  not  to  be  so  dictatorial  in  insist- 
 ing on  his  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  because  in  these  days,  the  King 
 of  Darkness  was  trying  to  divide  the  Church.  He  closed  by  urging  on 
 him  the  famous  motto,  "in  fundamentals  unity,  in  non-essentials  liberty, 
 in  all  things  charity." 
 
 On  this  letter  a  controversy  arose  whether  Dr.  Krumniacher  meant  by 
 it  to  endorse  Sehaff 's  views.  Dr.  Kurtz,  in  a  letter  home,  said  that 
 every  time  he  met  Dr.  Krummacher,  as  at  Prof.  Twesten  's  home,  he  ex- 
 pressed himself  in  sympathy  with  Sehaff 's  opponents,  Berg  and  Heiner, 
 and  he  said  his  companion,  Eev.  Dr.  Schmucker,  was  his  witness.  He 
 said  Krummacher 's  point  of  objection  was  that  Sehaff 's  doctrine  of 
 justification  was  wrong.  This  agrees  with  what  Krummacher  says  in 
 his  letter.  Dr.  Kurtz,  who  was  attacked  because  his  church  paper  used 
 Krummacher  against  Mercersburg,  says  that  a  friend  of  Mereersburg, 
 when  he  read  Krummacher 's  letter  in  the  Messenger,  said,  "I  think 
 our  friends  at  Mercersburg  had  better  not  have  published  Krummacher 's 
 letter,  for  it  certainly  makes  quite  as  much  for  the  Lutheran  Observer 
 as  for  them. ' ' 
 
 Dr.  Berg,  in  the  Protestant  Quarterly  Eeview*  took  up  Krummach- 
 er's  letter  and  bitterly  resented  his  unguarded  remarks  against  the  op- 
 ponents of  Sehaff,  calling  them  narrow,  malevolent  and  perverse,  be- 
 cause they  called  the  Mercersburg  system  "Puseyism  in  a  Eeformed 
 garb. ' ' 
 
 Prof.  Sehaff  replied  to  Krummacher: 
 
 1.  That  on  the  Lord's  Supper  Nevin  held  to  Calvin's  view,  but  had 
 departed  from  it  only  in  his  scientific  statement  of  it.  Nevin  was  op- 
 posed to  the  Lutheran  view  of  oral  mandueation. 
 
 2.  On  justification,  his  views  had  been  endorsed  by  Berg,  the  Chris- 
 tian Intelligencer,  etc. 
 
 3.  The  controversy  in  the  German  Reformed  f'hurch.  instead  of  di- 
 viding it,  had  united  it.  (A  strange  decdaration,  for  the  controversy  was 
 dividing  it  more  and  more. — A.) 
 
 Sehaff  had  suggested  to  Krummacher  that  the  "Mystical  Presence"  be 
 translated  into  German.  But  Krummacher  skilfully  warded  it  off  by 
 saying  that  although  it  was  an  admirable  book,  its  entire  historical  ap- 
 paratus was  not  altogether  to  his  taste,  esj)ecially  in  its  arrangement. 
 
 Section  3.    "The  History  and  Genu's  ok  tiik  IFEiDELHERr, 
 Catechism"  by  Nevin. 
 
 This  was  the  next  book  by  Dr.  Nevin,  i)ublished  in  the 
 spring  of  1847  and  is  interesting  as  revealing  the  further  de- 
 velopment of  his  theolog:^^     In   1841-2,   he  had  published  a 
 series  of  articles  on  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  so  as  to  aid  in 
 •July,  1847. 
 
Significant  Events  (1847-50).  257 
 
 the  observance  of  the  Centenary  of  our  Church.  This  later 
 work  reveals  that  much  of  those  early  articles  has  been  left 
 out  and  that  the  work  has  been  largely  re-written,  from  the 
 standpoint  of  the  new  or  i\Iercersburg  Theology.  The  book  is, 
 however,  especially''  interesting,  because  it  reveals  how  far 
 he  has  now  gone  in  his  dei)arture  from  the  old  Reformed  views 
 as  given  in  his  previous  articles.  In  the  articles  of  1841,  he 
 had  held  that  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  was  Calvinistie  on  pre- 
 destination and  the  Lord's  Supper.*  Now  he  holds  it  is  Me- 
 lancthonian  and  that  it  is  Calvinistie  only  on  the  sacraments, 
 the  doctrine  of  i)red('stination  being  passed  over  in  silence  ex- 
 cept as  comprehended  in  the  providence  of  God.  The  Cate- 
 chism is  of  Lutheran  extractiont  and  semi-Lutheran  in  spirit. $ 
 In  the  previous  articles  he  had  strongly  declared  that  the 
 German  Reformed  was  closely  allied  to  the  other  Reformed 
 Churches.  Here  he  claims  she  is  entirely  different  from  all 
 the  rest  by  being  ]\Ielancthonian.  Though  the  Dutch  and  Ger- 
 man Reformed  were  united  in  a  Triennial  convention,  yet  they 
 were  different. §  Zwingli  was  not  the  proper  founder  of  the 
 Reformed  Church,  it  was  Calvin,  who  contributed  to  give  it 
 form  and  character. ||  He  takes  the  opportunity  to  make  an- 
 other attack  on  the  Evangelical  Alliance.!! 
 
 In  this  book,  two  new  features  begin  to  appear  in  the  de- 
 velopment of  the  IMercersburg  theology.  The  first  is  a  growing 
 tendency  toward  liturgy.  Thus,  he  says**  that  in  order  for 
 a  Church  to  be  churchly,  it  must  be  so  in  its  connections  and 
 associations.  He  speaks  favorably  of  the  German  Church,  of 
 its  altar,  gown,  pericopes  and  Church  year  of  religious  fes- 
 tivals and  of  its  repetition  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  Creed.ff 
 
 The  second  new  feature  was  the  development  of  baptism 
 along   the   lines   of   IMercersburg   theology.      Thus,    he   saysf 
 
 *See  pages  113-.5  of  this  book. 
 
 fSee  his  History  and  Genius  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  page  140. 
 
 JSee  page  153  of  this  book. 
 
 §See  pages  153-6  of  this  book. 
 
 ||See  pages  12-13  of  this  book. 
 
 TJSee  page  150  of  this  book. 
 
 **See  page  153  of  this  book. 
 
 ffThe  Germans  never  repeat  these  audibly  in  the  church  service. 
 
258         History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 "that  baptism  inserts  the  child  into  the  life  of  the  Church  ob- 
 jectively considered."  Mercersburg  theology  sprang  out  of 
 the  Lord's  Supper.  Nevin's  first  work  was  a  vindication 
 of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  his  "Mystical  Presence."  Baptism 
 had  not  been  referred  to  or  only  incidentally.  Insertion  into 
 Christ,  when  spoken  of,  was  said  to  take  place  at  regeneration, 
 by  which  at  first  conversion  seems  to  have  been  meant.  But 
 logic  will  sooner  or  later  assert  itself.  If  the  Lord's  Supper 
 has  such  great  objective  value,  so  also  must  its  companion  sac- 
 rament, baptism.  Nevin's  philosophy  laid  emphasis  on  the 
 objective.  It  was  only  a  question  of  time  when  he  would  apply 
 that  philosophy  to  baptism  also.  By  and  by  we  will  find  that 
 baptismal  grace  and  baptismal  regeneration,  the  cornerstones 
 of  their  system,  are  brought  out  more  prominentl}^  even  than 
 the  real  presence  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  which  was  their  first 
 contention. 
 
 Several  errors,  however,  appear  in  the  book.  Dr.  Nevin 
 was  not  as  strong  in  history  as  in  theology.  Thus,*  he  says 
 the  Augsburg  Diet,  1566,  gave  a  decision  favorable  to  Fred- 
 erick III  and  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.  This  was  not  exactly 
 true.  That  Diet  came  to  no  decision  but  postponed  action  to  a 
 later  conference  and  by  the  time  that  conference  met  at  Erfurt 
 in  September,  1566,  the  opposition  to  Frederick  and  his  cate- 
 chism had  waned  and  a  reaction  had  set  in.  Again,  he  quotes 
 the  articles  of  Leipsic,  1631, f  to  show  that  the  Reformed 
 Church  of  Germany  was  then  favorable  to  Melancthonianism. 
 He  is  utterly  in  error,  for  that  conference  stated  the  Reformed 
 views  quite  as  high  in  Calvinism. |  Even  the  quotation  he  gives, 
 instead  of  emphasizing  the  objective  as  he  does,  emphasizes 
 faith  or  the  subjective.  Again,  he  says§  that  the  Palatinate 
 Liturgy  says  that  the  minister  at  the  communion  should  take 
 his  place  before  the  altar,  which  is  just  what  the  Palatinate 
 does  not  say,  for  it  uses  "table"  instead  of  altar  all  the  way 
 
 *Page  67. 
 
 fPage  144. 
 
 tIToring's  History  of  TTnion  Efforts,  I,  342;  Uerzog  "  Encyclopaedia," 
 2nd  Ed.,  VIII,  547 ;  also  my  ' '  History  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Ger- 
 many," pages  609-10. 
 
 §Page  175. 
 
Significant  Events  (1847-50).  259 
 
 through.  For  saying  that  the  eightieth  question  (which  is 
 against  the  Romish  Mass)  was  not  in  the  tirst  edition  of  our 
 cateeliism,  he  was  severely  attacked  by  the  Dutch  Reformed, 
 who  called  it  another  evidence  of  his  Romanizing  tendencies. 
 Nevin  in  reply  quoted  a  number  of  Reformed  historians,  as 
 Alting,  Seison,  Vierordt,  Goebel  and  others,  although  he  does 
 not  seem  to  know  that  thej^  were  not  all  Reformed.  But  he 
 was  right  in  his  position  about  the  catechism.  Later  discoveries 
 have  proved  it.  In  186-i  a  copy  of  the  first  edition  of  our 
 catechism  was  found  by  Dr.  Schaff  at  Bremen,*  and  it  did  not 
 contain  the  eightieth  question.  Still,  while  he  was  right  as  to 
 this  historical  fact,  he  is  wrong  as  to  the  argument  he  derives 
 from  it.  He  says  that  the  eightieth  question  is  contrary  to  the 
 spirit  of  the  catechism,  which  is  irenical.  He  forgets,  however, 
 that  our  catechism,  while  irenical  on  many  points,  has  never- 
 theless very  decidedly  polemical  questions  in  certain  parts. 
 Thus  answers  47  and  48  take  strong  ground  against  the  Lu- 
 therans, answer  33  against  the  Socinians,  answer  114  against 
 the  Perfectionists,  and  answers  30,  63,  64,  72,  78,  97,  98,  102 
 are  all  strongly  against  the  Catholics.  In  a  word,  thirteen  of 
 the  answers  (exclusive  of  the  eightieth),  or  one-tenth  of  the 
 catechism,  is  polemical.  The  Heidelberg  Catechism  was  in 
 the  main  irenical,  but  not  so  much  so  as  to  give  up  fundament- 
 als. It  strongly  attacked  the  theological  views  of  the  Luther- 
 ans, Catholics,  Unitarians  and  Perfectionists. 
 
 Section  4.    The  Dissolution  of  the  Triennial  Convention 
 Between  the  Dutch  and  German  Reformed. 
 
 The  most  significant  event  of  1847  was  the  abrogation  of  the 
 Triennial  Convention  because  of  Mercersburg  theology.  The 
 first  Triennial  Convention  between  the  Dutch  and  German  Re- 
 formed Churches  had  been  held  at  Harrisburg,  August  8-9. 
 1844.  The  Dutch  General  Synod  appointed  12  delegates,  of 
 whom  10  were  present;  the  Eastern  synod  16,  of  whom  14 
 were  present,  and  the  Ohio  synod  6,  of  whom  3  were  present. 
 Rev.  Dr.  Schoonmaker,  of  the  Dutch  Church,  called  the  con- 
 
 *This  copy  of  the  first  edition  is  now  in  the  library  of  the  University 
 of  Utrecht,  Holland. 
 
260         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 ference  to  order,  and  Rev.  Dr.  Ludlow  was  made  president 
 aud  Rev.  S.  R.  Fisher,  secretary.  The  opening  sermon  was 
 preached  by  Nevin,  on  Eph.  4 :  4-6,  the  Unity  of  the  Christian 
 Church.*  A  committee  was  appointed  to  draft  rules  for  the 
 government  of  the  convention.  Committees  were  appointed 
 from  each  of  the  synods  represented  to  propose  items  of  im- 
 portance for  action  by  the  convention.  The  rules  ordered  the 
 opening  of  the  convention  with  religious  exercises;  also  the 
 use  of  the  customary  parliamentary  rules,  and  demanded  a 
 mianimous  vote  from  each  delegation  on  any  question.  The 
 General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  having  ap- 
 pointed delegates  to  take  seats  if  invited,  the  convention  de- 
 cided it  had  not  authority  to  receive  them,  but  appreciated  the 
 fraternal  interest  that  led  to  their  appointment.  It  appointed 
 a  committee  to  consider  the  reports  brought  in  by  the  commit- 
 tees of  the  various  synods.  It  recommended  that  there  be 
 comity  of  licentiates,  correspondence  betwec^n  students  of  semi- 
 naries, similarity  in  the  system  of  instruction  in  seminaries 
 and  also  in  liturg;^'  and  form  of  worship ;  also  that  the  Dutch 
 make  vigorous  efforts  to  cover  the  destitute  districts  of  the 
 German  Reformed  Church,  and  that  charges  organized  by 
 Dutcii  missionaries  unite  with  German  churches  unless  they  be 
 contiguous  to  a  Dutch  church.  The  convention  adjourned  to 
 meet  in  1847. 
 
 After  Mercersburg  theology  began  to  show  its  teudcucies, 
 friction  in  regard  to  this  foi'ui  of  union  began  lo  sliow  ilself. 
 Th(^  Dutcli  ])aper  attacked  Schaff's  "Principle  of  Protestant- 
 ism" in  1845,  and  1846  their  General  Synod  took  action. 
 
 The  classis  of  Bergen  of  the  Dutch  Church,  as  early  as  May, 
 1846,  unanimously  sent  an  overture  to  the  General  Synod  of 
 the  Dutch  Church,  suggesting  that  on  account  of  Mercersburg 
 theology,  the  Triennial  Conventicm  be  abolished.  At  the  Dutch 
 General  Synod  of  1846,  Proudfit  and  Ferris,  the  two  dele- 
 gates from  that  body  to  our  Eastern  Synod  of  1845,  reported, 
 but  they  did  not  agree  in  their  report.  Prof.  Proudfit  brought 
 in  a  report  which  contained  moi-e  in  it  than  mer(Oy  the  actions 
 
 *We  have  rel'errod  to  tlie  Kcriiinn  on  |paj;o.s  210-214  of  tliis  Ixjok. 
 
Significant  Events  (1847-50).  261 
 
 of  our  last  synod.  He  added  to  this  a  statement  of  tlie  books 
 of  Nevin  and  Sehaff  on  Mercers])urg  theology  which  had  ap- 
 peared. The  delegate  to  that  General  Synod  from  our  Church 
 was  Rev.  B.  C.  Wolff.  In  his  address  he  entered  into  the 
 details  about  Schaff's  and  Nevin 's  doctrines,  especially  on 
 Union  with  Christ  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  He  said,  the 
 Dutch  Brethren  had  entirely  misunderstood  their  position,  and 
 that  this  was  caused  because  Schaff's  and  Nevin 's  terminology 
 was  derived  chiefly  from  the  German.  He  said  the  effect  of 
 the  controversy  in  our  Church  was  to  unify  the  Church. 
 Wolff  tried  to  show  the  diff'erent  use  of  words  by  Mercersburg, 
 by  giving  as  an  illustration  the  word  "body."  This  ordinarily 
 meant  with  us  something  material,  but  according  to  Nevin  it 
 meant  that  which  embodies  life. 
 
 A  witness  says,  in  the  Christian  Intelligencer,  that  during 
 Dr.  Wolff' 's  address,  the  members  crowded  aroiuid,  listening 
 intently,  and  that  after  it  was  over  there  were  expressions  of 
 surprise  and  dissatisfaction  and  avowals  of  inability  to  under- 
 stand him.  The  synod  appointed  a  committee,  with  Prof. 
 Proudfit  as  chairman,  to  meet  a  similar  committee  of  the  Ger- 
 man Reformed  Church.  The  General  Synod  then,  out  of  cour*- 
 tesy  to  our  synod,  refused  to  dissolve  the  Triennial  Conven- 
 tion without  the  consent  of  our  synod,  but  it  firmly  stated  its 
 adherence  to  the  principles  of  Protestantism  over  against  the 
 errors  of  Rome.  After  the  synod  there  ap])eared  in  the  CJtris- 
 tian  Intelligencer,  an  article  by  "A  Minister  of  our  Church," 
 saying  that  as  to  Wolff's  statement  at  the  Dutch  Synod  that 
 Nevin  was  misunderstood  because  he  used  German  terminol- 
 ogy, he  replied  that  there  were  other  ministers  in  the  German 
 Reformed  Church  who  thoroughly  understood  G(^rman  and 
 who  knew  what  Nevin  meant.  He  denied  that  there  was  any 
 unity  of  sentiment  in  oui'  Church,  as  there  was  a  minority  in 
 the  Eastci'n  synod,  who  desired  to  remain  true  to  the  old 
 Reformed  faith.  The  synod  of  the  German  Church,  at  its 
 next  meeting,  suggested  that  the  subject,  being  one  of  doctrine, 
 belonged  to  the  next  Triennial  Convi'ntion.  The  Dutch  Synod 
 of  1847  acquiesced  in  this  view  and  authorized  their  delegates 
 to  that  Convention  to  present  the  doctrines  involved.     Unless 
 
262         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 these  were  relieved,  they  were  authorized  to  vote  for  its  disso- 
 lution. 
 
 The  next  Triennial  Convention  opened  at  Reading,  August 
 11,  1847.  The  sermon  was  preached  by  Rev.  Prof.  Van 
 Vranken  of  the  Dutch  Church.  There  were  present  from  the 
 Dutch  Church  nine  delegates,  from  the  Eastern  synod  twelve, 
 and  from  Ohio,  one.  Rev.  Dr.  Wolff  was  elected  president 
 and  Rev.  0.  H.  Gregory,  secretary.  Various  committees  were 
 appointed,  as  one  with  Dr.  Schoonmaker  as  chairman  to  bring 
 matters  of  importance  before  the  synod;  another,  with  Dr. 
 Heiner  as  chairman,  to  bring  the  wants  of  the  East  before  the 
 synod,  and  Rev.  Mr.  Ernst  was  to  bring  wants  of  the  West.  The 
 previous  Dutch  General  Synod  had  voted  for  the  dissolution 
 of  the  Convention,  and  the  delegates  from  each  body  met  sepa- 
 rately to  consider  this  subject.  Dr.  Marselus  informed  the 
 body  of  the  action  of  the  Dutch  General  Synod  and  that  the 
 Dutch  delegates  were  unanimous  in  the  opinion  that  it  ought 
 to  be  discontinued.  Rev.  Dr.  Taylor  brought  matters  to  a 
 crisis  by  reading  from  Nevin's  book  on  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
 chism, where  he  declared  that  there  was  no  unity  between  the 
 Germans  and  the  Dutch  Reformed.  The  German  delegates 
 almost  all  opposed  the  dissolution,  asking  the  Dutch  to  leave 
 the  matter  for  future  action.  It  was  discussed  during  the 
 whole  of  Thursday  till  midnight,  when  they  adjourned  with- 
 out decision.  On  Friday  morning,  lierg  offered  the  resolution 
 for  the  dissolution  of  the  convention.  All  the  Dutch  voted  for 
 it,  as  did  two  of  the  Germans,  Berg  and  Leinbach.  Then  the 
 chairman,  13r.  Wolff,  declared  the  action  could  not  be  carried 
 out,  because  an  article  in  the  original  compact  reciuired  that 
 any  recommendation  to  the  synod  of  either  body  must  be 
 unanimous.  But  the  decision  of  the  chair  was  not  sustained 
 by  the  body  and  so  the  resolution  stood.  A  last  effort  was 
 made  by  the  German  Reformed  delegates  to  give  the  imi)res- 
 sion  that  the  Convention  was  not  dissolved.  Bucher  offered  a 
 resolution  that  the  Convention  conuucnd  to  the  synods  to  aj)- 
 point  delegates  for  tlie  next  meeting,  to  be  held  at  Chanibers- 
 burg  in  1850.  The  Dutch  delegates  protested  against  this,  but 
 after  discussion,  for  the  sake  of  catching  a  train,  the  Dutch 
 
Significant  Events  (1847-50).  263 
 
 delegates  agreed  to  the  resolution,  that  in  case  the  Convention 
 be  continued,  it  be  held  at  Charabersburg.  Thus  the  Tri- 
 ennial Convention  was  virtually  dissolved,  and  with  it  the 
 closest  relations  the  two  denominations  ever  had  were  de- 
 stroyed. Fraternal  relations  however  were  continued  between 
 the  bodies  a  few  years  longer  by  interchange  of  delegates.  We"? 
 thus  see  how  Mercersburg  theology  came  in  between  the  Ger- 
 man and  Dutch  Churches  to  prevent  their  closer  union  and 
 made  them  fall  apart.  But  for  it,  it  is  altogether  probable 
 that  the  two  denominations  would  now  be  one.  I 
 
 Section  5.    ''Antichrist  or  The  Spirit  op  Sect  and 
 Schism"  by  Nevin.* 
 
 In  the  summer  of  1848,  Dr.  Nevin  published  this  pamphlet, 
 called  forth  by  the  repeated  attacks  made  on  him  for  Roman- 
 izing. From  the  preface,  he  evidently  had  been  considerably 
 stirred  up  by  Hodge,  for  he  defends  himself  against  him  by  re- 
 stating his  peculiar  views  and  denying  that  he  is  a  follower  of 
 Schleiermacher,  as  Hodge  had  charged.  In  this  book  he  de- 
 scribes : 
 
 1.  The  nature  of  Antichrist,  2  his  histoiy,  3  his  marks. 
 
 Under  the  first,  he  says  that  the  term  "Antichrist"  means  something 
 opposite  to  Christ.  We  must  therefore  first  define  Christ  and  Christianity. 
 Christianity  was  not  a  doctrine  or  a  law  but  a  fact.  Antichrist  does  not  re- 
 fer to  a  person  but  to  a  spirit  that  produces  itself  in  history  and  which 
 is  hostile  to  Christ.  His  historical  review  of  the  ancient  heresies  is  the 
 ablest  part  of  the  book.  He  says  the  incarnation  is  denied  in  two  ways, 
 by  denying  Christ 's  divinity  or  his  humanity.  He  shows  how  on  the 
 one  hand  Gnosticism,  Manieh^ism  and  Eutychianism  run  into  each 
 other,  and  how  on  the  other  hand  Ebionism,  Pelagianism  and  Nestorian- 
 ism  followed  each  other,  each  making  one  of  these  denials.  To-day  the 
 great  denial  of  Christ  is  sectism,  which  is  the  successor  of  Nestorianism. 
 He  denies  that  the  Romish  Church  is  Antichrist  as  set  forth  in  the  West- 
 minster Confession,  because  it  does  not  bear  the  two  Biblical  marks  of 
 Antichrist: 
 
 1.  The  denial  of  the  Father  and  the  Son   (John  2:  22). 
 
 2.  A  refusal  to  confess  Christ  (1  John  4:5). 
 
 *Antichrist   was   published   in   German    in   the   Studien  and   Kritilen, 
 1849. 
 
264         History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  I'.  S. 
 
 The  Antichrist  of  his  day  are  the  sects  of  Protestantism,  whom  he  at- 
 tacks severely.  Eupp,  in  his  recent  publication  on  ' '  The  Religions  in  the 
 United  States, ' '  had  given  no  less  than  40  or  50,  yes  70,  denominations  in 
 our  land.  This  gave  Nevin  a  fine  opportunity  to  declaim  against  them. 
 The  third  part  of  the  work  is  weak  compared  with  the  former  part  of  the 
 book.  He  gives  twelve  marks  of  Antichrist  and  applies  tliem  to  the 
 Spirit  of  Sect  and  Schism  in  the  Protestant  Church.* 
 
 His  discussion  of  the  twelve  marks  is  wearisome  and  repetitious.  Per- 
 haps it  is  because  his  position  is  weak  that  his  argument  here  is  weak. 
 For  the  sect-spirit  is  not  Antichrist.  Sectism  may  be  an  evil,  Init  it  never 
 sets  itself  up  against  Christ  and  his  divinity  and  power  as  does  Antichrist. 
 Some  of  the  sweetest  Christian  spirits  have  been  among  the  sects.  Kevin's 
 argument  would  have  been  much  stronger  had  he  limited  himself  to  the 
 two  Scriptural  marks  of  Antichrist,  instead  of  enlarging  them  to  twelve. 
 But  then  he  would  probably  have  found  it  difficult  to  apply  them  to  the 
 sect-spirit,  because  they  do  not  deny  the  Father  and  Son  and  they  do 
 not  refuse  to  confess  Christ.  Indeed,  some  of  the  boldest  confessors  of 
 Christ  have  been  from  among  the  sects.  Dr.  Nevin  in  this  book  laid 
 himself  open  to  the  charge  of  Romanizing,  for  he  placed  Antichrist  not 
 in  the  Catholic  Church  but  in  the  Protestant  Church — in  the  sect  system 
 that  it  fosters.  He  laid  himself  still  more  open  to  the  charge,  for  while 
 he  inveighs  so  severely  against  the  Protestants,  lie  defends  Rome  from 
 the  charge  of  being  Antichrist.  His  ironical  and  derisive  reference  to 
 the  recent  meeting  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance  at  London,  which  he 
 said  ended  in  smoke,  appeared  then  to  show  his  lack  of  sympathy  with 
 Protestantism.  Especially  his  attack  on  private  .judgment,*  and  liis 
 ridicule  of  the  invisible  unity  of  Protestantism  add  to  the  unfortunate 
 impression  made  by  the  book,  that  it  is  an  attack  on  Protestantism, 
 [aiming  to  undermine  it. 
 
 The  truth  is  that  Antichrist  represents  any  power  arrayed 
 against  Christ,  as  Nero,  in  Paul's  day,  and  rationalism  in 
 our's.  The  pope  and  the  Romish  Church  is  Antichrist  in  so 
 far  as  it  sets  itself  up  against  God.  The  pope,  hy  claiming 
 to  be  God's  vicar  on  earth,  and  especially  since  1870,  by  claim- 
 ing infallibility,  sets  himself  up  as  God  on  earth  over  against 
 the  God  of  heaven.  The  pope  is  much  more  nearly  Antichrist 
 than  the  sect-spirit  against  which  Xcvin  so  severely  invoiglicd. 
 
 *Page  59. 
 
 fAppel  says  (Life  of  Nevin,  page  414)  that  Antichrist  is  opposed  to 
 modern  Protestantism,  which  makes  the  pajiacy  to  be  Anticlirist  and 
 draws  a  jiarallfl  between  it  aiid  (inosticism,  whose  fundamental  error 
 was  the  denial  of  tiie  incarnation  and  of  objective  liistorical  Christianity. 
 Dubbs  says  the  book  was  a  powerful  jirotest  agninst  ilisintegration, 
 which  was  the  evident  danger  of  Protestantism. 
 
Significant  Events  (1847-50).  2i)o 
 
 Another  error  is  a  historieal  one.  In  the  preface  he  tries  to 
 prove  that  the  Reformed  Church  of  Germany  was  INIelanc- 
 thonian  and  tliat  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  creed  of  the 
 Lutheran  Church,  was  at  tirst  received  by  the  entire  Reformed 
 Church  of  Germany.  He  does  not  seem  to  know  that  the 
 Reformed  Church  at  Emden,  the  earliest  Reformed  Church  in 
 Germany,  never  received  it.  He  seems  not  to  notice  that  the 
 others,  that  did  receive  it,  received  it  as  Lutherans,  but  when 
 they  later  became  Reformed  they  set  it  aside  for  the  Heidel- 
 berg Catechism. 
 
 Just  at  the  time  when  these  high  views  of  the  Church  and 
 its  ordinances  were  being  fostered  by  Nevinism,  there  occurred 
 a  case  which  caused  considerable  comment  and  added  still 
 farther  to  the  suspicions  of  Romanizing.  A  minister  of  the 
 Evangelical  Association,  Rev.  Nicolas  Gehr,  left  that  denomi- 
 nation for  the  German  Reformed  Church.  The  classis  of  ^ler- 
 eersburg  re-ordained  him.  Kurtz,  in  the  Lutheran  Observer, 
 charges  Gehr  with  improper  motives  in  .joining  the  Reformed 
 Church,  that  having  been  born  a  Catholic,  he  now  goes  back 
 to  a  Church  tinctured  with  Romanizing.  Gehr  replied  that  he 
 left  the  Evangelical  Association  mainly  for  three  things  (1) 
 its  doctrine  of  sinless  perfection,  (2)  the  extravagance  of  the 
 anxious  bench  system,  (3)  its  almost  general  opposition  to  an 
 educated  ministry.  He  denies  that  he  had  any  tendencies 
 toward  Kevin's  sacramentarianism.  In  this  Kurtz  was  in 
 error,  for  Gehr's  later  life  proved  that  he  had  no  sympathy 
 with  ]\Iercersburg  theology,  for  he  became  one  of  its  oppo-^ 
 nents.  His  coming  into  our  Church  gave  the  high-church 
 party  an  opportimity  to  show  their  contempt  for  sects,  as  they 
 called  the  Evangelical  Association.  From  their  standpoint  they 
 declared  that  the  Evangelical  Association  was  a  sect  and  not 
 a  church,  because  it  was  started  by  a  layman  named  Albright 
 without  any  ordination.  Hence  there  was  no  historical  suc- 
 cession of  the  objt'ctive  grace  of  the  Church  coming  through 
 him  to  those  after  him.  The  classis  of  Mercersburg  declared 
 that  the  Albright  sect  was  no  part  of  the  Church  of  Christy 
 Xevin,  in  the  Mercersburg  Review,  1849,  defended  their  re- 
 ordination  of  Gehr  and  explained  the  seeming  inconsistency 
 
266         History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 of  accepting  Gehr's  baptism  but  not  his  ordination.  He  ex- 
 plained this  by  saying  that  they  could  recognize  his  baptism 
 because  it  had  been  performed  by  a  true,  real  Church,  the 
 Catholic,  for  Gehr  had  been  baptized  a  Catholic.  But  at  the 
 same  time  they  refused  to  recognize  his  ordination  because  by 
 improperly  ordained  men  in  the  Albright  Church.  Nevin 
 went  on  to  say  that  if  Albright  could  thus  originate  a  Church 
 "any  Tom,  Dick  and  Harry  could." 
 
 But  though  this  was  their  argument,  it  appeared  strange  to 
 most  Protestants  that  one  Protestant  church  would  re-ordain 
 a  minister  of  another,  because  it  was  the  rule  among  them  to 
 respect  one  another's  ordination.  And  this  re-ordination  was 
 made  use  of  b}'  the  enemies  of  Nevinism  to  still  further  prove 
 its  Romanizing  tendencies,  because  while  the  INIercersburg 
 theologians  and  ministers  refused  to  accept  the  ordination  of 
 the  Evangelical  Association,  who  were  Protestants,  they  yet 
 were  loudly  proclaiming  their  recognition  of  the  baptism  of 
 Catholics, 
 
 Section  6.    The  First  Years  of  the  "  IMercersburg 
 Review.  ' ' 
 
 With  the  beginning  of  1849,  there  came  a  new  development 
 in  the  controversy — the  publication  of  the  Merccrshiirg  lie- 
 vieiv.  This  gave  the  Mercersburg  party  new  power,  as  they 
 now  had  an  organ.  It  was  begun,  because  it  Avas  felt  that 
 the  theological  articles  that  had  appeared  in  the  Messenger 
 were  out  of  place  in  a  popular  church  paper  as  they  were 
 too  heavy,  and  because  i\\cj  were  intended  more  for  theo- 
 logical minds  than  for  the  average  member  of  the  Church. 
 Another  cause  was  the  fact  that  Nevin  had  had  difficulty  to  get 
 his  replies  to  Hodge  accepted  by  any  of  the  tlieological  reviews. 
 It  was  therefore  felt  that  the  Church  ought  to  have  its  own  re- 
 view. These  long  tlieological  articles  had  caused  complaint 
 from  some  of  the  subscribers  of  the  Messenger;  besides  a  Re- 
 view of  their  own  would  enable  them  to  develop  tlieir  peciiliai- 
 type  of  theology  more  fully  and  would  give  them  better  stand- 
 ing before  the  world.     The  Alumni  Association  of  Marshall 
 
Significant  Events  (1847-50).  267 
 
 College  formally  determinod  to  cin])ark  orrthe  project.  Henry 
 Mish,  Esq.,  a  lawyer  and  editor  of  Mercersburg,  offered  the 
 Alumni,  in  1848,  to  publish  a  Review  provided  he  received  the 
 necessary  support,  and  a  committee  was  appointed  to  take  up 
 the  matter.  Dr.  Nevin  declined  to  become  editor,  but  con- 
 sented to  become  leading  contributor.  Tliis  committee  sent  out 
 circulars  for  subscribers  but  received  few  replies.  Three  hun- 
 dred subscribers  were  necessary  to  make  it  pay  and  only  one 
 hundred  had  been  received,  mainly  at  the  commencement  of 
 the  College.     But  finally  the  committee  went  ahead  with  it. 
 
 Dr.  Kevin's  main  articles  in  1849  were  on  the  Apostles'  Creed.  An 
 attack  on  the  Creed  in  the  Puritan  Hecorder  gave  him  a  fine  opportunity 
 to  attack  Puritanism  and  Dr.  Nevin  never  shows  to  better  advantage 
 than  as  a  polemist.  He  says  the  creed  was  a  growth,  though  it  had 
 its  main  composition  in  the  early  period  of  the  Church.  Not  until 
 Puritanism  with  its  sect  system  began  to  appear  was  the  Creed  left 
 out  of  the  confessions  of  the  Church  as  in  the  Westminster  Confession. 
 From  the  outward  history  of  the  Creed  he  proceeds  in  the  second  part 
 to  describe  its  inward  constitution  and  form.  The  Creed  is  no  work 
 of  mere  outward  authority,  nor  is  it  the  product  of  reflection  but  it  is 
 a  growth — a  reflection  of  the  early  Christian  consciousness  of  the 
 (Jhurch.  He  says  the  Creed  does  not  spring  from  the  Bible.  The  early 
 Christians  got  it  not  from  the  Bible  but  from  the  fact  of  Christianity 
 itself,  which  must  be  allowed  to  be  in  its  nature  older  even  and  deeper 
 than  its  own  record  under  this  form  (page  337).  The  divine  traditiou 
 which  starts  from  the  original  substance  of  Christ,  only  itself  as  it 
 underlies  the  Bible,  meets  us  under  its  clearest,  most  primitive  and  most 
 authoritative  character  in  the  Apostles'  Creed  (page  339).  He  thus 
 virtually  places  the  Creed  before  and  above  the  Bible.  This  article  was 
 severely  criticised  in  the  Biblical  Repository  and  Frinceton  Eeview, 
 October,  1852.  In  this  article  he  lays  himself  open  to  the  charge  that 
 his  teaching  was  against  tlie  received  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  for 
 he  says  "that  the  union  of  the  divine  and  human  in  Christ  not  simply 
 qualifies  him  for  his  work  ])ut  involves  in  his  person  the  reconiliation 
 that  redemption  requires.  He  is  in  his  constitution  our  peace"  (pages 
 154-5).  The  atonement  from  this  took  place  in  his  person,  not  in  his 
 act  on  the  cross.  His  article  was  criticised  for  its  approval  of  tradi- 
 tion, for  elevating  the  Creed  above  the  Bible  as  being  the  original  tra- 
 dition of  the  Church.  His  fling  at  the  Evangelical  Alliance  (page  303) 
 as  a  convention  of  sects — a  convention  of  the  blind  to  settle  the  laws 
 of  light, — was  considered  hostile  to  Protestantism. 
 
268        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Later  investigations  on  the  Creed,  as  by  Ilahn,  Zahn  and 
 McGiffert  have  shown  how  false  were  Dr.  Nevin's  high-church 
 views  of  the  Creed.  The  Creed  was  a  growth,  l)ut  its  article 
 on  "the  Church,"  on  which  Dr.  Nevin  lays  so  much  stress  in 
 his  writings  on  the  Creed,  was  not  in  the  earliest  form  of  the 
 creed,*  as  Ireneus  does  not  refer  to  it  and  Tertullian  does  not 
 give  it  in  his  form.  According  to  Hahn,  Phtebadius  and  Gre- 
 gory of  Tours  omit  it,  as  does  Eusebius  of  Ca^sarea,  who  omits 
 all  after  the  article  on  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  this  is  often  done 
 in  the  early  forms.  This  clause  was  not  added  until  the  third 
 century.  And  when  it  was  added,  it  did  not  have  the  high- 
 church  meaning  that  Dr.  Nevin  puts  into  it.  For  Zahn  saysf 
 "the  Church  was  not  looked  on  as  the  author  of  salvation 
 and  creator  of  truth  but  as  the  faithful  witness  of  the  truth." 
 Again,  Dr.  Nevin's  claim  that  the  Creed  was  an  organic  growth 
 is  not  born  out.  The  articles  came  together  in  a  sort  of  hap- 
 hazard way,  now  from  this  part  of  the  Church  and  now  from 
 that.  This  is  the  impression  one  gets  in  looking  over  Hahn's 
 masterly  work  giving  all  the  different  versions.  The  Creed 
 was  not  a  settled  substance  of  the  truth  of  the  early  Church, 
 as  Nevin  claimed,  but  its  forms  were  various,  some  longer, 
 some  shorter.  Frequently  parts  and  sections  were  left  out, 
 especially  the  whole  last  section  after  the  life  of  Christ.  And 
 the  order  of  the  clauses  of  the  creed  differs  at  times.  Dr. 
 Nevin  claimed  that  the  position  of  the  article  on  the  "Church" 
 was  significant  as  it  came  between  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the 
 forgiveness  of  sins,  showing  that  forgiveness  was  through  the 
 medium  of  the  Church  and  o])jective  Christianity.  But  while 
 that  was  the  general  form  ot"  th(^  Creed,  there  are  variations. 
 Tlie  article  on  the  Church  is  sometimes  elsewhere  placed. 
 Priscillian  puts  it  before  the  article  on  the  Holy  Spirit.  Ful- 
 gentius  puts  it  at  the  end  of  the  Creed.  The  Antioclu^n  Creed 
 omits  all  between  the  article  on  Pontius  Pilate  and  the  remis- 
 sion of  sins.  Far  from  being  a  cei'tain  organic  form  of  early 
 Christianity,  the  Creed  is  often  uncertain  as  to  its  details. 
 And  if  we  may  believe  Prof.  JMcOilTert.  its  ai-1ieles  were  called 
 
 *See  McGiffert,  The  Apostles'  Creed,  22,  92  94,  1.52-155. 
 
 fThe  Articles  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  English  translation,  page  178. 
 
Significant  Events  (1847-50).  269 
 
 forth  by  the  controversies  of  the  early  Cliureh  and  wore  not 
 the  natural  growth  and  expression  of  the  early  life  of  the 
 Church,  as  Nevin  holds. 
 
 Nevin 's  book  reviews  are  also  significant.  He  reviews  Sartorius' 
 Person  and  Work  of  Christ  favorably,  because  Sartorioiis  holds  substan- 
 tially to  the  same  views  of  development  and  organic  Christianity  as 
 Nevin.  In  his  review  of  Kirwan's  "Letters  against  the  Romish  Church" 
 he  said  that  Schaff 's  defence  in  the  "Principle  of  Protestantism"  is  a 
 better  defence  than  they  were.  Winebrenner  's  ' '  History  of  Eeligious 
 Denominations  in  the  United  States ' '  gave  him  another  opportunity  to 
 attack  the  sects  of  Protestantism.  He  compares  the  fifty-three  denomi- 
 nations described  in  it  to  Catlin  's  Museum,  where  each  tribe  paints 
 himself.  His  review  is  a  wholesale  condemnation  of  the  denominations 
 of  Protestantism  as  now  divided.  He  condemns  even  the  most  con- 
 servative, although  he  is  especially  severe  on  the  Church  of  God  and  the 
 Campbellites,  and  says  the  Albrights  and  United  Brethren  hold  to  jus- 
 tification by  faith  without  works. 
 
 The  Mercersburg  Eevicw  of  18-50  contained  several  leading  articles 
 by  Nevin  that  are  significant.  They  were  his  review  of  ' '  Brownson  's 
 Quarterly ' '  and  of  Wilberf orce  on  the  ' '  Incarnation. ' '  The  former  was 
 an  examination  of  a  Catholic's  position,  the  latter  of  a  Puseyite's  views. 
 His  article  on  Brownson  revealed  his  views  on  Eomanism.  He  begins  by 
 saying  that  he  did  not  criticise  Brownson  as  a  weather-cock,  because 
 he  went  from  Unitarianism  to  Romanism,  for  the  very  principle  that  led 
 him  to  renounce  Unitarianism  prevents  him  from  stopping  short  of 
 Romanism.  Brownson 's  defence  of  Romanism  was  not  to  be  despised 
 as  of  small  account,  for  his  Puritan  training  made  him  familiar  with 
 the  weaknesses  of  Protestantism  which  he  could  use  for  the  benefit  of 
 Rome. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  he  disagrees  with  Brownson,  who  had  reduced 
 the  significance  of  the  Reformation  to  zero,  for  it  had  historical  signifi- 
 cance and  value.  He  criticised  Brownson 's  Romanism  because  it  does 
 not  allow  room  for  the  doctrine  of  historical  development ;  and,  besides, 
 it  wrongs  man 's  constitution  by  not  allowing  the  ordinary  law  of  free- 
 dom to  have  power  in  the  sphere  of  religion.  Brownson  makes  authority 
 everything  and  liberty  nothing;  but  this  was  slavery.  Brownson 's  super- 
 natural is  abstract,  (God,  abstract;  Christ,  abstract;  Church,  abstract,) 
 and  is  not  sufficiently  historical.  Brownson  also  had  a  wrong  concep- 
 tion of  faith,  making  it  opposed  to  reason,  whereas  it  was  opposed  to 
 sense.  But  while  Nevin  thus  disagrees  with  Catholicism,  he  also  severely 
 criticises  Protestantism.  Protestantism  can  not  identify  itself  with 
 Apostolic  Christianity.  Brownson  was  wrong  but  so  also  was  the 
 Protestant  theory  of  the  Bible  and  the  right  of  jjrivate  judgment.     He 
 
270         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 was  more  lenient  with  Brownson  than  with  the  Protestants,  whom  he 
 always  calls  Pseudo-Protestants.* 
 
 Brownson  replied  by  saying  that  as  Nevin  had  charged  him  with 
 being  a  deist,  he  charged  Nevin  with  being  a  pantheist.  This  Nevin 
 denied.  Nevin  criticised  Brownson  for  so  sundering  the  objective 
 and  subjective  so  that  they  fall  dualistically  apart  into  two  worlds. 
 They  are  different,  but  he  objects  to  their  absolute  separation.  li(> 
 objects  to  Brownson,  because  he  sets  the  supernatural  out  of  nature 
 and  above  it.  The  question,  Nevin  says,  is  not  the  full  objectivity  of 
 the  supernatural  as  an  order  above  nature,  but  we  ask  for  a  correspond- 
 ing subjectivity  on  the  part  of  man,  so  that  he  be  lifted  up  into  his 
 superior  sphere  not  by  magic  but  by  faith. 
 
 Nevin,  in  his  article  on  Wilberforce  on  the  Incarnation,  gives  a  re- 
 view of  Puseyism.  He  says  he  cannot  agree  with  some  of  Wilberforce 's 
 admirers  in  saying  that  it  was  the  greatest  theological  work  of  the 
 age,  for  they  undervalued  the  works  of  German  theologians.  But  he  was 
 glad  to  find  that  Wilberforce,  though  hazy  at  times,  agreed  with  the 
 positions  he  took  in  the  Mystical  Presence,  as: 
 
 1.  That  the  mediation  of  Christ  holds  prominently  in  the  constitution 
 of  his  person.  The  Protestant  view  was  to  make  the  mediation  always 
 stand  outside  of  the  transaction  of  the  Mediator,  whereas  it  is  within 
 himself.  The  incarnation  is  not  in  order  to  mediation,  but  is  the  media- 
 torial fact  in  height,  depth,  length  and  breadth.  "Christ  is  the  actual 
 medium  of  conjunction  of  God  and  man. ' '  The  Bible  is  secondary 
 to,  and  rests  on,  Christ.  The  Bible  is  not  the  principle  of  Christianity, 
 neither  its  origin,  its  fountain  or  foundation. 
 
 2.  The  Incarnation  is  in  strict  organic  and  historic  continuity  with 
 the  human  world  as  a  whole.  The  universaluess  of  Christ  does  not  con- 
 sist of  his  assumption  of  the  lives  of  all  men  into  himself,  but  of  that 
 living  law  or  power  which  forms  the  entire  fact  of  humanity  irres])ec- 
 tive  of  the  particular  human  existence  in  which  it  may  appear.  These 
 are  a  finite  all,  the  other  a  boundless  whole,  two  different  concep- 
 tions, as  far  apart  as  the  poles.  Humanity  as  a  single  universal 
 fact  is  redeemed  in  C'hrist  truly,  really  without  regard  to  other  men, 
 any  farther  than  they  are  made  to  partake  of  this  redemption  by  being 
 brought  into  living  union  with  his  person. 
 
 3.  Tiu>  humanity  of  Christ  is  the  repository  and  medium  of  salivation 
 for  the  rest  of  mankind. 
 
 4.  Christ  carried  our  universal  human  nature  in  his  person  so  that 
 all  men  may  be  joined  with  God  through  him. 
 
 5.  Christ's  presence  in  the  world  is  in  and  by  the  mystical  body,  the 
 Church. 
 
 *Pages  76-7. 
 
Significant  Events  (1847-50).  271 
 
 6.  The  idea  of  the  Church  as  standing  between  Christ  and  Christians, 
 implies  of  necessity  a  visible  organization,  common'  worship,  public 
 ministry  and  ritual. 
 
 This  article  is  especially  valuable  because  it  gives  more  clearly  than 
 before  Neviu's  philosophical  views  about  the  universal  humanity  which 
 Christ  assumed  and  also  reveals  his  friendly  attitude  to  Puseyism. 
 
 In  the  early  part  of  1851  there  are  several  articles  by  Nevin.  The 
 first  is  one  on  Catholicism,  by  which  he  means  not  the  Catholic  Church 
 but  the  universal  Church,  viewed  especially  as  an  organism.  There 
 are  two  kinds  of  universality,  all  and  whole.  All  is  individual;  whole, 
 collective.  The  latter  produces  an  organism  and  it  is  in  this  sense  that 
 the  word  Catholic  is  used.  No  other  order  of  society  except  the  Church 
 can  be  Catholic.  The  state  can  not.  No  sect  can  be  Catholic,  and 
 here  he  inveighs  against  the  sects.  He  derides  the  Puritan  theory  of 
 the  atonement  and  justification  as  a  magical  supernatural  change  by  the 
 Holy  Spirit.  He  has  also  a  review  of  Balmes'  work,  "European 
 Civilization."  Balmes  was  one  of  the  most  prominent  of  the  apologists 
 for  the  Catholic  Church.  Nevin,  in  his  review,  says  that  Protestants 
 ought  to  read  Catholic  books  in  order  to  be  properly  informed.  He 
 commends  this  book  to  all  who  are  under  the  baneful  influences  of 
 Pseudo-Protestantism.  It  lives,  not  in  an  element  of  infidelity  like 
 them  but  of  faith.  Unlike  them,  it  aims  not  at  undermining  faith  in 
 the  divine  character  of  Christianity,  but  at  establishing  it.  He  agrees 
 with  the  author  that  the  Catholic  Church  was  the  true  mother  of  modern 
 civilization  and  culture,  but  disagrees  with  him  in  saying  that  Pro- 
 testantism hindered  the  forward  movement.  In  May,  he  writes  on  "Cur 
 Deus  Homo."  In  his  review  of  Liebner's  Christology  he  had  declared 
 that  Christ  would  have  become  incarnate,  even  if  there  had  been  no 
 sin.  He  viewed  it  from  the  organic  standpoint,  because  otherwise  the 
 race  would  have  no  true  unity  or  holiness.  If  its  parts  are  .not  to  fall 
 asunder,  it  needed  to  have  a  personal  head  in  whom  the  human  is  joined 
 to  the  divine.    He  endeavors  to  prove  it  from  Scripture. 
 
 Section  7.    "Early  Christianity,"  by  Nevin. 
 
 This  article  in  the  Mercershurg  Kevicw  in  1851-2  caused  a 
 tremendous  sensation.  Before  writing  it,  he  wrote  an  article 
 in  that' Review  (1851)  on  "The  Anglican  Crisis,"  which  is 
 significant. 
 
 There  is,  he  says,  a  crisis  in  the  Anglican  Church.  The  question  is 
 whether  the  original  doctrine  of  the  Church  as  it  stood  for  ages  before 
 the  Eeformation  is  to  be  received  and  held  as  a  necessary  part  of  the 
 Christian  faith  or  to  be  rejected  as  a  dangerous  error.  The  al- 
 ternative is  Church  or  no  Church,  sacrament  or  no  sacrament.  The  two 
 general  alternatives  are  really  four: 
 
272         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 1.  The  giving  up  of  the  sacramental  system,  for  hajitistic  indeiieiiuenfy 
 and  unclmrchly  Orthodoxy. 
 
 2.  Despair  of  Protestantism  and  reeoneiliation  with  Rome. 
 
 3.  A  new  miraculous  dispensation  by  Christ  as  hehl  by  the  Sweden 
 borgians,  Irvingites  and  Mormons. 
 
 4.  The  only  one  left  to  a  thoughtful  mind  is  historical  development. 
 By  this,  without  prejudice  to  the  Catholic  as  first  in  its  order  and 
 sphere,  or  without  prejudice  to  the  Protestant  as  a  real  a<lvance  on  the 
 Catholic  in  modern  times,  the  present  state  is  viewed  as  transitional. 
 Historical  development  will  enable  the  Church  to  surmount  the  i)ainful 
 contradictions  of  the  present  Protestant  controversy  and  carry  it  on  in 
 the  best  sense — "the  type  neither  of  St.  Paul  (Protestantism)  or 
 St.  Peter  (Catholicism)  but  brought  together  in  St.  .John  in  some  form 
 that  will  etherialize  r.nd  save  the  rich  wealth  of  the  old  Catholic  faith 
 (p.  396). 
 
 The  Clirisfiati  Inhlliyciiccr  critieisrs  this  ai'liclc  InH-ause 
 Xevin,  while  ghnying  over  the  spread  of  Piiseyisni,  scored,  as 
 rationalism,  everything  like  the  private  interpretation  of  the 
 Bible  as  held  by  Protestantism. 
 
 But  it  Avas  his  articles  on  ''Early  Christianity"  that  caused 
 the  greatest  sensation.  His  object  in  them  was  to  sliow  the 
 dififerenee  between  Puritanism  of  to-day  and  the  early  Chris- 
 tianity. He  said  the  relation  between  them  might  be  (3)  of 
 identity  or  (2)  of  contradiction.  It  was  not  the  former 
 (which  was  the  view  of  most  Protestants),  but  it  was  the  latter. 
 
 He  aimed  to  show  how  Protest,;intism  is  to  be  placed  in  true  relation 
 with  the  Christianity  of  the  second,  third  and  fourth  centuries,  lie 
 started  out  by  making  use  of  a  report  sent  home  by  Ur.  Bacon  from 
 Lyons,  France,  to  the  ladies  of  NeAV  Haven,  and  also  of  certain  notices 
 by  Bishop  Wilson,  the  Episcopalian  bishop  of  Calcutta,  while  travel- 
 ing in  Europe  in  1823.  He  attacked  Wilson,  who  was  a  iow-Cliurcli 
 Episcopalian  and  who  therefore  claimed  that  the  Christianity  of  the 
 fourth  century  was  still  Evangelical.  He  also  attacked  the  Puritanic 
 view  of  Bacon,  who  claimed  that  the  first  century  alone  was  Evan- 
 gelical. The  Protestants,  Nevin  said,  are  farther  from  the  first  cen- 
 tury than  tiic  Catholics.*  He  attacks  the  Puritan  view  that  the  true 
 faith  was  tian.smitted  through  the  sects,  as  the  Waldenses,  Albigenses, 
 Paulicians,  etc.  Puritanism  claims  to  base  itself  on  the  Bible  and  yet 
 the  Bible  has  come  down  to  us  through  what  they  call  the  apostate 
 Church  of  Rome,  to  whom  w^e  owe  its  canonicity  and  uncorrupted  text. 
 This  Puritan  hypothesis  was  as  unnatural  a  hypothesis  as  were  Strauss' 
 
 *Page  481. 
 
Significant  Events  (1847-50).  273 
 
 and  Bauers'  mythical  theories  about  the  Bible.  He  quotes  from  the 
 early  fathers  to  prove  his  view  and  attacks  Mosheim  and  Gieseler  as  his- 
 torians. 
 
 The  main  controversy,  he  said,  was  on  the  true  idea  of  the  Church. 
 He  severely  attacks  the  doctrine  of  the  invisible  Church.*  With  him 
 the  visible  Church  is  everything  (which  is  a  Romanizing  view. — A.)  He 
 says  the  invisible  Church  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  Church  of  the 
 second  century.  He  contrasts  Puritanism  with  the  true  view  on  the 
 Church,  ministry,  sacraments,  rule  of  faith,  order  of  doctrine  and 
 faith  in  miracles,  showing  that  the  early  centuries  did  not  agree  with 
 the  Protestant  view.  As  a  rule  of  faith  the  early  Church  employed 
 the  Creed  rather  than  the  Bible.  As  to  miracles,  Puritanism  claimed 
 that  they  had  ceased  with  the  first  century,  but  the  second  century 
 still  believed  they  continued  and  it  consecrated  relics.  He  closes  by 
 saying  that  either  ancient  Christianity  is  intrinsically  false  or  Protestant- 
 ism is  a  bold  imposture. f  His  third  article  apjieared  January,  1852. 
 The  question  is,  shall  theology  rule  history  or  history,  theology.  He 
 was  willing  to  be  the  Galileo  to  suffer  for  the  new  discovery  of  the  idea 
 of  historical  development.  He  then  goes  on  to  reply  to  the  charge 
 that  he  is  Romanizing  in  these  articles.  He  was  not  writing  doctrine 
 but  simply  giving  facts.  If  Athanasius  were  living  to-day,  he  would 
 be  worshiping  in  the  Catholic  Church.  Augustine  would  not  be  ac- 
 knowledged by  any  Evangelical  sect.  Chrysostom  would  find  the  Puri- 
 tanism of  New  England  as  inhospitable  as  the  Egyptian  desert.  The 
 Puritan  theory,  that  the  Catholicism  of  the  Middle  Ages  was  an  apos- 
 tasy, is  the  negation  of  all  previous  history.  Protestantism  runs  into 
 infidelity.  So  we  are  shut  up  to  historical  development.  He  refers  ap- 
 provingly to  the  history  of  development  by  Newman  as  differing 
 from  Brownson  in  granting  that  there  was  a  development.  Protestantism 
 is  not  the  end  of  the  reformation.  It  will  develop  into  something  more. 
 What  it  will  be,  he  does  not  attempt  to  define,  as  his  article  is  only  his- 
 torical. The  ultimate  result  may,  however,  appear  in  one  of  three 
 forms  :f 
 
 1.  Protestantism  may  be  taken  as  the  reigning  stream  of  Christianity, 
 though  not  as  the  whole  of  it.  Into  this  the  life  of  Catholicism  is  to 
 pour  itself  as  a  w^holesome,  qualifying  power,  yielding  to  it  the  palm  of 
 supremacy,  right  and  strength. 
 
 2.  Or  Protestantism  and  Catholicism  may  be  viewed  as  the  contrary 
 sides  of  a  dialectic  process  in  the  Hegelian  sense,  which  must  be  alike 
 taken  up  and  brought  to  a  new  form  of  existence,  that  shall  be  itself 
 true  of  both  and  yet  something  far  higher  and  better  than  either. 
 
 3.  The    principle    succession    of    the    proper    Church-life    lies    in    the 
 
 *Page  538. 
 fPage  562. 
 |Page  49. 
 
274         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 channel  of  the  Catholic  communion.  While  Protestantism  is  legitimate 
 and  necessary  in  its  time,  it  must  in  the  end  fall  back  into  the  old 
 Catholic  stream  in  order  to  fulfill  its  mission. 
 
 Of  these  three,  the  first  is  most  agreeable  to  Protestants.  But  as 
 far  as  historical  development  is  concerned  either  would  suit.  He 
 does  not  propose  to  discuss  them,  but  simply  to  show  that  Protestantism 
 must  move  on  to  a  more  tolerant  feeling  toward  the  Catholic  Church. 
 Anti-popery,  with  its  war-whoop  of  the  Pope  as  Antichrist,  is  not  the 
 best  type  of  Protestant  scholarship.  Such  Puritanism  is  to  form  a 
 truce  with  infidelity.  We  go  with  Rome  against  infidelity,  rather  than 
 with  infidelity  like  that,  against  Rome.  The  real  Antichrist  is  the  spirit 
 of  Puritanism,  which  denounces  the  Catholic  Church  as  of  the  devil, — 
 it  was  the  sect-spirit  which  was  rationalism  in  the  Church  and  radical- 
 ism in  the  state.  He  closes  these  articles  with  some  theses  which 
 summarize  them,  proving  that  Nicene  Christianity  is  not  the  same 
 as  Protestantism,  but  the  same  as  Catholicism  and  that  even  in  the 
 second  century  the  Church  was  not  the  same  as  the  Protestantism  of 
 to-day.  Protestantism  is  not  a  repristination  of  Apostolic  Christianity. 
 Protestantism,  to  be  considered  a  new  fact  altogether,  rooting  itself 
 on  the  Bible  without  regard  to  history,  is  such  an  assumption  as  goes  to 
 upset  completely  the  supernatural  mystery  of  the  holy  Catholic  Church 
 in  the  form  in  which  it  is  made  to  challenge  our  faith  in  the  Apostles' 
 Creed.  Protestantism  can  be  vindicated  historically  only  through  the 
 medium  of  the  Catholic  Church.  No  opposition  to  Rome  can  deserve 
 respect,  that  is  not  based  on  historical  development. 
 
 Dubbs  says*  "that  Nevin's  purpose  in  writing  these  articles  was 
 strongly  misconceived  by  those  who  charge  him  with  Romanizing.  His 
 intention  was  to  show  that  the  Oxford  Tractarians,  in  endeavoring  to 
 repristinate  the  Church  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  were  taking 
 one  of  the  many  roads  that  lead  to  Rome.  He  showed  that  no  such 
 chasm  existed  between  the  Church  of  the  fifth  century  and  the  succeed- 
 ing Middle  Ages  and  therefore  he  was  supposed  to  be  writing  in  defence 
 of  Rome." 
 
 Whether  he  was  misconceived  or  not  his  articles  roused  a  storm  of 
 criticism.  The  Christian  Intelligencer  thus  summarizes  "Early  Chris- 
 tianity": The  Church  possesses  not  merely  a  divine  life,  but  an 
 outward  institution  which  secures  it  an  authority  prior  in  time  and 
 greater  in  effect  than  the  Bible.  The  Creed  determines  the  Bible  and 
 not  the  Bible  the  correctness  of  the  Creed.  The  Bible  derives  its  view 
 from  the  sanction  of  the  Church  and  not  from  the  inspired  author.  Or, 
 rather,  we  do  not  know  its  books  to  be  inspired  without  an  express 
 declaration  to  that  effect  by  the  Church.  Ncvin  avers  that  "no  man, 
 whose  tongue  falters  in  pronouncing  Mary  the  Mother  of  God,  can  be 
 
 *American  Church  History,  page  377. 
 
Significant  Events  (1847-50).  275 
 
 orthodox  in  heart  in  the  article  of  Christ 's  person. "  Is  he  a  safe 
 teacher  when  he  says  this?  asks  the  Intelligencer. 
 
 The  Puritan  Recorder  says,  "Nevin  holds  that  the  visible  Church  is 
 an  organic  body  developing  itself  by  a  regular  life-process  through  its 
 history,  giving  frame  to  theology  and  forming  a  tradition  not  inferior 
 to  the  authority  of  the  Bible.  Protestantism  makes  the  order  of  doc- 
 trine to  be  from  the  Bible  to  the  Creed,  Mercersburg  theology,  from 
 the  Creed  to  the  Bible.  Nevin  believes  that  the  power  of  working 
 miracles  is  perpetuated  in  the  Church  and  says  that  the  veneration  of 
 works  is  one  of  the  beauties  of  it  and  that  there  is  peculiar  merit  in 
 celibacy.  What  is  there  in  tract  No.  90  of  Oxford  so  outspoken  in 
 favor  of  every  cardinal  feature  of  Popery  as  this?" 
 
 Dr.  Berg  says  that  Nevin 's  articles  are  against  a  man  of  straw,  that 
 Protestantism  did  not  hold  that  it  represented  any  Christianity  later 
 than  that  of  the  first  century.  Nobody  denies  that  the  corruptions 
 of  Christianity  began  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries  and  even  in  the 
 second,  but  nobody,  not  even  the  most  learned  members  of  Eome,  ever 
 attempted  to  prove  that  Purgatory,  image-,  saint-,  and  work-worship 
 were  definitely  settled  then  and  nobody  dreamed  of  transubstantiation, 
 that  crowning  folly  of  the  papacy.  The  germ  of  it  all  was  in  the  Early 
 Church  (Col.  2:  8).  He  quotes  the  oath  of  office  taken  by  Nevin  in 
 becoming  professor  of  theology  as  against  his  present  views  of  Scrip- 
 ture. He  says,  Archbishop  Hughes,  of  the  Catholic  Church,  never  ven- 
 tured to  speak  of  Protestantism  in  such  tones  of  lordly  contempt  as 
 Nevin,  a  Reformed  professor  of  theology.  The  Presbyterian  says  it  is 
 ' '  in  its  whole  tenure  a  defense  of  papal  doctrines  and  an  assault  on 
 Reformation  principles, — these  are  treated  with  sneering  contempt, 
 and  the  very  claims  on  which  papacy  realizes  as  the  true  and  only  Church 
 are  sustained." 
 
 The  Catholic  Herald  speaks  of  it  as  a  masterly  article,  destined  to 
 create  no  little  sensation,  not  only  in  his  own  denomination,  but  among 
 Protestants  in  general.  The  way  he  demolishes  the  favorite  theory 
 of  Protestants  that  popery  is  a  corruption  of  early  Christianity  must  be 
 anything  but  agreeable  to  its  advocates.  It  says,  ' '  The  intellectual  exer- 
 cises which  now  occupied  the  learned  mind  of  Prof.  Nevin  are  exactly  those 
 which  have  caused  many  others  to  feel  that  the  ground  has  given  way 
 beneath  them  and  that  nothing  remains  as  a  foundation  for  their  trem- 
 bling feet  but  that  which  the  old  faith  (the  Roman  Catholic)  held 
 out  as  a  refuge.  He  hath  entered  upon  a  path,  which  should  he  neither 
 recede,  pause  nor  turn  aside,  must  eventually  conduct  him  to  the 
 Catholic  fold."  Dr.  Schaff  says*  that  Nevin 's  last  two  articles  on  the 
 Anglican  Crisis  and  Early  Christianity  show  that  the  whole  Protestant 
 Church  is  in  a  crisis  in  which  it  is  openly  wounded  and  being  deflected 
 from  the  churchly  path  with  nothing  left  except  a  glance  of  faith  to  the 
 
 *See  Eeformcd  Kirchenzeit^ing  of  Germany,  1852, 
 
276         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 future.  Schaff's  biographer  says  tliat  in  these  articles,  Nevin  went 
 beyond  Schaflf 's  positions.  But  this  and  the  other  writings  of  Schaff 
 at  that  time  do  not  bear  him  out.  Dr.  Schaff  in  his  later  years,  espe- 
 cially after  he  had  gone  into  the  Presbyterian  Church,  receded  from 
 some  of  these  earlier  positions,  especially  on  some  of  those  made  promi- 
 nent  by  the   Mercersburg  theology. 
 
 A  friend  of  Nevin,  T).  E.  F.,*  grants  that  the  principal  fault  with 
 "Early  Christianity"  was  not  its  facts  but  its  spirit.  This  was  its 
 exposition  of  the  evils  of  Protestantism  and  its  hearty  good-will  by 
 which  some  of  the  superstitions  of  popery  were  relieved  from  alleged 
 misrepresentation. 
 
 The  impression  made  upon  us  in  reading  these  articles  at  this  distant 
 date  is  that  Nevin  makes  some  unwarranted  concessions  to  E-ome  be- 
 cause of  his  high  views  of  the  objectivity  of  the  Church  and  the  sacra- 
 ments; and  at  the  same  time  he  does  not  guard  himself  properly  against 
 Rome's  errors  so  as  to  reveal  a  true  Protestant  spirit.  His  later  in- 
 clination toward  going  to  Rome,  of  which  we  shall  speak  later,  reveals 
 the  state  of  mind  into  which  he  was  then  entering. 
 
 *Messenger,  April  21,  1862. 
 
CHAPTER  V. 
 
 The  Resignation  of  Dr.  Nevin. 
 
 Section  1.     His  Reasons  for  Resigning  and  the  Events 
 Prior  to  the  Synod  of  1851. 
 
 Matters  at  length  came  to  a  crisis  in  1851.  This  was  caused 
 by  the  resignation  of  Dr.  Nevin  as  professor  of  theology  at 
 Mercersburg  and  by  the  call  of  Prof.  Sehaff  at  the  same  time 
 to  be  pastor  of  the  Salem's  German  Reformed  Church  in 
 Philadelphia.  Dr.  Nevin,  in  September,  1850,  had  made 
 known  to  the  board  of  visitors  of  the  seminary  his  purpose 
 to  resign ;  but  the  formal  notification  was  not  sent  to  them 
 until  March  25,  1851.  Rumor  added  to  his  resignation,  says 
 Sehaff,  that  as  his  articles  on  Early  Christianity  and  Cyprian 
 appeared  about  the  same  time  as  his  resignation,  he  resigned 
 because  of  his  growing  dissatisfaction  with  Protestantism. 
 Let  us  see.  The  reason  that  Dr.  Nevin  gave  for  his  resignation 
 was  the  embarrassed  financial  condition  of  the  Seminary.  But 
 was  this  the  only  reason?  It  is  to  Prof.  Sehaff  that  we  owe 
 some  side-lights  on  this  subject.  He  wrote  a  letter  to  Prof. 
 Ebrard  for  the  Re  fanned  Kirchenzeitung  of  Germany.*  He 
 says : 
 
 1.  That  Nevin 's  resignation  was  dne  partly  to  his  natural  desire  to 
 have  less  responsibility  and  to  have  more  leisure  after  so  many  years  of 
 faithful,  self-sacrificing  service  at  Mercersburg. 
 
 2.  That  it  was  due  to  a  conscientious  doubt  whether  he  was  just  the 
 man  suited  to  direct  the  theological  youth  for  service  in  a  Protestant 
 denomination,  while  in  his  own  mind  the  whole  church  question  was 
 undergoing  radical  revision. 
 
 It  is  to  be  noticed  that  this  latter  reason  is  given  not  by 
 an  enemy  of  Dr.  Nevin  but  by  one  of  his  warmest  friends  and 
 
 *A  translation  of  this  appeared  in  the  Cliristian  Intelligencer,  Decem- 
 ber 16,  1852. 
 
 277 
 
278        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 most  intimate  associates,  wlio  ought  to  have  known  his  mind. 
 It  seems  to  us  evident  from  this  testimony  that  Dr.  Nevin  had 
 lost  his  foundations  of  Protestantism  and  was  drifting  at  the 
 time  and  he  felt  it.  Schaff  also  says  in  the  Kirchenzeitung 
 that  Nevin 's  articles  on  the  Anglican  Church  and  Early  Chris- 
 tianity had  made  some  of  his  warmest  friends  wonder  and 
 doubt  for  a  moment.  The  Kirchenzeitung  gives  two  more 
 reasons,  namely,  that  he  resigned  because  the  niunber  of 
 students  was  not  large  and  because  Dr.  Schaff  also  gave  lec- 
 tures in  English,  so  that  he  could  be  the  better  spared  from 
 the  seminary  than  from  the  college. 
 
 Just  before  the  synod  met,  the  editor  of  the  Messenger,  Rev. 
 Dr.  Schneck,  sent  a  bombshell  into  the  camp  of  the  Mercers- 
 burg  adherents.  Ht  wrote  an  editorial  in  the  Messenger  of 
 September  17,  1851,  with  the  approval  of  his  assistant  editor. 
 Rev.  S.  R.  Fisher.  It  was  the  first  note  of  warning  uttered 
 oifficially  by  that  paper  against  the  Romanizing  tendency  of 
 Mercersburg  theology.  In  reviewing  Nevin 's  articles,  he 
 says,  "they  have  been  rising  in  regular  gradation  high  and 
 still  higher  until  our  head  is  dizzy.  We  are  at  a  dead  halt." 
 With  much  of  them  Schneck  was  in  full  sympathy,  but  he 
 Jiad  to  make  an  avowal,  painful  to  make,  yet  honest  and 
 sincere.  He  believed  Nevin  was  honest  in  his  beliefs,  but  lie 
 criticised  him  for  dwelling  too  much  on  the  faults  of  Pro- 
 testantism to  the  exclusion  of  its  more  hopeful  side.  Again, 
 Nevin  was  looking  back  too  much  to  the  second,  thiM  and 
 fourth  centuries  and  seemed  anxious  to  conform  the  present 
 Church  to  that  model.  He  thinks  Dr.  Nevin  had  gone  too  far 
 in  his  positions  and  that  he  lives  too  much  in  his  specula- 
 tions and  in  an  ideal  ('hurch.  He  believes  that  nine-tenths, 
 yes  nineteen-twentieths  of  the  German  Reformed  ministry 
 with  him  protest  against  the  views  lately  brouglit  out  in 
 Nevin 's  articles. 
 
 This  article  was  the  first  public  attack  on  Nevin  b}^  any 
 official  organ  of  the  Church  and  caused  great  excitement. 
 Schneck  was  severely  criticised  by  the  friends  of  Nevin.  At 
 the  next  meeting  of  synod,  he  was  severely  taken  to  task,  and 
 one  of  its  members,  who  later  went  over  to  Rome,  proposed 
 
The  Resignation  of  Dr.  Nevin.  279 
 
 that  he  be  expelled  from  the  synod  or  formally  censured.*  The 
 ultimate  result  was  that  Sehneck  resigned  the  editorship  of  the 
 Messenger  the  next  year.  Fisher  was  made  editor  and  a  strong 
 adherent  of  Nevin  was  elected  as  an  assistant,  Rev.  Samuel 
 Miller,  who  later  published  the  first  attempt  at  a  systematic 
 presentation  of  Mercersburg  theology. 
 
 Another  significant  event  was  the  action  of  North  Carolina 
 Classis  in  1851.  It  instructed  its  delegate  (who,  however,  did 
 not  attend  the  synod)  to  vote  for  the  acceptance  of  Nevin 's 
 resignation.  It  also  took  action  refusing  to  give  money  to 
 the  Board  of  Domestic  Missions,  because  it  believed  the  money 
 would  be  used  to  disseminate  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Mer- 
 cersburg, which  they  said  they  believed  were  ''contrary  to 
 the  Word  of  God,  subversive  to  the  Church  and  destructive  to 
 fraternal  union"  (with  the  Dutch). 
 
 Meanwhile  every  effort  was  made  to  get  Nevin  to  withdraw 
 his  resignation  because  of  the  crisis  it  would  produce. 
 
 Section  2.     The  Synod  of  1851. 
 
 It  was  evident  that  this  synod  had  a  difficult  problem  before 
 it.  Jacob  Helffenstein  says  there  was  anxious  supense  before 
 the  synod  met  as  to  whether  the  resignation  would  be  accepted 
 or  not.  Berg  says  he  ceased  attacking  Nevin  because  he  was 
 given  to  understand  that  it  would  be  accepted  by  the  synod. 
 The  synod  had  two  problems  before  it,  the  resignation  of 
 Nevin  and  the  call  of  Schaff  to  Philadelphia.  The  call  of  Prof. 
 Schaff  came  up  first.  Schaff  intimated  his  readiness  to  accept 
 if  the  synod  permitted  him  to  resign.  The  committee  to  whom 
 it  was  referred  brought  in  a  report  that  the  request  be  not 
 granted.  After  Nevin  had  spoken  on  the  report.  Berg  arose 
 and  tried  to  say  something  in  reference  to  Nevin 's  remarks, 
 but  he  was  decided  out  of  order  and  the  vote  was  taken.  It 
 was  carried  by  a  vote  of  42  to  5,  Berg  and  Helffenstein  voting 
 with  the  minority. 
 
 Nevin 's  resignation  was  also  referred  to  a  committee,  which 
 brought  in  a  report,  requesting  him  to  withdraw  his  resigna- 
 
 *See  Eeformed  Church  Monthly,  1874,  page  277. 
 
280         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 tion  and  resume  service  in  the  seminary ;  and  that  iu  case  he 
 insisted,  the  synod  would  yield  with  great  reluctance  for  the 
 present  and  leave  the  professorship  vacant  in  the  hope  that 
 he  might  ultimately  see  his  way  clear  to  return  to  it  at  no 
 distant  day.  The  vote  for  the  adoption  of  this  was  42  to  4. 
 Schaff  eloquently  defended  the  report. 
 
 Dr.  Berg  said  that  during  the  discussion  a  change  came  over 
 the  synod.  This  was  owing  partly  to  the  sympathy  which  was 
 awakened  in  Nevm's  behalf  by  the  injurious  imi)utations  by 
 church  papers  outside  of  our  denomination  against  him.* 
 This  change  was  partly  due  to  an  affecting  speech  of  Dr. 
 Nevin's,  in  which  he  declared  very  emphatically  and  with 
 great  emotion,  "I  love  this  sjTiod."  Dr.  Schaff  in  his  speech 
 alluded  to  the  fact  that  Dr.  Nevin  shed  tears.  As  the  result 
 of  this  play  on  their  emotions  and  the  fact  that  a  large  number 
 of  the  members  of  the  synod  were  graduates  under  Nevin,  the 
 vote  was  so  strong  in  his  favor,  says  Berg.f 
 
 But  the  action  of  the  synod,  instead  of  clearing  matters, 
 complicated  them.  The  question  that  then  arose  was,  "Did 
 the  synod  in  refusing  to  accept  the  resignation  of  the  two 
 professors,  by  that  act  endorse  the  ]\Iercersburg  theology? 
 Jacob  Helffenstein,  in  the  Christ ian  IntdJigenccr.X  said  that 
 the  vote  was  a  test  and  was  an  endorsement  of  ^lercersburg 
 theology.  Berg,  on  the  other  hand,  stated  in  the  Profeslaid 
 Quart erly  Review, %  that  the  vote  was  not  to  be  taken  as  an 
 endorsement  of  Nevin's  teachings.  lie  sa.ys  it  meant  that  the 
 synod  did  not  deem  "Early  Christianity"  of  sufficient  ground 
 for  the  withdrawal  of  confidence  in  the  professor.  Still,  al- 
 though it  was  declared  that  IMereersburg  theology  was  really 
 not  on  trial  before  the  synod  (because  there  was  no  direct 
 charge  against  it  there),  outside  of  the  German  Reformed 
 Church   and  among  other  denominations,   tlie  action   of  the 
 
 *Tt  was  declared  that  if  his  resignation  were  accepted,  it  would  be 
 construed  as  a  want  of  confidence  in  his  orthodoxy  and  general  theo- 
 logical course. 
 
 fSee  also  account  in  Messenger,  18o3,  Octolier  5. 
 
 JN()venil)cr  6,  18.51. 
 
 §January,  1S52.    See  also  the  Christian  IittiUiiicncrr,  Dec.  1(5,  1832. 
 
The  Resignation  op  Dr.  Nevin.  281 
 
 synod  was  looked  upon  as  a  virtual  endorsement  of  IMercers- 
 burg  theology.  As  an  illustration  of  the  confusion,  we  mention 
 some  facts  that  show  the  contradiction  of  even  the  leaders  in 
 their  judgment  on  this  action.  Just  before  the  vote  was  to  be 
 taken  on  the  case  of  Prof.  Schaff,  Nevin  arose  and  said  that 
 the  report  of  the  conunittee  on  the  subject  before  the  synod, 
 wiiether  it  would  fully  endorse  Schaff  or  not,  would  be  so  re- 
 garded by  every  one.  If,  as  had  been  hinted,  there  was  any 
 distrust  and  dissatisfaction  with  Schaff,  now  was  the  time  to 
 indicate  it  by  a  plum})  and  direct  approbation  of  Schaff  or  the 
 reverse.  Nevin  thus  made  it  a  test  and  yet  later,  when  Nevin 
 comes  to  reply  to  Berg's  "Last  Words,"  he  says,  "the  action 
 of  the  synod  did  not  commit  the  synod  to  such  an  endorse- 
 ment." If  one  of  the  leaders  is  so  contradictor^^,  it  is  no 
 wonder  that  the  world  at  large  was  uncertain  what  the  action 
 meant. 
 
 Schaff',  too,  quoted  the  action  of  the  synod  as  endorsing  his 
 theological  views  in  a  letter*  he  wrote  to  the  Kirchenzeitung 
 of  Germany,  saying  the  synod  showed  its  endorsement  of  him- 
 self by  re-electing  him  to  his  position.  Now,  this  was  not 
 exactly  true.  Synod  had  not  re-elected  him,  but  simply  re- 
 fused to  accept  his  resignation,  which  was  quite  different  from 
 a  re-election.  He  also  said,  "With  the  same  unanimity  the 
 other  professor  was,  as  it  were,  elected."  Neither  was  that 
 exactly  true,  Nevin  was  not  re-elected  "  as  it  were  "  or  in  any 
 other  way.  The  Messenger  later  denied  this  statement, f  when 
 it  said  there  was  not  a  word  said  about  endorsing  all  the  pub- 
 lished views  of  Nevin,  much  less  of  endorsing  anything  of  a 
 Romanizing  tendency. 
 
 Prof.  Schaff  also  said  in  the  Kirchenfreund  that  the  synod 
 treated  the  affair  of  the  resignation  not  only  from  a  personal 
 standpoint  but  at  the  same  time  as  a  question  of  principle, 
 and  that  it  had  never  expressed  so  decidedly  its  attachment 
 to  Dr.  Nevin  and  the  theological  and  ehurchly  tendency  as  at 
 that  time.     The  Messenger  said$  that  the  action  of  the  synod 
 
 *Translate(l  in  the  Christian  Intellificncer,  Dcconiber  16,  1852. 
 fnecember  29,  1852. 
 ^October  29,  1851. 
 
282         History  of  Reformed  Church  ix  the  U.  S. 
 
 proved  that  all  rumors  that  Nevin's  resignation  were  caused 
 by  dissatisfaction  with  him  in  the  Church  were  untrue. 
 
 W.  M.  says  the  action  was  not  meant  to  endorse  all  of 
 Nevin's  views,  but  simply  that  it  was  satisfied  with  his  general 
 theological  acquirements  and  position  and  desired  to  retain  his 
 valuable  services.  Sure  we  are,  he  says,  that  the  Church  in 
 general  does  not  subscribe  to  all  that  Nevin  has  said  in  "Early 
 Christianity." 
 
 The  truth  seems  to  be  that  owing  to  the  confusion  that  en- 
 sued and  the  severe  criticisms,  made  especially  by  other  de- 
 nominations, the  Messenger  became  more  cautious  about  stat- 
 ing that  it  was  an  endorsement.  And  the  next  sjTiod 
 (1852) ,  in  reply  to  the  charges  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church, 
 declared  its  action  of  1851  did  not  sanction  Dr.  Nevin's  pe- 
 culiar views.  Dr.  Nevin  continued  as  president  of  ]\Iarshall 
 College  and  gave  private  lectures  in  theology  until  his  suc- 
 cessor was  elected  a  year  later. 
 
 Section  3.    "Cyprian,"  by  Nevin. 
 
 In  the  May  number  of  the  Mercershurg  Review,  Dr.  Nevin 
 began  a  series  of  articles  on  Cyprian,  the  great  Church  father. 
 They  were  in  a  measure  complementary  to  his  articles  on 
 "Early  Christianity"  but  carried  his  conclusions  to  fuller 
 development  and  to  their  logical  results.  If  Early  Chris- 
 tianity caused  a  sensation,  these  articles  on  Cyprian  did 
 more  so. 
 
 For  in  them  he  more  fully  commits  himself  to  the  idea  of  a  visible 
 (Jhiirch,  whifh  at  present  can  only  be  found  in  what  he  calls  the  Catholic 
 Church.  Cyprian  would  shed  additional  light  in  showing  that  the 
 Christianity  of  the  second  century  was  not  Protestantism.  He  gives  a 
 scholarly  monograph  of  Cyprian's  life  and  character,  making  him  the 
 complete  ideal  of  a  Christian  bishop.  Cyprian's  idea  of  the  Church 
 was  that  it  was  the  only  divine  medium  of  salvation.  Nevin  declares 
 against  schism  and  speaks  favorably  of  the  Catholic  Church  because 
 it  holds  that  the  Church  is  an  organic  unity.  "Cyprian's  idea  of  the 
 Church  was  that  it  was  a  real  constitution,  carrying  in  it  by  divine  ap- 
 pointment, actual  supernatural  and  heavenly  powers, — there  was  no 
 salvation  outside  of  the  Church.  Baptism  brought  grace.  The  Lord's 
 Supper  brought  the  body  of  Christ  as  a  sacrifice  and  offering."     Having 
 
The  Resignation  of  Dr.  Nevin.  283 
 
 described  Cyprian's  life  and  work  he  proceeds  to  go  back  earlier  than 
 Cyprian.  The  (ihurch  of  his  type  could  not  spring  up  with  mushroom- 
 like rapidity.  It  must  have  existed  before  and  that  for  a  century  in 
 order  to  account  for  its  completed  form.  Hence  the  age  before  him, 
 the  second  century,  must  have  approached  his  idea  of  the  Church.  Nevin 
 disagrees  with  Neander,  who  looked  on  Cyprian's  work  as  a  decline 
 from  the  previous  age,  saying  that  that  position  was  due  to  Neander 's 
 wrong  view-point, — that  Neander  had  no  conception  of  organic  unity 
 of  the  Church  but  was  inclined  to  the  spiritualistic  Quakerish  idea  of  the 
 Church.  Then  he  takes  up  the  church  fathers  of  the  second  century, 
 as  Ireneus  and  Tertullian,  showing  that  they  held  the  same  ideas  as 
 Cyprian  about  the  unity  of  the  Church.  Ignatius  is  in  harmony  with 
 Cyprian.  Tlie  objective  must  rule  and  condition  the  subjective.  The 
 Cyprianic  doctrine  of  the  Church  therefore  falls  back  in  its  funda- 
 mental conception  to  the  earliest  Christian  time.  Nevin  denies  that  the 
 cardinal  doctrine  of  Protestantism  over  against  the  Catholics,  is  the 
 invisible  Church,*  because  the  doctrine  of  the  invisible  Church  is  un- 
 historical  and  an  abstraction.  It  is  painfully  evident  that  Protestantism 
 is  defective.  There  is  no  experimental  religion  outside  of  the  Church.f 
 He  speaks  severely  against  what  is  called  Evangelical  religion  (sect-sys- 
 tem) ;±  in  a  word,  he  declares  that  Evangelical  Christianity  and  Puritan- 
 ism are  at  war  with  the  Church  of  the  first  ages. 
 
 The  friends  of  Nevinism  later  thus  state  his  object  in  these  articles. 
 Appel§  says,  "Notwithstanding  the  strong  language  which  he  used  ip 
 those  articles  regarded  as  most  Romanizing,  he  leaves  the  way  of  escape 
 open  in  the  theory  of  historical  development,  which  makes  room  for  Pro- 
 testantism as  one  form  of  Christianity  although  one-sided  and  transitional 
 to  a  much  better  age  and  higher  union  of  what  is  good  in  both  Romanism 
 and  Protestantism."  Dubs  says||  "His  'Early  Christianity  and 
 Cyprian  were  especially  charged  with  Romanistic  tendencies,  but  his 
 object  was  misconceived.  lie  intended  to  show  that  the  Oxford  Trac- 
 tarians  in  endeavoring  to  repristinate  the  church  of  the  fourth  and 
 fifth  century  were  taking  one  of  many  roads  to  Rome.  Nevin  showed 
 there  was  no  such  chasm  between  the  Church  of  the  fourth  and  fifth 
 centuries  and  the  succeeding  Middle  Ages.  His  adherence  to  the  his- 
 torical development  is  against  Rome  as  he  showed  in  his  answer  to 
 Brownson."  ^ 
 
 These  articles  on  Early  Christianity  and  Cyprian  were  the  results  of 
 careful  study  of  several  years  previous.  They  reveal  wide  scholarship, 
 but    they    also    reveal    his    peculiar    tendencies.      His    emphasis    on    the 
 
 *Page  445. 
 
 fPage  446. 
 
 JPage  448. 
 
 §Life  of  Nevin,  page  416. 
 
 IJAmerican  Church  History,  page  377. 
 
284        History  of  Reformed  Cht'rch  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Church  as  an  organism  and  on  the  objective  in  the  Church  and  the 
 sacraments  was  leading  Romewards.  His  limitation  of«salvation  to  the 
 visible  Church  and  denial  of  the  invisible  Church  was  a  departure  from 
 the  true  basis  of  Protestantism.  His  severe  criticisms  on  Protestantism, 
 and  at  the  same  time  his  favorable  notice  of  everything  high-Church 
 and  Catholic  caused  great  suspicion,  that  he  was  not  true  to  Protest- 
 (jintism  and  inclined  to  Romanism.  Early  Christianity  and  the  action 
 of  the  Synod  of  1851  were  capped  by  Cyprian.  Had  Cyprian  not  been 
 wTitten  the  results  might  have  been  less  disastrous,  for  his  enemies  laid 
 hold  of  these  articles,  especially  Cyprian,  to  prove  their  accusations; 
 and  so  the  breach  became  wider,  for  Nevin  had  proved  that  the  Church 
 of  the  second  and  third  centuries  was  Catholic  not  Protestant. 
 
 Berg 's  criticism  of  ' '  Early  Christianity ' '  applies  equally  to  Cj^prian. 
 He  says  Nevin  was  setting  up  a  man  of  straw  to  fight  against.  None 
 of  his  opponents  claimed  that  the  second  and  third  centuries  were  the 
 same  as  Protestantism.  It  was  the  first  century  that  they  claimed 
 Protestantism  approached  and  Nevin  had  not  touched  that  century.  He 
 was  beating  the  air,  they  said,  to  no  purpose,  except  to  show  his  learn- 
 ing and  also  his  high-church  and  Romish  tendencies.  The  Catholic 
 organ,  the  Freeman's  Journal,  published  by  Archbishop  Hughes,  prophe- 
 sied his  speedy  conversion  to  the  Romish  Church.  It  said  of  these 
 articles:  "We  give  the  conclusions  of  it  as  very  interesting  to  Catholics 
 to  induce  our  pious  reatlers  to  pray  for  his  speedy  conversion.  We  can 
 not  doubt  that  the  silence  of  his  study  and  of  his  prayers  will  continue 
 but  a  short  time  till  the  inward  voice  will  bid  him  rise  and  hasten  to 
 the  home  of  Ms  Heavenly  Father,  where  the  doubts  and  suffering 
 of  his  long  trial  shall  be  replaced  by  the  joy  and  gladness  of  heart  that 
 is  the  portion  of  all  who  with  unreserved  wills  submit  to  the  Church." 
 
 The  position  of  Prof.  Schaff  about  these  articles  of  Dr. 
 Nevin  has  been  somewhat  doubtful.  Ilis  son,  who  is  his 
 biographer,  says*  that  he  did  not  go  as  far  as  Dr.  Xevin. 
 But  this  does  not  seem  to  be  carried  out  by  facts,  for  the 
 Kirchenfreund,  of  which  Prof.  Schaff  was  the  editor,  speaks 
 approvingly  of  them, — that  they  state  proper  views  of  the 
 Church  and  that  as  long  as  Nevin  holds  such  views  his  eon- 
 version  to  Rome  would  be  impossible.  In  the  Mcrcershurg  Bc- 
 view  (Jan.,  1853.)  Schaff  says  that  Nevin  in  Early  Christian- 
 ity and  Cyprian  has  produced  arguments  that  in  a  historical 
 view  can  not  be  refuted.  He  speaks  of  the  growing  confusion 
 of  Protestantism  due  to  subjectivity,  which  is  to  be  remedied 
 by  compromise  and  union  with  Catholicism.     "Protestantism 
 
 *See  His  Life,  page  121. 
 
The  Resignation  op  Dr.  Nevin.  285 
 
 is  not  fixed  but  in  motion,  and  the  motion  is  for  the  time  in  the 
 direction  of  complete  self-dissolution." 
 
 In  1852,  Nevin  stopped  writing  for  the  Merccrshurg  Review. 
 His  articles  had  caused  much  criticism.  Some  wanted  the 
 Review  discontinued  so  as  to  prevent  strife.  A  Doctor  of 
 Divinity  earnestly  wrot«  Theodore  Appel  to  stop  publishing 
 the  Review  at  once  and  to  burn  all  sheets  for  the  last  number 
 of  the  year  noAv  in  the  hands  of  the  printer.  But  in  spite  of 
 such  opposition  the  alumni  decided  to  continue  its  publication. 
 
CHAPTER  VI. 
 
 The  Uprising  Against  JMercersburg  Theoi.ogy. 
 
 There  had  been  controversy  before,  now  there  occurred  tin 
 open  uprising  against  Nevinism  in  various  ways  within  our 
 Church.    Of  these  there  were  six,  which  we  shall  now  describe. 
 
 1.  The  withdrawal  of  Dr.  Berg  to  the  Dutch  Reformed 
 Church. 
 
 2.  The  uprising  of  the  German  students  at  j\[ercers])urg. 
 
 3.  The  withdrawal  of  North  Carolina  classis  from  our 
 Church. 
 
 4.  The  withdrawal  of  Rev.  Jacob  Helifenstein  and  our 
 Church  at  Germantown  to  the  Presbyterians. 
 
 5.  The  appeal  of  Rev.  Dr.  Heiner  against  the  Messenger  at 
 the  synod  of  1853. 
 
 6.  A  similar  appeal  by  Rev.  Dr.  Zacharias. 
 
 These,  with  the  influences  hostile  to  Nevinism  from  other 
 denominations,  as  the  withdrawal  of  the  Dutch  Reformed 
 Church  from  correspondence  with  us  produced  a  peculiar 
 crisis  in  our  Church. 
 
 Section  1,    The  Departure  op  Rev.  Dr.  Berg  to  the  Dutch 
 
 Church. 
 
 The  first  sign  of  the  reaction  against  Nevinism  was  the 
 resignation  by  Dr.  ]^erg  of  the  First  Church  at  Philadelphia 
 and  his  departure  to  the  Dutch  Church.  At  the  synod  of 
 1851,  Jacob  Helffenstein  had,  in  a  speech,  hinted  at  secession 
 from  our  Church.  But  Berg  then  stated  he  would  not  secede, 
 although  the  vote  of  the  synod  had  been  overwhelmingly 
 against  him.  Berg  had  said*  that  the  vote  at  the  synod 
 was  not  to  be  taken  as  an  endorsement  of  Nevin's  teachings. 
 Yet  he  resigned  his  church  in  March.  Perhaps  his  act  was 
 due  to  the  fact  that  Jacob  Helffenstein,  giving  up  hope  of 
 
 *Proiestant  Quarlerh/  Review,  January,  1851. 
 
 286 
 
Uprising  Against  Mercersburg  Theology.  287 
 
 rousing  our  Church  against  Nevinism,  had  issued  a  circular 
 calling  on  sister  denominations  to  join  with  Berg  and  himself 
 in  the  protest  against  the  action  of  our  synod.  But  nothing 
 came  of  it  except  that  it  roused  the  wrath  of  the  IMercersburg 
 men  and  caused  their  derision.  And  Berg,  finding  so  little 
 response  in  or  out  of  the  Church,  became  discouraged  and  left. 
 But  Berg,  in  his  reply  to  Nevin's  strictures  on  his  farewell 
 sermon,  gave  as  the  reason  for  it,  Nevin's  second  article  on 
 Early  Christianity,  which  he  said  was  the  most  infamous  as- 
 sault by  Nevin  on  the  first  principles  of  the  Protestant  refor- 
 mation. 
 
 Dr.  Berg  preached  his  farewell  sermon  in  the  First  Ke- 
 formed  Church,  Philadelphia,  on  March  14,  1851,  his  text 
 being  '' Jehovah  Nissi."  He  declared  he  left  the  German 
 Reformed  Church  because  she  taught  principles  contrary  to 
 the  five  points  of  Protestantism,*  which  were : 
 
 1.  That  the  Bible  and  the  Bible  only  was  the  rule  of  faith  and  not 
 tradition ;  or  even  the  creeds  and  catechisms,  excellent  as  they  are. 
 
 2.  That  justification  is  by  free  grace.  Christ's  righteousness  is  im- 
 puted to  us.  This  Nevin  denied  when  he  declared  justification  was  in- 
 herent in  us  as  the  Catholics  held.  This  immanent  righteousness  of 
 Christ  in  us  as  the  ground  of  faith  is  a  fiction. 
 
 3.  That  she  taught  the  true  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ  while 
 Nevin  taught  Eutychianism  (which  blended  Christ's  divine  and  human 
 natures  into  one).  Berg  here  quotes  from  the  "Mystical  Presence" 
 where  it  said  that  Christ  was  the  bearer  of  a  fallen  humanity. 
 
 4.  That  contrary  to  her  doctrines,  his  ojiponents  taught  the  inherent 
 power  to  confer  grace  in  the  blood  and  spirit  of  Christ, — the  intrinsic 
 power  of  the  sacraments  or  participation  in  Christ's  glorified  humanity 
 at  the  Lord's  Supper. 
 
 5.  That  the  papacy  was  the  great  apostasy,  which  his  opponents  de- 
 nied. 
 
 "The  late  action  of  the  synod,"  he  said,  "is  a  practical  avowal  of 
 sympathy  with  views  which  I  can  not  endorse."  This  last  statement  is 
 contrary  to  his  earlier  statements  about  our  Synod  of  1851,  made  in 
 the  Protestant  Quarterly. 
 
 Dr.  Nevin  replies  to  Berg's  "Last  Words."  He  first  defends  himself 
 and  then  the  German  Eeformed  Church.     He  charges  Berg  with  leaving 
 
 *Like  the  five  points  of  Calvinism. 
 •fMercersburg  Eevierv  for  May,  1852. 
 
288         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 because  of  personal  motives, — that  he  was  ambitious  to  lead  a  party 
 and  create  trouble  in  the  Church.  But  he  found  himself  so  poorly  at 
 home  that  he  left  it  for  another.  lie  minimizes  Berg's  passage  from 
 one  denomination  to  another  as  not  of  very  great  consequence,  espe- 
 cially between  two  such  closely  related  denominations  as  the  Dutch  and 
 German  Eeformed.  lie  was  quite  ironical  on  Berg.  Tii  the  part  defend- 
 ing our  Church,  he  said  that  Berg  had  aimed  ti)  fix  on  our  Church 
 the  character  of  heresy  and  apostasy.  Berg  does  not  refer  to  any  direct 
 action  of  the  Church,  only  to  the  controversy  which  he  had  had  with 
 her  theological  professors. 
 
 1.  As  to  Berg's  first  charge  about  the  Bible,  he  said  Berg's  theory 
 rises  to  the  baldest  scheme  of  private  opinion,  by  which  every  man  is  his 
 own  theologian  and  can  manufacture  his  own  creed.  Over  against  this  he 
 defended  a  certain  use  of  tradition.  Every  denomination  had  its  own 
 tradition,  whether  written  or  not, — in  its  general  mind  and  its  historical 
 life.  Through  this  medium  it  interprets  the  Bible.  Even  Berg  had  his 
 own  tradition.  And  it  was  not  his  own  discovery  but  it  had  come  down 
 to  him  from  the  old  Catholic  Church,  which,  like  another  Nero  killing  his 
 mother,  he  now  seeks  to  destroy. 
 
 2.  As  to  the  second  charge  about  justification,  he  claimed  that  Berg 
 had  not  understood  his  language.  Justification  is  something  more  than 
 an  outM-ard  act_  forensically  charging  over  the  merits  of  Christ.  ' '  It 
 imputes  to  him  the  righteousness  of  Christ  by  setting  him  in  connection 
 with  the  power  of  it  as  a  new  and  higher  order  of  life  wrought  in  the 
 bosom  of  humanity  by  Christ  as  the  second  Adam." 
 
 3.  As  to  the  charge  against  his  views  on  Christ 's  Person :  If  Berg 
 charged  him  with  Eutychianism,  ho  returned  it  by  charging  Berg  with 
 Nestorianism.  Berg  had  charged  that  he  said  that  sin  was  in  the  person 
 of  the  Redeemer.  This  he  utterly  denied.  But  Christ  bore  fallen  hu- 
 manity because  he  must  descend  with  it  to  the  lowest  depth  of  sorrow 
 and  sin.  Berg's  charge  that  he  held  to  the  ubiquity  of  Christ  he  denied, 
 referring  Berg  to  his  Mystical  Presence.* 
 
 4.  As  to  Berg's  fourth  charge  that  he  placed  so  high  a  value  on  the 
 sacraments  as  to  put  them  in  place  of  Christ,  he  said  he  was  misrepre- 
 sented. He  did  not  hold  to  magical  grace  in  the  sacrament,  but  that 
 there  was  intrinsic  grace.  If  there  is  efficiency  in  the  natural  law,  there 
 is  supernatural  efficiency  in  the  sacraments  for  the  accomplishment  of 
 heavenly  ends.  But  the  intrinsic  grace  in  the  sacraments  must  be  met 
 by  a  right  disposition  in  the  heart  of  man.  He  charges  Berg  with 
 heresy  because  he  denies  the  mystical  force  of  the  sacraments  and 
 this  leads  to  denying  the  supernatural  character  of  the  Church  and 
 in  the  end  denying  the  whole  mystery  of  the  incarnation. 
 
 5.  The  last  charge  of  Berg  was  the  only  one  he  granted.  lie  denied 
 that    the    papacy    was    Antichrist     and     that    the    German     Eeformed 
 
 *Page  173. 
 
Uprising  Against  Mercersbiirg  Theology.  289 
 
 (-hurch  had  ever  made  such  a  doctrine  a  test  to  her  ministers.  The  op- 
 position to  himself  consisted  of  only  Berg  and  the  Helffenstein  family. 
 (It  is  sad  to  see  how  both  Ncvin  and  Schaff  in  their  controversy 
 bring  personalities  in  at  this  point.  Besides,  Nevin's  statement  is  not 
 true,  for  Heiner  mentions  a  number  more  than  Berg  and  the  Helffen- 
 steins  who  were  opposed  to  Nevin,  as  Zacharias,  Schory,  Aurand,  Col- 
 liflower,  F.  "W.  Kremer,  Wack  and  others. — A.)  Nevin  says  Berg 
 had  not  gone  about  the  matter  in  a  constitutional  way  because  con- 
 stitutional rules  were  not  1o  Berg's  taste.  As  to  Helffenstein 's  charge 
 that  the  Synod  of  1851  had  made  itself  responsible  for  his  views  by 
 refusing  to  accept  his  resignation,  that,  he  said,  was  false.*  No  such 
 points  were  ever  lirouglit  before  the  synod.  There  was  no  trial  and  no 
 vote  toward  the  determination  of  any  theological  question. 
 
 Berg  replied  to  Nevin.f  As  to  his  first  charge  against  tradition  and  for 
 the  Bible,  he  said  that  the  synod  of  1845  in  vindicating  Schaff 's  "Princi- 
 ple of  Protestantism ' '  had  declared  that  formal  tradition  was  indispen- 
 sable and,  therefore,  had  committed  itself  to  it.  As  to  the  second  charge, 
 Nevin  does  not  clear  himself  of  heresy  in  regard  to  justification.  For 
 Nevin  says  the  righteousness  of  Christ  by  which  the  believer  is  justified 
 is  immanent  in  human  nature,  while  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  on 
 the  other  hand,  says  the  justifying  righteousness  is  Christ's  and  set  over 
 to  our  account.  Nevin  calls  this  view  a  putative  act  and  he  will  have 
 no  fiction  like  it.  But  the  Catechism  demands  this  putative  act  as 
 essential  and  insists  on  the  very  fiction  that  Nevin  repudiates.  He 
 says,  ' '  Justification  with  Nevin  is  not  a  reckoning  to  us  of  that  which 
 is  not  ours  in  fact, ' '  but  our  Catechism,  in  answer  60,  says  it  is. 
 
 As  to  the  third  charge  about  the  person  of  Christ,  Nevin  was  Eutychian, 
 because  he  blended  the  two  natures  of  Christ.  If  so,  then  he  asks 
 Nevin,  Can  the  di^'ine  nature  suffer — can  it  die?  As  to  the  fourth,  he  re- 
 pudiates Nevin's  high  views  of  the  sacrament.  He  also  says  that  Nevin 
 is  again  attacking  a  man  of  straw  in  his  opponents,  namely,  that  they 
 held  that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  only  commdnorative  of  Christ's  death. 
 Nobody  holds  that  view.  As  for  himself,  he  denies  that  the  sacrament 
 is  merely  commemorative,  but  declares  it  is  also  communicative  when 
 faith  accompanies  the  sacrament.  As  to  Nevin 's  last  charge  against 
 him  of  mortal  antipathy  to  Borne,  he  pleads  guilty  of  the  charge. 
 As  to  the  action  of  the  Synod  of  1851,  while  the  synod  did  not  endorse 
 what  Nevin  had  only  just  written  in  his  first  article  on  Early  Chris- 
 tianity, it  showed  its  practical  sympathy  with  it. 
 
 Dr.  Schaff,  in  the  Kirchenfreund,  is  very  severe  on  Berg.  He  bears 
 testimony  to  Berg's  ability  but  insinuated  that  Berg  was  not  at  heart 
 Eeformed  but  Moravian,  in  which  faith  he  had  been  born, — that  a  large 
 
 *Page  302. 
 
 ■\Protcstant  Qtiarierly  Eevicrv,  July,  1852. 
 
290        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 part  of  his  congregation  was  tired  of  him  because  he  was  no  pastor 
 and  that  he  neglected  the  catechization  of  the  youth.  It  he  had  been 
 as  busy  in  his  pastorate  in  Philadelphia  as  he  had  been  in  attacking 
 Eome  there  would  have  been  several  more  Eeformed  congregations 
 organized  there.  (We  fear  some  of  his  criticisms  were  written  under 
 intense  heat,  for  they  can  hardly  be  proven. — A.)  He  sums  up  Berg's 
 closing  sermon  as  if  Berg  said,  "You  would  not  let  me  be  pope,  there- 
 fore I  can  not  remain  with  you  any  longer. ' ' 
 
 Schaff  says,  "Nevin,  if  orthodox  anj^vhere,  is  so  on  the  person  of 
 Christ,  while  Berg  was  heterodox  in  being  a  Nestorian.  But  even  if 
 Nevin  held  errors,  why  charge  them  to  the  German  Eeformed  Church. 
 Are  Nevin 's  works  symbolical  books?  Berg  rather  than  Nevin  ought 
 to  have  been  charged  with  heresy,  because  he  was  Nestorian  and  had 
 fallen  away  from  the  old  Eeformed  doctrine  of  the  Church  and  sacra- 
 ments." Berg's  charges  were  based  on  the  "Mystical  Presence"  written 
 some  years  before  and  not  on  the  present  acts  of  the  synod.  Dr. 
 Schaff  sums  up  Berg's  closing  words  as  if  Berg's  departure  was  due  to 
 his  dictatorial  spirit  and  fanatical  bigotry.  Berg  was  supported,  he 
 said,  by  a  half  a  dozen  Helffensteins  and  the  Church  papers  of  other 
 denominations.  The  German  Eeformed  Church  had  not  lost  much 
 by  his  going,  but  in  it  the  opposition  to  Nevin  had  lost  a  leader  and 
 was  broken  at  its  centre. 
 
 But  while  Schaff  thus  minimizes  the  effect  of  Berg's  departure,  he  is 
 not  quite  true  to  the  facts,  for  our  Church  in  Philadelphia  has  never 
 fully  recovered  from  Berg's  secession  with  so  large  a  number  of  the 
 membership  of  the  First  Church  there.  Dr.  Bomberger,  who  later 
 succeeded  Berg,  says  that  when  he  came  there  only  a  small  number  of 
 members  remained  in  the  church  and  they  were  stunned,  paralyzed 
 and  tempted  to  despair.  The  Sunday  school  had  but  three  teachers  and 
 few  scholars  and  there  were  fears  of  total  dissolution.  The  church, 
 after  Berg's  departure,  called  Dr.  Heiuer,  but  he  declined  and  later 
 S.  H.  Eeid  (who  remained  but  a  short  time),  and  then  Bomberger. 
 
 ■When  ]?erg  was  dismissed  to  the  Dutch  Churcli  by  Phila- 
 delpliia  elassis,  the  vote  was  seven  to  tliree  in  favor  of  dis- 
 mission.* Classis,  however,  in  its  action  did  not  admit  as  true 
 the  reasons  that  Berg  gave  in  his  farewell  sermon.  Against 
 this  action  Samuel  Ilplflfenstein,  Jr.,  protested  in  the  Mes- 
 senger, because  it  acted  on  more  than  merely  Berg's  dismissal, 
 which  was  the  only  item  in  the  call  for  the  meeting  of  classis. 
 Thus  closed  the  "Seven  Years'  War,"  as  it  was  then  called, 
 
 *Staley,  Kooken,  Wolff  and  Bonekempcr  voting  for  it.  Jacob  and 
 Samuel  Helffeustein,  Jr.,  voting  against  it. 
 
Uprising  Against  Mercersburg  Theology.  291 
 
 comparing  it  with  the  Seven  Years'  War  of  Frederick  the 
 Great,  between  Berg  and  Nevin,  serious  also  like  that  war  and 
 
 sad  in  its  conse(iu<'nces. 
 
 .Section  2.     The  Svnod  oe  1852. 
 
 This  synod  was  an  epoeh-niaking  sxiiod  in  several  ways,  both 
 in  regard  to  the  position  of  the  Mercersburg  professors  and 
 in  regard  to  the  liturgy.  The  latter  point  will  come  up 
 later.  Here  we  can  only  speak  of  its  action  as  having 
 any  bearing  on  the  Mercersburg  theology.  The  opening  ser- 
 mon by  Kieffer  was  full  of  Mercersburg  theology.  It  was  on 
 the  Bible  as  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  He  endorsed 
 Nevin 's  views  in  it,  although  he  tries  to  find  mediating  state- 
 ments of  them.  Thus  he  placed  tradition  subordinate  to  the 
 Bible,  but  he  claimed  it  had  its  place  and  then  he  said  that 
 the  right  to  private  judgment  was  dependent  on  the  Church. 
 This  virtually,  however,  took  away  all  right  of  private  .judg- 
 ment, as  held  by  Protestants.  Outside  of  the  Church  there  is 
 no  salvation,  he  declared. 
 
 Before  this  synod  met,  influences  were  brought  to  bear 
 on  Nevin  to  get  him  to  return  to  his  chair  of  theology. 
 Thus  East  Pennsjdvania  classis  had  urged  synod  to  do  every- 
 thing to  get  him  back.  Since  Dr.  Nevin  persisted  in  his 
 declination,  the  synod  finally  took  action  accepting  it,  but 
 it  passed  the  following  resolution,  offered  by  Dr.  Heiner: 
 "That  it  testified  to  the  zeal  and  ability  with  which  he  dis- 
 charged his  duties  during  nearl}^  twelve  years,  and  that  it  will 
 continued  to  cherish  for  him  sentiments  of  very  high  regard, 
 and  never  cease  to  respect  and  love  him."  The  synod  then 
 procee^ied  to  the  election  of  a  successor  and  elected  Rev.  B. 
 C.  Wolff,  a  more  irenic  man.  although  belonging  to  the  Mer- 
 ".ersburg  party,  and  who  had  repeatedly  defended  Dr.  Nevin. 
 He  was  by  no  means  Nevin 's  equal  in  intellectual  ability,  hav- 
 ing been  only  a  successful  pastor  rather  than  a  scholar  and 
 student,  although  some  of  his  later  articles  in  the  Review 
 reveal  careful  study ;  but  he  has  not  the  originality  of  Nevin 
 and  his  work  was  largely  reproductive  of  others. 
 
292         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 After  the  synod,  Dr.  Ileiiior,  who  proposed  the  resolution 
 in  regard  to  Neviu,  was  ridiculed  liy  Rev.  A.  H.  Krenier  in 
 the  Messenger  as  being  a  sycophant,  because  he  luid  always 
 opposed  Nevin  and  yet  at  the  synod  had  proposed  such  ful- 
 some resolutions  of  praise.  Dr.  TTeiner  replied*  it  was  trm^ 
 he  had  offered  the  resolution,  but  be  did  not  iiitfiid  by  it  to 
 endorse  Nevin 's  peculiar  theological  views.  lie  <iiv("s  the 
 following  story:  Late  at  night  and  just  bci'orc  the  close  of 
 the  synod,  one  of  the  most  respectable  and  influential  min- 
 isters of  the  German  Reformed  Church  strongly  attached  lo 
 Nevin,  came  to  him  and  took  him  aside.  He  tobi  him  that  be 
 and  others  had  been  talking  it  over,  and  as  Nevin  was  now  out 
 of  the  seminary  and  all  would  be  quiet,  still  something 
 ought  to  be  done  to  give  him  a  friendlj^  notice,  lest  he  will 
 feel  slighted  and  be  driven  further  from  us  toward  Rome. 
 "Do  you  offer  the  resolution,"  was  bis  recpiest.  Ileiner  says 
 he  was  surprised  and  suggested  that  some  of  Nevin 's  friends 
 ought  to  do  it  and  not  himself,  as  he  had  always  been  Nevin 's 
 opponent.  No,  they  said,  you  are  the  man  because  of  your 
 known  antagonism.  They  said  it  would  aid  in  preventing  him 
 from  going  over  to  Rome.  lie  replied  be  would  be  willing  to  do 
 anything  to  prevent  that,  so  he  offered  the  resolution.  Derr 
 offered  an  amendment  to  it,  that  the  synod  would  l)e  bai)py 
 to  have  Dr.  Nevin  return  to  the  ])rofcssor'sbip  at  some  future 
 time.  To  this  objection  was  raised  on  all  si<b's,  by  Wolff  and 
 lloffeditz,  as  also  from  the  younger  Nevinists:  Reid,  A.  IT. 
 Kremer,  Ileisler  and  others.  No  one  favored  the  amendment 
 but  Derr  himself.  Heiner  then  rose  and  declared  that  if  there 
 Avas  any  such  amendment,  he  would  withdraw  the  original  mo- 
 tion,— that  he  did  not  intend  to  endorse  Nevin 's  theology  and 
 referred  only  to  Nevin 's  personality  and  to  bis  zeal  and  ability. 
 The  brother  who  asked  him  wanted  such  a  I'esolution  adopted 
 so  as  to  keep  Nevin  from  going  to  Rome.  He  says  he  was  will- 
 ing to  do  this  if  it  would  have  that  effect. 
 
 The  synod  took  a  more  conservative  and  guarded  action 
 about  Mercersburg  theology  than  the  previous  synod.  It  liad 
 evidently  felt  the  criticisms  on  its  previous  action.    The  editor 
 
 *See  his  letter  in  the  ChriNiinn  InlcUit/rncer,  Sept.  1,  1853. 
 
Uprising  Against  Mercersburg  Theology.  293 
 
 of  tlie  GJirislidii  Iiil(JJi(jriicer  said  the  design  of  its  report  was 
 to  get  rid  of  the  odium  of  having  practically  supported  Nevin 
 and  at  the  same  time  get  rid  of  Nevin  without  the  formal  con- 
 demnation of  the  man  or  his  heresies.     This  explains,  it  says, 
 
 llic  disagi'cciiH'nt  <»f  this  r('{)oi"t  with  that  of  1851. 
 
 ►Section  '.\.    The  Iipkising  of. the  German  Sti^dents  at 
 JMercehsbhrg. 
 
 The  next  event  against  Nevinism  was  a  rehellion  of  some  of 
 th(^  theological  students.  It  revealed  that  not  all  the  students 
 in  the  seminary  were  of  one  mind  in  accepting  IMercersburg 
 theology.  It  occurred  at  the  beginning  of  1852.  There  were 
 a  number  of  German  students,  most  of  whom  came  from  Lippe, 
 in  Germany.  They  had  left  their  fatherland  after  persecu- 
 tions for  their  Reformed  faith.  Their  Heidelberg  Catechism 
 and  Reformed  doctrines  were  therefore  very  dear  to  them. 
 They  were  devotedly  attached  to  p]vangelical  doctrines  or  what 
 Dr.  Nevin  called  Puritanism.  When  they  came  into  contact 
 with  Mercersburg  theology  they  became  dissatisfied  with  what 
 they  called  Romanizing  errors.  Doctrines  were  taught  and 
 discussed  that  were  strange  to  them  in  the  strict  Reformed 
 Church  of  the  fatherland. 
 
 "Pennsylvania,"  writing  later  in  the  Chrislian  World* 
 says,  a  score  of  years  ago,  I  was  told  by  two  of  the  seminary 
 students  at  Mercersburg  that  they  read  more  Roman  Catholic 
 than  Protestant  books  at  the  seminary,  such  as  Wiseman, 
 Balmes,  Mohler,  etc.  On  being  remonstrated  with,  they  gave 
 as  an  answer  that  they  did  so  with  the  advice  and  consent  of 
 their  professor.  The  informer  says  he  decidedly  denounced 
 the  pipfessor's  advice  and  sought  to  counteract  his  influence. 
 Prayers  for  tlu^  dead,  the  intermediate  state,  auricular  confes- 
 sion were  taught  ami  debated  i)y  the  students.  The  Messenger-\ 
 notices  this  ai'ticle  but  tries  to  evade  its  force  by  saying  that  Dr. 
 Schafl^'  had  by  that  time  left  the  Church.  The  EvangelistX  also 
 says  primacy  of  the  pope,  celibacy,  the  worship  of  the  Virgin, 
 
 *Ju]y  17,  1873. 
 fJuly  23,  1873. 
 INovember  2,  1871. 
 
294         History  of  Kepormed  Ciiurcii  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 the  invocation  of  the  saints,  the  eaily  C'hureli  fathers  were 
 referred  to  as  giiid(>s  by  tlie  professors.  The  Eejnnned  Church 
 Quartfrli),  by  its  articles  on  "Early  Christianity"  and  "Cy- 
 prian." added  to  the  discontent.  Some  of  the  students  de- 
 fended the  doctrine  of  an  intermediate  state,  or  purgatory. 
 The  result  was  that  the  students  split  into  two  pai'ties,  the  one 
 arrayed  against  i*rof.  Schaff.  the  other  defending  him.  In 
 the  theological  society  in  the  seminary,  fiery  debates  were 
 held.  The  enemies  of  Nevinism  were  called  Puritans,  fanatics, 
 unchurchly  sects.  The  professor  very  naturally  sided  with  his 
 adherents.  jMatters  finally  came  to  a  crisis.  The  faculty  sus- 
 pended J.  C.  Klar.  As  a  result,  the  German  students  would  not 
 attend  lectures.  They  went  to  the  board  of  visitors  in  January, 
 1852,  and  made  matters  known  to  them.  That  board  made 
 an  investigation.  Each  student  was  heard  and  examined  and 
 an  effort  was  made  to  reconcile  professor  and  students,  but 
 it  was  imsatisfaetory  to  the  students,  as  the  Board  said  that 
 they  had  misunderstood  the  professor.  As  a  result,  six  of  the 
 students  left:  Becker,  Winter,  Bruecker,  Toensmeier,  Biehl 
 and  Blaetgen.  Two  of  the  German  students  remained,  ]\Iuehl- 
 meier  and  Lienkemper,  although  they  made  known  to  the  pro- 
 fessor their  fundamental  position  against  him.  Thus  Nevin- 
 ism was  threatened  at  its  very  center,  the  seminary.* 
 
 The  Reformed  Church  Monthly^  adds  "other  Romish  books 
 were  recommended,  as  Wiseman's  Doctrine  of  the  Church, 
 Eabiola,  a  roman(;e,  Sadler's  First  and  Second  Adam  (High- 
 Church  Episcopalian),  Bishop  England's  Works,  The  Poor 
 Man's  Catechism,  Faber's  "All  for  Jesus."  This  list  was 
 furnished  by  one  mainly  in  sympathy  with  the  ]\Iercersburg 
 theology.  When  these  ])ooks  were;  recommended,  the  Monthij 
 asks,  was  there  an  antidote  recommended,  as  Roussel 's  "Catho- 
 lic and  [*i'otestant  Nations  (Compared"  aiul  iiacon's  "Two 
 Sides  against  the  Poor  Man's  Catechism."  Rev.  W.  IM.  Reily, 
 one  of  Dr.  Nevin's  pupils, |  says  Dr.  Ncvin  had  so  lost  confi- 
 
 *Tliis  section  we  have  siiliinittccl   to  i>i\(-  ni'  tlicsc  stii<lciitH.      He  sayH 
 our  statements  are  correct. 
 tl872,  page  339. 
 XMagazine  of  Christian  Literature,  Sept.,  1891. 
 
Uprising  Against-  Mercersbitkg  Theology.  295 
 
 deuce  in  Evangelical  Protestantism  that  lie  was  fond  of  recom- 
 mending to  his  friends  the  works  of  Sadler  and  other  Trac- 
 tarian  authors.* 
 
 Section  4.     Organization  of  Frankijn  and  Marshall 
 
 COLLEGE.f 
 
 The  project  of  imitiug  the  two  Colleges,  Franklin  College 
 at  Lancaster,  and  IMarshall  College,  at  Mereersburg,  was  first 
 discussed  at  the  Synod  of  1849.$  Franklin  College  had  prop- 
 erty valued  at  $51,508,  but  had  only  six  students.  Of  this 
 property  one-third  belonged  to  the  Reformed  and  one-third  to 
 the  Lutherans.  A  special  meeting  of  our  synod  was  held 
 January  30,  1850,  and  synod  declared  its  opinion  that  there 
 was  no  legal  or  moral  difficulty  in  the  way.  The  financial  prob- 
 lem was  the  most  difficult, — how  to  raise  the  $17,000  necessary 
 to  buy  out  the  Lutherans.  A  plan  was  matured  by  which  the 
 synod  would  raise  this  money,  while  the  city  and  county  of 
 Lancaster  raised  $25,000  for  the  erection  of  buildings.  J.  C. 
 Bucher,  aided  by  Bossier,  succeeded  in  raising  the  last  amount. 
 A  charter  having  been  granted  1850,  the  new  board  of  Frank- 
 lin and  Marshall  College  first  met  Januarj^  25,  1853.  It 
 elected  James  Buchanan  president.  Rev.  Mr.  Keyes,  pastor  of 
 St.  Paul's  Church,  secretary,  Rev.  Dr.  Mesick,  pastor  of  our 
 Church  at  Harrisburg,  and  Rev.  Dr.  Bowman,  of  the  Episco- 
 pal Church  at  Lancaster,  vice  presidents. 
 
 *The  Christian  Intelligencer,  November  3,  1853,  gives  the  case  of  a 
 young  man  at  Marshall  College  who  became  biased  tovv^ards  Borne  at 
 that  time.  His  pastor  asked  Dr.  Nevin  to  influence  him  against  it. 
 When  the  young  man  said  to  him  that  he  believed  the  Catholic  Church 
 was  the  true  Church,  Nevin  said  he  could  not  blame  him  and  would  lay  no 
 obstacle  in  the  way.  The  son  returned  home  the  next  vacation  a  Catholic, 
 stating  that  he  had  arrived  at  this  conclusion  by  reading  works  recom- 
 mended by  Schaff  and  Nevin. 
 
 fThis  removal  of  the  college  to  Lancaster  was  not  a  part  of  the  upris- 
 ing against  Mercersburg  theology;  but  we  have  placed  it  here  because 
 it  comes  in  here  chronologically.  Still  it  is  to  be  noted  that  by  some 
 it  was  hoped  that  when  the  college  was  gotten  away  from  Mercersburg 
 there  would  be  less  polemics  and  party  feeling  in  the  Church. 
 
 |For  full  account,  see  Dubbs'  History  of  Franklin  and  Marshall  Col- 
 lege, pages  241-244. 
 
296         History  of  Reformed  Cmurcii  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 The  Christian  Intelligencer*  says  that  the  charter  for  the 
 College  being  granted,  the  new  board  met  March  2,  1853, 
 James  Buchanan  as  president.  A  committee,  consisting  of 
 Heiner,  Woljff,  Nevin,  Rev.  Mr.  Bowman,  of  the  Episcopal 
 Church,  and  a  number  of  laymen,  was  appointed  to  nominate 
 candidates  for  the  professorships.  The  committee  reported 
 that  they  had  decided  to  nominate  Nevin,  but  he  was  unwilling 
 to  give  assurance  that  he  would  accept  if  elected.  They  then 
 nominated,  with  one  dissenting  voice.  Rev.  Dr.  Mesick  as 
 president  and  professor  of  moral  and  mental  philosophy,  to- 
 gether with  the  other  professors. 
 
 Wolfff  gives  a  slightly  different  version, — that  when  the 
 committee  first  met,  Nevin  was  not  present  when  his  name  was 
 mentioned,  but  came  in  afterward  and  emphatically  protested. 
 Mesick 's  name  was  therefore  proposed.  To  this  there  was  a 
 show  of  dissatisfaction,  although  when  the  vote  was  taken 
 Nevin  was  the  only  one  dissenting,  on  the  ground  that  there 
 had  been  no  chance  of  consulting  the  Church  and  that  his 
 nomination  would  not  be  acceptable  to  the  prominent  members 
 of  the  board. 
 
 When  the  nomination  was  reported  to  the  board",  a  motion 
 was  made  to  strike  out  Mesick 's  name  and  insert  Nevin 's.  At 
 once  a  debate  sprang  up.  Hon.  J.  AV.  Killinger  moved  that 
 Nevin  be  nominated  and  Buchanan  supported  it.  When  tlie 
 vote  was  taken,  it  stood  19  to  13  for  Nevin  and  he  was  dechired 
 elected.  Dr.  Nevin  declined  in  a  letter.^  II<?  said  if  it  had 
 been  received  when  first  proposed,  he  would  have  accei)ted  ; 
 ])ut  "now  the  claims  and  intei-ests.  partly  of  health,  partly  of 
 taste  and  comfort;  but  most  of  all,  I  may  say  now.  in  the  I'oriii 
 of  inquiry  and  religious  conscience,  which  reach  with  such 
 uncertain  distance  into  the  future  and  the  bearing  of  which 
 it  is  impossible  beforehand  to  calculate  or  foresee,  staiul  pow- 
 erfully in  the  way." 
 
 At  the  board  meeting  of  April  9,  1853,  Sehaff'  was  elected 
 over  Mesick  by  a  vote  of  14  to  11.     It  was  expected  that 
 
 *March  24,  1853. 
 
 ■[Christinn  Intelligencer,  Ajiril  7. 
 
 $See  Dubbs'  History  of  Franklin  ami  Maishall  College,  264-6. 
 
Uprising  Against  Mercersburg  Theology.  297 
 
 Schaff  would  accept  and  be  glad  to  leave  so  small  a  town  as 
 Mercersburg  for  Lancaster,  because  his  position  at  Mercers- 
 burg was  lonely  and  depressing.  But  he  declined,  saying  that 
 his  engagements  to  the  Theological  seminary  were  such  that 
 it  would  be  unconstitutional  and  disrespectful  to  decide  until 
 a  meeting  of  synod.  This  delay  was  granted,  although  delay 
 was  dangerous  to  the  best  interests  of  the  college.  But  the 
 synod  in  the  fall  refused  to  permit  him  to  accept  the  presi- 
 dency^ by  relinquishing  his  theological  chair,  which  it  said  he 
 had  so  ably  and  faithfully  filled.  If  the  action  of  the  Synod 
 of  1851  was  looked  upon  as  an  endorsement  of  the  Mercers- 
 burg professors,  this  action  was  a  repetition  of  it,  and  Dr. 
 Schaff  could  now  look  upon  it  as  a  justification  of  his  course. 
 
 Thus,  whatever  plans  the  Anti-Mercersburg  theology  men 
 may  have  had  of  checking  the  growth  of  the  Mercersburg 
 movement,  by  gaining  the  election  of  a  president  of  the  new 
 college  in  Mesick,  proved  fruitless.  The  long  delay  in  getting 
 a  president,  however,  was  very  disheartening  to  the  College. 
 The  action  of  the  synod,  in  refusing  to  let  Schaff  accept  it, 
 proved  thoroughly  dispiriting  to  all.  Finally  in  the  fall  of 
 1854,  Rev.  E.  V.  Gerhart,  president  of  Heidelberg  College,  our 
 institution  in  Ohio,  was  elected.  There  was  some  significance 
 in  his  election,  as  he  had  been  away  from  the  East  during 
 the  bitterness  of  the  Mercersburg  controversy.  He  had  ex- 
 pressed himself  at  Tifiin  that  the  Nevinistic  movement  had 
 gone  too  far.  A  writer  in  the  Reformed  Cliurch  Monflihj* 
 says  that  Dr.  Gerhart,  while  at  Tiffin,  pronounced  the  Nevin- 
 ism  of  that  day  at  variance  with  the  historical  faith  and 
 practice  of  the  Reformed  Church,  and  it  was  reported 
 that  he  was  about  to  prepare  a  series  of  articles  against  it 
 when  he  was  called  to  the  presidency  of  Franklin  and  ]\Iar- 
 shall  college.  It  was  thought,  therefore,  that  Gerhart  might 
 harmonize  the  East  again,  but  after  he  became  president  he 
 went  over  fully  into  the  Mercersburg  camp.  The  condition 
 of  affairs  at  the  college  was  so  low  at  the  time,  that  Dr.  Ger- 
 hart was  urged  to  accept  on  the  ground,  that  if  he  did  not 
 there  was  no  future  for  the  college.     The  Theological  semi- 
 
 *1869,  page  404. 
 
208         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 nary  was  closed  almost  a  year,  1853-4,  because  of  Schaff's  ab- 
 sence in  Europe  and  because  Prof.  Wolff  had  not  yet  accepted. 
 Thus  the  period  1853-4  in  the  college  and  seminary  was  dark 
 with  difficulties.  Another  fact  then  seized  upon  by  their  oppo- 
 nents was  that  one  of  the  incorporators  of  Franklin  and  Mar- 
 shall College  was  Father  Kienan,  the  Catholic  priest  of  Lancas- 
 ter. This  was  spoken  of  as  another  straw  toward  Romanism. 
 The  Know-nothing  movement  was  sweeping  the  coimtry  and 
 violent  articles  appeared  against  the  college  because  of  his  con- 
 nection with  it  and  because  of  the  Romanizing  tendencies  of 
 the  Mercersburg  theology.  The  Messenger*  explains  the  con- 
 nection of  the  Catholic  priest  with  the  college  by  saying  it  was 
 made  by  the  suggestion  of  ]\Ir.  Buchanan  and  without  the 
 knowledge  of  the  rest  of  the  board;  and  besides  Father 
 Kienan 's  Church  never  permitted  him  to  act  in  that  capacity. 
 
 Section  5.     The  Withdrawat.  op  North  Carolina  Classis 
 PROM  Our  Church. 
 
 The  next  sensation  was  the  action  of  the  classis  of  North 
 Carolina  withdrawing  from  our  Church  on  accomit  of  Mercer- 
 bury  theology.  This  classis  had  become  active  in  the  establish- 
 ment of  Catawba  College  at  Newton,  N.  C.f 
 
 This  classis  had  been  the  first  to  take  action  against  the 
 liturgy  and  now  was  the  first  to  take  action  against  the  ]\Ier- 
 cersburg  theology  in  1851.  It  instructed  its  delegate  to  vote 
 at  this  synod  for  the  acceptance  of  Dr.  Nevin's  resignation 
 and  decided  to  refuse  to  give  money  to  missions  because  of 
 Nevinism.     In  1852  it  continued  it,s  action  by  declaring  that 
 
 *Aiigust  9,  1854. 
 
 fin  3849  the  classis  first  appointed  a  coniniittee  to  report  on  the  pro- 
 priety of  establishing  a  school  within  the  bounds  of  the  classis  and 
 under  its  control.  It  was  opened  at  Newton,  N.  C,  on  December  3, 
 IS.*)].  At  first  it  was  under  the  control  of  Albert  as  Principal,  assisted 
 by  Professor  Smith,  the  latter  a  graduate  of  Bowdoin  College.  The 
 citizens  of  Newton  deeded  ten  acres  of  ground  and  erected  a  college 
 building  and  a  house  for  the  principal.  The  classis  raised  a  fund  of 
 .$10,000,  Rev.  J.  11.  Crawford  acting  as  its  agent.  In  1860,  when  Rev. 
 Mr.  Vaughn  was  president,  it  was  proposed  to  raise  .$60,000,  and  Walker 
 says  that  if  the  war  had  not  intervened  it  could  have  been  raised.  But 
 when  the  war  began,  the  i>resident  fled  and  the  buildings  were  idle  and 
 the  bonds  were  cancelled. 
 
Uprising  Against  Mercersburg  Theology.  299 
 
 unless  the  synod  takes  some  measures  to  satisfy  the  just  con- 
 cern of  this  classis  for  the  teaching  of  sound  doctrine  in  the 
 seminary,  classis  nuist  withdraw  her  sympathy  from  the 
 seminary  entirely.  It  appointed  no  delegates  to  the  synod. 
 In  1853  this  movement  culminated  in  the  withdrawal  of  the 
 classis.  It  had  first  appointed  a  committee  of  three  (Welker, 
 Ingold  and  an  elder)  to  examine  into  the  teachings  of  Mer- 
 cersburg and  report  at  the  annual  meeting  of  1853.  That  com- 
 mittee reported  at  length  and  the  classis  noted  five  objections 
 to  Mercersburg  theology : 
 
 1.  It  undermines  the  Word  of  God  as  the  only  rule  of  faith  bj'  making 
 the  Bible  subordinate  to  the  Church. 
 
 2.  It  destroys  the  proper  divinity  and  humanity  of  Christ  by  teaching 
 the  interpenetration  of  his  nature. 
 
 3.  It  has  no  need  of  a  personal  Holy  Spirit,  but  in  his  stead  introduces 
 ' '  the  ideal  man ' '  and  says  that  ' '  the  Holy  Sjiirit  constitutes  rather 
 the  form  in  which  the  higher  nature  of  Christ  reveals  himself. ' '  The 
 great  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  salvation  of  sinners  is  transferred 
 to  the  Church  as  the  continuation  of  Christ's  life. 
 
 4.  The  system  attributes  to  the  sacraments  a  virtue  not  warranted  in 
 the  Word  of  God.  They  are  not  "signs  of  invisible  grace"  but  "the 
 grace  exhibited  belongs  to  the  sacramental  in  its  own  nature. ' '  This 
 is  different  from  the  Catechism  and  the  Bible,  where  the  great  object 
 in  the  view  of  the  Holy  Spirit  seems  to  have  been  to  give  no  possible 
 occasion  for  believing  in  such  "objective  grace"  or  force. 
 
 5.  It  assumes  a  relation  to  the  papacy  opposite  to  the  spirit  of  Pro- 
 testantism, speaks  harshly  of  Puritanism,  but  is  tender  of  the  ' '  scarlet 
 lady's"  feelings.  It  is  Germanized  Puseyism,  a  strange  mixture  of  the 
 infidel  philosophy  of  Germany  and  Popish  superstitions. 
 
 * '  Classis  has  waited  with  intense  solicitude  for  some  satisfactory  action 
 by  the  German  Reformed  Church  on  these  departures  from  sound  doc- 
 trine. Twice  has  this  classis  directed  the  attention  of  synod  to  these 
 errors.  Not  only  has  synod  failed  to  take  action,  but  it  delights  to 
 cherish  their  authors,  retaining  and  re-electing  them  as  ])rofessors.  We 
 are  told  that  our  Protestantism  has  no  affinity  with  that  of  other  Evan- 
 gelical denominations.  We  are,  therefore,  left  to  the  alternative  of 
 taking  our  position  near  the  papal  apostasy  or  to  be  strangers  among 
 our  brethren  or  unrecognized  in  the  Church  of  our  fathers." 
 
 They  therefore  passed  the  following  action  : 
 
 Fesolved,  That  we  use  ail  pn)j)er  means  within  our  power  to  oppose 
 and  counteract  these  errors. 
 
300 
 
 History  of  Reformed  CiiTJRcn  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Besolved,  That  we  use  all  diligence  to  raise  our  institution  of  learn- 
 ing (Catawba  College)  to  a  high  position  as  furnishing  a  sound  and  ele- 
 gant education  and  also  to  make  it  a  foundation  from  which  shall  issue 
 streams  of  faith  and  piety  that  shall  refresh  our  churches. 
 
 Ih'.soh-ed,  That  we  receive  no  minister  into  our  classis  who  luihls  or 
 li;is  ;in.v  syinpatliy  witli  tlie  errors  of  Mercersburg. 
 
 Catawba  College 
 
 Resolved,  That  the  Classis  of  North  Carolina  no  longer  acknowledges 
 the  jurisdiction  of  the  German  Reformed  Synod  of  North  America,  and 
 that  we  declare  ourselves  in(le])endent  of  said  synod  until  we  are  satis- 
 fied that  said  synod  has  not  held  or  defends  tlic  heresies  of  Mercers- 
 burg.* 
 
 The  synod  of  1853  appointed  a  eonnnittee  to  eoiilVr  with  th(^ 
 classis;  but  the  next  year  the  classis  responded  lo  the  letter 
 ad(lrcss<'d  to  it  ))y  that  eonnnittee  that 
 
 It  regretted  to  find  in  the  synod  the  spirit  manifested  in  its  report 
 on  the  separation,  and  stated  that  "this  chissis  has  no  grounds  to  Justify 
 it  in  a  return  to  the  juiisdictioii  of  t  lie  synod, —  that  until  chissis  is 
 satisfied  that  synod  has  withilrawn  her  \irtual  cinhirsfnicnt  and  sym- 
 pathy from  the  heresies  of  Merccislmi'g,  we  must  remain  true  to  the 
 ]>rin<-i]dos  of  our  ]uisition." 
 
 *Prof.  Albert,  tlie  ])resident  of  Catawba  College,  seems  to  have  been 
 the  only  one  in  the  classis  in  sympathy  with  Mercersliurg  theology. 
 After  classis  had  taken  this  action,  he  resigned  and  returned  to  the 
 North,  where  later  he  entered  the  Episcopal  Church. 
 
TTprasiNG  Against  IMehcersburg  Theology.  1301 
 
 The  classis  made  overtures  to  unite  with  the  Dutch  Re- 
 formed Church  in  1855,  two  of  its  charges,  Newton  and  Ca- 
 tawba, having  nmdo  such  an  overture  to  the  classis.  The  classis 
 referred  the  question  to  the  several  congregations  to  ascertain 
 their  wishes  and  also  appointed  a  cominissioner  to  visit  the 
 General  Synod  of  the  Dutch  Church.  Dr.  Welker  was  ap- 
 pointed commissioner  and  ]Mr.  Butler  his  alternate.  Welker 
 was  prevented  from  attending  the  meeting  of  the  Dutch  Synod 
 l)y  sickness.  Butler  attended  the  Dutch  Synod  in  the  summer 
 of  1855.  He  was  cordiality  received  and  the  motion  was  made 
 tiiat  the  synod  reciprocate  the  fraternal  feelings  of  North 
 Carolina  classis  and  regard  with  favor  the  proposed  union. 
 
 But  opposition  began  to  devc^lop  in  the  Dutch  Church  on 
 the  subject  of  slavery.  Rev.  Drs.  Duryea  and  Wyckofif  op- 
 posed the  union  because  slavery  would  bring  discord  into  the 
 peaceable  and  harmonious  Dutch  Church  as  it  had  into  the 
 Old-School  and  New-School  Presbyterian  Churches.  Rev.  Dr. 
 IIow  championed  the  cause  of  North  Carolina  classis  on 
 the  floor  of  the  Dutch  Synod.  He  took  the  ground  that  slave- 
 holding  was  not  necessarily  sinful,  quoting  1  Tim.  6:  ],  Rev. 
 Dr.  Dur^'ea  one  of  the  few^  out-and-out  abolitionists  said,  "I 
 would  rather  carry  Dr.  Nevin  and  all  his  theology  on  my  back 
 all  the  rest  of  my  life  than  to  give  the  slightest  seeming  en- 
 dorsement to  the  crime  of  slaver.y,  with  its  attendant  host  of 
 evils."  Rev.  Mr.  Butler  replied,  but  in  his  statement  con- 
 fessed that  three  of  the  ministers  of  North  Carolina  classis 
 were  slaveholders. 
 
 Finding  that  there  was  opposition,  Mr.  Butler  asked  permis- 
 sion to  withdraw  the  application  of  his  classis.  The  synod, 
 however,  asked  Mr.  Butler  to  reconsider  the  withdrawal  of  his 
 application  and  it  postponed  action  until  a  special  session  the 
 following  October.  It  passed  a  resolution  that  it  regarded  with 
 gratitude  the  noble  stand  of  that  classis  against  the  errors  of 
 the  ]\rercers])urg  theology  and  declared  it  could  not  let  Mr. 
 Butler  retire  without  an  expression  of  kindest  feelings  and 
 assurance  of  fraternal  sympathy.  It  commended  the  classis 
 to  the  material  aid  of  the  Dutch  Church  (Mr.  Crawford  had 
 been  in  New  York  City  collecting  for  Catawba  College  the  pre- 
 
302        History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 vious  year)  and  said  that  their  Theological  seminary  was  open 
 to  them  for  the  education  of  their  ministers.  Rev.  Dr.  How 
 later  published  his  remarks  in  a  i)amplilet,  "Shivcholding  not 
 Sinful,"  which  was  replied  to  by  Rev.  11.  D.  Ganse,  in  "Bible 
 Slaveholding  not  Sinful." 
 
 At  the  extra  session  of  the  Dutch  Synod  in  October,  Dr. 
 Welker  appeared  from  the  Nortii  Carolina  classis.  IMeanwhile 
 several  of  the  Dutch  classis,  as  Schoharie  and  Holland,  had 
 overtured  against  the  union.  On  the  other  hand  the  classis  of 
 Philadelphia  had  approved  of  the  reception  of  the  classis.  At 
 the  synod  there  was  a  very  animated  debate  between  Drs.  How, 
 championing  the  miion,  and  Duryea,  who  opposed  it,  mainly 
 on  the  ground  of  slavery.  Another  objection,  tuo,  was  raised 
 that  the  classis  wanted  to  come  into  the  Dutch  Church  with- 
 out offering  to  accept  the  creeds  of  the  Dutch  Church  in 
 addition  to  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.  The  vote  was  a  close 
 one,  50  against  the  union  to  47  for  it.  In  view  of  the  clo.se- 
 ness  of  the  vote,  the  subject  was  tabled.  Because  of  the  oppo- 
 sition, Welker  withdrew  the  request  of  his  classis,  which 
 was  granted  by  a  vote  of  55  to  34.  The  North  Carolina  classis 
 afterwards  approved  of  this  action  of  Welker.  Dr.  Welker 
 says  that  those  in  the  Dutch  Synod,  who  were  original  Dutch, 
 were  in  favor  of  the  reception  of  North  Carolina  classis.  But 
 the  Church  had  had  a  strong  infusion  of  New  England  aboli- 
 tion element  who  did  not  want  slavery  to  trouble  them.  He 
 says  it  was  probable  that  the  vote  would  have  carried  if  Dr. 
 Bethune,  a  Scotch-Irishman,  whose  fears  were  awakened  for 
 the  peace  and  unity  of  his  church,  had  not  deserted  to  the 
 opponents.  Welker  says  that  after  the  war  the  Dutch  Cluirch 
 would  have  been  glad  to  have  undone  the  work  done  at  this 
 synod. 
 
 In  1857,  Rev.  Jesse  Rankin  appeared  before  Noi-th  Carolina 
 classis  and  presented  the  resolutions  of  the  Presbyterian 
 synod  of  North  Carolina  looking  to  a  closer  union.  The  offer, 
 says  Walker,  was  liberal  but  it  was  found  that  it  would  divide 
 che  classis  to  accept  it,  so  that  matter  was  dropped.  In  the 
 meantime  the  German  Reformed  synod  continued  negotiations 
 to  get  the  classis  to  return  but  in  vain.     The  synod  of  1857 
 
Uprising  Against  IMercersburg  Theology.  303 
 
 appointed  a  committee  which  visited  North  Carolina  in  the 
 spring  of  1858,  Dr.  Zacharias  being  chairman  of  that  com- 
 mittee. As  a  result,  two  commissioners  appeared  at  the  east- 
 ern synod  of  1858,  Welker  and  Butler.  These  commissioners 
 laid  before  the  class! s  of  1859  the  invitation  from  synod  to 
 resume  its  former  relation.  Thf  classis  almost  e(|ually  divided 
 four  voting  for  it;  six  against  and  two  not  voting.  The  Civil 
 War  later  kept  them  apart  from  the  North.  The  matter  of 
 union  with  our  synod  rested  until  1865,  when  a  committee  of 
 classis  was  appointed  on  the  matter.  In  1866  it  was  decided  to 
 return  to  the  old  synod. 
 
 Section  6.    The  Witiidraw.il  of  the  Reformed  Church  of 
 Germantown  and  of  Rev.  Jacob  IIelffenstein. 
 
 Rev,  Jacob  Helffenstein,  pastor  of  our  church  at  German- 
 town,  Pa.,  decided  to  follow  the  example  of  Dr.  Berg  and  leave 
 our  Church ;  and  his  congregation  prepared  to  follow  him. 
 They  had  their  charter  changed  April  13,  1853,  and  finally 
 decided  to  withdraw  and  join  the  New-School  Presbyterian 
 Church.  This  was  a  more  serious  loss  to  our  Church  even 
 than  the  withdrawal  of  Dr.  Berg,  for  in  this  case  it  carried 
 the  congregation  and  church-building  along.  Dr.  IIelffenstein 
 on  leaving  (March  27,  1853),  preached  a  very  severe  sermon 
 against  Mercersburg  theology,  entitled  "The  Perverted  Gos- 
 pel." He  charged  Mercersburg  theology  with  five  errors, 
 that, — 
 
 1.  It  denied  that  the  Bible  and  the  Bible  alone  (not  tradition)  was 
 the  religion  of  Protestantism. 
 
 2.  It  erred  in  regard  to  the  sacraments  in  giving  them  intrinsic  ef- 
 ficacy and  in  holding  that  outside  of  the  Church  there  was  no  salvation.* 
 
 3.  It  denied  that  the  papacy  was  the  great  apostasy  and  declared  that 
 all  attacks  on  Eomanism  were  uncharitable. 
 
 4.  Its  publications  sanctioned  Catholic  abominations,  as  the  use  of 
 images  as  helps  to  devotion  and  the  denial  of  the  Evangelical  doctrine  of 
 justification. 
 
 5.  If  Mercersburg  theology  were  carried  out  to  its  end,  it  would  run 
 into  Komanism. 
 
 *Principle  of  Protestantisuij  page  177. 
 
304         History  of  Reformed  CiinRcri  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 When  his  application  for  dismissal  to  the  New'-School 
 Presbyterians  came  up  in  the  Classis  of  Philadelphia,  there 
 was  a  severe  struggle.  An  effort  was  made  to  get  the  classis 
 to  grant  his  request  for  dismissal,  but  that  in  doing  so,  it 
 did  not  mean  to  sanction  his  statements  against  Mercersl)urg 
 theolog,y,  upon  which  his  request  and  the  action  of  liis 
 church  was  based.  The  vote  was  lost  by  ten  yeas  to  eleven 
 na^'s.*  The  classes  then  constituted  itself  a  committee  of  the 
 whole  for  investigation.  This  committee  arose  and  reported 
 to  classis  they  could  not  grant  his  request.  The  next  day  they 
 took  action  that  they  could  not  grant  it,  because  he  had  not 
 first  resigned  his  charge  and  because  it  meant  the  transfer  of 
 the  congregation  as  well  as  himself.  In  this,  the  action  of  the 
 classis  was  undoubtedly  right  constitutionally. 
 
 The  classis  protestetl  against  the  action  of  Ihc  congrega- 
 tion in  leaving  our  denomination  and  appointed  a  com- 
 mittee of  vigilance  of  five  jnem])ers.  who  wore  to  forward 
 the  protest  to  the  Fourth  or  New-8chool  Presbytery  against 
 the  reception  of  the  congregation,  liut  the  connnittee  on  vigi- 
 lance was  never  able  to  do  anything  liecause  the  congrega- 
 tion imanimously  supported  the  pastor  in  leaving  our  Church. 
 The  Reformed  Church  of  Philadelphia  has  never  gotten  over 
 the  loss  of  this  church.  It  has  as  yet  no  church  in  the  main 
 part  of  Germantown,  whereas  if  this  congregation  had  re- 
 mained with  us,  there  would  prol)ably  be  now  two  or  tJiroc. 
 
 Section  7.    The  Withdrawal  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Gen- 
 eral Synod  prom  Correspondence  with  Our  Cihirch. 
 
 The  next  event  was  the  withdrawal  of  the  Dutch  Reformed 
 Church  from  fraternal  relations  with  our  Church.  This 
 Church  had  from  the  beginning,  a.s  we  have  seen,  looked  with 
 suspicion  on  Mercersburg  theology.  It  had  withdrawn  on  this 
 ground  from  the  Triennial  Convention  in  1847.  It  now  with- 
 drew from  all  connection  with  our  Church  for  the  same  reason. 
 Meanwhile  certain  events  had  occurred  in  connection  with  the 
 
 *Wack,  J.  Helffenstciii,  Slienkel,  S.  nelffenstein,  Sr.,  S.  IFclH'oii- 
 stein,  Jr.,  and  four  elders  voted  for  it.  Kooken,  Ermentrout,  Reid, 
 HefPelfinger,  Bonekemper  and  six  ciders  voted  against  it. 
 
Uprising  Against  Mercersburg  Theology.  305 
 
 interchange  of  delegates  which  led  to  increasing  friction  be- 
 tween the  synods  of  the  two  bodies.  Thus  the  Dutch  delegates 
 to  our  synod  of  1851  reported  to  their  General  Synod  of  1852 
 that  the  German  Reformed  Synod  by  refusing  to  accept 
 Nevin's  resignation  had  unanimously  sanctioned  Nevin's  doc- 
 trinal views.  This  report  led  the  next  synod  of  our  Church  in 
 1852  to  take  action  declaring  that  its  action  of  1851  did  not 
 sanction  Nevin's  views,  as  no  issue  like  that  had  been  brought 
 before  the  synod.  It  protested  against  the  report  of  the  Dutch 
 delegates,  that  the  interchange  of  delegates  did  not  give  those 
 delegates  the  right  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  synod  of  the 
 other  Church.  Because  the  Dutch  General  Synod  had  adopted 
 the  report  of  its  delegates,  Porter  and  Hallaway,  our  synod 
 felt  aggrieved  and  wronged.  Still,  in  spite  of  what  it  consid- 
 ered injurious  treatment,  it  appointed  delegates  to  the  next 
 Dutch  General  Synod.  Rev.  Dr.  Porter,  one  of  the  Dutch 
 delegates,  replied  to  these  charges  of  our  synod,  stating  that 
 he  was  present  through  the  debate  on  Schaff's  resigna- 
 tion, and  his  report  was  based  on  Nevin's  own  words 
 when  he  said  that  the  action  of  the  synod  in  Schaff's  ease 
 meant  approval  or  disapproval  of  his  teachings.  Porter  was 
 corroborated  by  his  companion,  Rev.  Dr.  Halloway,  who  said 
 that  Dr.  Nevin  declared  that  Schaff  made  his  application 
 to  synod  not  because  he  wished  to  resign, — that  Nevin  said 
 the  action  would  cover  the  future  as  well  as  the  past  and 
 Schaff  would  consider  himself  sustained  in  pursuing  the  same 
 line  of  teaching  he  had  followed.  Dr.  Porter  said  he  was 
 not  present  when  action  was  taken  on  Nevin's  resignation, 
 but  the  rule  Nevin  laid  down  for  Schaff  must  apply  to  Nevin's 
 case  also.  He  also  added  that  the  sjniod  by  refusing  to  accept 
 Dr.  Nevin's  resignation  and  leaving  the  position  vacant 
 showed  its  colors  on  Nevinism.  The  Dutch  General  Sjoiod 
 resolved  to  send  only  one  delegate  to  the  German  Synod  in- 
 stead of  two  delegates  as  before. 
 
 The  Messenger  replied  to  Porter's  remarks  that  Nevin's  re- 
 mark was  not  the  synod.  It  declared  that  the  vote  of  the 
 synod  was  only  on  his  general  orthodoxy,  not  on  his  par- 
 ticular views.     It  said  that  while  the  synod  never  formally 
 
306         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 endorsed  the  views  of  Nevin,  it  at  the  same  time  did  not 
 condemn  them. 
 
 Berg  naively*  asks  what  is  meant  by  "general  orthodoxy." 
 A  man,  it  appears,  may  be  generally  orthodox  and  specially 
 heterodox,  generality  a  Protestant  and  specially  a  Papist. 
 
 At  the  synod  of  1853,  Revs.  Drs.  Harbaugh  and  S.  R.  Fisher 
 were  present  as  delegates  from  our  synod.  The  Dutch  Synod 
 decided  to  discontinue  the  sending  of  delegates  "because  it 
 maintained  unflinchingly  its  Protestantism  and  its  opposition 
 to  the  Romanizing  tendencies  of  the  Mercersburg  theology," 
 Before  the  final  action  was  taken,  Harbaugh  made  an  address 
 in  which  he  could  not  conceal  his  soreness  of  feelings  in  re- 
 gard to  the  sentiments  of  the  Dutch.  He  gave  utterance  to  the 
 phrase  "We  consider  ourselves  persecuted  and  slandered  by 
 the  secular  and  religious  journals."  To  this  the  editor  of  the 
 Christian  Intelligencer  later  replied,  denying  it,  but  saying 
 that  the  press  was  right  and  Nevin 's  views  were  wrong  and 
 closing  with  an  illustration:  "A  clergyman  was  once  asked  by 
 a  lady  whether  she  might  wear  all  the  finery  and  ornaments 
 of  worldly  people,  since  these  were  external  and  showed 
 nothing  of  the  state  of  the  heart."  "Why,  madam,"  he 
 answered  with  much  gravity,  "Avhen  I  see  the  fox's  tail  stick- 
 ing from  the  hole  I  generally  conclude  the  fox  is  there." 
 
 The  action  proposed  by  its  committee  to  the  Dutch  Synod 
 was  adopted  as  follows:  "that  as  correspondence  with  the 
 German  Reformed  Church  was  the  occasion  of  that  body  vio- 
 lating the  principles  of  Christian  courtesy  and  charity  and  the 
 continuance  of  correspondence  would  seem  to  sanction  senti- 
 ments favorable  to  Rome,  as  an  expression  of  disapprobation 
 aiul  protest  against  it,  we  withdraw  from  sending  delegales. " 
 The  general  sentiment  among  the  Dutch  was  that  inasmuch 
 as  our  Church  had  not  repudiated  the  Mercershui-.u'  theology 
 but  implicitly  endorsed  it  and  tacitly  sanction(Ml  it,  they  nnist 
 withdraw.  After  the  action.  Dr.  Fisher  made  an  address  in 
 which  he  gave  utterance  to  some  unguarded  remarks.  He 
 declared   that   Mercersburg  theology   was  not   understood, — 
 
 ♦December  16,  1852,  Christian  Intelligencer. 
 
Uprising  Against  Mercersburg  Theology.  307 
 
 that  Dr.  Berg  was  mistaken  at  every  point.  "Time  will 
 show,"  he  said,  "tliat  the  German  Church  is  the  elinrch  of  the 
 Heidelberg  Catechism."  Ursinns'  Commentary  was  used  as  a 
 text-book  at  Tiffin  and  Dick's  Theology  at  Mercersburg.  He 
 spoke  slightingly  of  the  Noi-th  Carolina  classis.  He  said  that 
 our  Church  had  its  difficulties  and  he  was  not  disposed  to 
 cloak  them.  "But,"  he  added,  "we  will  have  our  difficulties 
 until  our  Church  is  free  from  all  those  men  who  made  all  the 
 trouble.  All  that  we  wish  of  all  those  who  trouble  us  is  that  they 
 will  every  one  just  quietly  leave  us."  This  ill-advised  remark 
 of  Fisher  was  later  severely  criticised  by  Heiner,  who  was  one 
 referred  to.  This  suspension  of  correspondence  between  the 
 Dutch  Church  and  ours  lasted  tw^enty  years,  until  the  Tercen- 
 tenary (18G3). 
 
 Section  7.     The  Synod  of  1853. 
 
 The  last  act  of  this  part  of  the  controversy  occurred  at  the 
 Synod    of    1853.      Rev.    Dr.    Zacharias,    of   Frederick,    Md., 
 brought  charges  against  Rev.  S.  R.  Fisher,  the  editor  of  the 
 Messenger,  for  refusing  to  publish  articles  against  the  Mer- 
 cersburg theology.     Rev.  Dr.  Ileiner,  of  Baltimore,  brought  a 
 similar  charge  against  l)oth  editors.     The  case  of  Zacharias 
 came  up  first.     He  charged  Fisher  with  endorsing  and  vin- 
 dicating the  views  of  Nevin  and  otliers,  about   which  there 
 were  many  contlicting  opinions  among  the  ministers  and  mem- 
 bers of  our  Church.     He  charged  him  with  abusing  his  posi- 
 tion as  editor  by  refusing  to  give  the  of)ponents  of  the  Mer- 
 et'rsburg    theology    a    hearing    through    the    colunnis    of    the 
 paper, — by  allowing  abusive  and  slanderous  articles  against 
 individuals  of  the  Church,  and  yet  refusing  them  an  ()])por- 
 tunity  to  answer,— by  allowing  articles   witii   a   Romanizing 
 tendency  and  by  holding  up  Protestantism  in  such  a  way  as  to 
 raise  doubts  and  by  keeping  its  readers  in  the  dai-k  as  to  the 
 true  nature   of  the   situation   in   regard   to   the   controversy. 
 Zacharias  stoutly  maintained  his  charges  before  synod.     He 
 said  he  knew  S.  R.  Fisher's  heart  was  right  but  he  was  in  the 
 haiids  of  others,— a  remark  at  which  Dr.  Fisher  took  mortal 
 
308         History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 offense.  But  the  synod  sustained  Fisher  by  nn  almost  unani- 
 mous vote,  Aurand  alone  voting  for  Zacharias. 
 
 A  friend  of  Dr.  Zacharias  speaks*  of  the  Synod  of  1853 
 as  a  turbulent  synod  and  how  terribly  in  earnest  he  was  then 
 and  the  greatness  of  his  mortifieation  and  cliagrin  at  his  de- 
 feat. 
 
 Heiner's  complaint  was  declared  out  of  ordci-.  l)ut  tlic  com- 
 mittee offered  to  go  on  with  it  nevertheless.  lie,  however, 
 asked  leave  to  withdraw  it,  for  the  action  of  the  synod  on  the 
 Zacharias  case  virtually  settled  his  case  against  him.  Zacluu-ias 
 felt  this  decision  for  many  years.  lie  had  a  resolution  adoptfd 
 by  his  consistory  in  opposition  to  the  Messenger.  Ilis  chuiTh 
 stood  by  him  and  gave  no  aid  for  the  institutions  of  the  Cburch 
 as  late  as  1863,  for  when  the  Tercentenary  offering  was  mad(\ 
 his  congregation  did  nothing.  It  was  not  until  the  General 
 Synod  of  Dayton  in  1866  that  he  became  more  friendly  to  the 
 ]\Iercersburg  men. 
 
 The  synod  also  appointed  a  committee  to  act  on  the  articles 
 published  in  the  Christian  Intelligencer  hy  a  "member  of  the 
 German  Reformed  Church,"  reflecting  on  its  character.  Di-. 
 Heiner  at  once  arose  and  avowed  himself  the  author.  The 
 committee  reported  that  the  contents  of  the  articles  were  cal- 
 culated to  do  great  injustice  and  injury  to  the  Church  and 
 that  the  author  was  censurable.  It,  however,  referred  the  case 
 to  his  classis  so  as  to  give  him  an  opportunity  for  retraction 
 or  explanation.  "Ilarbaugh,"  says  A  Member  of  the  German 
 Reformed  Church  in  the  Lutheran  Ohsrrrrr  o\'  DcciMiibcr  9, 
 1853,  "was  the  leader  against  Heinei-.  He  had  inlciidcd  jilso 
 to  prosecute  Douglass  for  his  relation  to  slavery,  l)ut  Heiner 
 gave  him  to  understand  as  to  his  n^ncption  south  of  Mason's 
 and  Dixon's  line  on  the  subject.'' 
 
 The  treatment  of  Dr.  Heiner  by  the  synod  raised  a  storm 
 of  protest  from  his  eongregalion.  His  consistory  met  Novem- 
 ber 4,  and  took  action  against  the  synod,  declaring  its  action 
 disorderly  and  irregular,  contrary  to  all  the  just  principles  of 
 action  and  a  violation  of  the  spirit  of  the  synod's  constitu- 
 tion.    It  said  the  original  report  of  the  committee,  as  drawn 
 
 "Chnstiun   If'urhl,  Sopteniber  3,  1874. 
 
Uprising  Against  Mercersburg  Theology.  309 
 
 up  by  Harbaugh,  was  referred  to  by  Bomberger  as  being  too 
 hot,  "there  being  too  much  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  furnace  in 
 it."  They  assured  Heiner  of  their  undiminished  confidence 
 in  him  and  they  protested  against  the  action  of  the  Synod. 
 They  declared  that  the  synod- had  prejudiced  Reiner's  case  in 
 order  to  silence  him  and  destro}^  his  usefulness. 
 
 On  November  9th  a  large  congregational  meeting  was  held, 
 400  or  500  being  present.  The  congregation  endorsed  the 
 action  of  the  consistory  approving  of  Heiner 's  course.  One 
 member,  a  Mr.  Super,  offered  a  paper  looking  to  suspension 
 of  correspondence  with  the  synod,  but  this  was  admitted  to  be 
 premature,  both  by  Heiner  and  most  of  the  congregation. 
 
 The  classis  of  Maryland  took  up  Dr.  Heiner 's  case  at  its 
 next  annual  meeting  find  took  the  following  action : 
 
 '^  Ulicreas,  The  Classis  of  Maryland  does  uot  regard  the  language 
 of  the  resolution  of  synod  in  reference  to  Dr.  Heiner  as  implying  a  cen- 
 sure; and 
 
 WJiereas,  Dr.  Heiner  has  availed  himself  of  the  opportunity  and  given 
 satisfactory  explanation,  Therefore  the  classis  deems  it  unnecessary  to 
 take  any  farther  action  on  the  subject. 
 
 This  was  reported  to  the  next  synod  and  the  matter  dropped. 
 But  it  is  very  evident  the  congregation  was  very  near  the 
 spirit  of  secession.  As  a  result  it  tried  some  years  later  to 
 go  over  to  the  Dutch  Church. 
 
 This  synod  also  appointed  a  committee  on  North  Carolina 
 classis.  This  committee  reported  that  this  classis  could  not 
 withdraw  without  the  will  of  the  synod,  and  that  its  action 
 was  schismatic.  But  instead  of  taking  severe  measures,  it 
 appointed  a  committee  to  address  a  letter  to  the  classis,  point- 
 ing out  their  fault  and  exhorting  them  to  repentance.  An- 
 other matter  that  came  before  the  synod  was  the  acceptance 
 by  Dr.  Wolff  of  the  theological  professorship.  He  very  much 
 desired  to  be  relieved  from  the  responsibilities  of  the  posi- 
 tion, but  synod  insisted  on  his  acceptance.  He,  however,  did 
 not  accept  until  February  27,  1854.  And  as  Dr.  Schaff  went 
 to  Europe  late  in  1853,  the  seminary  was  closed  for  about 
 twelve  months.  The  financial  aspect  of  the  seminary  was 
 dark.      When    Schaff   went   abroad   there   was   considerable 
 
310         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 arrearage  due  him ;  new  students  were  slow  to  come,  as  it  was 
 not  kno'\\-n  what  would  be  the  fate  of  the  seminary  as  to 
 professors.  Confidence  had  been  lost  and  indifiference  pro- 
 vailed.  The  only  ray  of  hope  was  a  legacy  of  $10,000  that 
 came  to  thein  just  at  this  time  from  Daniel  Kieifer.  of  Berks 
 County.  One  of  the  reasons  why  Wolff  hesitated  was  his 
 aversion  to  burdening  the  Church  with  the  expense  of  his 
 support. 
 
 Section  8.    The  Rumors  of  Dr.  Nevin's  Going  Over  to  the 
 Roman  Catholic  Church. 
 
 Rumors  w<n'e  current  to  the  effect  that  Dr.  Nevin  would 
 follow  his  teachings  in  his  articles  on  "Early  Christianity" 
 and  "Cyprian"  and  go  into  the  Romish  Church.  This  fact 
 has  been  denied  by  Appel,  Nevin's  biographer,*  where  he 
 says  such  a  thing  was  a  moral  impossibility  for  a  man  of  his 
 vigorous  and  spiritual  constitution.  Rev.  A.  R.  Kremer,  the 
 author  of  "A  Short  Life  of  Dr.  Nevin,"  echoes  this  saying.f 
 "The  charge  of  Romanizing  made  against  him  is  entirely 
 gratuitous."  Let  us  see  whether  they  are  right.  Rev.  D.  S. 
 Schaff,  in  his  Biography  of  his  father  Dr.  Scliaff,  says|  Dr. 
 Nevin's  contributions  to  the  Mercershurg  Revieiv  started  the 
 expectation  in  circles  outside  the  Reformed  Church  that  he 
 might  pass  over  to  Rome.  He  quotes  a  letter  written  by  Rev. 
 J.  Beck  to  his  father,  November  25,  1852,  thus:  "the  general 
 opinion  of  you  (Dr.  Schaff)  is  that  you  are  a  sound  orthodox 
 champion  of  Protestantism  but  of  Dr.  Nevin  that  he  must  go 
 to  Rome,  driven  th(n*e  by  the  overwhelming  force  of  his  own 
 logic  and  the  fatal  concession  lie  has  made."  This  was 
 written  not  by  an  enem.y  of  Dr.  Nevin  but  by  one  who  liad 
 been  his  pupil  and  was  always  a  strong  supporter. 
 
 That  this  fear  was  not  merely  a  rumor  is  shown  by  several 
 facts : 
 
 1.  Dr.  Schaff 's  statement  in  the  Reformed  Kirchenzcihttig 
 of  Germany,  in  whicli  he  deebired  that  Dr.  Nevin  in  his  nn- 
 
 *Life  of  Nevin,  page  410. 
 fPage  192. 
 :j:Pages  199-200. 
 
Uprising  Against  Mercersburg  Theology.  311 
 
 certain  state  of  mind  did  not  feel  that  he  was  in  a  proper 
 frame  of  mind  to  guide  3'omig  men  for  tlie  Protestant  min- 
 istry. This  comes  with  force  because  it  was  the  statement 
 of  Nevin's  colleague  and  bosom-friend. 
 
 2.  Nevin  corroborates  this  statement  of  Schaff  as  to  his 
 state  of  mind,  in  his  letter  declining  the  presidency  of  Frank- 
 lin and  Marshall  College,  where  he  speaks  of  "his  theological 
 and  religious  conscience,  which  reach  such  uncertain  distance 
 into  the  future  and  the  bearing  of  which  it  is  impossible 
 beforehand  to  calculate  and  foresee."  Evidently  his  mind 
 was  uncertain  at  that  time. 
 
 3.  In  the  summer  of  1852,  a  committee  was  sent  by  the 
 Alumni  Association,  consisting  of  Revs.  Joseph  Clark  and 
 G.  B.  Russell,  to  interview  Dr.  Nevin  as  to  his  position  in 
 regard  to  these  rumors.  Nevin  did  not  hesitate  to  say  that 
 he  was  still  "an  inquirer  for  the  truth."  Dr.  Russell  says 
 he  went  away  from  the  interview  with  Dr.  Nevin  with  a 
 distressed  and  foreboding  heart.*  Not  long  after,  says  Dr. 
 Russell,  he  told  me  in  a  private  way  that  he  was  now  fully 
 satisfied  to  stand  on  the  Protestant  position.  But  this  lan- 
 guage implies  that  he  had  been  undecided  before. 
 
 4.  Mr.  Rudolph  Kelker  told  the  writer  that  on  one  oc- 
 casion, Prof.  B.  C.  Wolff  was  sitting  at  his  table  at  dinner. 
 There  had  been  no  previous  conversation  on  the  subject,  but 
 suddenly  Dr.  Wolff  burst  out  with  the  remark,  "Well,  Dr, 
 Nevin  is  not  going  to  Rome."  Mr.  Kelker,  surprised,  in- 
 quired what  he  meant.  He  added,  "Dr.  Nevin  is  not  going 
 to  Rome.  He  has  yielded  to  the  influence  of  his  friends  and 
 will  remain  in  the  Reformed  Church." 
 
 5.  One  of  the  leading  ministers  of  our  Church  told  the 
 writer  that  at  that  time  he  was  earnestly  urged  by  a  near 
 relative  of  Dr.  Nevin's  to  use  all  his  influence  to  keep  Dr. 
 Nevin  from  going  over  to  Rome.f 
 
 *See  Fourscore  Years  and  More,  by  Dr.  Russell,  page  91. 
 
 fRev.  Eli  Keller,  D.D.,  November,  3  854,  in  writing  to  his  father,  says 
 a  rumor  had  reached  the  Theological  seminary  at  Mercersburg  that  Dr. 
 Nevin  had  burned  his  theological  writings  and  it  cast  a  gloom  over  the 
 whole  institution. 
 
312         History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 In  addition  to  these  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  first  of 
 a  number  of  our  ministers  and  members  who  went  to  Rome 
 as  the  result  of  Mercersburg  theolog>%  Mr.  Snively,  a  student 
 of  the  Theological  seminary  at  IMercersburg,  went  over  to 
 Rome  in  1854.  IMercersburg  classis,  June  7,  1854,  tries  hard 
 to  gloss  over  his  departure  by  stating  he  had  gone  to  "another 
 connection." 
 
 The  WacJiter,  twenty-six  years  after,  says  that  in  a  private 
 lecture  Nevin  then  said  that  if  he  had  to  choose  between  the 
 communion  of  the  old  Catholic  fathers  and  the  Reformers 
 he  would  choose  the  former.  In  his  theological  lectures  it 
 says  it  was  declared  that  a  man  is  no  farther  justified  than 
 he  is  sanctified.  Rev.  ]\Ir.  Stern  says  that  for  five  years  after 
 his  resignation  from  the  theological  seminary.  Dr.  Nevin 
 lingered  on  the  borders  of  Rome.  Some  polemist  on  the 
 other  side  in  the  later  liturgical  controversy  calls  this 
 period  Dr.  Nevin 's  "five  years  of  dizziness."  And  yet  Dr. 
 Schaff  was  afterwards  made  the  scape-goat  by  the  Mercers- 
 burg men  for  the  perversion  of  a  number  of  later  perverts  to 
 Rome,  which  Dr.  Schaff  indignantly  denied. 
 
 The  truth  was  that  Dr.  Nevin 's  logic  nearly  carried  liim 
 off  his  feet.  His  continual  depreciation  of  Protestantism, 
 his  exaltation  of  the  visible  Church  in  Catholicism  and  his 
 emphasis  on  the  objective  whether  in  the  church  or  the  sacra- 
 ments, all  prepared  him  to  tend  that  way.  In  his  philo- 
 sophical position  he  followed  Schelling  but  his  high-church 
 views  came  from  Pusey  and  Klieforth.  But  Dr.  Schaff, 
 whose  philosophical  principles  Avere  those  rather  of  Hegel 
 and  who  laid  less  emphasis  on  the  objective  but  rather  on 
 relative  idealism,  stood  firm,  although  there  is  no  doubt  that  at 
 times  his  language  and  his  counsel  to  his  students  was  very  un- 
 guarded. It  is  to  Dr.  Nevin 's  credit  that  he  did  not  yield 
 to  Rome  and  enter  the  Catholic  Church, — that  he  regained  his 
 balance  and  remained  in  the  Protestant  Church.  But  this 
 period  of  his  Romanizing  tendency  left  a  lasting  and  \m- 
 fortunate  influence  on  our  Church-life,  in  ritualism  on  the 
 part  of  his  friends  and  the  lack  of  confidence  on  the  part 
 of  his  opponents.     He  continued  in  our  ministry  until  his 
 
tJPRisiNG  Against  Mercersburg  Theology.  313 
 
 death,  doing  valuable  service  as  president  of  Franklin  and 
 Marshall  College  for  ten  years. 
 
 Section  9.     Review  op  the  Controversy.* 
 
 This  controversy  as  viewed  from  the  standpoint  of  a  half- 
 eentury  later  reveals  some  interesting  pliases.  It  was  a  real 
 controversy^  Mere  personalities  will  never  explain  it,  al- 
 though they  may  have  entered  into  it  in  a  minor  wsiy. 
 ]\Ien  divided  on  great  issues.  Drs.  Nevin  and  Schaff,  it  is 
 true,  tried  to  make  it  appear  that  it  was  a  mere  personal 
 matter — a  quarrel  betAveen  Berg  and  the  Helfifensteins  on 
 the  one  side  and  the  Mercersburg  men  on  the  other.  That 
 it  was  a  controversy  involving  great  principles  is  shown 
 by  the  fact  that  Berg  and  Helffenstein  passed  out  of  our 
 Church  and  yet  the  controversy  continued.  It  was  therefore  a 
 controversy  about  fundamentals.  It  was  ably  conducted  and 
 yet  there  were  misrepresentations  and  mistakes  in  it,  as  in 
 all  controversies. 
 
 1.  Dr.  Nevin,  for  instance,  thought  that  he  had  laid  hold  of 
 German  philosophy  and  so  he  had,  but  a  Scotchman  cannot  do 
 so  fully;  for  a  Scotchman  is  not  a  German.  lie  viewed  the 
 idealistic  German  philosophy  (which  he  supposed  he  accepted) 
 with  realistic  Scotch  eyes.  Very  naturally  he  became  a  Schell- 
 ingite  in  his  emphasis  on  the  objective  and  the  reality  of  ex- 
 ternals. We  have  seen  how  Dr.  Schaff,  a  genuine  German,  was 
 more  of  a  German  idealist,  as  indeed  had  been  Ranch.  It  was 
 this  emphasis  of  Nevin  on  the  objective  in  regard  to  the  Church 
 and  the  sacraments  that  nearly  led  him  to  Rome. 
 
 2.  Again,  Dr.  Nevin  raised  up  a  number  of  false  issues,—-] 
 of  men  of  straw  who  did  not  exist.  In  the  intensity  of  his  • 
 conviction  and  the  extremity  of  his  logic,  he  declared  that 
 Protestantism,  especially  Puritanism,  was  rationalistic  and 
 that  they  made  the  Church  and  the  sacraments  meaningless. 
 This  was  mot  true.  The  Evangelicals  were  not  rationalists 
 nor  did  they  make  the  Church  and  sacraments  a  mere  form. 
 They  believed  in  the  divinity  of  Christ  and  all  the  funda- 
 
 *For  a  contrasted  summary  of  the  two  theologies  (Mercersburg  and 
 Old  Reformed),  see  pages  587-94  of  this  book. 
 
314        History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 mental  doctrines.     His  own  statements  blinded  his  judgment 
 to  a  just  decision. 
 
 3.  Again,  he  made  a  mistake  in  severely  attacking  Protest- 
 antism, especially  the  evil  of  its  sects,  while  at  the  time  he  apol- 
 ogized for  Romanism  and  magnified  its  positions.  Dr.  Nevin's 
 idea  at  first  was  not  to  go  over  to  Rome  (as  he  so  nearly  did 
 afterwards),  but  it  was  an  honest  attempt  to  save  Protestant- 
 ism from  rationalism  by  the  doctrine  of  historical  develop- 
 ment. If  he  had  kex^t  that  doctrine  within  the  limits  set  by 
 Neander  (who  got  it  from  Hegel)  and  had  not  permitted 
 Pnseyism  in  England  or  Rothe  in  Germany  to  affect  him, 
 he  would  have  been  saved  from  the  extremes  to  which  his 
 lugh-churchism  led  him.  Though  not  a  Romanist,  he  was 
 Romanizing  in  his  influence  on  the  following  points: 
 
 1.  The  Church  was  virtually  placed  above  the  Bible. 
 
 2.  The  Church  came  between  the  believer  and  Christ. 
 
 3.  He  emphasized  the  visible  church  and  minimized  the 
 invisible  church  imtil  it  amounted  to  nothing. 
 
 4.  He  held  to  objective  sacramental  grace. 
 
 His  theory  of  the  historical  development  of  the  Church  from 
 Apostolic  times  through  the  Catholic  Church  of  the  middle  ages 
 was  in  error  in  its  undue  emphasis  on  the  visible  church. 
 This,  of  course,  was  due  to  his  philosophical  emphasis  on 
 the  objective.  The  old  Reformed  view  was  to  leap  over  the 
 Middle  Ages  and  make  the  Reformation  a  return  to  the 
 Apostolic  Church.  It  made  the  New  Testament  and  its 
 age  the  norm.  In  the  nineteenth  century  there  came  a 
 conflict  between  this  view  and  the  new  philosophy  which 
 emphasized  the  historical.  This  new  philosophy  demanded  a 
 connection  between  the  Reformation  and  Apostolic  Christian- 
 ity. It  was  not  merely  a  leap  across  the  Middle  Ages  but  a 
 succession,  but  where  was  the  succession?  The  Catholic 
 Church  was  quick  to  see  her  opportunity  and  ask  where  was 
 Protestantism  before  the  Reformation?  Nevin  answered  this 
 by  saying  it  was  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  out  of  which 
 it  developed.  Here  he  was  wrong.  The  historic  succession 
 lay  in  the  invisible  Church  of  the  Middle  Ages,  which,  like 
 leaven,  had  leavened  the  Catholic  Church  and  some  of  the 
 
Uprising  Against  Mercersburg  Theology.  815 
 
 sects.  But  Dr.  Nevin  refused  to  grant  tliat  there  was  an 
 invisible  Church  or  so  minimized  it  that  it  amounted  to 
 nothing.  Yet  the  invisible  Church  is  a  Scriptural  view  and 
 had  as  real  an  existence  in  the  Middle  Ages  as  the  visible^ 
 It  was  through  it  that  the  historic  succession  came  to  us  in 
 these  later  days,  if  historic  succession  be  a  necessary  thing, 
 as  perhaps  it  is  when  viewed  from  a  merely  human  stand- 
 point. Nevin 's  opponents  did  not  care  for  the  merely  his- 
 toric standpoint,  because  they  went  back  to  the  Church  of 
 the  Bible.  The  Reformation  had  gone  back  to  the  Bible, 
 and  they  went  back  to  the  Church  of  the  Bible.  What  came 
 between  Bible  times  and  the  Reformation  they  cared  little 
 about.  Nevin 's  articles  on  Cyprian  and  Early  Christianity 
 were  beside  the  mark  in  defending  the  Church  of  the  second 
 to  the  fourth  centuries.  About  these,  as  Berg  said,  there 
 was  no  controversy ;  for  the  old  Reformed  went  back  to  the 
 first  century  instead  of  the  second  to  the  fourth. 
 
 Unfortunately  for  Dr.  Nevin,  a  number  of  allied  articles 
 appeared  to  prejudice  men  at  that  time  against  him,  as  Plar- 
 baugh's  on  the  public  school  question,  and  Schaff's  on  pro- 
 bation after  death,  all  of  which  looked  like  tendencies  toward 
 the  positions  of  Rome. 
 
 4.  Dr.  Nevin  was  charged  with  pantheizing.  This  does  not 
 come  out  so  prominently  yet,*  but  pantheizing  views  will 
 appear  in  the  later  development  of  Mercersburg  theology, 
 although  there  are  hints  at  it  already. 
 
 5.  He  was  charged  with  rationalizing.  He  charges  his  oppo- 
 nents with  rationalism ;  they  retorted  by  charging  it  on  him. 
 Dr.  Nevin  was  a  supernaturalist  himself  in  belief,  but  his 
 methods  were  an  inheritance  from  pantheistic  rationalism. 
 Organism  was  the  word  by  which  he  conjured.  Everything, 
 every  doctrine  must  be  organic.  But  this  making  everything 
 to  be  organic  was  rati(malism  in  the  last  issue,  for  it  put  every- 
 thing under  law.  The  organic  means  that  it  lives  and  grows  by 
 its  own  forces  according  to  the  laws  of  its  own  being.    But  put- 
 
 *A  fundamental  error  of  Nevin  was  his  psychology — what  constitutes 
 a  person.  Like  Hegel  and  his  pantheizing  school,  he  tends  to  the  identifi- 
 cation of  body  and  soul  in  us  and  of  tlie  divine  and  the  human  in  Christ. 
 
316         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 ting  everything,  even  God,  thus  under  law,  was  ultimately  pan- 
 theistic. It  allowed  no  room  for  God  working  as  he  wills  in  the 
 laws  of  nature.    The  supernatural  was  reduced  to  the  natural. 
 
 Again,  the  relation  of  God  to  us  in  salvation  was  not  or- 
 ganic in  his  sense.  God's  relation  to  us  through  the  Holy 
 Spirit  is  not  organic,  i.  e.  through  law;  for  the  Holy  Spirit 
 as  divine  is  above  law.  He  works  when,  where  and  how  he 
 wills.  He  works  in  the  laws,  through  them  and  a])ove  them. 
 The  Holy  Spirit  can  not  be  reduced  to  mere  law  for  he  is  a 
 free  being. 
 
 Again,  he  combined  the  Holy  Spirit  and  sacramental  acts 
 which  reduced  the  activity  of  the  Spirit  and  lowered  his  po- 
 sition. The  relation  between  the  Holy  Spirit  and  us  (or 
 as  he  emphasized  it,  between  Christ  and  us)  is  not  the 
 less  real  because  not  organic.  There  is  something  more  real 
 than  an  organism  (although  the  latter  plays  a  great  part  in 
 nature),  and  that  is  Deity.  Organism  may  be  a  law  of  the 
 natural  but  not  of  the  supernatural.  God  is  not  an  organism. 
 He  is  above  law,  even  above  the  laws  of  his  own  being,  because 
 infinite.  Nor  are  his  relations  merely  organic.  They  are  the 
 free  acts  of  an  infinite  being,  in  whose  acts  all  reality  con- 
 sists and  upon  whom  all  relations  depend. 
 
 6.  Dr.  Nevin  also  was  mistaken  in  his  views  of  the  incarnation 
 — that  Christ  took  universal  humanity.  If  Christ  took  universal 
 humanity  as  Adam  had  it,  h(^  nuist  either  have  taken  the  old 
 universal  humanity  or  a  new  one.  If  he  took  a  new  one  it 
 would  not  be  like  Adam's.  But  then  Christ  did  not  take  oui* 
 luunan  nature  ujxm  himself,  but  a  new  human  nature,  which 
 is  contrary  to  the  New  Testament.  So  Nevin  and  the  I\l(»r- 
 eersburg  theology  therefore  held  that  Christ  took  our  old 
 universal  humanity.  But  how  did  he  get  it?  i.  e.,  the  uni- 
 versal humanity  that  was  in  Adam.  It  had  been  scattered 
 Ihrough  an  infinite  number  of  Adam's  d(;sceiidaiits,  some  of 
 them  on  earth,  some  in  heaven,  some  in  hell.  To  gather  it 
 up  again,  those  in  heaven  and  hell  would  have  had  to  come 
 back,  which  is  an  absurdity.  It  may  be  said  by  tliem  tliat 
 he  took  the  individual  humanity  of  IMary  and  changed  it  into 
 universal    humanity    in    himself   at    his   conception    by    tlie 
 
Uprising  Against  Mercersburg  Theology.  317 
 
 Holy  Spirit.  But  the  Scriptiire  makes  no  mention  of  this. 
 As  far  as  we  can  see  he  took  not  generic  but  individualized 
 humanity— the  humanity  that  was  in  Mary  as  an  individual. 
 He  is  said  by  Scripture  to  be  the  "son  of  Abraham,"  the  "son 
 of  David,  the  seed  of  IMarj^,  but  Abraham,  David  and  Mary  had 
 only  individualized  humanity.  The  Bible  is  also  careful  in  its 
 statements  to  show  that  the  body  and  soul  of  Christ  belonged 
 not  to  all  men  but  especially  to  himself  alone, — thus  he  says 
 "this  is  my  body" — "the  bread  which  I  will  give  is  my 
 flesh."  (See  Crawford  on  the  Atonement,  pages  311-317.) 
 Our  Heidelberg  Catechism  is  also  against  Nevin's  generic  hu- 
 manity of  Christ,  for  it,  like  the  Bible,  says  he  was  "of  the 
 flesh  and  blood  of  the  Virgin  IMar}^  and  of  the  true  seed  of 
 David." 
 
 This  corner-stone  of  generic  humanity  in  Nevin's  system  ' 
 is  false  and  with  it  the  whole  structure  falls  to  the  ground. 
 Salvation  is  not,  as  Nevin  holds,  exactly  like  original  sin  in 
 its  methods.  We  inherited  sin  but  no  man  inherits  salvation, 
 for  salvation  is  accepted  only  by  a  free  act  on  our  part.  Sal- 
 vation is  a  "gift,"  and  not  "wages,"  as  in  the  case  of  sin. 
 "The  wages  of  sin  is  death,  but  the  gift  of  God  is  eternal 
 life."  The  connection  between  salvation  and  us  is  not  natural 
 as  between  sin  and  us,  but  it  is  supernatural.  The  method 
 of  salvation,  instead  of  being  like  everything  else  organic,  is 
 the  great  exception,  is  above  nature.  It  is  a  gift  and  must 
 be  accepted  by  our  free  act.  On  this  view  all  the  great  so- 
 called  doctrines  of  grace  depend. 
 
 In  the  main  we  agree  with  Dr.  Berg  in  iiis  i)ositions  against 
 Nevin  and  yet  in  doing  so  we  do  not  do  it  blindly  and  there 
 are  some  corrections  to  be  made.  j 
 
 1.  We  are  doubtful  whether  I))-.  Berg  ever  thoroughly 
 understood  Nevin's  realism  in  philosophy.  Here  was  the 
 fundamental  point — the  philosophy  that  was  underlying  the 
 theology.  There  was,  however,  litth^  attack  on  that  point  by 
 either  Berg  or  Ilelffenstein.  Their  attack  was  mainly  Biblical 
 and  practical.  That  Dr.  Berg  understood  German  and  Ger- 
 man philosophy  we  believe,  but  his  method  of  thought  was 
 the  opposite  of  German  realism.     It  was  like  all  the  Federal 
 
318         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 theology,  noniinalistic.  Nominalists  often  Tail  to  grasp  real- 
 istic positions,  and  he  labored  under  this  difficulty.  Some 
 of  Nevin's  views  were  misunderstood  by  him,  though  in  the 
 main  he  was  correct  in  his  inferences  and  results,  although 
 he  might  have  used  different  arguments  had  he  taken  Nevin's 
 philosophical  standpoint  more  into  consideration. 
 
 2.  In  regard  to  tradition.  Dr.  Berg  often  misunderstood 
 Nevin.     He  charged  Nevin  witli  holding  to  the  Catholic  view 
 
 ,of  ecclesiastical  tradition  as  authoritative.  But  Nevin  meant 
 by  this,  because  of  his  realism  and  historical  development, 
 only  historical  tradition.  This  meant  that  in  history  the 
 Catholic  Church  had  carried  down  with  it  certain  views,  as 
 its  endorsement  of  the  canon  of  Scripture,  etc.,  and  this  fact 
 gave  authority.  Nevin  did  not  refer  so  much  to  the  ecclesias- 
 tical side  of  the  Catholic  tradition  as  to  the  historic  side,  al- 
 thougli  there  is  a  likeness  between  the  two.  Schaff  guards  him- 
 self by  making  a  distinction  between  the  different  kinds  of  tra- 
 dition, and  yet  as  the  controversy  ran  on  he  and  Nevin  empha- 
 sized more  and  more  the  visible  Church, — Nevin  virtually  in 
 effect  began  to  assert  the  very  things  which  Berg  charged  to 
 him. 
 
 3.  In  regard  to  Dr.  Berg's  theory  of  the  historic  succession 
 of  the  Protestants  tlirough  the  early  sects,  as  the  All)igenses. 
 Waldenses,  etc.,  in  order  to  connect  the  Reformation  with 
 the  Apostolic  Church,  he  is  clearly  wrong.  That  view  has 
 since  been  entirely  given  up.  It  erred  in  limit iiig  the  historic 
 succession  to  what  was  outside  of  the  Cftholie  (Miiircti.  The 
 difficulty  is  to  establish  the  connection  between  these  sects  as 
 the  links  are  missing.  He  should  not  have  limited  the  his- 
 toric succession  to  those  sect«  outside  of  the  Church  but  taken 
 the  true  view  that  the  histoi'ic  succession  lay  in  the  genuine 
 Christians  within  the  Church  as  well  as  in  the  sects  outside 
 of  it, — that  all  wiio  Ix'iong  to  the  invisible  Cinirch  and  \ver(>. 
 true  Christians  connected  us  historically  with  the  Early 
 Church.  That  some  of  these  erred  somewhat  in  rites  and  doc- 
 trine does  not  imj^air  their  Christian  character.  Thus  Au- 
 gustine, though  a  high  sacramentarian,  was  Evangelical  on  the 
 
Uprising  Against  Mercersburg  Theology.  319 
 
 doctrines  of  sin  and  grace ;  for  when  the  head  was  wrong,  the 
 heart  was  right  and  the  Evangelical  fundamentals  were  more 
 powerful  than  the  errors.  The  true  view  of  historic  suc- 
 cession is  through  the  invisible  Church,  Avhich  though  invisible 
 is  still  very  visible  in  the  lives  of  the  ynen  who  have  been 
 actors  in  the  history  of  the  Church.  But  after  all,  historic 
 succession  plays  a  very  small  part  as  far  as  authority  is  con- 
 cerned, for  according  to  all  the  Reformed  creeds  the  Bible 
 is  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 
 
 4.  As  to  the  Pope  being  Antichrist  and  the  Catholic  Church, 
 the  Mother  of  Harlots,  etc.,  we  believe  that  Berg  went  too  far 
 in  pressing  this  side.  Still  the  times  in  which  he  lived  are 
 to  be  remembered.  Polemics  were  then  in  the  air  even  be- 
 tween Protestants,  how  much  more  so  with  the  Catholics. 
 Catholics  had  just  attacked  our  public  school  system.  There 
 had  been  riots.  Feeling  ran  high.  No  wonder  most  of  the 
 Protestants  were  bitter  against  Rome.  But  times  have 
 changed  and  we  live  in  an  irenic  age.  Polemics  between 
 Protestant  bodies  have  ceased.  The  Romish  Church  is  ac- 
 corded its  rights.  And  yet  with  all  the  change  of  sentiment, 
 care  must  be  taken  that  we  dQ  not  give  up  fundamentals. 
 The  Catholic  Church  still  has  great  and  grave  errors  and 
 sanctions  them  with  all  its  authority. 
 
 The  Pope  is  Antichrist  in  so  far  as  he  sets  himself  up  against 
 God  by  being  God  on  earth,  by  taking  the  place  of  Christ 
 or  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  is  God's  Vicar  on  earth.  This  false 
 doctrine  has  been  especially  held  since  the  promulgation  of  tbe 
 papal  infallibility,  which,  however,  had  not  taken  place  in 
 the  early  days  of  the  Mercersburg  theology.  He  is  Anti- 
 christ in  so  far  a.s  he  opposes  the  Evangelical  gospel — the 
 doctrines  of  grace  which  are  fundamental.  But  he  is  not  the 
 only  Antichrist.  There  are  others  to-day.  Rationalism  is  an- 
 other, mere  secularism  is  another,  etc.  Antichrist  is  any 
 power  against  true  Christianity.  We  believe  that  Dr.  Berg  em- 
 phasized the  Pope  as  Antichrist  too  nuich  and  yet  there  is  a 
 truth  in  what  he  said,  but  truer  to-day  than  then.  It  needs 
 but  a  visit  to  Papal  lands  of  Southern  Eun^pe  or  South  and 
 Central  America  to  see  its  idolatry  and  opposition  to  Evan- 
 
320        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 gelical  views,  all  of  which  are  endorsed  by  the  Pope  and  the 
 Church. 
 
 In  a  word,  Dr.  Berg  and  his  adherents  in  the  main  repre- 
 sent old  Reformed  theological  views  combatting  the  new  the- 
 ology  which  had  come  up  through  Nevin  and  Schaff.  Doc- 
 trinally  their  views  were  like  those  of  their  predecessors,  the 
 Fathers  of  our  Church  of  the  eighteenth  and  early  nineteenth 
 centuries,  of  Weyberg,  Hendel,  Helffrich,  the  Helifensteins 
 and  others.  The  men  who  opposed  Nevin  at  first  were  not  the 
 lesser  lights  of  the  Church  but  its  leaders,  the  Helffensteins 
 all  of  them  (Samuel,  father  and  son,  Alfred  and  Jacob"), 
 together  with  Berg,  Wack,  IIeiner,-Zacharias,  Mesick,  Mayer 
 and  others.  They  aimed  to  keep  up  the  old  historic  theology 
 of  the  German  Reformed  Church  in  our  country ;  while  Nevin 
 aimed  at  the  historic  development  of  that  Church  into  some- 
 thing new.  They  emphasized  the  permanent  principles  in  it 
 —were  conservative,  whereas  Mercersburg  Theology  empha- 
 sized the  changeable  and  progressive  and  was  a  theology  new 
 to  the  Church. 
 
 A  brief  summary  may  now  be  given  as  a  guide  to  the 
 fundamental  differences  betiveen  the  Old  Reformed  views 
 and  those  of  Mercersburg  theology'.  It  was  not  merely  a  con- 
 troversy of  personalities  but  had  regard  to  great  principles. 
 These  were  in  the  main  three, — 
 
 1.  On  doctrine.  We  have  already  stated  the  difference  on 
 this  point. 
 
 2.  On  worship,  JMercersl)urg  was  liturgical,  the  Old  Re- 
 formed were  semi-liturgical. 
 
 3.  On  constitution,  IMercersburg  held  to  ari.stocratic  Presby- 
 terianism,  tbe  Old  Reformed  to  democratic  Presbyterianism. 
 
 These  fundamental  differences  ramified  out  in  many  direc- 
 tions as  we  shall  see  as  we  follow  the  liisfory  in  flie  succeeding 
 pages. 
 
 As  a  result  of  the  Mercersburg  theology,  not  only  did  Berg 
 and  Helffenstein  leave  our  Church,  the  latter  taking  a  fine 
 congregation  with  him,  but  Rev.  Alfred  Nevin  resigned  the 
 Reformed  Church  at  Chambersburg  and  went  back  to  the 
 Presbyterians,  Jamison  left  the  theological  seminary  and  went 
 
Uprising  Against  Mercersburg  Theology.  321 
 
 over  to  the  Dutch,  the  Phoenixville  congregation  under  Fulton 
 declared  itself  independent  because  of  Nevinism,  and  finally 
 Mesick  began  to  find  that  in  his  congregation  at  Harrisburg 
 there  was  an  influential  minority  favorable  to  ]\Iercersburg  and 
 against  him.  So  he  resigned  and  returned  to  the  Dutch 
 Church. 
 
 At  the  close  of  this  controversy  the  old  Reformed  element 
 was  quiet.  Its  leaders,  Berg  and  Helffenstein,  had  left  the 
 Church.  Those  who  remained,  as  Heiner  and  Zacharias,  were 
 silenced.  The  Western  Church  remained  in  the  main  true  to 
 the  old  Reformed  faith,  but  Mercersburg  theology  seemed  to 
 control  everything  in  the  East.  It  remains,  however,  to  be 
 seen  whether  the  old  Reformed  consciousness  would  again 
 assert  itself.  For  there  were  those  in  the  Church  who  did 
 not  wish  to  make  the  break  with  the  seminary  and  its  profess- 
 ors but  were  out  of  all  sympathy  with  the  extreme  views  of 
 Nevin  and  Schaff.  It  remained  for  another  issue  to  develop 
 this  latent  old  Reformed  consciousness.  It  came,  as  we  shall 
 see,  in  the  later  liturgical  controversy.  Some  one  asks,  Why  1 
 did  not  Berg  and  this  first  movement  against  Nevin  prove 
 successful?  The  answer  is,  because  the  full  import  of  the 
 ]\Iercersburg  theology  did  not  break  on  the  mind  of  the 
 Church  in  its  full  development  until  the  liturgical  controversy 
 which  did  not  begin  till  1858.  If  the  forces  in  the  Chui'cli, 
 which  later  rose  against  Nevinism,  had  joined  hands  with 
 Berg  and  his  sympathizers,  the  extremes  of  Nevinism  at  least 
 would  have  been  checked  and  perhaps  the  whole  movement 
 stopped. 
 
BOOK  II. 
 
 The  First  Liturgical   Controversy  (1854-1863). 
 
 CHAPTER  I. 
 
 Liturgical  Preparation  for  the  Controversy. 
 
 First  came  the  doctrinal  controversy  (1845-53),  then  the 
 liturgical  (1857-1878).  And  between  the  two  there  were 
 about  four  years  of  quiet.  During  that  time  there  was  no 
 controversy,  but  there  were  certain  premonitions  of  it. 
 
 Section  1.    The  First  Request  for  a  Liturgy. 
 
 The  first  request  for  a  liturgy  came  from  East  Pennsyl- 
 vania classis  in  1847.  This  beginning  of  a  movement,  which 
 was  destined  to  have  such  far-reaching  results  in  our  Church, 
 was  quite  interesting  and  significant.  Rev.  Wm.  Helffrich* 
 says  that  at  the  East  Pennsylvania  classis  of  1847  he  spoke 
 to  Revs.  Hoffeditz,  Dubbs  and  Reubelt,  asking  whether  the 
 Palatinate  Liturgy  coul-d  not  be  printed  by  our  Publication 
 House  and  he  asked  Dubbs  to  request  classis  to  petition  synod 
 to  get  a  new  edition  of  the  Palatinate  Liturgy  printed.  It 
 seems,  however,  that  it  was  Rev.  Max  Stei-n,  who  made  this 
 motion  or  overture  to  synod,  "That  this  classis  is  not  satisfied 
 with  the  liturgy  in  use  at  present  (Mayer  Liturgj^),  and  re- 
 quests the  synod  either  to  liave  the  old  liturgy  printed  or  io 
 publish  another  prepared  in  the  spirit  of  our  catechism." 
 ]\Ir,  Stern  later  declared  that  he  never  dreamed  of  such  a 
 liturgy  as  was  later  published.  Indeed,  he  became  a  most 
 outspoken  opponent  of  Nevin,  Schaff  and  the  liturgical  party. 
 His  idea  in  1847,  he  says,  was  either  a  reprint  of  the  Pala- 
 
 *Autobiography  270. 
 
 322 
 
Liturgical  Preparation  for  Controversy.  323 
 
 tinate  Liturgy  or  a  liturgy  like  it.  He  never  dreamt  of  a 
 responsive  liturgy  like  those  published  by  the  liturgieal  party. 
 At  the  synod  of  1847,  this  overture  provoked  mueh  discus- 
 sion and  many  motions  were  made  upon  it.  The  Church  un- 
 eonseiously  seemed  to  feel  that  it  was  on  the  eve  of  a  great 
 crisis  if  it  once  entered  on  this  subject.  Some  contended  that 
 the  overture  was  premature  and  that  it  would  be  better  to 
 wait  until  the  Church  was  ready  to  move  unitedly  on  this 
 subject.  But  the  synod  finally  referred  the  whole  matter  to 
 the  several  classes  for  their  consideration. 
 
 The  synod  of  3848  received  the  reports  of  the  actions  of 
 the  classes.    Appel,*  in  his  zeal  for  the  liturgy,  overstates  the 
 result   when    he   says   that   the    classes   with    one    exception 
 favored  the  onward  movement  for  a  liturgy.     The  truth  was 
 that  only  three  classes  favored  it, — East  Pennsylvania,  Gosh- 
 enhoppen  and  Zion's.     Philadelphia  classis  recommended  the 
 reprinting  of  the  Palatinate  Liturgy  with  such  improvements 
 and  corrections  as  were  necessary.     Virginia  classis  recom- 
 mended to  synod  to  postpone  action  for  one  year,  that  in  the 
 meantime  the  subject  might  be  discussed  by  a  committee  ap- 
 pointed by  synod,  so  that  the  members  of  the  Church  might 
 be  informed  on   the   subject.     Maryland   classis   revealed   a 
 clear  dividing  line  between  the  older  and  the  younger  min- 
 isters, the  latter  revealing  the  liturgical   influence  on  them 
 in  the  seminary.     It  compromised  between  them  by  favoring 
 a  liturgy  but  one  that  should  be  Biblical  and  in  harmony 
 with  the  catechism  and  the  German  Reformed  Church.    Leba- 
 non,  Suscpiehanna  and  Mercerslnirg  seem  to  have  taken  no 
 action.     New  York  sent  no  minutes.     North  Carolina  classis 
 was  the  only  one  to  declare  positively  against  it, — that  it  did 
 not  consider  it  judicious  to  have  any  liturgy  enforced  upon 
 the  Church.    Thus  three  classes  favored  a  liturgy,  two  wanted 
 a  particular  kind  of  liturgy — the  Palatinate  or  a  Reformed 
 liturg}^,   one   opposed   the   liturgy   and   four  seemed  to   care 
 nothing  about  it.     This  does  not  bear  out  Dr.  Appel's  state- 
 ment that  there  was  a  great  desire  for  men;  liturgical  serv- 
 ices.    Evidently  the  desire  for  a  liturgy  was  a  limited  one, 
 *Life  of  Nevin,  481. 
 
324         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 and  there  was  much  difference  of  opinion  on  the  subject. 
 The  Synod  refused  the  request  of  Virginia  classis,  whieh  has 
 its  significance, — it  seems  to  show  that  it  did  not  care  to 
 have  too  much  discussion  on  account  of  the  difference  of 
 opinion  at  that  time.  The  synod  finally  referred  the  whole 
 matter,  together  with  the  actions  of  the  different  classes  to  a 
 committee  consisting  of  Bomberger,  Zacharias  and  ]Mesick, 
 with  two  elders. 
 
 At  the  synod  of  1849.  Bonil)erger.  the  chairman  of  the  com- 
 mittee, reported,  stating: 
 
 1.  That  the  litur^cal  form  of  worsliip  as  rot'ofrnized  )^y  our  fore- 
 fathers had  a  clear  sanction  of  the  practice  and  peculiar  jreuius  of  the 
 Protestant  Churches. 
 
 2.  There  is  nothing  in  the  present  circumstance  of  our  Church  in  this 
 country  to  call  for  or  to  justify  a  total  departure  from  this  well-estab- 
 lished usage. 
 
 3.  That  the  present  liturgy  is  inailequate  to  our  wants  as  apart  from 
 its  other  deficiencies,  it  makes  no  provision  for  the  ordinary  occasions 
 of  public  worship. 
 
 4.  The  older  liturgies  of  the  Church  and  especially  that  of  the  Pala- 
 tinate are  of  such  a  character  as  to  commend  large  portions  of  them 
 for  adoption;  yet  there  is  neeti  for  various  modifications  in  order  to 
 adapt  them  fully  to  our  needs  and  circumstances. 
 
 5.  That  syi\od  proceed  to  jiiake  necessary  arrangements  to  secure  a 
 liturgy. 
 
 The  subject  of  the  litui-gy  was  discussed  for  nearly  two  days 
 after  the  reading  of  the  report.  Says  the  Mcsscii(i(  r,  objec- 
 tions were  raised  to  the  reception  of  the  rejiort  as  that  the  com- 
 mittee had  not  had  a  meeting.  The  chairman  replied  that 
 he  had  written  to  each  member  desiring  them  to  give  liim  tlieii- 
 views.  One  member  declined  acting  altogether,  the  other  did 
 not  reply  imtil  very  recently, — he  therefore  thought  that  if 
 the  members  of  th|  committee  ilid  not  feel  sufficiently  inter- 
 ested to  even  write  a  letter,  much  less  could  he  expect  a  i)er- 
 sonal  meeting  because  of  the  distance  they  would  have  to 
 travel.  Dr.  Zacharias  at  once  replied  tliat  he  supposed  Bom- 
 berger referred  to  him,  for  he  had  found  it  convenient  to 
 write,  and  he  knew  that  he  and  liombergcr  would  not  agree 
 in  their  views.     He  said  he  could  not  unite  in  the  report. 
 
Liturgical  Preparation  for  Controversy.  325 
 
 (He  seems,  therefore,  to  liave  been  opposed  to  a  forward 
 movement  on  the  liturgy.)  Tn  the  debate  on  the  first  item, 
 Samuel  Ileltt'enstein.  Jr.,  wanted  to  know  what  kind  of  a 
 liturgy  was  intended,  liigli  oi-  low.  Hoiiiberger  said  a  medium 
 liturgy.  Zaeharias  also  in(|uired  in  the  same  strain  as  Hel-  . 
 ffenstein,  saying  that  it'  only  a  liturgy  for  the  sacraments  and 
 occasional  forms  were  intended,  they  were  all  agreed.  The 
 first  resolution  was  then  passed,  and  so  was  the  second  with- 
 out debate.  On  the  third  item,  a  debate  arose.  Douglass 
 opposed  it  because  he  wanted  free  prayer.  Bomberger  replied 
 by  saying  that  the  Reformed  Churches  in  Europe  had  forms 
 of  prayer  for  the  regular  services.  Ingold,  of  North  Caro- 
 lina, said  that  if  a  liturgy  were  adopted  it  would  put  read- 
 prayer  before  free-prayer.  Naille  asked,  "if  I  read  another 
 man 's  prayer,  is  it  I  that  pray  or  the  composer  ? ' '  Berg,  who, 
 like  Bomberger,  then  favored  the  liturgy,  replied,  "if  I  sing 
 another  man's  hymns,  is  it  I  that  sing  or  the  composer?" 
 Naille  objected  because  all  the  prayers  must  be  read.  Welker, 
 from  North  Carolina,  said  that  "a  liturgy  instead  of  produc- 
 ing uniformity  of  worship  would  produce  the  opposite.  The 
 southern  churches  would  not  accept  the  liturgy."  Bernard 
 Wolff  spoke  on  the  other  side,  that  the  liturgy  would  be  a 
 safeguard  against  errors  in  the  pulpit  by  being  orthodox 
 and  doctrinal.  Sechler  wanted  a  liturgy  like  the  old  Re- 
 formed liturgy.     The  resolution  was  then  adopted. 
 
 On  the  fourth  item  Nevin  said  that  he  had  originally  been 
 opposed  to  the  liturgy  but  was  now  surprised  at  his  earlier 
 ])rejudices.  He  said  if  the  Church  does  not  feel  the  need  of 
 it,  it  ought  not  to  enter  into  it.  Schaff  was  strongly  in  favor 
 of  it,  basing  it  on  the  universal  priesthood  of  all  believers 
 (a  far  different  view  from  what  was  advocated  later  by 
 them  on  the  special  priesthood  of  the  ministry. — A.)  But  he 
 repudiated  the  idea  that  the  liturgy  would  be  a  barrier  to  free 
 prayer.  The  Reformed  C'hurches  of  the  Continent  had  never 
 been  restricted  in  worship,  least  of  all  the  German  Reformed. 
 The  church  service  was  to  be  both  liturgical  and  free.  Berg 
 spoke  in  favor  of  a  liturgy,  for  he  said  that  as  a  IMoravian  in 
 his   early   life,   he   had   been   accustomed   to  it.      Ingold  and 
 
326         History  op  Reformed  Ciiurcii  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Welker  asked  Berg  whether  there  was  not  a  danger  lurking 
 somewhere  in  liturgical  movements.  Berg  replied,  "no,  it 
 will  be  a  Reformed  liturgy."  Heiner  also  spoke  in  favor  of  a 
 liturgy.  The  report  was  then  adopted  in  full.  Sehneek  then 
 ])roposed  a  resolution  that  a  committee  be  appointed  to  whom 
 should  be  referred  the  whole  subject  of  the  proposed  liturgy 
 to  report  a  plan  or  outline  at  the  next  meeting  of  the  synod. 
 The  committee  was  expected  to  examine  the  various  liturgies 
 of  the  Reformed  Churches  and  the  literature  relating  to  this 
 subject  and  specifv  as  far  as  possible  the  forms  needed  and 
 furnish  specimens  called  for  by  the  circumstances  of  our 
 Church. 
 
 It  is  very  evident  that  all  in  the  synod,  as  Zacharias 
 had  said,  were  willing  to  have  a  liturgy  with  forms  for  only 
 special  occasions,  as  the  sacraments,  marriage,  etc.,  but  the 
 point  of  difference  seems  to  have  been  whether  a  liturgy, 
 which  had  also  forms  for  the  Sabbath  services  of  the  Church, 
 was  needed.  Even  the  friends  of  the  liturgy,  however,  said 
 that  the  use  of  such  forms  was  not  intended  to  preclude  free 
 prayer.  Bomberger,  who  drew  up  the  report,  says  later  that 
 the  report  was  a  vindicatiim  of  liturgical  forms  and  empha- 
 sized the  fact  that  "liturgical  forms  were  recognized  by  the 
 Fathers  of  our  Church,"  and  it  pointed  out  the  old  Palatinate 
 as  our  true  ideal  and  as  furnishing  the  larger  portion  of  the 
 material  needed  in  the  preparation  of  the  work.  Prof.  J.  H. 
 Good,*  of  Tiffin,  said  afterwardsf  that  the  action  of  this  synod 
 was  threefold : 
 
 1.  It  endorsed  the  i'alatinale  Litui'gy  as  the  basis  of  Re- 
 formed liturgies. 
 
 2.  Nevin  was  already  pi'epared  to  denounce  a  ]uilpit 
 liturgy.^ 
 
 3.  The  synod  w;is  luii'inonious  in  its  action. 
 
 Nortli  Carolina  classis  in  revicwinj;  tiic  acts  of  tliis  synod,  says: 
 "This  classis  heartily  disapproves  of  any  action  of  the  synod  niakinj; 
 the  use  of  any  liturgy  binding  upon  ministers  and  churches. 
 
 *Uncle  of  the  writer  and  later  jirofessor  of  theology  at  TilHn. 
 fSee  Christian  Uurlil,  October  9,  1868. 
 JSee  pages  227-9  of  this  book. 
 
Liturgical  Pkeparation  vu\i  Controversy.  327 
 
 The  Ohio  S.ynod  of  that  year  also  had  an  overture  in  favor 
 of  a  liturgy.  This  was  brought  before  it  by  the  Westmoreland 
 elassis,  whieh  asked  it  to  unite  with  the  Eastern  synod  in  the 
 preparation  of  such  a  liturgy  as  will  meet  the  needs  of  the 
 various  parts  of  Christian  worship.  But  the  Ohio  synod  in- 
 definitely postponed  action  by  a  vote  of  14  to  4.  The  Ohio 
 synod  evidently  was  then  not  favorable  to  a  liturgy  or  to  any 
 agitation  of  the  subject. 
 
 Section  2.    The  Early  Position  of  Dr.  Nevin  on  the 
 Liturgy. 
 
 About  Dr.  Nevin 's  early  position  in  regard  to  the  liturgy, 
 there  seems  to  be  some  difference  of  opinion,  some  holding 
 that  he  was  not  at  first  favorable  to  a  liturgy.  We  do  not, 
 however,  find  that  this  is  borne  out  by  the  facts.  His  sermon 
 on  the  Church  preached  at  the  synod  of  184G  has  a  significant 
 statement  showing  that  he  was  then  inclined  toward  a  liturgy. 
 He  says, 
 
 "The  sense  of  the  objective  must  ever  create  a  detnancl  for  liturgical 
 worship.  A  subjective  unchurchly  piety  has  no  sense  of  the  liturgical 
 principle.  *  *  *  We  have  a  liturgy,  only  it  is  not  much  used.  Here 
 is  a  contradiction  which  needs  to  be  cured.  There  is  perhaps  no  subject 
 more  entitled  at  this  time  to  the  serious  attention  of  the  German  Re- 
 formed Church." 
 
 Two  years  later,*  Nevin,  in  an  article  on  Liturgical  Worship, 
 asks  whether  all  worship  is  not  liturgical?  He  then  goes  on 
 to  say  that 
 
 ' '  in  the  common  mind,  worship  is  not  always  used  in  the  same  sense,  thus 
 in  the  closet  there  is  worship  which  no  one  speaks  of  as  liturgical. 
 Again,  worship  may  be  silent  as  well  as  audible,  whereas  a  liturgy  refers 
 only  to  the  latter.  To  call  liturgical  forms  of  prayer  crutches  is  super- 
 ficial or  to  set  formal  worship  over  against  special  worship  is  un- 
 satisfactory. Liturgical  worship  means  something  deeper  than  this. 
 A  good  liturgy  may  be  unliturgically  used,  as  the  Wesleyans  of  England 
 use  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer — the  liturgy  is  external.  A  minister  or 
 a  congregation  may  be  unliturgical  in  feeling  or  a  liturgy  itself  may  be 
 unliturgical.     On  the  other  hand,  free  worship  may  bear  a  liturgical 
 
 *  Reformed  Church  Messenger,  February  9,  1848. 
 
o28         History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 character.  All  i)ul)lic  worship  ought  to  be  liturgical  whether  free  or  with 
 prescribed  forms.  Our  Church  at  present  calls  for  an  earnest  considera- 
 tion of  the  question;  but  we  must  dread  action  without  <lue  reflection. 
 Better  to  remain  in  our  present  confused  state  than  to  manufacture  a 
 new  liturgy  without  a  liturgical  spirit." 
 
 He  said  that  he  had  no  plan  except  to  call  attention  to  the  necessity  of 
 a  liturgical  feeling  before  the  preparation  of  a  liturgy.  Our  Church 
 recognizes  the  principle  of  a  liturgy  as  necessary  and  good,  which  Puri- 
 tanism does  not. 
 
 He  cannot  avoid,  at  the  end  of  this  article,  in  a  note,  making  a  playful 
 reference  to  Dr.  Berg  (the  leading  low-churchman)  for  having  worn  a 
 gown  in  his  church,  which,  however,  Berg  soon  laid  aside  because  he  found 
 some  opposition  in  his  congregation.  Nevin  says  he  wanted  to  show  the 
 inconsistency  of  Berg's  unchurchly  views  with  such  a  churchly  dress.  His 
 reference,  however,  to  this  gave  offence,  although  Berg  afterward  replies 
 that  the  gown  was  not  introduced  at  his  own  suggestion  but  at  the  solici- 
 tation of  others,  to  which  he  gave  consent  because  the  gown  seemed  a 
 badge  of  conservatism.  He,  however,  reminded  Nevin  that  any  remarks 
 about  his  gown  came  with  poor  grace  from  him.  He  says,  ' '  You  advocate 
 the  use  of  the  toga  and  then  pull  at  my  skirts  when  I  put  it  on.  T  nuist 
 say  you  are  difficult  to  please. ' ' 
 
 Nevin  writes  another  article*  on  litnrgieal  worsliip.  He 
 says: 
 
 "some  might  say  that  the  question  he  suggests  takes  a  much  wider 
 scope  than  was  directly  intended  by  the  Synod  in  referring  the  liturgy 
 to  the  classes,  as  the  synod  did  not  refer  the  question  of  liturgical  wor- 
 ship in  general  but  only  so  much  as  had  to  do  with  forms  for  special 
 occasions  and  nothing  further  was  contemplated."  He  says  that  the 
 majority  of  the  synod  had  in  mind  only  the  settlement  of  suitable  offices 
 for  special  occasions  as  baptism,  etc.,  under  some  form  so  as  to  make 
 them  binding  on  the  Church.  His  judgment  then  was  against  any  action 
 beyond  these  limits.  The  question  regards  the  right  and  judgment 
 of  our  liturgical  services  within  the  range  already  recognized  in  our 
 church  practices  as  desirable  and  proper;  but  all  this  had  no  bearing 
 on  the  point  he  now  urges — the  need  of  a  liturgical  feeling.  The  extent 
 of  the  liturgy  was  one  thing,  its  spirit  and  the  principle  another.  If 
 only  one  form  was  prepared,  as  for  the  Lord's  Supper  or  burial,  it  ought 
 to  be  animated  by  a  true  liturgical  character.  The  question  is  not  the 
 quantity  but  the  quality  of  worship.  He  deprecated  a  form  too  di- 
 dactic and  for  only  pious  reflection,  owing  no  connection  with  the  wor- 
 ship of  other  ages,  cold,  mechanical,  destitute  of  genuine  church  spirit. 
 He  speaks  against  the  mere  use  of  occasional  forms  as  low  views  of  a 
 
 ^Messenger,  March  29. 
 
Liturgical  Preparati(3N  for  Controversy.  329 
 
 liturgy,  although  he  confesses  that  tliis  kind  of  a  liturgy  was  the  kind 
 used  by  the  fathers  of  the  Reformed  Church.  ' '  Still  a  formulary  of 
 prayers  for  si)ecial  occasions  seems  to  us  a  very  good  thing,  provided  it 
 be  valued  and  used  only  as  a  help  at  such  times  and  as  our  Fathers  here 
 have  set  an  example  which  we  may  naturally  be  expected  to  follow." 
 
 Nevin  has  anotiier  article  in  the  Merccrshurg  Eevieiv  at  the 
 end  of  18-19  on  the  liturgical  movement.  He  says: 
 
 "It  was  a  matter  of  congratulation  that  at  last  so  auspicious  a  com- 
 mencement had  been  made  in  this  movement  as  the  appointment  of  a 
 committee.  The  action  of  the  synod  had  thrown  open  the  whole  liturgical 
 question  to  a  free  discussion.  (This  was  what  had  been  suggested  to  the 
 Synod  of  1848  by  Virginia  Classis  and  not  approved  by  that  Synod. — A.)* 
 No  one  fears  dis<nission,  as  the  Church  will  never  be  hurried  into  a 
 liturgy.     He  said  that  there  were  two  necessities : 
 
 1.  That  if  we  were  to  have  a  liturgy,  it  is  of  the  utmost  consequence 
 that  we  have  a  good  one. 
 
 2.  That  there  ought  to  be  more  general  inward  preparation  for  the 
 use  of  one  in  its  proper  form.  The  danger  is  of  an  unripe  liturgy. 
 * '  Everything  depends  on  the  right  starting  point. ' '  This  was  the  part 
 of  the  article  that  J.  H.  Goodf  said  contained  the  germ  of  his  high- 
 church  liturgical  views. 
 
 It  is  very  evident  from  these  quotations  that  Nevin  favored 
 a  liturgy,  but  that  he  thought  the  S>aiod  had  not  j'et  attained 
 the  liturgical  spirit.  He  makes  a  significant  confession  that 
 the  desire  of  the  Church  then  was  for  a  liturgy  for  special 
 services  rather  than  for  a  liturgy  for  Sunday  services.  In 
 this  he  agrees  with  what  Zacharias  had  said  at  synod.  All 
 this  only  shows  that  our  Church  never  had  had  a  liturgical 
 form  for  the  Sabbath  services  and  did  not  want  them. 
 
 Section  3.    The  Synods  of  1850-1852. 
 
 At  the  synod  of  1850,  the  liturgical  committee  reported  that 
 after  such  attention  as  they  were  able  to  give  the  subject  and 
 in  view  of  the  general  posture  of  the  Church  at  the  present 
 time  they  did  not  consider  it  expedient  to  go  forward  with  the 
 work.  If  synod  felt  it  necessary  to  produce  a  new  liturgy', 
 the  most  advisable  course  for  the  present  would  be  to  simply 
 
 *When  the  author  interjects  remarks  into  other's  statements  he  will 
 sign  himself  by  A. 
 
 ■\Christian  World  of  October  9,  1868. 
 
830         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 give  a  translation  of  the  old  Palatinate  liturgy,  although  the 
 committee  did  not  think  that  this  would  be  the  best  ultimate 
 form  to  provide  for  the  liturgical  (|uestion.  At  that  time 
 other  questions  of  vital  moment  were  before  the  Church  that 
 needed  first  to  be  settled.  The  report  was  adopted  and  the 
 committee  continued.  The  other  (piestions  of  vital  moment 
 referred  to  in  the  report  were  the  financial  condition  of  the 
 seminary  (which  was  in  straits),  the  exact  position  of  the 
 Mercersburg  theology  then  being  developed  toward  Roman- 
 ism and  the  want  of  unity  in  the  Church. 
 
 At  the  synod  of  1851  the  conunittee  on  liturgy  reported 
 that  they  had  made  no  farther  progress  in  the  work  com- 
 mitted to  them.  Nevin  resigned  as  chairman  of  the  com- 
 mittee. Schaif  was  made  chairman  and  Porter  was  added  to 
 the  committee.  The  committee  was  instructed  to  report  as 
 soon  as  possible.  The  truth  was  that  at  this  synod  the  resigna- 
 tions of  Nevin  and  Schaif  from  their  theological  chairs  over- 
 shadowed everything  else.  Nevin  later  says  in  his  "Vindica- 
 tion,"— 
 
 That  the  coiniiiittee  had  come  to  despair  very  much  of  being  able  to  pro- 
 duce any  liturgy  that  would  prove  generally  and  permanently  satisfactory 
 to  the  Church.  He  says  "this  was  especially  my  feeling.  1  had  not  led 
 the  way  at  all  in  the  movement.  My  heart  was  not  in  it  in  any  special 
 zeal.  T  was  concerned  in  it  only  on  obedience  to  the  appointment  of 
 Synod.  Other  interests  a])peared  to  me  at  the  time  to  be  of  more 
 serious  consequence  and  I  had  no  faith  in  our  being  able  to  bring  the 
 work  to  any  ultimate  success.  In  these  circumstances  I  was  not  willing 
 to  stand  charged  with  the  responsibility  of  continuing  as  chairman  of 
 the  committee  and  accordingly  I  asked  synod  to  relieve  me  from  tho 
 chairmanship. ' ' 
 
 This  statement  of  Nevin  does  not  quite  agree  with  his  state- 
 ments quoted  in  our  previous  section.  They  show  that  he  did 
 have  a  liturgical  tendency,  ])ut  by  1851  he  saw  tlie  difficulty 
 so  great  that  he  gave  up  liope  of  success. 
 
 Before  the  next  synod  one  or  two  significant  articles  appeared 
 in  the  Messenger.  A  writer*  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
 edition  of  the  Mayer  liturgy  was  exhausted  and  a  liturgy  was 
 
 *See  the  issue  of  March  3. 
 
Liturgical  Preparation  for  Controversy.-  331 
 
 needed  in  its  place.  He  urged  the  ministers  of  the  church  to 
 express  their  views  on  a  new  liturgy.  But  in  spite  of  this  re- 
 quest there  was  no  response.  Then  the  editor  of  the  Messenger 
 laments  the  fact  that  not  a  single  correspondent  of  the  Mes- 
 senger had  as  yet  opened  his  mouth  on  the  subject  of  the 
 liturgy  even  after  his  earnest  request.  From  all  this,  one 
 of  two  things  are  evident.  Either  a  liturgy  was  not  greatly 
 desired  by  the  Church,  or  there  was  such  a  great  division  of 
 opinion  on  the  subject  that  each  party  was  afraid  to  speak 
 out  for  fear  of  the  other.  The  truth  probably  is  that  most  of 
 the  younger  ministers  who  were  pupils  of  Nevin  and  Schaff 
 wanted  a  new  liturgy,  while  on  the  other  hand  the  great  ma- 
 jority of  the  Church,  especially  tlie  older  ministers,  was  either 
 opposed  to  it  or,  if  they  wanted  a  liturgy,  wanted  the  Pa- 
 latinate. It  was  a  calm  before  the  storm  that  broke  five  years 
 later. 
 
 At  the  synod  of  1852  the  liturgical  committee  reported 
 that  since  the  last  meeting  they  had  done  what  they  could. 
 The  members  living  in  Mercersburg  had  met  weekly  during 
 the  summer  while  the  other  members  were  requested  in  the 
 meantime  to  prepare  certain  parts  of  a  liturg>^  to  be  laid  later 
 before  the  committee  for  revision.  The  more  they  entered 
 upon  the  work  the  more  they  felt  its  importance  and  difficulty. 
 The  difficulty  increased  because  of  the  great  number  and  va- 
 riety of  materials  before  and  after  the  Reformation.  They 
 proposed  the  plan  of  a  liturgy  (see  p.  86  of  the  minutes)  and 
 also  the  following  basis  for  work : 
 
 1.  The  liturgical  worship  of  the  Anglican  Church  as  far  as  in  har- 
 mony with  the  Bible,  the  old  church  fathers  and  the  Greek  and  Latin 
 liturgies  were  to  be  the  universal  fundamentals  of  the  liturgy.  The 
 more  so  as  these  were  the  sources  from  which  the  best  materials  of  the 
 liturgies  of  the  sixteenth  century  came,  such  as  tlie  formulas  for  con- 
 fession of  sin,  also  litany,  creed,  Gloria,  Te  Deuni,  collects,  and  Decalogue. 
 
 2.  Among  the  later  liturgies  special  attention  was  to  be  paid  to  the 
 Palatinate  and  the  other  Reformed  liturgies  of  the  sixteenth  century. 
 
 3.  But  neither  the  old  Catholic  or  the  old  Reformed  liturgies  were  to 
 be  slavishly  followed  but  to  be  reproduced  in  a  free  Evangelical  spirit 
 and  made  suitable  to  the  peculiar  necessities  of  our  time  and  denomina- 
 tion.    Various  kinds  of  forms  were  to  be  prepared,  some  with  responses 
 
332         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 and  some  without,  with  a  view  to  avoid  mouotony  and  to  adai)t  it  to  the 
 varied  conditions  of  the  various  congregations.  The  language  and  style 
 to  be  as  nearly  like  that  of  the  Bible  as  possible,  though  the  strict  dog- 
 matic tone  of  the  Calvinistic  liturgies  was  to  be  lessened  for  the  more 
 devotional.  A  family  liturgy  ought  to  be  prepared.  Finally  the  liturgy 
 was  not  intended  to  hinder  the  right  use  of  free  prayer,  either  in  the 
 Church  or  the  homo,  Init  to  guide  it  ami  aid  it. 
 
 The  report,  .says  one  of  the  liturgical  party,  made  the 
 ancient  liturgies  as  far  as  possible  the  basis  and  after  them 
 the  Palatinate  and  other  Reformed  liturgi<'S,  ])ut  the  liturgical 
 element  was  not  pressed  so  far  as  to  restrict  free  prayer,  but 
 to  regulate  it. 
 
 The  synod  referred  back  the  si>ecimens  (four  services  for 
 the  Lord's  day.  two  ])a])tismal  services,  a  marriage  service 
 and  part  of  the  lessons  and  collects  for  the  year)  reported  by 
 the  committee  with  instructions  to  carry  out  the  suggestions 
 at  the  close  of  their  report  and  to  print  a  specimen  liturgy 
 for  the  inspection  of  the  Church.  The  name  of  Zacharias  was 
 substituted  for  Berg's  on  the  committee,  and  S.  R.  Fisher 
 was  added.  Bomberger,  in  "The  Revised  Liturgy,"  claims 
 that  these  instructions  required  the  committee  to  make  special 
 reference  to  the  Palatinate  and  Reformed  liturgies,  which  he 
 later  said  they  did  not  do,  but  modeled  their  liturgj'  after 
 the  forms  of  the  Early  Chi-istian  Church  by  making  it  re- 
 sponsive, etc.  He  also  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
 ado])ted  report  declared  that  the  liturgy  was  not  to  interfere 
 witli  free  ])rayer,  which  action  was  violated  in  1862  by  Kevin's 
 ivjxirt  on  the  liturgy  and  tlie  later  language  of  its  adherents 
 wliicli  opposed  free  prayer. 
 
 Up  to  this  time  the  main  thought  in  the  mind  of  the 
 Church  seems  to  have  been  to  rei)i'oduce  tbe  Palatinate  lit- 
 urgy with  such  modifications  as  would  suit  our  age  or  a 
 liturgy  like  it.  The  idea  ot  introducing  new  elements  as 
 responses,  litany,  etc.,  did  not  enter  into  the  minds  of  most 
 of  the  ministers,  and  if  attempted  would  have  met  witb 
 most  decided  opposition.  Any  attaek  on  llie  use  n\'  free 
 prayer  would  have  been  violently  resented  by  the  Church 
 at  that  time.     Bomberger  latter  says  the  report  was  hurried 
 
LiTURGiCAi.  Preparation  for  Controversy.  333 
 
 through  the  synod  and  adopted  at  a  single  session.  The 
 synod  ot  1852  was  afterwards  referred  to  by  high-churchmen 
 as  the  high-water  mark  of  the  Reformed  Church.  They 
 gloried  that  that  synod  had  turned  the  Church  in  their  direc- 
 tion liturgically  and  had  virtually  endorsed  their  theological 
 views.*  Up  to  this  time  the  instructions  of  the  synod  had 
 been  those  of  1849,  emphasizing  adherence  to  Reformed  litur- 
 gies especially  the  Palatinate.  The  action  of  1852  opened  the 
 door  for  a  liturgy  on  the  basis  of  the  earlier  Greek  and  Roman 
 liturgies.  It  was  out  of  these  instructions  of  this  synod  that 
 the  later  difficulties  between  the  high-church  and  low-church 
 parties  grew.  The  former  claimed  that  the  adoption  of  the 
 report  by  synod  gave  them  liberty  to  fashion  a  high-church 
 liturgy  with  its  responses  and  altar-services  like  that  of  the 
 early  Church.  The  low-church  men  did  not  so  understand 
 these  instructions  but  supposed  that  emphasis  would  first  be 
 placed  on  the  Palatinate  and  Reformed  liturgies.  The  first 
 demanded  an  altar-liturgy,  the  second  a  pulpit-liturgy.  There 
 is  no  doubt  that  the  instructions  allow  room  for  the  former 
 interpretation,  but  the  latter  was  the  one  truer  to  the  old 
 Reformed  consciousness ;  for  the  true  Reformed  liturgies  had 
 no  litany,  Te  Deum,  responses,  etc. 
 
 Section  -4.     The  Revulsion  Against  the  Liturgy  in 
 THE  West. 
 
 The  first  action  toward  a  liturgy  in  the  Ohio  synod  was 
 taken  by  Miami  classis  in  1851.  Its  committee,  consisting  of 
 Shaull.  Gerhart  and  Rust,  reported  that  in  the  opinion  of  this 
 synod,  the  last  liturgy  (Mayer's)  of  the  Church  is  very  de- 
 ficient ill  many  particulars  and  consequently  does  not  satisfy 
 the  spiritual  wants  of  the  Church.  Of  the  two  liturgies  for- 
 merly sanctioiK^d  by  the  Church  we  prefer  the  Palatinate 
 liturgy  and  recommend  its  constant  use  within  the  bounds  of 
 this  synod  until  a  better  one  is  provided  and  adopted.  The 
 report  was  laid  over  until  the  next  meeting  of  the  synod  in 
 1852,  which  shows  there  was  no  great  desire  for  a  liturgy 
 
 *See  Nevin,  The  Liturgical  Question,  pages  58  and  60. 
 
334        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 then.  In  1852,  Miami  classis  renewed  its  request  that  synod 
 appoint  a  committee,  of  which  Gerhart  was  chairman,  to  co- 
 operate with  the  committee  of  the  Eastern  synod  in  prepar- 
 ing a  liturgy  for  the  whole  Reformed  Church.  The  Western 
 Missionary*  has  an  article  favorable  to  a  liturgy,  urging  that 
 the  subject  be  discussed  in  the  church  papers.  But,  as  in  the 
 East,  there  was  no  response.  Evidently  the  AVestern  Church 
 was  not  very  anxious  for  it.  Finally  the  editor  of  that  paper 
 wrote  an  article  urging  freedom  in  the  use  of  liturgical  wor- 
 ship on  accoimt  of  the  varied  character  of  the  congregations 
 of  the  Ohio  synod,  some  inclining  toward  the  freedom  of 
 Methodism  in  their  worship,  others  being  formalistic:  but  he 
 wanted  a  liturgy  based  on  the  Reformed  liturgies. 
 
 The  synod  of  1853  approved  of  the  plan  of  the  liturgy  by 
 the  Eastern  synod  of  1852  and  appointed  a  committee  con- 
 sisting of  Gerhart,  Steiner,  Weisz  and  Kroh  to  join  with  the 
 committee  of  the  Eastern  synod  in  preparing  such  a  liturgy. 
 Had  this  been  carried  out,  it  might  have  led  to  a  high-church 
 liturgy  for  the  West,  such  as  appeared  later  in  the  East.  The 
 Eastern  synod  of  1853  approved  of  the  action  of  the  Ohio 
 sjTiod. 
 
 On  September  15,  1853,  the  Western  Missiounri/,  the  organ 
 of  our  Western  Church,  which  had  hitlierto  kept  out  of  tbe 
 controversy,  makes  its  first  statement  about  it.  It  says  that  for 
 a  year  past  there  lias  been  a  controversy  in  the  EasteiMi 
 synod,  that  those  who  were  opposed  to  Nevin  were  Ix'ing  sluit 
 out  from  the  Messenger  and  had  availed  themselves  of  the 
 Christian  Intelligencer  and  the  Lutheran  Observer  to  express 
 their  sentiments.  It  said  the  Messenger  ought  not  to  censure 
 them  when  it  refused  their  publications.  It  expres.sed  sym- 
 pathy with  them,  because  their  r(^plies  were  in  every  respect 
 as  dignified  and  free  from  improprieties  as  the  articles  in  the 
 Messenger  to  which  they  responded,  nay,  in  its  judgment  mueli 
 more  so.  The  Messenger  replied  to  these  criticisms  of  the 
 Western  Missionary.  But  the  significance  of  this  controversy 
 is  that  the  Western  Missionary  shows  to  which  side  it  was 
 
 *June  22,  1852. 
 
Liturgical  Preparation  for  Controversy.  335 
 
 leaning, — that  it  sided  with  Heiner,   Zacharias  and  Mesiek 
 against  Mercersburg. 
 
 Another  sign  of  a  reaction  was  the  action  of  St.  Joseph's 
 elassis  in  Januaiy,  1854,  as  its  delegates  had  voted  at  the 
 synod  against  the  liturgy.  It  declared  that  it  supported 
 them  in  their  action.  The  elassis  reiterated  its  former  view 
 against  the  liturgy  as  an  innovation  and  deprecated  the 
 movement,  as  it  woidd  tend  to  strengthen  formalism  in  tlw 
 Church.  Miami  elassis  (January,  1854),  although  it  had 
 twice  overtured  the  synod  favorably  to  a  liturgy,  now  put 
 itself  on  record  against  it.  (Gerhart,  who  had  been  the 
 leader  of  the  liturgical  element  there,  had  left  Cincinnati 
 to  become  professor  of  theology  at  Tiffin  and  therefore  had 
 left  the  elassis.)  It  objected  to  the  Ohio  synod's  action 
 appointing  the  committee  on  conference  with  the  Eastern 
 committee.  It  declared  itself  opposed  to  the  liturgy,  be- 
 cause they  understood  it  was  to  have  responses,  and  as  sev- 
 eral charges  remonstrated  to  it  against  such  a  liturgy,  it  re- 
 quested synod  to  reconsider  it  as  it  could  not  conscientiously 
 use  the  liturgy  if  prepared.  The  vote  of  the  synod  was 
 17  to  5,  Prugh,  Rike,  Rust  and  Zieber  voting  against  it,  rep- 
 resenting the  liturgical  party.  In  February,  1854,  Tiffin 
 elassis,  now  under  the  leadership  of  Gerhart,  who  had  re- 
 moved to  Tiffin,  declared  in  favor  of  a  liturgy.  In  April, 
 Gerhart  tried  to  stem  the  tide  against  a  liturgy  in  a  guarded 
 article  in  the  Western  Missionary  on  free  prayer,  in  which  he 
 endorsed  free  prayer  but  declared  that  the  use  of  a  liturgy 
 was  not  in  conflict  wnth  free  prayer  and  ought  never  to  sup- 
 press it.  On  April  28,  Sandusky  elassis  also  took  action 
 asking  the  synod  to  reconsider  its  action  on  the  liturgy  be- 
 cause the  proposed  liturgy  Avas  against  the  ancient  land- 
 marks of  the  Church.  It  declared  it  would  oppose  any  liturgy 
 which  prescribed  forms  for  Sunday  services.  It  was  opposed 
 to  confession,  absolution,  Te  Deum,  Gloria  in  Excelsis  and 
 other  forms  which  savor  strongly  of  Romanism  and  declared 
 that  it  would  be  a  violation  of  the  constitution  to  continue 
 the  specimen  liturgy  for  several  years'  trial.  Iowa  elassis 
 approved  the  plan  of  the  liturgy.     So  did  the  North  German 
 
336         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 classis  and  as  a  niiniber  of  its  ministers  used  Ebrard's  Chiiroli- 
 book  it  ordered  that  it  be  used  by  its  ministers.  To  the  Ohio 
 synod  in  May,  1854.  the  liturgical  committee  reported  that  it  had 
 been  unable  to  meet  with  the  committee  of  the  Eastern  synod, 
 that  as  some  members  of  the  Church  were  opposed  to  the  new 
 liturgy  and  the  distance  from  the  Eastern  synod  made  par- 
 ticipation nominal  rather  than  real,  thei-efore  the  committee 
 on  liturg;\^  be  dissolved.  This  was  adopted.  But  it  recom- 
 mended the  use  of  the  Palatinate  liturgy  and  ordered  minis- 
 ters to  abstain  from  any  liturgy-  not  prepared  or  adopted  by 
 the  Reformed  Churches  of  Europe  and  America. 
 
 Section  5.    The  Attack  on  ^Iercersburg  Theology  by  the 
 Reformed  of  Germany. 
 
 The  adherents  of  Mercersburg  Theology-  had  l)eon  claiming 
 that  they  represented  the  views  and  customs  of  our  mother- 
 church  in  Germany.  A  bombshell  Avas  sent  into  their  camp  by 
 the  Reformed  Kirchenzeitung  of  Germany,  the  official  organ 
 of  our  Church  there.  The  position  of  our  mother-church  in 
 Germany  is  significant  and  shows  that  the  new  theological 
 views  of  Nevin  were  contrary  to  the  time-honored  positions 
 of  the  Reformed  in  the  Fatherland.  It  is  true  Ebrard  had* 
 reviewed  Nevin 's  "IMystical  Presence"  favorably.  He  looked 
 on  it  as  a  vindication  of  Melancthon's  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
 Supper  in  opposition  to  the  low  views  of  the  Lutherans  in 
 America.    He  said  of  the  "Mystical  Presence": 
 
 1.  It  is  the  first  attempt  to  introduce  the  science  of  German  theology 
 to  the  English  world  of  North  America. 
 
 2.  Nevin  defends  the  mystical  union — tlie  Melancthonian  views  against 
 the  Lutherans. 
 
 3.  It  possesses  not  only  historical  but  dogmatical  interest — it  seeks  to 
 reconstruct  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
 
 Ebrard  confesses  he  had  started  along  the  same  line  as  Nevin.  He 
 agrees  with  Nevin  that  our  union  is  with  Christ 's  humanity  so  that  we 
 have. part  in  his  merits  because  we  have  part  in  his  substance.  The  Re- 
 formed doctrine  is  that  the  communion  is  not  with  a  thing  (as  the 
 Lutherans  held)  but  with  a  man.     But  Ebrard  charges  Nevin  with  con- 
 
 *See  Studien  und  Eritikcii,  1850. 
 
Liturgical  Preparation  for  Controversy.  337 
 
 tradicting  himself — that  he  goes  too  far  in  blaming  Calvin  wlien  the 
 latter  speaks  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  mediating  between  Christ  and  be- 
 lievers. 
 
 But  while  Ebrard  wrote  thus  favorably  of  Nevin's  doc- 
 trine of  the  Lord's  Supper  as  revealed  in  his  "Mystical  Pres- 
 ence," he  later,  especially  in  his  "Pastoral  Theology,"  dif- 
 fered widely  from  the  Nevinists  in  their  later  development 
 on  the  liturgy,  the  church,  the  ministry  and  church-govern- 
 ment. This  point  is  granted  later*  by  Rev.  William  Reily 
 in  an  article  on  "Ebrard  and  His  Position  on  the  Church 
 Question."  He  there  says  that  Ebrard,  while  having  some 
 views  akin  to  Mercersburg  theology  in  his  dogmatics:  yet 
 in  his  Pastoral  Theology  is  utterly  at  variance  with  it  in  his 
 low  views  of  the  Church  and  of  the  ministry  and  in  his  oppo- 
 sition to  high-churchism.  In  cultus,  Ebrard  also  differs,  for 
 while  he  believes  in  fixed  forms  of  prayer,  he  yet  makes  the 
 sermon  the  central  act  of  worship  instead  of  the  altar,  as 
 Mercersburg  held. 
 
 The  Be  formed  Kirchenzeitung  of  Germanyf  gives  an  ac- 
 count of  the  troubles  in  the  German  Reformed  Church  in 
 America  and  notes  the  fact  that  the  Dutch  Reformed  had 
 withdrawn  from  correspondence  with  it. 
 
 It  suggests  that  Dr.  Schaff  in  his  attack  on  Puritanism  either  had  not 
 been  well  taught  or  did  not  exactly  state  their  view :  for  it  says  such 
 a  view  of  the  R«mish  Church  as  he  gives  is  not  the  leading  one  in  Ger- 
 many, but  the  one  generally  rejected,  as  is  shown  by  their  most  celebrated 
 theologians,  Nitsch,  Miiller,  Tholuck,  Ebrard,  Harless  and  Hofman.  The 
 high-church  Puseyite  tendencies  were  contrary  to  German  Eeformed 
 customs  and  theology.  (Heretofore  the  Mercersburg  theologians  had 
 claimed  that  they  represented  the  Reformed  Church  of  Germany.  The 
 fact  was  that  Dr.  Schaff  represented  not  the  views  of  that  Church  but 
 of  the  Evangelical  or  United  Church  of  Germany  (which  included 
 Lutherans  as  well  as  Reformed),  although  he  added  some  Puseyite  ten- 
 dencies to  it. — A.) 
 
 The  same  paper  had,  the  following  year,f  a  critique  on 
 Schaff 's  Apostolic  Church  in  which  its  author  receives  some 
 sharp  criticisms  for  his  statements. 
 
 *Mercersbvrg  Eeview,  January,  1870. 
 
 f  Published  then  at  Erlangen  by  Goebel,  in  its  issue  of  February,  1854, 
 page  59;  also  1855,  pages  300-302, 
 fl855,  pages  321-328, 
 
338        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S.   . 
 
 It  also  criticises  Nevin  because  he  places  entirely  too  much  stress 
 on  the  doctrines  of  the  early  Christian  Church  and  because  he  maintains 
 high-church  views.  It  quotes  from  the  Netv  Brnnswicl-  Eevictv  a  part 
 of  Prof.  Proudfit's  arguments  against  Sehaif's  "Apostolic  Church," 
 especially  his  attack  on  his  view  of  Peter  as  the  pope  of  Eome. 
 
 The  Eirchenzeiiung  then  attacks  Schaff's  position  about  the  early 
 Church.  It  says  Schaff  calls  himself  a  pupil  of  the  Berlin  faculty,  but 
 he  would  not  find  such  high-churchism  in  Berlin  or  in  his  Swiss  home. 
 Schaff  seeks  a  final  harmony  of  Catholicism  and  Protestantism  as  the 
 ideal  church  of  the  future;  in  this  he  passes  entirely  beyond  the  views 
 of  the  Germans.  Schaff  has  mistaken  views  about  the  tendencies  of 
 Catholicism.  And  he  makes  an  incorrect  statement  of  the  Protestant 
 position  that  through  weakness  it  permitted  unbelief,  although  it  did 
 not  sanction  it.  It  repudiated  this  hint  that  Protestantism  harbored 
 infidelity.  Schaff 's  ideas  of  the  Johannoan  age  which  is  to  come  after 
 the  Petrine  (Catholic)  and  Pauline  (Protestant),  did  not  find  support 
 in  Scripture.  John  knows  nothing  of  a  Johannean  age,  and  Germany 
 has  not  adopted  such  views.  The  eschatology  of  Germany  is  richer  and 
 deeper,  although  it  grants  the  truth  of  Schaff 's  interpretation  of  Matt. 
 16 :  18  that  the  Church  is  not  built  on  doctrine  but  on  Christ 's  person. 
 It  objected  to  Schaff 's  statement  that  Peter  was  the  first  pope  and  that 
 he  founded  a  permanent  primacy,*  that  the  primacy  belonged  to  the 
 original  plan  of  Christianity  as  a  historical  tlevelopment.  Still  it  could 
 not  agree  with  Schaff 's  opponents  in  calling  the  pope  Antichrist. 
 
 The  Reformed  Kirehciizeituiig  complainsj  that  it  had  been 
 repeatt'dly  attacked  by  the  Reformed  Kirehenzeitung  of 
 Chambersburg,  Pa.,  for  its  opposition  to  iMercersbnrg-  the- 
 ology as  not  Reformed, — for  its  Puseyite  theoh)gy.  It  declared 
 that  the  Dutch  in  attacking  Schaff 's  statement  of  the  continu- 
 ing primacy  of  Peter  were  right.  Schaff  liad,  in  the  Chamhers- 
 burg  Kirchenzeiiung,  boastfully  placed  over  against  these 
 criticisms  the  degree  of  doctor  of  divinity  he  had  received 
 from  Berlin  as  a  vindication  of  himself.  Jt  declares  that  dur- 
 ing the  seven  years  that  Schaff  had  published  the  h'irclini- 
 freund  not  an  article  had  appeared  on  the  Reformers. 
 
 Another  event  that  was  significant  occurred  during  Schaff 's 
 visit  to  Europe  in  1854.  He  attended  the  Evangelical  Church 
 Diet  that  year.  P.ut  the  editor  of  the  Kirehenzeitung  says 
 that  he  did  not  attend,  or  show  any  sympathy  with,  the  Re- 
 
 *Page  326. 
 
 tl856,  398-401,  416. 
 
Liturgical  Preparation  for  Controversy.  339 
 
 formed  conference  held  at  the  same  time  and  phice.  Schaff 
 replied  to  this.*  saying  that  he  attended  the  conference,  but 
 said  nothing,  as  its  business  concerned  Hesse  in  Germany 
 (where  there  was  an  attempt  by  the  Lutherans  to  overawe  the 
 Reformed)  and  not  America.  lie  tries  to  offset  the  opposition 
 of  the  Reformed  Kirchcnzcitung  of  Germany  to  his  theological 
 views  by  saying  that  the  Reformed  Church-Leaves  of  Basle 
 had  favorably  reviewed  his  book.  But  it  is  very  evident 
 from  all  tliis  that  the  Reformed  Church  of  Germany  had  no 
 sympathy  with  the  Mercersburg  theology  or  its  ritualism. 
 
 Later,  in  1869,  the  Reformed  Kirchenzeitnng  of  Germany, 
 the  organ  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  the  Fatherland,  attacked 
 Dr.  Schaif 's  statement  that  the  Reformed  Church  of  Germany 
 had  always  been  Melancthonian  and  not  Calvinistic  on  the 
 decrees.  Its  editor.  Rev.  Mr.  Theleman.  in  reviewing  Schaff 's 
 work  on  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  takes  exception  to  his 
 statement.f  where  Schaff  says  that  predestination  was  not  the 
 doctrine  of  the  Reformed  of  Germany.  Theleman  declared 
 it  was  the  doctrine  of  our  Church  there  and  cites  the  action 
 of  the  professors  of  Marburg  University  in  1561  when  they 
 supported  Zanchius'  defense  at  Strasburg  of  the  Reformed 
 doctrine,  and  fornuilated  a  statement  in  favor  of  predestina- 
 tion.J 
 
 Section  6.    The  Synods  op  1853-1855. 
 
 Notwithstanding  the  elaborate  instructions  of  the  synod  of 
 
 1852,  no  report  on  th(»  liturgy  was  received  at  the  synod  of 
 
 1853.  The  liturgical  work  seems  to  have  stopped  because  Dr. 
 Schaff,  the  moving  spirit  of  it,  was  in  Europ(\  The  forms 
 that  had  been  prepared  by  the  committee  previous  to  his  de- 
 parture were  published  in  the  Merer rshure)  Review.  During 
 185-4.  the  Mercersburg  Review  published  specimen   forms  as 
 
 *JVest€r)i  Missionary,  July  3,  1856. 
 
 fReformed  Kirchenzeitnng,  page  128. 
 
 XBeformcd  Kirchenzeitnng,  pajE;e  114.  For  further  proof  that  the  Re- 
 formed of  Germany  was  officially  and  ecidesiastically  Calvinistic  and  pre- 
 destinarian  in  their  creeds  and  conferences,  sec  my  History  of  the  Re- 
 formed Church  of  Germany,  pages  589-620. 
 
340        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 for  baptism  (infant  and  adult),  for  marriage  and  the  laying 
 of  a  corner-stone,  four  forms  for  the  regular  services  on  the 
 Lord's  day,  forms  for  confirmation  and  preparatory  services, 
 for  funerals,  church  dedications,  etc. 
 
 The  form  for  the  Sunday  services  was  the  most  startling 
 to  the  Church.  Heretofore  the  Church  had  had  a  free  service, 
 but  of  the  four  forms  for  Sunday,  the  first  was  a  full  liturgical 
 service,  with  confession  of  sin  and  repetition  of  the  creed,  to- 
 gether with  brief  responses,  giving  the  option  of  using  the 
 Te  Deum  and  the  Gloria.  The  second  added  to  these  the  ab- 
 solution and  gave  the  option  of  using  the  Nicenc  Creed  in- 
 stead of  the  Apostles',  also  the  pericopes  (the  Gospel  and 
 Epistle  for  each  Sabbath)  and  also  a  collect  for  each  Lord's 
 day  according  to  the  calendar.  The  third  form  was  not  re- 
 sponsive at  all,  except  in  the  prayers  which  were  broken  re- 
 peatedly by  ' '  Amens. ' '  The  fourth  was  a  very  brief  form  of 
 prayer  unbroken  by  any  responses.  All  of  them,  except  the 
 last,  were  entirely  out  of  harmony  with  the  previous  custom 
 of  the  Reformed  Church  in  this  country. 
 
 While  they  were  thus  developing  the  liturgy,  they  were 
 also  developing  their  views  of  church  architecture  so  as  to  pre- 
 pare for  its  use.  A  significant  controversy  arose  about  the 
 altar.  Dr.  Harbaugh,  in  the  McssciHicr,  gave  a  description  of 
 a  church-dedication  at  Tulpehocken,  in  which  he  said  that  the 
 church  had  an  aHar-space  but  no  altar.  "This  is  not  Re- 
 formed," he  said.  He  also  said  that  those  who  built  the 
 church  at  Tulpehock(Mi  would  feel  shocked  at  the  sight  of  a 
 table  when  their  feelings  would  rerjuire  an  altar.  Dr.  Har- 
 baugh seems  to  have  been  ignorant  Ibat  the  Ri^Formed  Church 
 in  Germany  and  in  this  country  never  had  an  altar.  It  is 
 mentioned  in  no  true  Reformed  liturgies  in  Switzerland  or 
 America.  Up  to  the  time  wlien  the  Mereers])urg  theology 
 came  in,  the  only  German  liturgy  having  an  altar  was  the 
 Hessian  of  1657,  which  Harbaugh  and  his  followers  quotx^d  to 
 prove  their  position.  They  seemed  entirely  ignorant  of  the 
 fact  that  this  was  virtually  a  union  liturgy  in  which  the 
 altar,  etc.,  came  from  the  Lutheran  side  and  that  against  its 
 introduction  the  Reformed  of  Hesse  entered  their  determined 
 
Liturgical  Preparation  for  Controversy.  341 
 
 protest.*  All  this  does  not  look  as  if  the  Reformed  wanted 
 an  altar.  For  his  statement  in  the  Messenger,  Harbaugh  was 
 attacked  by  Foulk,  who  argued  mainly  on  Biblical  grounds 
 that  the  only  piece  of  furniture  mentioned  in  the  New  Testa- 
 ment as  being  used  at  the  Lord's  Supper  was  a  table. 
 
 On  the  return  of  Schaff  from  Germany,  the  theological 
 seminary  at  Mercersburg  began  now  to  look  up,  Wolff  and 
 Schaff  being  the  professors.  The  third  tutorship  had  been 
 created  at  the  suggestion  of,  and  in  part  endowed  by,  the 
 liberality  of  Baron  von  Bethman-Hollweg,  of  Berlin,  a  mem- 
 ber of  the  cabinet  of  the  King  of  Prussia,  who  had  charge 
 of  the  department  of  instruction  and  public  worship  in  that 
 kingdom.  William  M.  Reily  and  Jacob  R.  Kershner  were 
 the  first  incumbents  of  this  tutorship. 
 
 The  synod  of  1855  gave  the  liturgical  movement  a  new  im- 
 pulse. The  liturgical  committee  reported  that  they  desired 
 their  task  to  be  confined  to  the  preparation  of  a  liturgy  which 
 should  be  only  provisional, — that  is,  intended  for  experi- 
 mental and  optional  use.  They  recommended  that  synod 
 should  not  take  final  action  on  it  until  it  could  be  thoroughly 
 revised  after  a  practical  test  of  it  had  been  made  in  the  con- 
 gregations. In  order  to  facilitate  the  work,  the  quorum  of  the 
 committee  was  to  be  reduced  to  five.  The  synod  adopted  this 
 report  and  also  the  plan  for  defraying  the  expenses  of  the  pub- 
 lication of  the  provisional  liturgy  by  a  public  collection. 
 
 An  interesting  question  arises  why  the  committee  thus  pro- 
 posed that  the  liturgy  should  be  only  provisional.  This  was  a 
 decided  departure  from  the  first  plan  of  the  liturgy  which 
 aimed  at  a  permanent  liturgy.  If,  as  the  liturgical  party 
 have  always  declared,  the  Church  was  so  anxious  all  the 
 time  for  a  liturgy,  why  did  they  now  halt  and  hold  back 
 and  suggest  that  its  use  should  be  only  provisional?  The 
 only  answer  that  can  be  given  is  that  they  felt  themselves  in 
 advance  of  the  general  feeling  of  the  Church  on  the  subject 
 and  were  afraid  to  face  the  question  of  its  adoption  for  fear 
 it  might  be  rejected.     Besides,  if  they  could  delay  the  final 
 
 *See  my  History  of  the  Keformed  Church  of  Germany,  pages  137-8. 
 
342         History  of  Reformed  Chiircii  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 decision  on  the  matter,  they  probably  hoped  that  the  Church 
 wonkl  grow  toward  a  liturgy,  especially  as  their  forces  were 
 continually  being  increased  by  the  graduates  from  the  semi- 
 nary at  INIercersburg. 
 
 Section  7.     The  " Mercersburg  Review."  1854-1855. 
 
 The  Mcrcershurg  Eevicw  of  January,  1855,  contained  sev- 
 eral significant  articles.  One  was  an  article  on  "Christian 
 Ciiltus, "  by  Dr.  Harbaugh.  He  may  be  called  the  aesthetic 
 leader  of  the  INIercersburg  theology,  as  Xevin  was  its  theo- 
 logian and  Schaff  its  historian.  Later,  he  became  also  its 
 theologian,  as  he  brought  to  its  fullest  development  the  doc- 
 trines of  that  school,  after  he  became  professor  of  theology 
 at  Mercersburg.*  His  labors  on  the  liturgy  and  on  architec- 
 ture favoring  tlicir  views  were  very  important.  These  articles 
 on  Christian  cult  us  or  worship  were  intended  to  help  on  the 
 liturgical  movement. f 
 
 He  defines  cnltus  as  worship  which  brings  under  contribution  three 
 things:  time,  space  and  the  new  humanity  in  Christ.  It  consecrates  its 
 surroundings,  making  the  natural  become  the  medium  of  the  super- 
 natural. Cultus  is  active  in  three  directions:  pedagogically,  sacerdotally 
 and  regally;  corresponding  to  the  three  offices  of  Christ:  prophet,  priest 
 and  kind.  This  three-fold  division  he  works  out.  He  attacks  the  pre- 
 ref ormation  cultus  for  ignoring  virtually  tlie  prophetic  office,  reversing  the 
 order  of  the  offices,  kingly,  priestly  and  prophetical.  Again,  it  did  not 
 preserve  the  proportion  of  the  sacramental  and  sacrificial,  the  former 
 being  greatly  increased.  It  was  too  sensual  and  reduced  the  part  of  the 
 laity  in  worship  from  the  sacrificial  to  servility.  He  then  turns  to  the 
 Reformation  cultus.  Luther's  idea  was  not  so  much  the  reformation 
 of  cultus  as  of  doctrine.  But  the  Lutherans  were  compelled  to  go 
 farther  in  their  ideas  and  i)ractices  away  from  the  cultus  of  the  Catholic 
 Church.  Tlie  Reformed,  like  the  Lutherans,  sought  the  completion  of 
 what  was  before  in  the  Catholic  cultus  l)ut  in  a  difVerent  way.  The 
 Reformed  differed  from  the  Lutherans: 
 
 1.  The  Lutherans  rested  more  outwardly  on  tlie  old  Catholic  cultus,  the 
 Reformed,  less  outwardly  but  more  inwardly. 
 
 2.  The  Lutherans  gave  more  outward  jjrominence  to  the  sacramental, 
 the  Reformed,  to  the  sacrificial. 
 
 *See  his  manuscrij)t  notes  on  dogmatics. 
 
 file  i)ublished  the  first  in  October,  lSo4,  ami  concluded  by  another  in 
 the  Januarv  number  of  185* 
 
Liturgical  Preparation  for  Controversy.  343 
 
 3. The  Lutheran  serviee  was  heavier,  more  complex,  the  Reformed, 
 simpler. 
 
 In  the  January  number,  1855,  he  continues,  "if  the  Church  before 
 the  Reformation  grew  gradually  to  the  extreme  of  power,  the  Church 
 after  the  Reformation  grew  gradually  to  the  extreme  of  liberality.  The 
 first  lost  the  sacrificial  in  the  sacramental;  the  latter,  the  sacramental  in 
 the  sacrificial. 
 
 Dr.  Harbaugli's  views  are  evidently  largely  based  on  the 
 views  and  distinctions  of  Klieforth,  the  higli-church  Lutheran 
 of  Germany.  Mercersbnrg  theology  has  been  said  to  have 
 been  inHnenced  by  Puseyism,  but  Harbaugh  reveals  more  in- 
 fluences from  Klieforth.  He  made  no  attempt  to  follow  the 
 old  Reformed  ideas  of  worship,  but  here  followed  the  Lu- 
 therans and  the  extreme  Lutherans  at  that.  (The  distinction 
 which  underlies  the  Mercersburg  system  between  the  sacra- 
 mental and  the  sacrificial  in  worship  is  due  to  Klieforth,  wdio 
 said  that  the  sacramental  was  what  God  gave  to  us  and  the 
 sacrificial  what  we  offered  to  God.  It  is  a  vicious  distinction, 
 as  it  is  a  distinction  that  can  not  be  carried  out.    For 
 
 (1)  Almost  every  rite  is  both  sacramental  and  sacrificial. 
 The  line  of  distinction  between  the  sacramental  and  the  sacri- 
 ficial is  too  fine  and  theoretical  to  be  practically  carried  out. 
 Even  the  sacraments  are  not  merely  sacramental,  as  they  have 
 in  them  also  the  sacrificial  element.  And  prayer,  which  is 
 sacrificial  has  in  it  also  a  sacramental  element,  namely,  the 
 answer  God  gives  to  us. 
 
 (2)  Again,,  if  every  rite  is  thus  made  sacramental,  then 
 the  sacraments  have  nothing  peculiar  to  themselves  to  dis- 
 tinguish them  from  the  other  rites;  which  would  seem  to  be 
 entirely  contradictory  to  JMereersburg 's  o\Ani  doctrinal  views 
 of  the  sacraments.  We  prefer  the  old  use  of  the  word  sacra- 
 ment as  referring  to  ba])tism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  and  not 
 to  any  other  rite.  Their  view  lowers  the  meaning  of  the  word 
 sacrament  and  confuses  the  whole  subject. — A.) 
 
 Dr.  Harbaugh  goes  on  to  show  that  the  post-Reformation 
 cultus  reveals  its  unnatural  character : 
 
 1.  In  undervaluing  the  sacraments. 
 
 2.  Losing  sight  of  the  priestly  and  kingly  functions  of  the  Church. 
 
 n 
 
344        History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 3.  Disrespect  for  all  symbols  of  faith  and  forms  of  worship. 
 
 4.  It  is  distressingly  naked  and  bare  in  its  outward  appendages  and 
 .     accompaniments. 
 
 He  then  gives  an  outline  of  three  liturgies:  Zwingli's,  of 
 1529,  Calvin's  of  1541,  The  Hessian  of  1567  (he  does  not 
 know  that  the  latter  was  a  Lutheran,  not  a  purely  Reformed 
 liturgy. — A.)  Combining  them,  he  gives  a  full  order  of  wor- 
 ship of  fifteen  parts,  including  the  confession  of  sin  and  abso- 
 lution, indeed  of  twenty  parts  with  the  Lord's  Supper.  This 
 outline  was  afterwards  given  in  the  Provisional  liturgy.  He 
 then  describes  each  of  them  in  turn.-  In  his  description,  the 
 absolution  becomes  prominent.  As  neither  Zwingli's  or  Cal- 
 vin's liturgy  have  it,  he  gets  it  from  the  (un-Reformed) 
 liturgy  of  Hesse.  He,  however,  says  that  the  absolution  was 
 in  the  Palatinate  liturgy,  and  says  it  ought  to  be  before  the 
 sermon  and  iii  connection  with  the  confession  of  sin  at  the  be- 
 ginning of  the  services.  (But  we  would  note  this  difference, 
 that  in  the  Palatinate  and  Hessian  this  so-called  absolution  is 
 after  the  sermon  and  not  at  the  beginning  of  the  service,  as  he 
 makes  it. — A.) 
 
 For  the  truth  is  that  the  Reformed  idea  of  absolution  was 
 different  from  his.  With  him  the  minister  is  a  priest  with 
 inherent  powers, — one  who  has  the  right  of  debarring  the 
 Christian  from  entering  fully  into  the  worship, — the  absolu- 
 tion must  first  be  declared  by  the  minister  before  his  worship 
 can  be  received.  But  the  Reformed  had  no  such  idea  of  the 
 special  priesthood  of  the  ministry,  and  so  absolution  was 
 placed  after  the  sermon ;  for  the  minister  was  not  a  priest, 
 as  the  Reformed  have  always  believed  in  the  priesthood  of  all 
 believers.  They  did  not  believe  that  the  minister  could  de- 
 clare absolution  by  virtue  of  anything  in  himself  or  his  office, 
 but  only  by  the  word  of  God.  The  Palatinate  liturgy  placed 
 it  after  the  sermon  because  the  believer  could  come  to  worship 
 without  waiting  for  the  absolution  of  the  priest  at  the  begin- 
 ning of  the  service.  Their  absolution  was  simply  a  declaration 
 of  pardon  on  the  basis  of  God's  word  stating  that  God  was 
 willing  to  forgive.  In  the  Frankford  Reformed  liturgy  the 
 absolution  was  only  a  promise  of  Scripture  quoted  by  the  min- 
 
Liturgical  Preparation  for  Controversy.  345 
 
 ister.  It  was  called  a  declarative  absolution  and  was,  like  the 
 benediction,  simply  a  declarative  and  official  act  of  the  min- 
 ister. This  subject  of  absolution  afterwards  became  the  great 
 bone  of  contention  in  the  liturgical  controversy,  as  we  shall  see. 
 
 Harbaugh  also  discusses  the  relation  of  the  pulpit  to  the 
 altar,  which  was  uiniecessary,  as  the  Reformed  knew  no  altar. 
 Still  it  was  an  able  and  interesting  discussion,  showing  that  the 
 Mercersburg  school  were  now  developing  in  worship  as  they 
 had  been  developing  in  doctrine.  By  and  by  we  will  see  how 
 he  completed  the  circle  by  attempting  to  develop  the  Church- 
 government  also,  which  led  to  the  sharpest  tilt  in  the  liturgical 
 controversy.  Indeed,  the  whole  controversy  could  be  arranged 
 around  three  headings  if  necessary,  of  doctrine  (1846-53), 
 cultus  (1857-1866),  and  church-government  (1867-78),  each 
 of  these  being  most  prominent  in  these  periods,  although  the 
 others  were  also  discussed.  The  Tulpehocken  event  was  only 
 another  phase  in  this  growth  in  cultus  of  the  Mercersburg 
 theologians. 
 
 One  other  article  in  the  Review  of  1855  deserves  spe- 
 cial mention,  and  that  is  Dr.  Nevin's  sermon  at  the  inaugu- 
 ration of  his  successor,  B.  C.  Wolff.  If  the  low-churchmen 
 (Old  Reformed)  had  hoped  that  by  the  election  of  B.  C. 
 Wolff  to  a  professorship  in  the  seminary,  they  had  checked 
 the  forward  movement  of  high-church  views  there,  this  ser- 
 mon of  Nevin's  disabused  their  minds  as  it  struck  the  key- 
 note upon  which  Wolff'  was  to  play  in  his  theological  teaching. 
 Its  theme  was  ' '  The  Origin,  Nature  and  Design  of  the  Chris- 
 tian Ministry."  If  Dr.  Nevin  in  1847  had  developed  his 
 liigh  views  of  the  sacrament  in  his  "Mystical  Presence,"  he 
 here  in  1855  develops  fully  his  high  views  on  the  ministry. 
 He  says  the  ministry  is  of  divine-human  origin  (wliich  is  the 
 common  Protestant  view).  But  he  claims  it  lias  a  peculiar 
 power,  called  the  ascension-gift,  or  the  special  power  of  the 
 Holy  Spirit.  This  gift  forms  the  origin  and  ground  of  the 
 Christian  Church.  He  does  not  call  it  Apostolic  succession, 
 as  does  the  Episcopal  Church,  a  doctrine  which  he  had  hitherto 
 opposed,  although  he  severely  attacks  its  opponents  who  de- 
 
346         History  of  Reformed  Church  ix  the  U.  S. 
 
 rided  it.*  His  view  is.  however,  rather  that  of  historical 
 succession  than  Apostolic  succession, — the  ministerial  oflfice 
 carries  virtue  in  itself  for  its  own  end.  ( JiLst  as  he  had  before 
 applied  objectivity  to  the  sacraments  he  now  applies  it  to 
 ordination  and  the  ministry. — A.)  He  then  goes  on  to  speak 
 of  the  origin,  nature  and  design  of  the  Christian  ministry, 
 and  finally  of  its  tests  and  conditions.  Any  sect,  he  says,  who 
 starts  its  own  ministry  produces  a  legitimate  ministry  of  the 
 realm  of  Antichrist.  Prof.  "Wolff,  in  his  inaugural  address, 
 reveals  that  he  stands  fully  on  the  same  doctrinal  ground  as 
 Nevin  but  is  more  irenical  in  his  spirit. 
 
 *Page  81  of  Sermon. 
 
CHAPTER  II. 
 
 The  Adoption  op  the  Provisional  Liturgy  and  Its  Results. 
 
 Section  1.    The  Adoption  of  the  Provisional  Liturgy 
 
 (1857). 
 
 The  year  1857  was  an  eventful  j^ear.  It  saw  brought  to 
 completion  the  plan  of  a  liturgy  begun  ten  years  before.  It 
 also  marked  the  first  signs  of  the  awakening  of  the  Church 
 to  the  fact  that  the  liturgy  was  more  ritualistic  than  many 
 of  them  expected.  The  liturgical  committee  had  been  hold- 
 ing meetings  since  the  return  of  Dr.  Schaff  from  Europe.* 
 The  committee  closed  its  work  October  21,  1857,  at  6  P.  M., 
 with  prayer  by  Dr.  Nevin,  Nevin,  Wolff,  Bomberger,  Zach- 
 arias  and  Schaff  being  present.  The  con>mittee  had  in  all 
 held  104  sessions,  eomiting  morning,  afternoon  and  night  ses- 
 sions. These  were  exclusive  of  the  meetings  of  sub-committees 
 at  Lancaster  and  Mereersburg.  Of  fourteen  members,  four 
 took  no  part,  although  they  favored  the  liturgJ^ 
 
 The  liturgical  committee  reported  to  the  synod  of  1857 
 that  they  had  completed  their  laborious  work  and  that  the 
 work  was  in  the  hands  of  the  printer  and  would  be  published 
 in  a  few  days.  As  fear  had  l)e(ni  expressed  in  some  quarters 
 that  the  liturgy  would  be  forced  on  congregations  who  were 
 unwilling  to  use  it.  the  report  says  "they  would  be  sorry  to 
 have  the  liturgy  introduced  in  any  quarters  sooner  or  farther 
 tlian  there  may  be  a  disposition  among  the  people  to  make 
 it  welcome.  It  was  designed  to  be  a  help  to  them  and  not 
 a  hindrance  to  public  worship."     As  the  synod  had  ordered 
 
 *Meetings  were  held  May  IS,  18.56,  Jan.  2,  1857,  April  20,  August  2.5 
 and  October  lli.  Eai-h  lasted  from  one  to  two  weeks.  The  first  four 
 were  held  at  St.  Paul's  Church,  Lancaster,  because  it  was  central.  At 
 the  August  meeting  of  1857  they  had  hoped  to  have  finished  their  work, 
 but  found  they  were  unable.  So  they  met  again  at  Philadelphia  on 
 October  13,  1857. 
 
 347 
 
348         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S, 
 
 it  to  be  used  only  provisionally,  it  was  not  expected  that  the 
 Church  would  come  to  an  immediate  decision  about  it.  "The 
 liturg}^  asks  no  ecclesiastical  sanction.  It  must  work  its  way 
 quietly  and  silently  into  general  use,  or  pass  away  because 
 there  was  no  real  demand  for  it." 
 
 The  synod  did  not  adopt  the  liturgj^,  but  only  commended 
 the  committee.  This  liturgy,  which  was  called  the  Provisional 
 Liturgy,  was  never  adopted  by  this  synod  or  any  later  one. 
 This  may  have  been  due  to  the  fact  that  the  committee  de- 
 sired no  formal  endorsement.  "Why  they  did  not  desire  en- 
 dorsement is  not  mentioned.  Perhaps  they  feared  that  the 
 liturgj'  might  be  too  revolutionary.  Perhaps  they  desired  this 
 action  so  that  if  any  attempt  miglit  be.  made  to  send  it  down 
 to  the  classes  for  adoption,  as  our  constitution  required,  they 
 could  prevent  such  a  movement,  as  the  liturgy  had  not  yet 
 been  adopted  by  synod.  But  although  the  synod  allowed  its  use 
 provisionally,  the  impression  gradually  grew  upon  the  Church 
 that  it  had  been  in  some  way  approved.  The  synod  unfortunately 
 failed  to  fix  the  length  of  time  of  its  provisional  use.  But  as 
 the  contract  made  with  the  publishers*  was  for  ten  years,  this 
 fact  was  later  seized  upon  as  an  argument  to  prolong  its  use 
 provisionally  for  that  length  of  time.  But  there  was  in  reality 
 no  ground  for  this  as  synod  could  doubtless  have  come  to  an 
 amicable  arrangement  with  the  publishers.  This  omission  of 
 the  exact  time  for  its  provisional  use  later  caused  much  fric- 
 tion, as  we  shall  see. 
 
 The  action  of  the  synod  on  the  liturgy  cannot  but  be  con- 
 sidered very  remarkable.  It  permitted  a  thing  to  be  used 
 which  it  had  officially  never  seen  or  examined.  It  is  true, 
 various  liturgical  forms  had  been  published  in  the  Mercers- 
 burg  lievicw.  But  as  the  chairman  of  the  liturgical  commit- 
 tee stated  to  the  synod,  "The  synod  could  form  no  judgment 
 from  these,  as  new  forms  liad  been  added  and  otbers  changed." 
 It  is  a  very  unwise  thing  for  a  synod  or  for  any  church  court 
 to  adopt  anything  blindly  as  it  did  this.  And  it  proved  to 
 be  a  great  mistake.     If  the  synod  had  gone  more  slowly  but 
 
 *Lin(lsay  und  Bhikiston,  of  Pbiladelpbia. 
 
The  Provisional  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.         349 
 
 with  its  eyes  open,  it  might  have  avoided  many  future  con- 
 troversies. In  regard  to  this  we  have  some  very  remarkable 
 testimonies. 
 
 Dr.  S.  R.  Fisher,  writing  of  the  action  of  this  synod  on  the 
 liturgy,*  says: 
 
 "No  one  outside  of  the  working  members  of  the  committee  were  at  all 
 aware  of  its  precise  character.  Had  the  book  been  before  the  synod  and 
 examined  by  its  members  it  is  very  problematical  whether  its  provisional 
 use  (an  unconstitutional  and  dangerous  use'  at  best)  would  have  been 
 authorized  by  the  synod  at  all ;  or  if  it  had  been,  certainly  not  without  a 
 decided  protest  at  least  from  a  respectable  minority  in  the  synod." 
 The  principal  part  of  its  report,  he  says,  was  devoted  to  a  defense  of  a 
 scheme  of  liturgical  worship  as  it  prevails  in  the  Episcopal  Church, 
 "excluding  extemporaneous  prayer  from  our  public  services  and  thus 
 radically  changing  our  whole  form  of  worship. ' ' 
 
 It  was  expected  that  the  liturgy  would  be  published  by 
 November  15.  But  not  until  December  16th  does  the  Messen- 
 ger state  that  it  has  appeared.  The  expense  of  its  publica- 
 tion Avas  born  by  private  individuals.  Before  a  year  had 
 passed,  a  third  edition  was  called  for,  although  it  was  as  yet 
 introduced  into  only  one  or  two  congregations.  Evidently 
 there  was  a  great  desire  to  see  it,  although  not  so  great  a  de- 
 sire to  use  it. 
 
 We  give  a  brief  outline  of  the  Provisional  liturgy.  The 
 Lord's  day  sei^Mce  of  the  Provisional  liturgy  opened  with 
 Scripture  passages  on  Christian  worship,  followed  by  primi- 
 tive forms,  as  the  Te  Deum  and  litany.  This  was  followed 
 by  lessons  and  collects  for  the  church  year  given  in  full. 
 Then  came  the  regular  service  of  the  Lord's  day,  with  four 
 forms,  followed  by  prayers  for  festival  seasons.  Then  came 
 the  liturgical  services  for  communion,  baptism,  confirmation, 
 visitation  of  the  sick,  ordination  of  ministers  and  church 
 officers,  etc.  Bomberger  said  later  there  were  in  the  Pro- 
 visional liturgy  two  entirely  different  systems  of  worship,  one 
 suited  to  the  pulpit  like  the  old  Reformed  custom,  the  other 
 was  the  altar-liturgy,  with  responses.  Of  the  two,  the  latter 
 was  by  far  the  most  prominent,  as  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
 
 *Messenger,  June  4,  1862. 
 
350         History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 the  first  and  leading  service  for  the  Lord's  day  was  strongly 
 ritualistic. 
 
 We  add  a  comparative  view  of  some  of  the  forms  of  the 
 liturgy,  comparing  them  with  the  Episcopalian  prayer-book 
 on  the  one  hand  and  with  our  old  Palatinate  liturgy  on  the 
 other.  It  is  easy  to  see  how  closely  it  resembled  the  prayer- 
 book,  and  is  Episcopalian  rather  than  Reformed.  It  is  also 
 easy  to  see  how  it  differs  from  the  Palatinate.*  As  a  writer 
 says,  "The  report  plainly  shows  that  it  is  not  after  the  pat- 
 tern strictly  of  any  system  of  worship,  which  had  hitherto 
 prevailed  in  the  German  Reformed  Church,  either  in  this 
 countrs'  or  in  Europe.  The  new  liturgy  is  a  new  scheme  of 
 worship." 
 
 Comparison  op  Prayer-Book  with  the  Provisional  and 
 Palatinate  on  Confirmation. 
 
 Prayer-Book. 
 
 "Do  you  here,  in  the  presence  of  God  and  of  this  congregation,  renew 
 the  solemn  promise  and  vow  that  ye  made  or  that  was  made  in  your 
 name  at  your  baptism,  ratifying  and  confirming  the  same  and  acknowledg- 
 ing yourselves  bound  to  believe  and  do  all  those  things  which  you  then 
 undertook,  or  your  sponsors  then  undertook  for  youf     I  do." 
 
 Provisional  Liturgy. 
 
 "Dost  thou  now,  in  the  presence  of  God  an<l  tliis  congregation,  renew 
 the  solemn  promise  and  vow  made  in  your  name  at  baptism?  Dost  Itiou 
 ratify  and  confirm  the  same  and  acknowledge  thyself  bound  to  believe 
 and  to  do  all  those  things  which  your  parents  then  undertook  for  you? 
 I  do.  Dost  thou  renounce  the  devil  with  all  his  ways  and  works,  the 
 world  with  its  vain  pomp  and  glory,  and  the  flesh  with  its  sinful  desires. 
 i  <lo." 
 
 I'rofess  now  your  faith  licfore  (!od  and  this  congregation,  I  believe,  etc. 
 
 Do  you  heartily  believe  all  tliat  you  have  here  professed  in  answer  to 
 the  questions  that  have  been  asked.'  Do  you  remmnce  the  devil  and 
 all  his  works  and  ways  and  all  worldly  wickedness.'  Do  you  hereby 
 solemnly  devote  yourself  to  obedience  to  Christ  and  his  Church  according 
 to  the  Word  of  God,  promise  to  grow  in  faith,  knowledge  and  piety  and 
 persevere  in  so  doing  against  all  temptations  until  by  the  grace  of  God 
 
 *See  also  pages  368-9. 
 
The  Provisional  Liturgy  and  Its  Results. 
 
 351 
 
 you   reach  a   blessed   end,   faithfully   lioMing   to   all   that   you   have  here 
 promised  ? 
 
 In  neither  the  Prayer-book  or  the  Palatinate  is  the  creed 
 used  as  it  is  so  prominently  by  the  liturgists  of  the  Provisional 
 liturgy.  In  the  Palatinate  there  is  nothing  about  renewal 
 of  baptismal  vows,  as  in  the  later  liturgies  of  our  Church ; 
 for  such  a  view  came  in  from  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  is  not 
 the  original  Reformed  view  of  confirmation,  which  was  that 
 it  was  a  personal  confession  of  faith  rather  than  a  renewal  of 
 baptismal  vows. 
 
 Comparison  Between  the  Prayer-Book  and  the  Pro- 
 visional Liturgy  on  Baptism. 
 
 Prayer  Book. 
 
 Dost  thou  in  the  name  of  this 
 child  renounce  the  devil  and  all  his 
 works,  the  vain  pomp  and  glory 
 of  the  world,  with  all  covetous  de- 
 sires "of  the  same  and  the  sinful 
 desires  of  the  flesh,  so  that  thou 
 wilt  not  follow  or  be  led  by  them? 
 
 I  renounce  them  all  and  by 
 God 's  help  will  endeavor  not  to 
 follow  nor  be  led  by  them. 
 
 Dost  thou  believe  all  the  articles 
 of  the  Christian  faith  as  contain- 
 ed in  the  Apostles'  Creed? 
 
 I  do. 
 
 Wilt  thou  be  baptized  in  this 
 faith? 
 
 That  is  my  desire. 
 
 Wilt  thou  then  obediently  keep 
 God's  holy  will  and  command- 
 ments and  walk  in  the  same  all 
 the  days  of  thy  life? 
 
 I  will,  by  God  's  help. 
 
 Provisional  Liturgy. 
 Dost  thou  then,  in  the  name  of 
 this  child  renounce  the  devil,  with 
 all  his  ways  and  works,  the  world 
 with  its  vain  pomp  and  glory,  and 
 the  flesh  with  all  its  sinful  desires. 
 
 I  do. 
 
 Dost  thou  believe  in  God  the 
 Father  Almighty,  etc. 
 
 I  believe. 
 
 Wilt  thou  that  this  child  be  bap- 
 tized in  this  faith? 
 
 I  will. 
 
 Dost  thou  solemnly  promise  to 
 bring  up  this  child  in  the  nurture 
 and  admonition  of  the  Lord  and 
 in  the  doctrines  and  duties  of  our 
 holy  religion. 
 
 I  do. 
 
 How  different  the  Palatinate  litiirg>'  is  on  baptism.  There 
 there  is  nothing  said  of  the  world,  the  flesh  and  the  devil. — • 
 this  verbiage  is  from  the  Episcopalian  Prayer-Book.  The 
 Palatinate  asks: 
 
352         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 "Do  you  desire,  in  true  faith  in  the  promise  of  God  in  Christ  given  to 
 us  and  to  our  children,  that  he  will  not  only  be  our  God  but  the  God 
 of  our  children  unto  the  thousandth  generation — that  this  child  be  bap- 
 tized into  the  same  and  receive  the  seal  of  divine  adoption. ' ' 
 
 Here  the  covenant  idea  of  baptism^ is  prominent  (which  is 
 forgotten  by  the  others),  which  is  the  old  view  of  the  Reformed 
 Church. 
 
 Section  2.    The  Early  Discussion  About  the  Liturgy 
 
 (1857-8). 
 
 It  is  noticeable  how  soon  opposition  appears  to  the  liturgy. 
 "We  will  tiy  to  give  a  brief  summary  of  the  discussion. 
 
 In  the  Messenger,*  Jiev.  J.  W.  Hoffmeier  writes  glowingly  about  it. 
 and  says  that  he  used  it  at  Millersville  at  a  communion. f  But  the  next 
 issue  of  the  Messenger  already  has  an  article  against  it  by  M.ij:  He  says 
 it  is  evident  that  the  liturgy  proposes  great  and  important  changes  in 
 the  worship  of  our  church,  especially  in  the  Sabbath  services.  He 
 attacked  it  because  it  meant  the  setting  aside  of  a  liturgy  which  had 
 been  properly  sanctioned  by  the  synod  (the  Mayer  liturgy).  He  also 
 objected  to  a  liturgy  unsanctioned  by  synod  because  its  use  would  lead 
 to  diversity  of  worship  in  the  congregations  instead  of  uniformity,  as 
 was  originally  claimed  for  it.  He  not  only  attacked  the  changes  in 
 the  worship  caused  by  it,  but  he  also  attacked  the  loose  way  in  which 
 its  introduction  is  to  be  made,  not  by  action  of  synod  but  by  each 
 individual  minister  at  his  pleasure.  ( Hoffmeier 's  act  had  evidently 
 already  caused  alarm.— ^4.) 
 
 E.  writes§  decidedly  unfavorably  to  the  liturgy.  He  says  if  any 
 ministers  intend  to  introduce  it  without  the  consent  of  their  consistories 
 or  congregations,  they  differed  widely  from  the  committee.  He  regrets 
 that   the   liturgj'   had   not    come   before    the    synod.      Had    it   come,   his 
 
 *December  16,  1857. 
 
 fStaley  also  introduced  it  early  in  December,  1857,  at  Mt.  Washington 
 College  at  Baltimore,  which  prepared  the  way  to  the  later  controversy 
 between  Heiner  and  himself. 
 
 :^We  regret  that  we  do  not  know  who  the  various  writers  of  the  articles 
 in  the  Messenger,  to  which  we  shall  refer,  are.  But  they  hide  themselves 
 under  nom-de-plumes.  We  mention  them  wherever  we  are  certain  as  to 
 their  identity.  We  also  regret  that  we  can  not  refer  to  all  the  articles, 
 but  lack  of  space  will  not  permit  it,  so  we  can  refer  only  to  the  leading 
 ones. 
 
 ^Messenger  of  December  30. 
 
The  Provisional  Litttrgy  and  Its  Results.         353 
 
 course   would    have   been    different,    as    would    have   been   that    of    many 
 others.     He  sugf^ested  two  ways  out  of  the  i)resent  difficulty : 
 
 1.  That  its  public  use  be  prohibited  as  long  as  it  is  provisional. 
 
 2.  That  its  use  be  j)eruutted  only  so  far  as  it  does  not  involve  changes 
 in  our  method  of  worship. 
 
 He  is  opposed  to  ministers  reading  their  prayers,  to  resjionses  by  the 
 congregation,  to  its  use  of  the  confession  and  absolution  and  the  litany, 
 etc. 
 
 This  liturgical  controversy,  begun  almost  immediately  after  the 
 appearance  of  the  liturgy  in  1857,  was  continued  with  increasing  warmth 
 in  1858.  This  year  saw  the  awaking  of  the  Church  to  a  ritualistic  liturgy 
 prepared  by  its  committee  and  seemingly  sanctioned  so  carelessly  by 
 synod.  The  editor  of  the  Messenger  writes  a  guarded  article,*  saying 
 it  was  a  work  of  great  excellence,  but  as  to  its  adaptiveness  to  the 
 Church,  that  was  another  question.  He  grants  that  many  of  the  forms 
 were  innovations. 
 
 Two  weeks  later  two  articles  apjiear  favorable  to  it,  one  by  Willers, 
 the  other  by  Harbaugh.  The  latter  says  in  a  good  liturgy,  the  wants 
 of  every  soul  will  find  utterance  in  the  forms  prescribed.  In  an  un- 
 liturgical  worship,  he  says,  there  is  no  "  search  me,  O,  Lord.  What  ir- 
 reverence!" He  says  that  there  is  little  of  genuine  worship  in  a  free 
 service — that  the  worship  of  heaven  as  revealed  in  the  Book  of  Revela- 
 tions was  liturgical.  Why  should  there  be  any  alarm,  for  the  liturgy 
 goes  forth  without  the  sanction  of  tho  synod  and  is  only  provisional. 
 
 Piscator  (S.  R.  Fisher)f  begins  his  attacks  on  the  liturgy.  He 
 attacks  the  baptismal  question  where  the  parent  in  the  name  of  the 
 child  renounced  the  devil  with  all  his  ways  and  works.  "It  speaks," 
 he  says,  "as  if  they  were  the  children  of  idolaters.  It  declares  them 
 to  be  children  of  the  devil  and  not  children  of  the  covenant  (which  was 
 the  old  Reformed  doctrine  of  baiitism)."  Omega|  comes  to  the  de- 
 fense of  liturgy  and  asks  others  to  do  so.  "N.,"§  compares  it  with 
 the  Reformed  liturgy  published  at  Germantown,  1798.  That  was  the 
 opposite  to  it  in  its  simplicity,  for  it  contains  no  forms  for  the 
 Sunday  services,  no  confession,  no  absolution,  no  kneeling  at  services, 
 no  litany.  Such  were  the  forms  used  by  the  Hendels,  Helffensteins, 
 Hoffmeier,  Becker,  Geistweit,  Hiester,  Dr.  Mayer,  Gloninger,  the  Ra- 
 hausers,  and  others  of  our  Church.  A  church  liturgy  was  seldom  found 
 except  in  the  library  of  the  ministers,  a  proof  that  no  one  but  the 
 pastor  used  it  in  the  sanctuary.  For  this  simplicity,  were  our  fore- 
 fathers disloyal  to  the  Bible  and  Catechism  because  they  were  not  in 
 the  habit  of  reading  their  prayers  or  having  the  congregation  respond? 
 
 'February  3. 
 
 ^Messenger,  February  24. 
 
 tMessenger,  March  3. 
 
 ^Messenger,  March  10.  ,  _ 
 
354         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 He  believes  our  people  would  rather  not  be  disturbed  by  audible  re- 
 sponses and  prefer  that  the  minister  be  free  in  leading  their  devotions. 
 L.  E.  defends  the  liturgy,  as  does  Alpha,  in  the  next  week's  Messenger. 
 
 In  the  March  J7  issue  is  a  letter  from  Rev.  Samuel  Ilelffenstein,  Sr., 
 the  oldest  minister  of  our  Church.  He  says  he  disliked  the  litany,  the 
 responses,  the  repetition  of  the  Creed,  the  kneeling,  together  with  abso- 
 lution and  confession,  all  being  new  in  our  Church.  Neither  the  Basle 
 liturgy  or  the  Palatinate  has  the  litany.  The  litany  would  lead  to 
 formality  and  be  especially  objectionable  to  the  German  churches. 
 Schlatter  conducted  his  worship  as  we  do  with  a  free  service.  A  later 
 writer  tries  to  parry  Helffenstein 's  letter  by  saying  it  proves  as  nnich  on 
 one  side  as  on  the  other.  We,  therefore,  give  this  letter  in  the  Apjieiidix. 
 To  us  it  reads  as  against  the  liturgy.  Eev.  S.  Helffenstein,  Jr.,*  attacks 
 the  formula  of  ordination — that  it  requires  the  candidate  to  subscribe  to 
 the  Nicene  and  Athanasian  Creeds,f  while  the  old  custom  of  our  Church 
 was  to  subscribe  to  the  Bible  and  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  which 
 contained  in  it  the  Apostles'  Creed.  Subscription  to  these  other  creeds 
 was  unnecessary  and  unusual.  He  also  objects  to  its  change  in  the  doc- 
 trine,— that  ordination  is  changed  from  the  old  view  of  an  investiture 
 of  office  to  an  investiture  with  power — the  power  of  the  office  itself. 
 The  candidate  is  required  to  exjiect,  tliat  through  it  he  will  receive  by 
 the  laying  on  of  hands,  the  gift  and  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
 
 Conservator^  backs  up  S.  Helffenstein,  Jr.,  in  his  opposition  to  tlio 
 use  of  the  Athanasian  Creed  at  ordination  because  it  was  too  meta- 
 physical for  a  symbol  and  utterly  unsuited  as  a  devotional  formula. 
 
 Rev.  S.  Helffenstein,  Jr.,§  attacks  the  doctrine  of  apostolic  succession 
 underlying  the  form  of  ordination,  saying  that  this  succession  had  been 
 interrupted  by  the  Refornmtion  when  the  reformers  were  excommuni- 
 cated and  deprived  of  their  official  character.  He  especially  mentions 
 Luther,  but  might  have  added  Olevianus  and  Calvin,  who  were  not 
 ordained,  and  so  through  them  no  such  historic  succession  of  tlie 
 ministry  could  come.  He  then  enters  on  the  Scriptural  authority  for 
 ordination  and  also  its  design.  He  also  attacks  the  teaching  of  tiie 
 liturgy  on  the  sacraments  in  regard  to  their  objective  form  and  in- 
 trinsic virtue.  "The  sacraments  arc  then  not  signs,  but  the  things 
 signified:  not  seals  but  the  things  sealed."  On  baptism,  tlie  liturgy 
 says  "Christ  ordained  it  for  the  conununication  of  such  groat  grace," 
 obtaining  by   it  that   whicli    we   do    not   liave.     And    as  to  confirmation, 
 
 *Messcn(ier,  April   7. 
 
 fSchaff  later,  April  1859,  Mcrcershvrg  Tlcvicw,  has  an  article  on  the 
 Athanasian  Creed  against  these  attacks.  But  he  does  not  find  any  Re- 
 formed creed  endorsing  that  creed,  and  of  the  Reformed  theologians  only 
 Parens  wrote  auytliing  on  it. 
 
 ^Messenger,  April  14. 
 
 ^Messenger,  April  21. 
 
The  Provisional  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.         355 
 
 he  said  it  was  not  of  divine  appointment  but  only  a  churelily  form. 
 Weyberjj,  the  pastor  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  Phihidelpliia  during 
 the  Revohition,  never  used  the  laying  on  of  hands  at  confirmation. 
 
 The  opposition  against  the  liturgy  was  at  first  against  the 
 method  of  its  introduction  or  against  the  particular  forms  in 
 it  or  against  the  doctrines  miderlying  them.  But  soon  a 
 writer*  calling  himself  "Seldom  Senior"  starts  the  attack 
 on  its  constitutionality.  This  afterwards  became  the  main 
 point  which  the  Church  found  difficult  to  settle.  lie  says  the 
 liturgy  does  not  agree  with  the  constitution  of  the  Church. 
 The  Church's  constitution  says  the  pul)lie  worship  of  the 
 sanctuar}^  shall  consist  of  invocation,  singing,  prayer,  reading 
 of  the  Word,  preaching  a  sermon  or  delivering  a  lecture,  and 
 pronouncing  the  benediction.  But  the  liturgy  in  its  Lord's 
 day  service  Avas  very  different.  The  questions  of  the  liturgy 
 for  adult  baptism  and  confirmation  are  very  difl^erent  from 
 those  laid  down  for  use  in  the  Church  constitution.  He  says 
 the  only  constitutional  way  is  to  get  a  two-thirds  vote  of 
 synod  on  the  liturgy  and  then  send  the  liturgy  down  to  the 
 classes  for  adoption  and  rejection,  as  required  by  the  consti- 
 tution, 
 
 Samekf  writes  favorably  of  the  liturgy,  as  does  H.  Wagner,J  defend- 
 ing what  the  opponents  call  baptismal  regeneration.  So  also  does  J.  W. 
 noffmeier.§  But  Eev.  Samuel  Philips  attacked  both  Hoffmeier  and 
 Wagner||  for  saying  that  those  who  opj^osed  the  liturgy  were  "not  of  a 
 good  and  sound  mind."  He  grants  that  the  authors  of  the  liturgy  were 
 men  of  well-known  ability,  but  denies  that  their  liturgy  is  adapted  to 
 the  diversified  wants  of  our  Church.  Even  the  liturgical  committee  must 
 have  thought  so,  for  they  made  it  only  provisional.  If  we  can  not  in- 
 troduce the  liturgy  on  its  merits,  we  never  can,  he  says,  on  the  ground 
 of  the  committee's  caj)acity  to  prepare  a  good  liturgy.  He  also  refers  to 
 its  unconstitutionality  on  adult  baptism.  Hoffmeier  replies^  that  the 
 liturgy  was  constantly  gaining  friends. 
 
 Dr.  Heiner,  who  was  a  member  of  the  liturgical  committee,  as  soon 
 after  the  publication  of  the  liturgy  as  copies  could  be  obtained,  under- 
 
 *Messenger,  April  28. 
 fMessengcr,  May  12. 
 j^Messenger,  June  16. 
 ^Messenger,  June  30. 
 \\Messe7iger,  July  7. 
 ^Messenger,  July  14. 
 
356         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 took  to  introduce  it  into  his  congregation.  But  opposition  soon  de- 
 veloped and  he  omitted  its  use.  He  soon  lost  confidence  in  it  and  became, 
 as  we  shall  see,  an  oi>ponent  of  it. 
 
 The  synod  of  1858  was  looked  forward  to  by  many  to  help 
 the  Church  out  of  the  confusion  into  which  it  had  fallen 
 because  of  the  liturgy's  disagreement  with  the  constitution 
 and  the  irregularity  of  its  use  in  being  merely  provisional. 
 But  it  took  no  action  except  to  order  a  German  translation. 
 
 Still  there  was  an  appeal  case  that  came  before  the  synod, 
 which  revealed  the  liturgical  friction.  A  Female  College  had 
 been  established  at  Mt.  Washington,  Baltimore,  supported 
 by  the  Baltimore  congregation.  A  new  Reformed  Church 
 had  been  erected  near  it,  but  no  congregation  as  yet  organ- 
 ized. At  its  services  the  old  free  method  of  worship  had  been 
 used.  Staley.  the  principal  of  the  college,  introduced  the 
 liturgy  into  it  in  December,  1857,  against  the  wishes  of 
 Heiner,  who  was  chairman  of  the  committee  of  classis  on  this 
 new  congregation.  In  February,  although  there  was  as  yet 
 no  organization  there  he  confirmed  a  catechetical  class  and  ad- 
 ministered communion,  and  on  April  1  confirmed  another 
 class.  The  attendants  at  the  church  then  prepared  a  memorial 
 to  classis  asking  that  Staley  and  Davis  be  placed  over  them  as 
 pastors.  It  was  signed  by  twenty-four  persons.  ]\Iost  of  the 
 signers,  says  Heiner,  were  students  who  left  the  school  the 
 n(^xt  summer.  The  trustees  of  the  clnu-ch  proptu-ty,  who  be- 
 longed to  Ileiner's  church,  also  prepared  a  memorial  to  classis 
 against  granting  their  re(iu('st.  Tlic  classis  decided  for 
 Ileiner,  so  their  opj)()nents  appealed  to  synod.  At  synod, 
 Heiner  stated  that  Stah'y's  course  was  all  out  of  order  be- 
 cause there  was  no  organized  congregation  at  Mt.  Washing- 
 ton, and  confirmation  and  connuunion  could  only  be  admin- 
 istered in  a  regularly  organized  congregation.  In  the  discus- 
 sion, Rev.  Joshua  Derr  defended  Staley  hy  quoting  Dr. 
 Nevin's  administration  of  the  communion  at  the  seminary 
 and  his  use  of  confirmation  there.  But  Reid  answered  that 
 Rev.  Alfred  Nevin  had  been  censured  by  Mercersburg  classis 
 for  administering  conununion  where  there  was  no  congre- 
 gation, and  that  Dr.  J.  Nevin  had  been  president  of  the  classis 
 
The  Provisional  Liturgy  and  Its  Resui.ts.         357 
 
 when  this  action  was  taken.  S.  R.  Fisher  also  stated  that 
 Dr.  Nevin,  wlien  he  administered  the  .communion  at  the  semi- 
 nary, did  it  in  connection  with  our  Mercersburg  congregation 
 and  under  the  authority  of  its  consistory.  Ilarbaugh,  how- 
 ever, defended  8taley.  He  said  the  memorialists  were  a  mis- 
 sion congregation  station  of  Maryland  classis.  lie  asked  the 
 (juestion.  to  wliat  church  did  the  persons  belong  who  were  con- 
 firmed thei'e.  lie  then  answered  in  a  very  high-church  way 
 ])y  saying  "To  the  Holy  Catholic  Church"  (which  was  no 
 answer  at  all,  for  where  does  the  Holy  Cjitholic  Churcli  exist 
 except  in  the  individual  congregations.  Still,  it  reveals  Ilar- 
 baugh's  high-church  views  on  the  Church  and  its  objective 
 existence — -A.).  As  the  lines  of  the  two  parties  were  getting 
 closely  drawn  and  thei'e  was  a  good  deal  of  division  and  fric- 
 tion, Gerhart  finally  suggested  its  reference  to  a  judicious 
 committee,  which  was  done. 
 
 At  this  synod  there  was  also  another  action  taken  which 
 soon  revealed  the  divergent  tendencies  in  the  Church  between 
 high-  and  low-church.  Andrew  Hoffman  had  been  deposed  by 
 Goshenhoppen  classis,  and  yet,  for  fourteen  years  after  had 
 performed  ministerial  acts.  Then  a  minister  in  regular  stand- 
 ing in  the  Church  was  called  to  his  charge.  The  question  was 
 brought  before  synod  as  to  whether  the  confirmations  or  bap- 
 tisms of  a  deposed  minister  were  to  be  respected  or  whether 
 they  should  be  performed  over  again. 
 
 The  low-church  view  and  the  view  of  the  Old  Reformed,  as 
 decided  by  the  Eastern  Synod  of  1842,  was  that  the  acts  of  a 
 deposed  minister  were  null  and  void.  But  the  views  of  the 
 IMercersburg  theology  elevated  ordination  almost  to  a  sacra- 
 ment and  placed  so  much  emphasis  on  the  objective  in  min- 
 isterial acts  that  a  deposed  minister 's  acts  had  efficacy  in  them- 
 selves regardless  of  his  deposition.  Thus  the  formula  of  the 
 trinity  had  been  pronounced  over  those  whom  he  had  baptized 
 - — that  made  it  r(»al.  Hence  his  ministerial  acts  ought  to  be 
 recognized. 
 
 The  synod  decided  that  all  his  acts  were  irregular,  but  thai 
 synod  could  make  them  regulai*  by  a  formal  recognition.  It 
 gave    Goshenhoppen    classis    authority    to    receive    back    the 
 
358         History  of  Reformed  Church  ix  the  U.  S. 
 
 congregation  over  wliicli  he  had  ministered,  and  in  case  the 
 individuals  applied  to  be  re-baptized  or  re-confirmed  the  con- 
 sistory could  decide  as  to  their  recognition  or  not.  The  vote 
 was  36  to  15.  The  synod  thus  transferred  the  responsibility 
 of  deciding  this  question  from  itself  to  the  consistory.  This 
 led  to  quite  a  controversy. 
 
 Tobit*  attacks  tliis  action  uf  synod  as  being  too  high-cliiirch  in  putting 
 intrinsic  value  in  the  baptisms,  etc.,  themselves.  He  argued  that  the 
 deposition  of  a  minister  takes  away  all  authority  and  he  becomes  only 
 a  layman.  His  acts  are  therefore  not  merely  irregular  but  invalid, 
 if  they  are  only  irregular,  why  depose  a  minister  at  all.  Such  a  view 
 would  destroy  all  order  in  the  Church.  He  also  attacks  the  method 
 suggested  by  synod  for  the  reception  of  such  members — by  recognition. 
 You  can  not  confer  real  baptism  and  confirmation  merely  by  a  resolution 
 of  synod.  He  asks  the  ministers  who  voted  for  it  if  they  had  been 
 baptized  or  confirmed  by  a  deposed  minister  whether  they  would  be 
 satisfied  to  stand  before  their  Judge. 
 
 Tobitusf  approves  of  Tobit 's  article.  He  says  that  Goshenhoppen 
 classis  had  passed  resolutions  tliat  tlie  acts  of  a  deposed  minister  were 
 invalid  and  many  persons  confirmed  by  this  deposed  minister  had  been 
 re-eonfirmed,  which  was  based  on  a  resolution  of  1842.  He  says  Goshen- 
 hoppen classis  had  not  asked  synod  through  its  delegates  for  any  action 
 in  this  case,  yet  synod  had  given  it  and  it  had  caused  confusion  by  its 
 its  action.  Will  not  the  ministers  who  re-confirmed  the  deposed  min- 
 ister's confirmants  have  to  reconfirm  them  again  according  to  this  reso- 
 lution of  synod.  The  synod  once  refused  to  give  an  opinion  on  the 
 case  and  yet  now  gives  it  without  being  asked.  There  were  twelve  or 
 fifteen  deposed  or  suspended  ministers  within  tlio  bounds  of  Goshen- 
 hoppen classis,  so  that  this  action  of  synod  had  a  far- reaching  effect. 
 
 In  the  same  paper  "Stand  Up"  rojilied  to  "Tobit."  He  takes  the 
 high-church  view  of  the  sacraments,  saying  the  acts  of  baptism  and  con- 
 firmation can  be  repeated  by  no  one  unless  he  makes  little  or  no  account 
 of  thorn.  The  act  was  duly  ])erformed  according  to  the  words  of  in- 
 stitution, and  as  such  it  stands  in  full  bimling  force.  Its  validity  is  not 
 vitiated  by  the  subjective  coiulitidn  m-  i-cl.ilion  of  liic  person  performing 
 it,  and  on  this  idea,  the  action  of  synod  was  based.  These  acts,  when 
 performed  by  a  regular  minister,  had  only  one  additional  part,  namely, 
 bringing  them  into  actual  connection  witii  the  Church.  This  the  synod 
 proposed  by  its  action  to  bring  about.  '\\>  affect  the  validit}'  of  sacra- 
 mental acts  there  must  be  a  defect  in  the  acts  themselves,  and  not 
 merely  in   the  persons  performing  them   or  in  the  conditions   necessary 
 
 *  Messenger,  December  15,  1858. 
 ^Messenger,  December  29. 
 
TiTE  Provisional  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.         359 
 
 to  make  them  effective.  Thus  baptism  is  baptism,  even  though  faith  be 
 wanting,  because  performed  according  to  the  words  of  institution.  If  the 
 reality  of  a  sacrament  depends  on  the  subjectivity  of  those  who  admin- 
 ister them,  you  open  the  door  to  fanaticism. 
 
 "Stand  Up"  was  replied  to  by  Tobit.*  He  says  that  "Stand  Up" 
 says  the  acts  of  a  deposed  minister  are  as  really  performed  as  those 
 of  a  true  minister.  If  his  acts  are  valid,  what  is  the  use  of  deposing  a 
 minister.  Tobit  having  compared  the  acts  of  a  properly  ordained  min- 
 ister and  those  of  a  deposed  minister  to  the  distinction  between  a  true 
 and  a  counterfeit  banknote.  Stand  Upf  says  this  comparison  does  not 
 hold,  for  there  is  no  parallel  in  the  figures  between  a  banknote  and  a 
 sacramental  act.  Take  a  proper  parallel  to  a  sacrament,  namely,  the 
 Word  of  God.  If  a  deposed  minister  preaches  the  Word,  is  his  preach- 
 ing like  his  sacrament,  a  falsehood.  No,  it  has  God's  indelible  stamp 
 upon  it.  The  Catholic  Church  deposed  the  Eeformers,  yet  their  acts 
 are  valid  because  performed  according  to  the  words  of  institution.  Its 
 validity  depends  on  the  act  itself  in  conjunction  with  the  words  of 
 divine  institution. 
 
 "Tobit"  replies^  that  "Stand  Up"  had  yet  to  learn  that  a  deposition 
 takes  away.  He  charges  him  with  being  high-church  with  a  vengeance, 
 because  he  makes  the  sacrament  have  not  only  a  relative  but  also  an 
 intrinsic  value.  He  asks  of  "Stand  Up",  "If  you  are  not  in  the  way 
 to  Rome,  who  is.  You  are  arguing  in  a  circle.  You  first  take  it  for 
 granted  that  the  act  of  a  deposed  minister  is  a  sacrament  and  then 
 argue  it  has  intrinsic  value.     You  are  going  in  a  vicious  circle." 
 
 Replying  to  the  figure  of  the  Word  used  by  "Stand  Up,"  he  says,  "If 
 the  Word  had  intrinsic  value  and  a  parent  were  taught  to  say  the  Word, 
 would  that  compel  us  to  recognize  it  as  a  ministerial  act."  He  thus 
 points  out  the  fallacy  of  his  figure,  for  parents  can 't  exercise  ministerial 
 acts.  If  the  sacraments  have  intrinsic  value,  everybody  has  the  right 
 to  administer  them  and  you  must  acknowledge  them  as  valid.  What, 
 then,  becomes  of  the  minstry?  Where  is  the  force  of  ordination,  if  the 
 acts  of  every  one  have  intrinsic  value  and  it  does  not  depend  on  ordina- 
 tion.    This  leads  to  confusion  worse  confounded. 
 
 We  might  renmrk  on  this  sharp  controversy  that  the  high-church 
 brother  "Stand  Up"  does  not  see  that  the  higher  he  places  the  sacra- 
 ments here,  the  more  he  really  lowers  the  ministry  by  allowing  the  acts 
 of  a  deposed  minister  to  be  valid.  It  is  strange,  with  their  high  views 
 of  ordination,  that  they  did  not  emphasize  that  side.  But  they  had  to 
 take  the  choice  between  the  two,  with  the  result,  as  was  said  by  Tobit, 
 of  "confusion  worse  confounded"  and  contradicting  their  own  high- 
 church  positions  on  ordination. 
 
 *Messenger,  January  12. 
 ^Messenger,  January  26. 
 XMessenger,  February  9. 
 
360         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Leaving  this  controversy  and  returning  to  the  liturgical  controversy, 
 we  notice  that  Foulk*  defends  the  liturgy,  quoting  Acts  4:  26-30. 
 Omega  endorses  Foulk,  but  says  he  is  only  a  village  pastor  and  his 
 people  are  opposed  to  a  liturgy  even  at  coinnnininn.  He  gives  several 
 difficulties  in  the  way  of  its  use: 
 
 1.  Our  Church  is  imbued  with  a  foreign  spirit. 
 
 2.  Our  people  fear  to  do  it  lest  they  lose  ground  in  the  estimation  of 
 the  community. 
 
 3.  There  is  a  want  of  proper  training  for  liturgical  worship. 
 
 The  very  architecture,  he  says,  is  against  it ;  for  in  many  of  our 
 churches  we  have  no  altar  upon  ^vhich  to  lay  the  liturgy — not  even 
 an  altar-place.  Again,  the  iieo])le  are  not  willing  to  buy  a  liturgy.  In 
 his  congregation,  though  a  copy  was  placed  in  the  pulpit  and  it  was 
 recommended  to  the  people,  not  a  half  dozen  copies  were  circulated. 
 Again,  many  choirs  could  not  sing  the  INIagnificat,  Benedictus,  Gloria  in 
 Excelsis  and  Nunc  Dimittis  as  given  in  the  liturgy. 
 
 Section  3.    The  Liturgical  Events  of  1859. 
 
 During  the  winter  of  1858-9,  Dr.  IIar])augb,  at  Lancaster, 
 preached  a  series  of  sermons  on  "The  Virgin  IMary. "  And  a 
 rumor  spread  abroad  that  in  them  he  was  deveh^ping  Roman- 
 izing tendencies.  Afterward  at  the  request  of  friends,  lie  pul)- 
 lished  them  in  a  volume.  "The  True  Glory  of  Woman."  He 
 speaks  of  IMary  as  a  model  virgin,  wife,  mother,  diseiple  and 
 saint.  He  opposes  the  worship  of  Mary  as  iinscriptural,  hut 
 holds  to  her  ever-virginity. 
 
 At  the  beginning  of  1859  two  new  features  appear  in  the 
 Messenger  so  as  to  educate  its  readers  up  to  liturgical  prin- 
 ciples. The  first  is  a  series  of  articles  by  Foulk  on  the  mean- 
 ing of  each  Sabbath  in  the  church  year.  He  1)egan  (January 
 5)  with  Christmas,  then  Epiphany,  etc.  The  other  series  con- 
 sisted of  articles  on  "Our  Liturgy,"  designed  to  explain  and 
 defend  it.  It  explained  the  Ai)()stl('s',  Nicene  and  Athanasian 
 Creeds,  the  Magnificat,  Benedictus,  Trisagion,  Gloria  Tatri, 
 etc.  It  finally  takes  up  the  Church  Year,  which  says  it  is  nec- 
 essary to  bring  out  the  historical  side  of  Christianity  and  also 
 to  develop  our  piety.  He  speaksf  of  the  desirability  of  litur- 
 gical prayer  as  it  avoids  the  miserable  faults  and  failures 
 sometimes,  yes  frequently,  met  with  in  free  ])rayer. 
 
 *Mes.icnger,  December  8. 
 ^Messenger,  March  2. 
 
The  Provisional  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.         361 
 
 "Here,"  he  says,  "is  no  inctaphysieal  disquisition,  no  wearisome  hor- 
 tatory harangue,  no  intrusion  and  local  references."  People  will  go 
 to  Church  not  to  yawn  and  doze  through  every  j)art  of  the  sermon  but 
 to  worship.  They  will  go  not  with  itching  ears  to  come  away  criticising 
 the  sermon  but  to  remember  the  confession  of  sin  and  the  profession  of 
 their  faith,  in  short,  refreshed,  invigorated,  comforted. 
 
 Schaff,  in  the  Mercersburg  Eeview,  said  that  the  opposition  to  the 
 liturgy  came  mainly  from  one  minister,  who  wrote  in  the  Messenger 
 under  three  signatures,  referring  to  S.  R.  Fisher.  There  had  been  fric- 
 tion between  them  before,  because  Schaff  had  ignored  the  publication- 
 house  of  our  Church  (Kieffer  &  Co.),  of  which  Fisher  was  a  member, 
 in  the  publication  of  his  German  hymn-book,  by  getting  it  published  by 
 a  firm  outside  of  the  Church.  There  was  also  friction  between  them  be- 
 cause the  liturgical  committee  had  also  had  the  liturgy  published  by  an 
 outside  party  (Lindsay  &  Blakiston).  All  this  Fisher  claimed  was 
 contrary  to  the  agreement  that  synod  had  made  with  his  firm,  namely, 
 that  all  the  Church  publications  sliould  be  published  by  them.  Schaff 
 now  attacks  Fisher*  for  attacking  the  liturgical  committee.  He  reminds 
 Fisher  that  he  was  a  member  of  that  committee,  and  that  he  had  been 
 appointed  to  it  at  Schaff 's  own  motion;  so  that  he  might  assist  not  only 
 in  preparing  the  liturgy  but  also  in  its  final  publication.  The  synod 
 would  not  have  put  him  on  the  committee  if  it  had  foreseen  his  later 
 hostility.  Schaff  also  charges  Fisher  with  having  published  his  prayer- 
 book,  called  ' '  The  Family  Assistant ' '  only  a  few  months  before  the 
 a])pearance  of  the  liturgy,  for  the  purpose  of  injuring  the  liturgy. 
 Fisher  replies  to  this,  that  his  book  had  been  published  at  the  solicitation 
 of  friends  and  that  he  never  dreamed  of  trespassing  on  the  province 
 of  the  liturgical  committee.  And,  besides,  it  had  been  published  two 
 years  before  the  liturgy  appeared.  All  this  discussion,  however,  revealed 
 a  good  deal  of  feeling  between  the  publishing  house  at  Chambersburg 
 and  the  leaders  of  the  liturgical  committee,  which  is  a  new  element  in 
 the  opposition  to  the  liturgy. 
 
 Rev.  Max  Stern,f  who  might  be  called  the  father  of  the  liturgical 
 movement,  for  he  it  was  who  first  proposed  the  action  in  East  Penn- 
 sylvania elassis  in  18-47  that  led  to  all  this  controversy,  writes  an 
 article  against  Omega.  He  expresses  his  opinion  as  to  whether  this 
 liturgy  fulfills  his  expectations  when  he  first  i)roposed  the  subject  more 
 than  ten  years  before.  He  says  he  had  examined  a  number  of  Reformed 
 liturgies  of  different  countries  and  ages  and  must  pronounce  it  anti- 
 Reformed  in  form,  substance  and  spirit.  He  says  the  course  of  some 
 brethren,  who  are  trying  to  introduce  it  by  stealth  into  their  congre- 
 gations, can  but  lead  to  schism;  for  the  pastors,  who  will  have  nothing 
 to  do  with  it,  will  be  driven  to  the  (i|ip<isite  extr(>me.      Ho   tells  Omega 
 
 *llesseiiger,  January  5. 
 ■fMessenger,  January  19. 
 
362        History  of  Reformed  Ciiurcti  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 that  his  claim  that  our  Church  was  a  liturgical  church  is  false,  as  is 
 also  his  claim  that  the  new  liturgy  was  a  repristination, — that  is,  a 
 return  to  the  old  worship  of  our  Church.  The  Reformed  Church  never 
 was  a  liturgical  Church  like  the  Episcopalian,  with  your  "solemn  sing- 
 song and  kling-klang,"  as  Prof.  Schenkel,  the  Reformed  professor  at 
 Heidelberg  University,  Germany,  humorously  describes  it.  The  Re- 
 formed always  had  free  prayer  and  simplicity  of  worship.  The  success 
 of  our  Church  does  not  depend  on  book-worship,  but  on  prayer  in  spirit 
 and  truth.  Omega  replied  by  saying  the  liturgy  was  not  intended  to 
 be  against  free  prayer,  but  that  a  combination  of  liturgy  and  free 
 prayer  was  what  was  desired. 
 
 Some  one  published*  a  letter  he  had  received  from  Rev.  Sanuiel  Hel- 
 flfenstein,  Sr.,  the  oldest  minister  of  our  Church,  who  approved  of  some 
 things  in  the  liturgy,  but  disapproved  of  others,  especially  of  subscrip- 
 tion to  the  Nicene  and  Athanasian  Creeds  at  ordination,  the  use  of  the 
 litany  in  the  Lord's  day  services,  the  many  responses,  its  confession  and 
 absolution,  singing  and  chanting  the  Te  Deum  or  Gloria.  As  to  com- 
 munion, he  liked  the  -form  in  the  Palatinate  better  because  simpler. 
 He  objected  to  certain  phrases  in  baptism,  as  "communication  of  such 
 great  grace. ' '  He  says  the  sacraments  are  for  the  confirmation  of  grace, 
 not  for  its  communication,  as  stated  in  the  liturgy.  Neither  the  sacra- 
 ment or  the  inspired  Word  or  an  inspired  apostle  possessed  in  themselves 
 divine  efficacy.  He  objected  to  certain  phrases  in  the  confirmation  serv- 
 ice as  high-church.  Marriage  was  excellent,  but  visitation  of  the  sick,  too 
 lengthy.  As  to  ordination  giving  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  candidate  as 
 the  liturgy  stated,  the  candidate  ought  to  have  the  Holy  Spirit  before 
 ordination.  He  much  prefers  the  Palatinate  liturgy  on  baptism  and 
 ordination. 
 
 A  minister  of  the  Reformed  Cluirdi,  formerly  "Seldom,  Sr.,"  chargedf 
 that  the  liturgy  contained  doctrines  and  usages  in  conflict  with  the  con- 
 stitution of  the  Church, — that  it  was  irregular.  He  urged  that  it  be 
 sent  down  constitutionally  to  the  classes  for  adoption  and  rejection. 
 If  the  liturgy  has  few  opponents,  as  has  been  said  by  its  warmest 
 friends,  they  need  not  fear  for  it,  and  this  action  would  bring  matters 
 constitutionally  to  a  close.  All  the  while  ministers,  by  stated  lec- 
 tures in  favor  of  a  liturgical  service,  are  trying  to  educate  the  member- 
 ship up  to  this  innovation.  He  referred  in  this,  not  to  the  professors  at 
 Mercersburg,  but  to  Harbaugh,  who,  at  Lancaster,  was  giving  such 
 lectures  to  his  Sunday  school  teachers  and  members  on  liturgical  wor- 
 ship. Il(^  referred  to  the  action  of  the  recent  synod,  which  made  regular 
 and  valid  the  ministerial  acts  of  a  deposed  minister  and  which  justified 
 the  popish  dictum  of  making  valid  the  Ijaptism  of  laymen,  midwives 
 and  heretical  ministers.:}: 
 
 *Messenger,  February  9,  1859. 
 
 ^Messenger,  March  30,  1859. 
 
 jSee  a  later  section  on  lay-baptism. 
 
The  Provision.\l  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.         363 
 
 Piseator,  in  the  same  paper,  says  he  can  prove  that  not  only  the 
 formula  of  baptism  but  other  formulas  are  not  Eeformed.  The  whole 
 book  is  not  the  legitimate  child  or  product  of  true  Evangelical  Eeformed 
 life,  spirit  and  genius.  On  special  occasions,  responses  are  in  place,  but 
 not  in  the  regular  worship  of  the  Sabbath. 
 
 Another  line  of  argument  for  the  liturgy  was  pursued  by 
 several  writers,  who  made  a  historical  argument  from  old 
 Reformed  liturgies  that  the  Order  was  Reformed.  They 
 quote  the  Zurich  and  Hessian  liturgies  as  being  the  models 
 for  it  and  as  having  responses,  and  claim  that  the  Palatinate 
 had  confession  and  absolution  like  this  liturgy. 
 
 We  have  thus  tried  to  summarize  the  controversy  in  these 
 two  years  as  briefly  as  possible.  It  is  very  evident  that  the 
 liturgy  had  already  aroused  great  opposition  and  divided  the 
 Church.  By  April  27,  1859,  the  editor  of  the  Messenger  says 
 that  the  large  amount  of  matter  on  the  liturgy  in  its  columns 
 has  evoked  a  shower  of  complaints  from  the  readers  of  the 
 paper.  Not  a  few  of  the  friends  of  the  liturgy,  as  well  as  its 
 opponents  are  protesting  against  so  much  controversial  matter. 
 Some  want  it  confined  to  the  Mercershurg  Kevieiv,  others  want 
 it  flung  under  the  table.  Yet  some  cry  for  more.  Hereafter 
 he  would  limit  the  number  of  pages  given  to  the  liturgical 
 controversy  to  a  few  columns,  thus  hoping  to  please  all  best. 
 
 Wanner*  says  that  the  Messenger  wanted  variety  and  it 
 has  gotten  it  by  all  sorts  of  controversies.  It  is  hard  to  de- 
 termine, he  says, 'whether  the  signatures  of  the  writers  or 
 their  argiunents  are  the  most  unintelligible. 
 
 The  pressure  against  such  a  superabundance  of  liturgical 
 articles  seems  to  have  been  so  great  that  in  the  same  issue 
 Foulk  announces  that  he  has  come  to  the  conclusion  to  cease 
 publishing  his  articles  on  the  exposition  of  the  pericopes  and 
 Sundays  of  the  church -year.  He  retires  so  as  to  give  room 
 for  Omega's  articles,  which  he  considers  more  important  than 
 his  own,  and  because  so  many  are  protesting  against  the  great 
 amount  of  liturgical  and  controversial  matter.  He,  however, 
 gives  a  hit  at  Piscator  (the  editor  of  the  Messenger) ,  by  say- 
 ing that  the  latter 's  articles  on  baptism,  etc.,  in  the  Messenger 
 
 *Messenger,  May  11. 
 
364         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  XT.  S. 
 
 of  March  20  run  from  four  to  six  columns  each,  tluis  hinting 
 that  the  lack  of  room  in  the  paper  did  not  come  from  the 
 liturg-ists  alone  but  was  caused  by  the  longwindedncss  of  the 
 editor  himself.  N,  (who  seems  to  have  been  Nevin),*  comes 
 vigorously,  as  was  needed,  to  the  defense  of  the  liturgy. 
 
 He  first  refers  to  the  ar^iiinents  against  the  use  of  a  liturgy,  that  it 
 is  mechanical, — tends  to  formality, — fetters  proper  spirit  of  devotion, — 
 interferes  with  the  full  use  of  ministerial  gifts, — limits  the  range  of 
 prayer,  making  it  general  instead  of  allowing  it  to  suit  itself  to  all  oc- 
 casions. He  says  the  opposition  between  forms  of  prayer  and  free 
 prayer  is  a  distinction  without  a  difference.  For  even  congregational 
 worship  is  never  a  free  act.  Multitudes  take  such  a  free  service  as  the 
 very  perfection  and  hold  themselves  never  so  free  as  when  * '  dancing  in 
 such  a  style  like  the  tail  of  a  kite  upon  the  erratic  originalities  of  a 
 gifted  leader. "  "  Of  all  kinds  of  bondage  in  worship,  this  is  the  worst, 
 whether  it  be  Boston  eloquence  or  Methodist  rant."  All  ministers  fall 
 into  certain  habits  of  prayer.  This  passes  for  free  prayer  but  is  really 
 preconceived  prayer  and  thus  like  a  liturgy,  only  not  printed  in  a  book. 
 In  any  general  view,  the  presumjttion  is  in  favor  of  the  liturgy.  He  de- 
 fends book-j)rayers  because  artistic.  Liturgical  prayers  are  more  com- 
 prehensive. A  liturgy  gives  ease  to  the  voice  of  the  reader.  He  ques- 
 tions whether  in  the  present  mode  of  mind  in  our  Church  a  liturgy  would 
 be  of  any  use  and  the  true  idea  of  a  liturgy  is  far  above  this  beggarly 
 conception.  A  liturgy  is  not  a  book  of  forms  (he  probably  refers  here 
 to  a  pulpit-liturgy),  but  it  is  a  system  of  religious  service  based  on  the 
 Lord  's  Supper.  In  order  to  an  effectual  use  of  a  liturgy,  there  must  be 
 (1)  a  liturgical  spirit,  which  must  be  a  sjicramental  sj)irit.  This  was 
 the  animating  soul  of  the  old  liturgies  and  forms,  the  great  power  and 
 peculiar  characteristic  of  Patristic  divinity. 
 
 (2)  The  second  necessary  constituent  of  the  liturgical  spirit,  after  the 
 sacramental  spirit,  is  the  idea  of  an  altar.  He  proves  the  use  of  the  altar 
 from  Judaism  and  quotes,  "We  have  an  altar"  (Ileb.  13:  10)  to  favor 
 it.  (He  forgets  that  the  best  oxegetes,  as  Alford  and  Meyer,  refer  this 
 to  the  cross  and  not  to  a  diurch-altar.- — A.)  A  church  without  an  altar 
 is  not  properl}'  fitted  to  be  a  house  of  prayer.  The  pulpit  is  no  place 
 for  liturgical  services. 
 
 (3)  He  then  gives  the  third  great  qualification  for  the  liturgical  spirit, 
 namely  the  church  year.  The  historical  use  of  the  liturgy  and  church 
 year  have  always  nu)ved  forward  together. 
 
 His  articles  continue  uj)  to  Septend)er  21,  when  he  gives  the  last  con- 
 stituents (if  the  liturgical  spirit,  as  responses  an.l  (luintiiig.      Tiie  Mayer 
 
 *Messenger,  June  1. 
 
The  Provisional  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.         365 
 
 or  any  merely  piiliiit-liturgy,  he  says,  will  not  satisfy.     The  question  of 
 the  liturgy  is  the  liturgical  spirit. 
 
 While  Nevin's  articles  were  being  published,  an  important 
 controversy  went  on  between  a  "Minister  of  the  German  Re- 
 formed Church"  and  "Omega." 
 
 The  first*  writes  on  the  constitutional  phase  of  the  liturgy.  Tie  objects 
 to  the  author  of  the  articles  on  ' '  Our  Liturgy ' '  when  he  says  that 
 ' '  the  constitution  is  not  the  norm  for  our  catechism,  hymn-book  and 
 liturgy  but  that  these  are  the  norm  of  it. ' '  lie  replied  that  the  constitu- 
 tion is  the  norm  and  the  liturgy  must  come  under  constitutional  require- 
 ments. The  author  of  those  articles  admits  there  is  a  difference  between 
 the  constitution  and  the  liturgy  on  the  questions  asked  at  baptism  to 
 adults,  but  he  thinks  that  the  questions  in  the  liturgy  are  far  superior 
 to  those  in  the  constitution.  He  says  it  is  best  to  let  contradictions  exist 
 until  prepared  to  decide  between  the  two,  the  constitution  and  the  liturgy. 
 But  while  Omega  argues  thus,  the  "Minister  of  the  Reformed  Church" 
 replies  that  this  never  was  the  custom  of  our  Church.  The  Mayer  liturgy 
 was  sent  dow^n  constitutionally  to  the  classes.  Why  does  the  liturgy 
 suppress  the  second  part  of  the  first  question  in  the  constitution  which 
 makes  the  Bible  the  only  rule  of  faith.  This  was  the  point  in  contro- 
 versy betAveen  the  Papacy  and  Protestants.  It  ought  to  be  there  against 
 the  high-church  views  on  tradition  of  the  liturgists. 
 
 Omega  replies,!  granting  the  difference  between  the  constitution  and 
 the  liturgy  on  the  questions  of  adult  baptism.  But  he  tries  to  con- 
 done this,  for  he  says  ministers  have  been  violating  the  constitution  for 
 many  years.  And  synod  avoided  this  inconsistency  between  constitution 
 and  liturgy  by  making  it  provisional  only.  (We  might  add  that  even 
 synod  has  no  right  to  make  an  unconstitutional  thing  even  provisional. 
 — A.)  He  places  the  questions  on  baptism  in  the  constitution  and  liturgy 
 side  by  side  and  then  begins  to  argue  against  the  constitution.  The 
 first  question  in  the  constitution  is  not  sufficiently  Catholic  and  is  jiar- 
 tisan  because  aimed  at  the  error  of  Romanism  and  should  not  be  used 
 here.  On  the  second  question,  the  liturgy  is  better  than  the  constitu- 
 tion, because,  instead  of  requiring  (personal — A.)  confession  of  faith  of 
 the  catechism,  it  requires  only  general  confession  of  faith,  as  in  the 
 Apostles'  Creed,  and  allows  one  to  change  one's  views  on  the  catechism 
 and  yet  be  orthodox.  The  last  question  in  the  constitution  implies  too 
 much,  as  all  in  it  is  implied  in  the  creed.  "A  Minister  of  the  German 
 Reformed  Church"  replies:}:  to  Omega,  that  not  to  ask  the  question  of  the 
 
 *Messcnger,  June  8. 
 ■\Messenger,  June  29. 
 XMessenger,  July  27. 
 
366         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 constitution  as  Omega  suggests  is  to  encourage  confusion  in  the  Church 
 instead  of  the  very  uniforinitj'  that  the  liturgy  was  supposed  to  produce. 
 He  attacks  Omega's  latitudinarianism  for  preferring  the  question  in 
 the  liturgy  to  the  first  question  in  the  constitution  because  the  latter 
 was  partisan  against  Rome. 
 
 By  Jiil.y  6  the  ^vrit<■l•  who  wrote  articles  on  "Our  Litiirg}'" 
 retires  from  the  publication  of  these  articles,  because  some 
 of  the  readers  of  the  Messenger  want  them  discontinued. 
 He  refers  to  C.  F.  Hoffmeier,  who  proposes  to  speak  for  the 
 people  against  so  much  liturgy  in  the  Church  papers. 
 
 During  1858  the  Reformed  Kircliemeitung  of  Germany 
 spoke  out  against  the  new  high-church  customs  being  forced 
 upon  the  Reformed  in  Germany  by  the  Union  with  the 
 Lutherans.  It  protested  against  changing  the  table  into  an 
 altar  (page  321).  The  Reformed,  it  saj^s  (page  373),  tolerate 
 in  their  churches  no  altar,  no  lights,  no  crucifix,  no  confes- 
 sional bench,  etc., — all  that  is  Lutheran.  It  liad  said  in  1856 
 that  the  Reformed  of  Germany  were  low-church  and  not 
 high-church  as  were  the  Lutherans.  Thus  though  not  refer- 
 ring to  our  liturgical  men  it  opposed  what  they  advocated. 
 
 But  the  most  significant  event  in  this  year,  Avhich  greatly 
 alarmed  the  low-clun-climcn,  was  the  action  of  Lancaster  classis. 
 Jleretofore  the  controversy  a])out  the  liturgy  had  been  by 
 individuals  in  the  publications  of  the  Church.  But  now  it 
 enters  on  a  constitutional  phase.  The  question  was  wliether 
 the  minister  liimself  had  the  right  to  introduce  the  liturgy  or 
 whether  he  had  to  get  the  consent  of  his  consistory  or  con- 
 gregation to  do  it.  High-churchmen  took  the  former  view, 
 because  they  held  that  the  minister  was  a  priest  who  had  the 
 charge  of  the  worship  of  the  sanctuary.  The  old  Reformed, 
 whether  he  had  to  get  the  consent  of  his  consistory  or  con- 
 gregation was  necessary  according  to  the  constitution  and 
 custom  of  our  Church.  This  was  the  beginning  of  the  great 
 constitutional  battle  that  was  to  come  later. 
 
 Dr.  Ilarbaugh,  pastor  of  the  church  at  Lancaster,  had  intro- 
 duced the  liturg\^  But  it  produced  so  much  dissatisfaction 
 and  division  in  the  Church  that  the  consistory  in  the  sunnuer 
 of  1859  passed  an  action  against  its  use.    The  congregation,  at 
 
The  Provisional  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.         367 
 
 a  meeting  July  H,  re(iiu'sted  Ilarbaugh  to  resign,  giving  as  one 
 reason  his  disregard  of  the  action  of  the  consistory.  As  he  kept 
 on  using  it,  the  consistory  locked  the  doors  of  the  church  on 
 him,  October  2,  and  the  church  remained  closed,  it  is  said, 
 for  about  two  months.*  A  high-church  minority  of  the  con- 
 sistory, together  with  some  of  the  congregation,  brought 
 charges  against  the  majority  of  the  consistory  for  this  before 
 classis  at  a  meeting  held  October  28,  1859.  The  charges  were 
 conspiracy  against  the  pastor,  contentiousness  and  lawless 
 violence.  Classis  approved  the  charges,  deposed  the  majority 
 of  the  consistory  and  suspended  them  from  the  Church. 
 ]\Iany  of  them  with  their  friends  left  the  Church.  Thus  the 
 classis  appeared  to  the  low-churchmen  determined  to  keep  the 
 liturgy  in  the  church  service  at  all  hazards  and  this  unconsti- 
 tutional decision  greatly  alarmed  them.  The  action  of  the 
 classis  gave  official  sanction  to  the  minister, — that  he  had 
 the  absolute  right  to  use  the  liturgy  and  direct  the  worship 
 as  he  willed.  This  was  contrary  to  the  early  promises  of  the 
 leaders  of  the  liturgical  party  that  no  force  would  be  used 
 to  introduce  the  liturgy  and  that  the  congregations  must  de- 
 cide for  themselves. 
 
 The  synod  of  1859  had  a  very  difficult  problem  before  it, — 
 to  harmonize  the  liturg>^  with  the  constitution  and  to  do  it 
 in  such  a  way  as  to  harmonize  the  two  parties  in  the  Church. 
 Elder  Rudolph  Kelker  offered  resolutions  in  regard  to  this 
 inconsistency,  asking  synod  to  urge  the  ministry  to  strictly 
 adhere  to  the  constitution  rather  than  to  the  liturgy  and 
 ordering  the  conuuittee  on  the  German  translation  of  the 
 liturgy  to  introduce  the  four  questions  in  the  constitution  on 
 adult  baptism  and  confirmation  into  the  German  translation 
 instead  of  the  questions  of  the  liturgy.  After  some  discussion, 
 the  whole  matter  was  referred  to  a  committee  consisting  of 
 Revs.  Drs.  Gerhart,  S.  R.  Fisher,  T.  G.  Apple,  F.  W.  Kremer, 
 Harbaugh  and  Elders  Kelker  and  Knode  to  report  at  the  next 
 synod.  Even  if  it  did  nothing  else,  the  sjmod  thus  took 
 official  recognition  of  the  want  of  harmony  between  the  con- 
 
 *See  Evangelist,  December  7,  1858. 
 
368         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 stitiition  and  the  liturgy.  ( ?)  The  committee  oil  the  translation 
 into  German  reported  that  it  had  done  all  except  the  family 
 prayers,  but  desired  to  revise  its  work  for  its  better  adaptabil- 
 ity to  the  Church.  It  desired  the  privilege  of  making  a  col- 
 lection of  family  prayers  from  the  German  instead  of  trans- 
 lating them  from  the  English.  The  co)nmittee  received  the 
 thanks  of  the  synod  and  was  enlarged  by  four  additional 
 members.  It  was  ordered  to  publish  its  work  in  provisional 
 form  by  next  meeting  of  synod  and  was  given  the  privilege 
 of  adding  family  prayers  originally  German.  Thus  the  synod 
 did  nothing  but  left  open  the  provisional  liturgy  for  another 
 year. 
 
 Comparison  of  the  Litihoy  and  the  Constitution  on 
 Adult  Baptism.     * 
 
 Constitution.  Liturgy 
 
 Do    you    believe    that    the    Holy  Dost     thou    then     renounce    the 
 
 Scriptures    of    the    Old    and    New        devil  with  all  his  ways  and  works, 
 Testaments    are    divinely    inspired        the  \V(irld   witli  its  vain  pomp  and 
 Scriptures, — have    divine   authority        j^lory  and  the  tlesh  with  all  its  sin- 
 and  are  the  perfect  and  only  rule       lid   ih>sircs. 
 of  life? 
 
 Do  you  believe  that  the  doctrine  Dost    thou    lielievc    in    Uod    tlie 
 
 which  is  received  and  publicly  pro-        Father  Alnii<;hty,  etc. 
 fessed    in    the    German    Reformed  ("reed. 
 
 Church   and   endiodied    in   the    Hei- 
 delberg Catechism  is  truly  the  (k)c-  Wilt    tliou    be    ba|itized    in    this 
 trine  of  the  Holy  Scriptures:   and       t'nitii.' 
 will     you     live     agreeably    to     it, 
 
 adorn   it   in  all  things  and  demean  Do  you   proniisc  to   follow  Jesus 
 
 yourself  as  a  true  follower  of  Christ  ami  to  keep  his  conunaud- 
 Jesus  Christ?  Will  you  at  all  nu-nts  all  the  days  of  thy  life? 
 times  submit  to  tlic  rules  of  order 
 and  discipline  in  the  (ierman  R<?- 
 formed  Church  and  confirm  them 
 by  your  oliedience  as  is  meet  for  a 
 foHowcr  of  .Icsus  Christ.  True 
 faith  in  the  language  of  our  Cate- 
 chism is  not  only  a  certain  know- 
 ledge, whereby  we  hold  for  truth 
 all  that  God  has  revealed  to  us  in 
 his  word  liut  also  an  assured  con- 
 
The  Provisional  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.         369 
 
 fidence  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
 works  by  the  Gospel  in  our  hearts, 
 that  not  only  to  others  but  to  us 
 also,  forgiveness  of  sins  everlast- 
 ing righteousness  and  salvation 
 are  freely  given  by  God  merely  of 
 grace  only  for  the  sake  of  Christ 's 
 merits.  Do  you  sincerely  profess 
 that  all  this  is  your  faith? 
 
 It  is  veiy  easy  to  see  where  the  form  in  the  Provisional 
 liturgy  comes  from.  We  here  give  the  questions  in  the  Epis- 
 copalian Prayer-Book.     The  resemblance  is  very  evident: 
 
 "Dost  thou  renounce  the  devil  and  all  his  works,  the  vain  pomp  and 
 glory  of  the  world  with  all  covetous  desires  of  the  same  and  the  sinful 
 desires  of  the  flesh  so  tha.t  thou  wilt  not  follow  nor  be  led  by  them? 
 
 Ansiver.  I  renounce  them  all;  and  by  God's  hclji,  will  endeavor  not  to 
 follow  nor  be  led  by  them. 
 
 Dost  thou  believe  all  the  articles  of  the  Christian  faith  as  contained  in 
 the  Apostles'  Creed?     I  do. 
 
 Wilt  thou  be  baptized  in  this  faith?     That  is  my  desire. 
 
 Wilt  thou  then  obediently  keep  God's  holy  will  and  commandments 
 and  walk  in  the  same  all  the  days  of  thy  life?     I  will  by  God's  help." 
 
 No  wonder  the  charge  was  made  that  the  new  liturgy  would 
 Episcopalianize  our  Church. 
 
 1 
 
 Section  4.     The  Office  of  Bishop.  ' 
 
 The  Mercer.shurg  Revien'  of  1859  contained  one  article  that 
 led  to  considerable  controversy.  It  was  by  Rev.  Dr.  Gans,  en- 
 titled "The  Office  of  Bishop."  It  was  an  attempt  to  develop 
 the  doctrine  of  the  ministry  in  the  direction  of  its  objective, 
 intrinsic  power.  j 
 
 He  begins  by  discussing  the  relation  of  the  visible  to  the  invisible 
 Church,  claiming  that  they  are  united  and  can  never  be  sundered.  Un 
 their  union  he  emphasizes  the  visible  because  objective.  Of  Puritanism, 
 which  sunders  the  invisible  from  the  visible,  he  has  this  severe  passage: 
 ' '  Its  ghastly  visage  can  only  frighten  and  repel.  It  can  never  draw  men 
 jjermanently  to  its  cold  heart  or  hold  them  in  its  skeleton  arms. ' '  In 
 thus  making  the  union  of  the  visible  and  invisible  necessary,  he  seems 
 to  deny   that   the  invisible  can   exist  where  there  is  no  visible   Church. 
 
370        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 The  office  of  bishop  (bj  which  he  means  the  minister)  is  threefold, 
 prophetic,  priestly  and  kingly.  He  is  not  quite  sure  whether  bishop 
 and  presbyter  are  always  exactly  the  same,  still  he  holds  to  the  parity 
 of  the  ministry.  But  he  says  the  main  question  is  not  the  parity  of  the 
 ministry  but  in  what  this  parity  consists.  Is  there  any  reality  in  the 
 office  of  the  ministry.  We  must  distinguish  between  man  as  a  man  and 
 man  as  an  officer.  As  an  officer  he  does  not  lose  his  personality  as  a  man. 
 But  the  office  gives  him  something  more  than  the  man.  lie  stands  in 
 Christ's  stead  (2  Cor.  3:  20).  Because  of  this  special  power  given  to 
 him  by  the  ministry,  he  becomes  at  baptism  an  organ  tlirough  which 
 God  communicates  the  grace  of  regeneration  peculiar  to  its  official  act. 
 When  Peter  commanded  the  lame  man  to  rise,  he  did  it  by  his  peculiar 
 power  as  an  officer  of  the  Church.  At  ordination,  by  virtue  of  his  of- 
 fice he  conveys  a  gift  of  grace  by  laying  his  hands  on  the  ordained 
 (1  Tim.  4:  14  and  2  Tim.  1:6).  This  comes  not  from  the  fingers  of  the 
 presbyter  but  from  Christ  through  them  as  the  appointed  channel. 
 So  at  the  benediction,  Christ  speaks  through  to  him.  He  quotes,  "Lo, 
 I  am  with  you  always, ' '  etc.,  as  a  promise  of  this  power  and  ' '  He  that 
 heareth  you  heareth  me"  (Luke  10:  16).  There  is  a  perfect  chain  of  au- 
 thority extending  from  the  Father  through  the  Son  to  the  ambassador 
 he  appoints. 
 
 He  thus  emphasizes  the  objective  in  the  ministry  as  he  had  before 
 emphasized  it  in  all  the  offices  in  his  article  on  the  ' '  Laying  on  of 
 Hands."  He  even  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  effect  of  the  sacrament 
 is  physical  as  well  as  moral.  These  high-church  views  ultimately  had 
 their  fruitage  (as  his  mind  ran  out  logically  to  its  end)  by  his  finally 
 going  over  to  the  Eomish  Church  many  years  later. 
 
 His  high-churcli  views  of  the  ministry  wore  severely  at- 
 tacked by  Piscator.* 
 
 He  attacks  Cans  because  he  confounds  the  Church  with  the  kingdom  of 
 God  which  is  unbiblical.  The  kingdom  of  God  refers  to  heaven  except 
 in  two  places  (Matt.  16:  18  and  Matt.  18:  17).  If  they  mean  the  same 
 thing  he  gives  some  illustrations  to  show  the  ridiculousness  caused  by 
 substituting  "church"  for  "kingdom  of  God"  in  some  passages — "Suf- 
 fer little  children  to  come  unto  me,  for  of  such  is  the — Church ;  "  "  Ex- 
 cept ye  become  as  a  little  child  ye  shall  not  see  the — Church; "  "Blessed 
 is  he  that  shall  oat  bread  in  the — Church."  Over  against  Gans'  doc- 
 trine that  baptism  is  the  door  of  salvation,  he  quotes  "he  that  belicveth 
 and  is  baptized,"  etc.,  which  makes  faith  necessary  and  places  it  first 
 and  not  baptism.  How  foolish  I'hilip  acted  when  he  required  faith  of 
 the  eunuch  if  baptism  saved  hi  in.     How  strange  Paul  does  not  remombor 
 
 *Messenger  of  February  9,  1859. 
 
The  Provisional  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.         371 
 
 whether  he  baptized  any  others,  if  baptism  were  sufficient  and  faith  of 
 no  use.  Christ  sent  him  not  to  baptize  but  to  preach  the  gospel  (1  Cor. 
 1:4-7).  If  baptism  is  phmting  into  heavenly  soil,  if  it  is  the  new 
 birth  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  every  minister  ought  to  baptize  all  he 
 can  lay  hands  on.  Just  as  Gans  liad  identified  the  church  with  the  kingdom, 
 so  he  had  identified  baptism  with  the  means  of  it.  Piscator  says  "I  have 
 often  felt  sorry  of  late  to  see  the  rapid  advancement  of  extreme  high- 
 church  notions  as  set  forth  in  the  Eeview  and  the  Messenger.  Scarcely 
 a  week  passes  but  some  new  developments  of  high-churchism  appears  as 
 in  the  institution  of  ba|)tism  or  the  Creed,  making  '  I  believe  in  the  holy 
 Catholic  Church'  its  centre,  when  this  article  is  not  in  the  most  ancient 
 of  all  the  creeds. ' '  He  calls  attention  to  the  confirmation  service  in  the 
 liturgy,*  where  the  church  in  God's  stead  claims  you  for  its  services, 
 thus  putting  the  Church  before  and  in  place  of  Christ. 
 
 Piscator-j-  again  attacks  the  liturgy.  The  principal  objection  to  the 
 liturgy  is  its  high-church  doctrines.  He  compares  the  54th  answer  of 
 the  catechism  with  the  formula  of  confirmation.  The  catechism  says 
 "Christ  gathers  and  builds  his  Church  by  imparting  the  Holy  Spirit 
 and  the  Word,"  but  the  liturgy  says  that  the  Church  in  God's  stead 
 imparts  the  Holy  Spirit.  Compare  answers  72  and  73  of  the  catechism 
 with  the  phrase  "sanctified  water  to  the  mystical  washing  away  of  sin 
 through  the  mystery  of  holy  baptism"  of  the  liturgy.  Against  Gans' 
 attack  on  Puritanism  he  defends  it.  Its  large  institutions  of  learning, 
 its  great  missionary  work  make  Gans'  "ghastly  visage,  cold  heart  and 
 skeleton  arms"  only  creatures  of  his  imagination.  Several  Puritanic 
 congregations  contribute  twice  as  much  to  the  cause  of  missions  as  our 
 whole  Church.  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.  He  ridicules  Gans' 
 statement  that  water  and  the  Spirit  constitute  baptism.  In  baptism 
 faith  is  as  necessary  as  water  and  the  Spirit.  Hence  we  always  confess 
 faith  before  baptism  and  require  parents  to  do  so.  So,  too,  the  Lord  's 
 Supper  is  not  merely  the  union  of  the  visible  sign  with  the  invisible 
 grace,  but  faith  is  also  necessary.  Gans  makes  the  sacrament  effectual 
 for  the  body  as  well  as  for  the  soul.  But  if  a  crumb  of  bread  should  fall 
 to  the  groun<l  and  be  eaten  by  a  church-mouse  what  would  be  the  conse- 
 quence ? 
 
 PiscatorJ  again  attacks  Gans.  He  says  the  three  offices  of  prophet, 
 priest  and  king  do  not  apply  to  the  ministry  but  to  the  members  of  the 
 Church,  for  catechumens  are  taught  that  they  are  prophets,  priests  and 
 kings.§  In  order  to  exalt  church  officers,  Gans  deprives  the  members 
 of  their  heaven-born  privileges.     The  passage  Luke  10 :  10  applies  not  to 
 
 *Page  217. 
 
 ■\Messenger,  February  23. 
 %Messenger,  March  16. 
 §Answer  32  of  the  catechism. 
 
372         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 the  twelve  apostles  and  tiieir  successors,  but  to  all  Christians.  Gans 
 exalts  baptism  unduly,  saying  that  prayer  and  charities  and  zeal  on  the 
 part  of  thousands  are  not  equivalent  to  the  single  act  of  baptism  by  a 
 regular  ambassador  of  Christ.  Gans'  distinction  between  man  as  a 
 man  and  man  as  an  officer  is  not  apjilicable  to  the  Christian  Church, 
 for  how  much  spiritual  power  do  they  have  as  officers  that  they  do  not 
 have  as  men.  According  to  the  catechism  (answers  53  and  52)  all 
 members  partake  of  the  life  of  Christ  through  the  Spirit.  As  to  Gans' 
 baptismal  regeneration,  he  asks  how  rationalistic  ministers  are  channels 
 of  the  regenerating  power  of  baptism  when  they  themselves  have  had  no 
 regeneration  at  ba])tism.  Gans  says  a  minister  as  an  officer  acts  from 
 and  for  Christ  wholly.  But  are  the  C/'atholics,  Avho  denounce  the  Protest- 
 ants and  the  Lutherans,  who  denounce  tlie  Reformed,  acting  from  or  for 
 Christ  wholly.  The  liturgy  is  not  the  legitimate  child  of  true  Evan- 
 gelical Eeformed  life,  sjiirit  and  genius.  Its  introduction  will  lead  to 
 great  confusion.  In  Hesse,  in  Germany,  where  the  Kefornicd  congre- 
 gations use<l  the  richest  liturgy,  congregation  after  congregation  has 
 passed  over  to  the  Lutheran  Church.  So  it  will  be  with  us.  On  special 
 occasions,  responses  are  in  place  but  in  the  regular  Sabbath  services 
 they  are  superfluous  and  not  in  harmony  with  our  services. 
 
 Again,  Gans,  by  his  unwarrantable  distinction  between  office-bearer  and 
 church-members,  ignores  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Church,  her  officers  and 
 sacraments  are  invested  with  saving  power  and  there  is  nothing  left  for 
 the  free  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  because  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  comes 
 by  the  laying  on  of  hands.  But  all  this  is  unbiblical  and  un-Refornied. 
 When  the  gospel  was  preached  to  the  heathen,  it  was  not  done  l)y  church 
 officers  (Acts  11:  19-21).  Paul  was  not  ordained  l)y  the  officers  of  the 
 Church.  The  apostles  considered  preaching  more  necessary  than  bap- 
 tism or  the  Lord's  Supper.  When  liigh-churchnien  make  ministers 
 "official  representatives  of  divine  and  heavenly  ])o\vers, "  it  is  all  pan- 
 theistic, for  Stier  says  "  It  is  a  most  pernicious  eiior.  which  |)artaking  of 
 the  pantheistic  mystery  of  falsehood  sjieaks  of  the  continual  incarnation 
 of  Christ  in  his  Church. ' ' 
 
 Gans  replied  to  these  attacks  of  Fisher.*  He  says  his  ob- 
 ject was  to  show : 
 
 1.  The  parity  <>'   H"'  miiiisli-y. 
 
 2.  The  reality  of  the  ministry. 
 
 He  says  he  did  not  mean  to  make  the  Clnirch  and  the  kingdom  of 
 Christ  identical,  but  only  so  as  actually  existing.  He  o])jects  to  faith 
 as  a  necessary  part  of  baptism.  Did  Christ,  he  asks,  in  instituting  bap- 
 tism, make  faith  o})joctivoly  a  i)art  of  it.  If  faith  is  a  necessary 
 part   of   baptism,   then    all,    whet  her    infidels,    Turks   t)r   l)arbarian8  must 
 
 *Messenger,  April  13,  1859. 
 
The  Provisional  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.         373 
 
 receive  grace.  Baptism  as  an  objective  institution  is  complete  in  itself. 
 But  faith  is  the  necessary  condition  of  the  application  of  this  grace. 
 He  denies  that  he  made  ministers  alone  prophets,  priests  and  kings. 
 The  arguments  of  Piscator  would  teach  that  when  a  man  becomes  a 
 Christian  he  becomes  a  minister  also.  He  claims  that  the  answers  in  the 
 Heidelberg  Catechism  on  the  power  of  the  keys  prove  his  position. 
 
 Piscator  replied,*  How  can  ba2)tism  be  complete  in  itself,  independent 
 of  tlie  transaction  in  which  the  subject  and  faith  are  necessarily  applied. 
 By  leaving  out  such  living  realities,  baptism  becomes  a  naked,  meaning- 
 less transaction.  Faith  and  the  subjective  is  not  a  mere  condition  of 
 the  sacrament  as  Gans  has  said,  but  a  necessity  to  a  true  sacrament.  As 
 to  Gans'  using  tlie  answers  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  on  the  power 
 of  the  keys  to  prove  his  i)osition,  he  replied,  that  the  answers  do  not 
 mention  ministers  at  all,  but  only  the  j)reaching  of  the  Word  and 
 Christian  discipline  as  the  keys.  Where  does  the  catechism  say  that 
 ministers,  independent  of  their  congregations,  are  authorized  to  open 
 and  shut  by  means  of  discipline?  Gans'  statements  about  baptism 
 are  stronger  than  those  of  the  Catholic  Moehler  in  his  Symbolics.  This 
 is  his  parting  shot  at  Gans. 
 
 Section  5.    Liturgical  Discussion  and  Events  op  1860. 
 
 The  liturgical  discussion  continued  revealing  various  phases 
 and  developments  of  the  Mercersburg  theology. 
 
 On  January  -4,  Rev.  Dr.  Foitlk  ])egins  a  new  series  of  articles 
 in  the  Messenger  on  the  minor  festival  days,  beginning  with 
 John  the  Evangelist's  Day.  These  were  continued  weekly 
 until  July  18,  closing  with  St.  Peter's  and  St.  Paul's  Day. 
 
 A  new  controversy  begins  in  the  Messengey\  which  reveals 
 growing  high-church  views  on  a  new  subject,  namely,  burial. 
 One  who  signs  himself  "A  Believer,"  referring  to  the  burial 
 forins  in  the  Provisional  liturgy,  asks,  lias  a  minister  a  right 
 to  use  any  of  the  burial  forms  at  the  grave  of  an  unbe- 
 liever? 
 
 He  says  that  in  many  places  an  unbeliever  has  all  the  rites  at  burial 
 of  a  believer.  It  is  wrong  to  use  the  burial  service  over  an  unbeliever 
 because  of  the  great  difference  between  believers  and  unbelievers.  He  men- 
 tions the  case  of  a  woman  who  had  never  been  to  the  altar  for  confirma- 
 tion or  communion,  yet  was  brought  there  dead  for  burial.  Has  the  ritual 
 service  of  the  Church  any  meaning  or  is  it  meaningless,  and  so  can  be 
 
 ^Messenger,  May  18. 
 f  January  18. 
 
374        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 performed  over  believer  and  unbeliever  alike.  He  continues,*  saying 
 it  is  not  consistent  to  bury  unbelievers  with  the  benediction  of  the 
 Church.  No  lodge  will  bury  one  who  is  not  a  member,  why  should  the 
 Church?  A  refusal  to  bury  unbelievers  vdW  lead  to  higher  respect  for 
 the  Church  and  her  services.  Let  unbelievers  be  made  to  feel  that  they 
 will  be  buried  without  the  rites  of  religion.  Ministers  are  not  allowed 
 to  administer  the  rites  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  to  unbelievers, 
 Mhy  give  them  burial?  He  then  goes  to  a  still  higher  position.f  No 
 longer  is  it  unbelievers,  whose  burial  he  objects  to,  but  now  it  is  unbap- 
 tized  infants,  whom  it  is  wrung  to  bury  with  tlie  benediction  of  the 
 Church.  As  they  are  not  baptized,  they  are  not  members  of  the  Church 
 and  should  not  receive  the  burial  of  members.  He  quotes  for  his  position 
 answer  7i  in  the  catechism,  where  it  says  that  baptized  children  are 
 to  be  distinguished  from  the  children  of  unbelievers.  But  do  we  dis- 
 tinguish them,  he  asks,  if  we  bury  them  alike.  To  refuse  to  bury  un- 
 baptized  infants  would  encourage  greater  respect  for  Christian  bap- 
 tism. 
 
 But  AlphaJ  locks  horns  with  him.  He  says  it  is  true  that  the 
 burial  service  of  the  Provisional  Liturgy  is  suited  only  for  believers, 
 but  this  does  not  imply  that  the  Christian  minister  should  use  no  form 
 for  the  burial  of  unbelievers.  If  asked  why  use  any  service,  he  replies, 
 for  the  sake  of  humanity;  for  it  seems  inhuman  to  put  their  bodies 
 under  ground  without  any  service.  It  ought  also  to  be  done  for  the 
 sake  of  giving  a  warning  to  the  living.  If  "Believer"  held  that  all 
 infants  were  saved,  then  they  all  needed  Christian  burial  and  it  ought 
 not  to  be  denied  to  unbaptized  infants.  As  to  the  74th  answer  of 
 the  catechism,  that  could  not  be  quoted  here,  for  it  referred  to  bap- 
 tism, not  to  burial.  "We  should  not  put  our  churchly  notions  on  stilts 
 or  run  them  into  the  ground,"  he  says.  He  declares  that  if  one  of  his 
 children  were  to  die,  before  baptism  could  be  given  him,  he  would  bury 
 him  as  one  of  God's  children.  "Believer's"  arguments  against  the 
 universal  salvation  of  infants  were  very  lame. 
 
 Believer  replies  to  him.§  Alpha's  distinction  in  tlie  liturgy,  tliat 
 the  first  burial  service  was  intended  for  believers  and  the  second 
 for  unbelievers,  is  nut  true,  for  the  second  service  is  for  Christians  too. 
 The  second  form  agrees  word  for  word  with  that  of  the  Episcopal 
 Prayer-book,  and  no  Episcopalian  minister  is  allowed  to  use  that  form 
 over  unbaptized  infants.  Alpha  says  it  ought  to  be  done  for  the  sake 
 of  humanity;  but,  the  Bible  says,  "Cast  not  your  pearls  before  swine." 
 With  the  same  plea  of  humanity,  he  might  ask  for  the  liberation  of 
 prisoners.     Alpha  says  it  gives  an  opportunity  to  speak   to  the  living; 
 
 *  Messenger  of  January  25. 
 ^Messenger  of  February  1. 
 ^Messenger,  February  29. 
 ^Messenger,  March  14. 
 
The  Provisional  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.         375 
 
 but  is  the  burial  service  intended  for  the  living?  If  it  be  inhuman  to 
 bury  them  without  a  service,  it  is  more  inhuman  for  them  to  live  with- 
 out the  Church.  Alpha  says  their  desire  for  a  minister  to  perform  the 
 burial  is  a  sign  that  they  acknowledge  the  great  truths  of  Christianity. 
 He  answers,  not  necessarily.  Alpha  has  not  touched  the  fundamental 
 thing,  namely,  the  great  difference  between  believers  and  unbelievers, — 
 the  want  of  Church  membership, — a  proper  regard  for  the  Church  and 
 the  sacredness  of  the  ministerial  office. 
 
 Further  discussion  of  the  liturgy  and  its  theology  ceased 
 during  the  summer  and  fall  of  1860,  probably  because  the 
 Church  was  waiting  for  the  committee  appointed  by  the 
 synod  of  1859  to  make  its  report  on  the  liturgy  to  the  next 
 synod.  We  note,  however,  the  publication  of  a  German 
 sermon  by  J.  S.  Kessler  on  Liturgical  Worship,  which  was 
 favorable  to  the  liturgy  and  whose  evident  aim  was  to  influ- 
 ence to  the  Germans,  who  as  yet  liacl  almost  to  a  man  been  un- 
 favorable to  the  liturgy. 
 
 The  synod  of  1860  had  the  same  problem  before  it  as  the 
 last  synod,  the  inconsistency  of  the  liturgy  and  the  constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 Rev.  Dr.  Gerhart  for  the  liturgical  committee  reported  a 
 meeting  July  13,  1860,  at  Ilarrisburg.  He  reported  that  there 
 were  two  methods  of  removing  the  discrepancy  between  the 
 constitution  and  the  liturgy.  One  was  to  so  modify  the  liturgy 
 as  to  make  it  conform  to  the  constitution.  The  other  was  to 
 amend  the  constitution  so  as  to  make  it  conform  to  the  liturgy. 
 Either  method  would  be  improper.  Either  the  Church  must 
 tolerate  these  discrepancies  as  an  evil  incident  to  the  liturgical 
 movement,  or  the  liturgy  must  be  carefully  revised  and  then 
 submitted  to  the  classes  for  adoption  or  rejection.  The  com- 
 mittee, therefore  recommended  that  inasmuch  as  the  Pro- 
 visional liturgy  had  been  in  the  hands  of  the  ministers  and 
 laity  for  three  years  and  it  may  be  presumed  that  the  Church 
 is  prepared  to  form  a  correct  judgment  concerning  its  merits 
 and  defects,  that  the  synod  commit  the  work  to  a  committee 
 for  careful  revision  in  order  to  adapt  it  fully  to  the  practical 
 wants  of  the  German  Reformed  Church. 
 
 One  of  the  committee,  ''K,"  wrote  to  the  author  of  this 
 book  that  at  the  committee  meeting,  Fisher,  Kremer  and  him- 
 
376         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 self  were  of  one  mind  that  the  questions  of  the  constitution 
 should  be  inserted  in  the  liturgy.  But  at  the  synod  Dr.  Ger- 
 hart,  the  chairman,  came  to  him  and  said  he  had  mislaid  the 
 report  and  that  he  would  make  up  a  report  from  memory, 
 which  he  did.  And  it  was  received  by  the  synod  as  above, 
 but  it  w^as  not  really  the  original  report  of  the  committee, 
 for  it  did  not  report  the  insertion  of  the  questions  of  the  con- 
 stitution into  the  liturgy. 
 
 The  report  led  to  considerable  discussion.  In  it,  the  member 
 of  the  committee  just  referred  to.  says  that  Har])augli  opposed 
 the  insertion  of  the  questicms  of  the  constitution  into  the 
 liturgy.  He  ridiculed  those  (juestions  and  declared  he  always 
 had  felt  it  blasphemy  to  ask  them.  (Tliis  was  pretty  strong 
 language  from  one  who  had  signed  the  constitution  and  prom- 
 ised to  uphold  it.  But  those  were  the  days  of  strong  lan- 
 guage.— A.)  The  following  resolutions  were  then  substituted 
 in  the  place  of  the  report  of  the  committee,  and  adopted : 
 
 Eesolved,  That  the  Provisional  Liturgy  be  submitted  to  the  several 
 classes  of  this  synod  for  their  examination,  and  that  they  report  their 
 views  upon  the  same  to  the  next  meeting  of  synod. 
 
 Eesolved,  That,  in  the  meantime,  the  attention  of  tlie  niiiiistors  of  tiiis 
 synod  Ix;  directed  to  the  constitutional  requirements  in  the  ndininistra- 
 tion  of  baptism  and  confirmation. 
 
 The  only  proper  thing  was  for  the  synod  to  live  up  to  its 
 constitution.  The  constitution  and  not  the  liturgy  is  the  guide 
 to  the  Church.  The  supreme  court  of  our  country,  says  the 
 writer  we  have  just  quoted,  would  i-idicule  any  other  idea 
 than  living  up  to  the  constitution.  It  would  decide  that  any 
 one  coming  into  the  Reformed  Church  must  come  in  accord- 
 ing to  the  constitution  or  else  remain  outside,  and  that  any 
 one  joining  Church  without  answering  the  (juestions  in  the 
 constitution,  would  have  no  Church  or  property  rights  and 
 could  never  be  disciplined  simply  ])eeauso  tliey  were  uncon- 
 stitutionally admitted. 
 
 The  connnittee  on  the  German  translation  reported  1h;it  llie 
 revision  had  not  been  fully  completed,  but  submitted  sevi^-al 
 of  the  forms  for  inspection.  The  fii-m  of  Kieft'er  &  Co.  would 
 not  i»ut)lish  it  at  their  own  risk,  but  would  do  so  on   re.ison- 
 
The  Provisional  TjIturgy  and  Its  Results.         377 
 
 able  terms,  or  the  firm  of  Lindsay  &  Blakeston  would  publish 
 it  if  synod  would  do  as  had  been  done  with  the  English 
 liturgy,  guarantee  the  sale  of  3,000  copies.  The  synod  ordered 
 the  committee  to  have  it  pul)lished  and  issued  in  provisional 
 form,  but  would  not  be  held  responsible  for  the  cost  of  the 
 publication.  The  report  of  the  sale  of  the  English  liturgy  was 
 also  made, — that  3,000  copies  had  l^cen  sold,  the  committee 
 receiving  from  Lindsay  &  Blal<est(m  $206.74  copy  money, 
 after  deducting  the  cost  of  the  correction  of  the  plates.  The 
 whole  expense  of  the  committee  to  October,  1859,  had  been 
 $269.50,  including  $60.  voted  to  the  chairman  for  the  purchase 
 of  necessary  liturgical  works,  which  were  afterwards  de- 
 posited in  the  library  of  the  seminary.  The  agreement  with 
 Lindsay  &  Blakeston  was  dated  Jime  19,  1857,  for  ten  years, 
 and  they  promised  the  committee  ten  per  cent.* 
 
 Section  6.  The  Liturgical  Discussions  and  Events  of  1861. 
 
 In  1861  there  was  a  thundcn'clap  out  of  the  sky  in  the  West 
 which  heretofore  had  kept  out  of  the  controversy.  Rev.  Mrx 
 Stern  attacked  the  liturgy  in  the  Western  German  church- 
 paper,t  The  Evangelist, — 
 
 1.  Because  of  its  extreme  tendencies. 
 
 2.  Because  of  its  ignorance  of  tlie  rich  liturgies  of  our  Church.  He 
 wanted  a  genuine  Eeformed  liturgy  and  until  one  was  issued  l)y  the 
 Church  he  proposed  to  use  the  Church-book  prepared  by  Ebrard,  which 
 contained  a  great  many  Eeformed  forms.  This  attack  of  Stern  ulti- 
 mately carried  with  it  ahnost  all  the  Germans  in  the  West  against  the 
 liturgy. 
 
 However,  by  I\lar,ch,  the  controversy  began  in  the  East. 
 This  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  classes  were  to  discuss  the 
 liturgy  and  at  their  meetings  in  the  spring  state  criticisms 
 of  it. 
 
 *A  curious  incident  of  this  synod  was  its  confession  that  the  last 
 synod  had  erred.  The  last  synod  had  adojited  a  German  hymn-book 
 without  sending  it  down  to  the  classes  for  adoption  or  rejection.  This 
 synod  declared  that  act  unconstitutional  and  ordered  it  sent  down  to  the 
 classes.  This  was  entirely  contrary  to  their  later  view  that  the  voice 
 of  the  Church  (the  synod)  "was  the  voice  of  God  and  cnul.l  not  err. 
 
 f  See  issue  of  January  23,  1861. 
 
378         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 On  March  27  a  second  thunderclap  also  came  out  of  the 
 sky  in  the  East.  A  new  writer  rises  to  attack  the  liturgy, 
 signing  himself  B.  (Bomberger).  Like  Fisher,  he  had  been 
 a  member  of  the  liturgical  committee,  but  by  this  time  he 
 felt  the  liturgy  would  not  be  adopted  by  the  Church  and  he 
 favored  a  revision.  He  afterwards  said  that  he  had  become 
 alarmed  at  the  increasing  attempts  of  the  high-church  party 
 to  liturgize  the  Church — that  is  to  educate  it  up  to  a  liturgy. 
 The  fact  that  Harbaugh  had  prepared  a  liturgical  Sunday 
 school  hymn-book  and  published  it  early  in  1861  seems  espe- 
 cially to  have  alarmed  him.  He  says  of  tliis  hymn-book  that 
 it  has  a  more  extensive  service  than  the  Episcopal.  Its  aim 
 was  to  train  the  children  of  our  Sunday  school,  to  be  litur- 
 gical,— getting  them  accustomed  early  to  a  liturgical  serv- 
 ice.* Harbaugh 's  Sunday  School  hymn-book  had  been 
 preceded  by  the  publication  by  Harbaugh  of  the  Golden 
 Censor,  December,  1860.  Its  object  was  to  accustom  the 
 catechumens  to  a  liturgical  service.  Its  forms  and  teachings 
 followed  the  new  liturgy.  Another  effort  made  was  the  pub- 
 lication of  a  Child's  Catechism  in  the  spirit  of  the  liturgical 
 theolog5^  The  synod  of  1859  had  appointed  a  committee  con- 
 sisting of  Harbaugh,  Gans,  T.  G.  Appel,  Theodore  Appel  and 
 two  elders  to  draw  up  this  catechism.  It  was  referred  back  to 
 the  committee  and  finally,  after  several  years'  discussion, 
 authorized  by  synod  to  be  published  in  the  Messenger,  but 
 it  was  never  officially  adopted  by  synod.  It  had  in  it  the 
 Mercersburg  theology  for  the  children. 
 
 All  these  things  caused  still  greater  alarm  on  the  part  of 
 the  opponents  of  the  liturgy.  So  that  some  of  its  former 
 friends  now  felt  that  matters  had  gone  too  far  and  that  for 
 the  sake  of  the  peace  of  the  Church  there  should  be  a  revision 
 of  it. 
 
 B. 's  first  article  of  the  series  "The  Classes  and  the  Liturgy,"  calls 
 attention  to  the  gravity  of  the  situation  and  the  responsibility  of  the 
 classes.  Something  must  be  done,  for  the  Church  had  been  long  enough 
 unsettled  by  the  liturgy.     Tt  needs  revision,  here  a  ■word,  there  a  sen- 
 
 *Bomberger  to  offset  this,  later  published  a  Sunday  school  hymn-book, 
 entitled  ' '  Prayers  and  Hymns  for  Sunday  Schools. ' ' 
 
The  Provision.\l  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.  379 
 
 tence,  etc.  But  the  revision  must  go  deeper  than  that.  The  liturgy  was 
 a  compromise.  There  were  some  peculiar  views  privately  entertained 
 but  not  current  in  the  Church  which  had  gained  admission  into  it.  The 
 question  now  is  how  to  harmonize  the  Church,  for  all  must  be  done  in 
 a  catholic  spirit.  The  high-churchman  must  abate  his  demands,  the  low- 
 churchman  must  not  insist  on  everj- tiling  being  leveled  to  his  spiritual- 
 istic notions.  Each  must  give  up  something.  He  describes*  the  merits 
 and  the  defects  of  the  liturgy.  He  grants  that  there  are  merits,  but 
 there  must  be  defects  in  it,  because  after  three  years'  trial  it  is  not 
 being  used  in  the  Church,  even  in  the  sacramental,  confirmation  and 
 burial  services,  where  it  was  most  expected  to  be  suitable.  Its  merits 
 are  its  Scriptural  basis,  the  prominence  given  to  the  primitive  forms 
 of  the  Church  and  its  adherence  to  the  Church  year.  lie  then  mentions 
 its  defects.f     They  were 
 
 1.  The  prominence  given  to  responsive  worship  in  the  first  and  second 
 services  of  the  Lord 's  day  and  the  Lord 's  Supper  services.  Also  its 
 litanies  were  not  after  the  custom  of  our  Church.  The  Palatinate  liturgy 
 had  but  one  response,  which  was  in  the  preparatory  service,  where  the 
 Provisional  liturgy  omits  it.  Our  Church  never  had  a  prayer  broken  by 
 responses,  as  in  the  Provisional  liturgy. 
 
 2.  It  produces  greater  diversities  in  worship  than  before.  The  aim 
 of  such  a  directory  is  to  secure  a  certain  measure  of  uniformity  in  wor- 
 ship among  the  churches.  But  instead  of  uniformity  there  was  confusion. 
 Some  use  the  responses,  some,  not.  With  three  to  five  exceptions,  our 
 congregations  do  not  want  responsive  services.  If  the  liturgy  is  to  come 
 into  use  they  must  be  eliminated. 
 
 3.  The  great  length  of  the  services,  their  didactic  character,  especially 
 in  the  preparatory  service. 
 
 4.  The  intricacy  of  its  services,  especially  at  the  Lord 's  Sujjper,  to 
 congregations  not  accustomed  to  its  use. 
 
 5.  It  gives  prominence  to  certain  sacramental  doctrines  and  high- 
 church  views.  This  shows  itself  in  short  sentences  or  single  words, 
 which  on  closer  inspection,  involve  doctrines  never  adopted  by  the  Ee- 
 formed  Church. 
 
 The  Provisional  liturgy  has  served  a  purpose  in  showing  what  the 
 Church  does  not  want  and  in  training  us  to  labors  of  this  kind.  The 
 defects  in  it  are  not  insuperable  and  the  cost  of  removing  them  would 
 not  be  more  than  fifty  or  a  hundred  dollars. 
 
 Although  his  articles  were  intended  to  be  irenical  and  pro- 
 posed a  eoniproniise  yet  by  this  time,  however,  he  began  to  be 
 
 "^Messenger,  April  3. 
 ^Messenger,  April  17. 
 
380        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 attacked  by  four  persons,  by  Star,*  by  Gerhart,  by  S.  (Lewis 
 Steiner)  and  Harbaugh. 
 
 Starf  says  the  classes  could  do  one  of  two  things,  send  it  back  to  the 
 liturgical  committee  for  revision,  or  make  it  provisional  for  ten  years. 
 He  prefers  the  latter,  because  it  ought  to  have  more  than  three  years' 
 trial.  If  the  liturgical  committee  spent  seven  years  on  it.  three  years 
 is  too  short  for  a  trial  in  order  to  test  it.  He  is  especially  sore  at 
 B.  's  remark  that  private  views  of  individuals  were  introduced  into  the 
 liturgy.  Tliis  was  not  consistent  with  the  unanimous  report  of  the 
 liturgical  committee.  The  book  is  free  from  all  such  private  views  of 
 ministers.  He  denies  that  it  was  a  compromise  liturgy  and  hopes  it  will 
 be  given  more  trial. 
 
 S.J  also  attacks  B.,  saying  his  first  attention  to  liturgical  matters 
 had  been  by  an  article  by  B.  (Bomberger)  in  the  MtrcerKburg^  Beview 
 on  Liturgy.  He  asks  what  are  the  peculiar  views  in  the  liturgy  not  pub- 
 licly entertained  in  the  Church.  Are  they  Biblical  or  prevalent  in  the 
 Eeformed  Church  of  Germany.  He  could  detect  nothing  in  the  liturgy 
 not  in  harmony  with  the  creed  or  the  catechism.  If  it  were  not  in  har- 
 mony with  the  constitution,  that  was  only  a  modern  document  compared 
 with  this.     (He  thus  discredits  the  constitution. — A.) 
 
 Gerhart  has  an  article§  saying  that  the  action  of  synod  in  sending 
 the  liturgy  down  to  the  classes  was  not  for  its  adoption  or  rejection  by 
 them,  but  in  order  to  get  the  views  of  the  Church  in  a  tangible  form 
 about  the  primitive  forms,  the  Church  year  and  its  relation  to  Reformed 
 liturgies.  The  classes  could  also  state  what  was  superfluous  or  wanting 
 or  inconsistent.  Having  learned  this  from  the  classes,  it  is  synod's  desire 
 to  send  it  to  the  comnuttee  for  revision ;  and  the  liturgy  as  revised  could 
 then  })e  sent  down  to  the  classes  for  adoj)tion  or  revision.  He  seems 
 fearful  that  the  classes  might  now  vote  on  its  adoption  and  reject  it. 
 
 S.  calls  attention||  to  B. 's  article  in  the  Messenger  of  November  18, 
 1857,  where  over  the  same  signature  as  now,  he  had  said  that  the  Pro- 
 visional liturgy  would  be  what  the  franiers  of  the  Palatinate  liturgy 
 would  have  made  it,  if  tliey  had  lived  and  hibored  in  a  period  like  ours. 
 Yet  now  he  attacks  the  Provisional  liturgy.  As  to  the  liturgy  producing 
 diversity  there  had  Ix'cii  <liversity  before  in  our  services.  Thus  at  com- 
 munion some  congregations  sat,  some  stood.  As  to  the  objection  that 
 its  iorms  were  too  Iciigtiiy,  he  rejjlied  that  it  is  to  be  remembered  that 
 ciuucli  services  consisted  of  worsliij)  as  well  as  preaching.  Its  forms 
 were  not  long  to  those  wlio  loved  such  wurship.     As  to  the  intricacy  of 
 
 *Davis  or  Russell  ('?). 
 ■^Messenger,  A])ril  10. 
 ■^Messenger,  A])ril  10. 
 ^Messenger,  April  17. 
 \\Messenger,  April  24. 
 
The  Provisional  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.  381 
 
 the  forms  of  the  liturgy  this  wouM  be  soon  cleared  up  by  a  little  in- 
 struction. 
 
 B.  replies  to  his  critics,*  stating  the  private  un-Reformed  views  that 
 had  been  incorjiorated  into  the  liturgy.  They  were  the  use  of  responses, 
 ministerial  or  sacerdotal  absolution,  baptismal  regeneration  and  the  na- 
 ture of  the  questions  before  confirmation.  His  point  was  not  whether 
 these  views  were  right  or  Biblical,  but  whether  they  were  current  in 
 the  Church.  This  he  denied.  The  Church  does  not  want  absolution.  It 
 does  not  believe  that  regeneration  is  tied  to  the  moment  of  baptism  or 
 necessarily  connected  with  the  sacrament.  His  opponents  deny  that  the 
 liturgy  is  a  compromise.  One  needs  but  to  look  at  it  to  see  it  is.  Its 
 different  sorts  of  forms  show  it.  He  denounces  the  provisional  use  of 
 it  as  simply  an  entering-wedge  to  win  churches  over  to  it.  If  the 
 Church  prefers  it,  let  her  say  so;  if  not,  no  improper  measures  should 
 be  used  to  bring  it  about.  His  opponents  had  said  that  he  used  to 
 vrrite  favorably  to  a  liturgy;  he  replied  that  he  still  was  favorable  to 
 a  liturgy,  but  this  one  needed  revision. 
 
 Starf  answers  B.,^the  latter 's  objection  that  so  few  congregations 
 are  using  it,  he  tries  to  parry  by  saying  that  people  are  generally  averse 
 to  any  change  whether  for  bad  or  good.  He  then  answers  B.  's  objec- 
 tion to  responses,  saying  that  the  question  is  not  "are  they  customary 
 in  our  Church,  but  are  they  right  according  to  the  original  genius  of  our 
 Church?" 
 
 He  answerst  B. 's  second  objection  that  the  liturgy  produces  diversity 
 and  confusion.  He  replies  there  is  no  more  diversity  than  before.  If 
 all  were  taken  out  of  the  liturgy  that  B.  desires,  it  would  not  be  worth 
 adopting;  and  this  revised  liturgy  would  not  suit  the  Church  any  more 
 than  the  Provisional  does  now.  B.  would  not  own  it  then,  but  would 
 disown  it  as  he  is  doing  this  one  now.  As  to  its  being  too  doctrinal, 
 it  is  less  so  than  any  other  liturgy  we  have.  And  as  to  its  being  too 
 long,  he  hits  at  B.,  who  in  his  services  insists  in  giving  a  half  hour  di- 
 dactic or  hortatory  sermon,§  forgetting  the  other  parts  of  the  worship. 
 
 Harbaugh  rises  in  defense  of  the  liturgy  by  saying  that  a  liturgy  was 
 not  a  new  thing  in  the  Reformed  Church.  He  quotes  Zwingli,  Leo  Juda 
 and  Bucer.  He  tries  to  prove  from  history  that  the  liturgy  was  like  the 
 old  Reformed  liturgies.  He  says  that  the  early  Zurich  liturgy  was  re- 
 sponsive and  that  Bucer,  the  Reformed  reformer  who  went  to  England, 
 rendered  assistance  on  the  Episcopalian  prayer-book. || 
 
 *Messenger,  April  2-4. 
 
 ^Messenger,  May  1. 
 
 XMesscnger,  May  8. 
 
 §Bomberger  was  fond,  after  the  fashion  of  the  older  ministers,  in 
 connection  with  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  of  giving  a  somewhat 
 lengthy  exposition. 
 
 IjThe  answer  to  this  will  be  given  later,  when  Prof.  J.  H.  Good,  of 
 Tiffin,  controverts  Harbaugh 's  statements  as  he  discusses  the  relation 
 of  the  Reformers  to  the  prayer-book  of  England. 
 
382         History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Tlie  editor  of  the  Messenger*  aMiionnces  a  second  time  that  the  con- 
 troversy aVjout  the  liturgy  in  the  Messenger  must  be  closed  because 
 of  its  danger  of  climbing  into  huge  proportions  and  because  it  has 
 run  into  personalities.!  Still  he  in  that  issue  admits  an  article  by  B., 
 on  "Our  Very  Amiable  Liturgical  Antagonists,"  with  whom  he  was 
 then  in  sympathy. 
 
 B.  says  it  looks  as  if  they  grasped  at  his  person  rather  than  at  his 
 facts: 
 
 (1)  If  he  were  inconsistent,  Ilarbaugh  was  not  the  one  to  charge  it. 
 And  if  inconsistent,  he  was  in  the  company  of  German  Reformed  min- 
 isters whom  neither  Harbaugh  nor  Star  would  like  to  despise. 
 
 (2)  If  he  ever  said  anything  in  favor  of  responses,  baptismal  regen- 
 eration and  sacerdotalism  he  did  not  mean  to  do  so;  and  now  formally 
 recalled  any  such  statements.  He  had  always  opposed  them  as  contrary 
 to  the  Eefornied  doctrines.  lie  had  done  so  in  the  liturgical  committee, 
 and  was  willing  to  let  them  go  into  the  liturgy  only  because  he  felt 
 sure  they  would  be  disowned  by  the  Church  at  large.  lie  had  pleaded 
 for  a  liturgy  without  responses,  baptismal  regeneration  and  priestly 
 absolution.  Whatever  recommendation  he  had  given  was  only  pro- 
 visional. Besides,  he  claimed  the  right  to  change  his  mind,  if  neces- 
 sary, when  new  light  comes.  He  says  that  in  the  four  years  only  two 
 congregations,  Ilarbaugh 's  at  Lebanon  and  the  congregation  at  Nor- 
 ristown,  used  the  liturgy  in  full. 
 
 The  controversy  now  ceases  until  fall.  During  the  spring 
 the  various  classes  acted  on  the  liturgy.  Just  before  the 
 synod,  however,  the  controversy  broke  out  again. 
 
 li.X  tries  to  prove  that  responses  were  used  in  the  Reformed  Cliurch 
 by  quoting  the  early  Zurich  liturgy.  Heidelberg  replies§  that  at  the 
 time  of  the  Zurich  liturgy  (1525),  the  Reformed  Church  of  Germany 
 had  no  existence.  This  liturgy  was  based  on  Leo  Juda's  of  1523,  which 
 contained  many  Romish  superstitions,  as  exorcism,  putting  salt  on  the 
 child's  mouth  at  baptism,  moistening  the  nose  and  ear  of  the  child 
 and  a  special  address  to  the  devil.  This  was  in  the  Zurich  liturgy,  too. 
 Is  L.  willing,  he  asks,  to  introduce  the  above  forms  into  our  liturgy.  The 
 worship  of  our  Church  had  not  yet  ])een  defined  then.  But  we  are  not 
 of  the  Zurich  liturgy  but  of  tlie  later  Palatinate  liturgy.  Arc  tlicre  any 
 responses  in  it? 
 
 *Messenger,  May  22. 
 
 •f-B.  had  called  Star  "Mars"  and  Star  had  made  a  personal  thrust  at 
 B.  's  preaching. 
 
 XMessenger,  September  25. 
 §October  2. 
 
The  Provisional  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.  383 
 
 L.  replies*  that  the  Palatinate  has  three  responses  in  the  prepara- 
 tory service.  He  also  quotes*  the  French  Reformed  liturgy  of  Charles- 
 ton (which  was  the  Neuehatel  liturgy  of  171.3)  as  having  responses. 
 ( lie  does  not  seem  to  know  that  this  liturgy  of  Neuehatel  was  a  de- 
 parture from  the  earlier  simple  forms  introduced  into  Neuehatel  by 
 Farel,  and  that  this  liturgy  was  due  to  influences  that  were  tending 
 toward  rationalism.  The  same  development  of  an  enriched  liturgy  took 
 place  at  Geneva,  produced  by  the  tendencies  toward  rationalism  of  the 
 younger  Turretin. — A.)  He- quotes  1  Cor.  chapter  14  as  favoring  re- 
 sponses. Responses  were  also  used  in  Joshua's  time  at  Mt.  Ebal  and 
 in  1  Chron.  chapter  16. 
 
 Heidelberg  repliesf  that  the  three  responses  in  the  Palatinate  liturgy 
 at  the  preparatory  service  do  not  properly  fall  under  responses  (any 
 more  than  the  response  of  the  catechumen  at  his  confirmation)  as  they 
 were  answers  to  questions  and  were  vows.  It  was  to  responses  in  the 
 regular  Sunday  service  that  he  was  opposed,  and  there  the  Palatinate 
 liturgy  had  none.  Over  against  the  Neuehatel  liturgy  he  quotes  the  Pa- 
 latinate 1563,  Zurich  1675,  St.  Gall  1738,  Basle  1701,  Biel  1752,  Schafif- 
 hausen  1672,  Nassau-Dillenburg  1732  and  Bern  1581.  None  of  these 
 had  responses.  If  responsive  worship  had  been  common  in  the  Reformed 
 Church,  these  would  have  shown  it.  He  says,  in  closing,  that  the  great 
 issue  before  the  Reformed  Church  is  whether  it  shall  hold  to  its  prevail- 
 ing mode  of  worship  or  dep)art  from  it  and  adopt  another. 
 
 This  controversy  revealed  the  Church  greatly  divided.  The 
 high-churchmen  wanted  the  Provisional  liturgy  to  remain,  the 
 Old  Reformed  wanted  its  revision  or  no  liturgical  forms  for  the 
 regular  services  on  Sabbath. 
 
 The  previous  synod  (1860)  had  had  a  difficult  task  before 
 it,  in  trying  to  harmonize  the  liturgy  and  the  constitution, 
 the  task  of  the  synod  of  1861  was  even  harder  because  of  the 
 lack  of  unanimity  of  the  classes.  New  York  classis  expressed 
 no  opinion  because  it  said  it  was  a  German  classis  and  the 
 controversy  was  about  an  English  book.  Five  classes  wanted 
 it  revised  and  referred  back  to  the  original  committee,  Mary- 
 land, Philadelphia,  Mercersburg,  East  Susquehanna  and  Lan- 
 caster. Clarion  and  St.  Paul's  expressed  a  favorable  opinion 
 of  it.  "West  Susquehanna,  East  Pennsylvania  and  Goshen- 
 hoppen  wanted  it  continued.  Zion's  wanted  it  continued  but 
 that  each  minister  should  be  left  free  to  use  the  liturgical  or 
 
 *Messenger,  October  16. 
 ^[Messenger,  October  30. 
 
384         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  TT.  S. 
 
 the  constitutional  questions  at  his  discretion.  Lebanon  was 
 willing  to  let  it  remain,  but  left  everything  to  synod.  Two 
 classes,  Virginia  and  North  Carolina,  made  no  report. 
 
 The  synod,  after  discussing  the  matter  for  nearly  two  days, 
 referred  the  liturgy  back  to  the  liturgical  committee  for  re- 
 vision by  a  vote  of  33  to  16,  ordering  it  to  consider  the  sug- 
 gestions of  the  classes,  which  they  were  to  use  in  the  revision 
 of  the  work  as  far  as  its  general  unity  would  allow,  and  in  a 
 way  not  inconsistent  with  the  estal)lished  liturgical  principles 
 and  usages  or  the  devotional  and  doctrinal  genius  of  the  Ger- 
 man Reformed  Church.  It  requested  the  committee  to  report 
 at  the  next  meeting  of  synod  so  as  to  bring  the  litiu'gical  work 
 to  a  close  during  the  tercentenary  year  of  the  Heidelberg 
 Catechism  (1863).  Nevin  asked  synod  to  permit  him  to 
 resign  from  the  liturgical  conunittee.  He  said  of  this  hiter, 
 "Many  will  remember  how  I  tried  to  have  my  name  dropi)ed. 
 I  told  the  synod  I  had  no  faith  in  the  undertaking, — that  1 
 did  not  think  the  Church  was  prepared  to  receive  the  liturgy 
 in  any  form  we  could  give  it."  Fisher  later  says  he  favored 
 the  acceptance  of  Nevin 's  resignation  because  Nevin  said  he 
 had  no  heart  in  it.  Appel*  says  this  act  is  proof  that  Nevin 
 was  not  (as  his  o|)i)onents  later  tried  to  show)  trying  to  foist 
 a  liturg>^  on  the  C-hui-ch  that  it  did  not  want.  We  reply  to 
 Dr.  Appel  that  this  does  not  prove  that.  It  is  rather  a  proof 
 of  what  Dr.  Nevin  so  often  said  that  the  Church  did  not  have 
 such  a  liturgical  spirit  as  would  m.ike  a  liturgy  successful. 
 It  reveals  that  Nevin  realized  llie  yrvy  strong  opposition  there 
 was  to  a  liturgy  in  our  Chui'cli.  This  was  the  reason  why  lie 
 had  no  faith  in  it.  lie  himself  was.  as  we  havi'  seen  fi'oiu  the 
 first,  i'avora])le  to  a  litiu"gy.  I)i'.  SchatT  at  this  synod  also 
 wanted  to  resign  from  the  liturgical  conunittee  after  the  synod 
 was  ended.  The  correspondent  of  tlu^  WrslcDi  3Iissl<)it<irii, 
 our  church-paper  in  Ohio,  Kev.  George  AVilliard,  who  was 
 present  at  the  synod,  reported  in  his  ])aj)er,  "thei'e  w;is  a 
 great  diversity  of  opinion  nhoul  the  ;iction  on  1he  litur-gy. 
 Some  maintained  there  was  as  yet   no  fair  trial  on  the  pnrt 
 
 *Life  of  Novin,  page  504. 
 
The  Provisional  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.  385 
 
 of  the  Church  and  it  was  therefore  not  prepared  to  decide 
 on  its  merits.  They  pled  for  an  extension  of  time.  Others 
 argued  that  the  Church  was  fully  prepared  to  decide  the  ques- 
 tion and  wanted  its  provisional  character  brought  to  an  end ; 
 — tliat  the  fact  that  only  a  very  small  number  of  pastors  and 
 congregations  used  it,  was  plain  proof  that  it  needed  revision, 
 and  the  longer  synod  delayed  this  the  worse  it  would  be  for 
 the  Church  and  the  liturgy."  The  discussion,  he  said,  lasted 
 through  four  sessions  and  the  vote  was  33  to  refer  it  to  the 
 original  liturgical  committee  to  16  against.  The  synod  was 
 evidently  more  under  the  control  of  the  Old  Reformed  party 
 and  decided  on  revision. 
 
 Nevin*  grants  that  tJiis  synod  wanted  revision  in  order  to 
 leave  out  the  ritualism.  But  he  also  says  "there  was  no 
 middle  ground  between  the  liturgies  of  the  Reformation  and 
 those  of  ancient  Christianity."  He  claims  that  it  could  not  be 
 revised  without  destroying  it.  This  was  the  claim  of  the  high- 
 churchmen.  The  revisionists,  however,  claimed  that  it  could 
 be  revised  without  destroying  its  unity  by  leaving  out  objec- 
 tionable clauses.  Thus  the  Church  divided  again  on  the  litur- 
 gical question. 
 
 Section  7.  The  Liturgical  Discussions  and  Events  of  1862. 
 
 The  liturgical  controversy  broke  out  again  at  the  beginning 
 of  this  year.  Heidelbergf  begins  a  series  of  articles  on 
 "Shall  the  Worship  of  the  German  Reformed  Church  be 
 Radically  Changed  ? ' ' 
 
 "He  denied  the  claim  of  the  adherents  of  the  litnrgj^  that  their  views 
 were  a  return  to  the  old  Eeformed  worship.  lie  then  goes  on  to  show 
 that  no  such  mode  of  worship  as  the  Provisional  liturgy  ever  prevailed 
 in  this  country  in  our  Church.    This  is  shown : 
 
 1.  By  the  almost  entire  absence  of  liturgies.  He  had  never  heard  of  a 
 single  copy  except  in  the  library  of  a  minister.  The  ehurch-membershij? 
 were  not  furnished  with  liturgies.  Tliis  is  the  more  remarkable  because 
 other  devotional  books  were  common,  for  there  was  no  want  of  prayer- 
 books  as  of  Stark,  Zollikoffer,  etc. 
 
 *Liturgical  Question,  1862. 
 
 fWho  seems  to  be  Bomberger,  see  the  Messenger,  January  1. 
 
386         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 2.  The  liturgies  used  contained  no  responses  by  the  peojdc.  None 
 of  the  jirayers  were  responsive.  The  change  to  non-responsive  worship 
 in  our  churches  was  not  due  to  the  change  of  language  from  German 
 to  English,  as  had  been  claimed.  For  the  German  churches  did  not 
 have  responsive  worship. 
 
 3.  Living  testimony  and  the  tradition  in  our  Church  proves  it.  S. 
 Helffenstein,  Sr.,  says  that  the  responsive  service  is  not  desirable.  He 
 preferred  the  old  form.  Hoff editz,  who  had  visited  Europe,  said :  * '  You 
 desire  to  know  my  opinion  respecting  the  new  liturgy.  I  have  nowhere, 
 either  in  the  Reformed  Church  in  Germany  or  here,  witnessed  or  heard  of 
 such  regular  kneeling  or  responses."  "The  venerable  fathers  of  our 
 Church,  Wagner,  the  Pomps,  the  Heltfensteins,  the  Beckers,  the  Eabers, 
 Eahauser,  Geistweit,  Mayer,  Reily,  Iliester,  Gloninger,  Ilendel,  Beecher, 
 Hoffmeier,  Iloffeditz  and  many  others  had  always  used  the  simple 
 free  worship."  He,  too,  wants  to  remain  true  to  the  old  customs  of  the 
 Reformed.  The  Provisional  liturgy  introduces  changes  that  would  revo- 
 lutionize our  worship.  He  closes  by  saying  that  he  would  be  satisfied 
 with  a  liturgy  framed  after  the  Reformed  liturgies  and  suited  to  the 
 Heidelberg  Catechism. 
 
 Star  begins  a  series  of  articles*  in  defense  of  the  Provisional  liturgy, 
 especially  against  Heidelberg,  which  continued  till  the  end  of  April. 
 He  tries  to  pfove  that  the  liturgy  is  a  return  to  the  old  Reformed  mode 
 of  worship.  He  does  this  by  showing  that  it  is  like  the  old  Reformed 
 liturgies.  Thus  he  compared  it  with  the  prayer-book  of  the  Anglican 
 Church.  He  says  that  the  Provisional  liturgy  is  not  indebted  to  the 
 prayer-book,  for  some  have  charged  that  it  was  an  attempt  to  Episco- 
 palianize  our  Church.  But  on  the  other  hand  the  prayer-book  was  in- 
 debted to  the  Reformed  liturgies  of  the  continent,  as  extensive  use  was 
 made  of  Bucer's  and  Melancthon's  liturgy  in  the  Prayer-book,  especially 
 in  the  baptismal  service.  The  ])rayer-book  was  .revised  in  1552  through 
 Reformed  influences,  that  is  by  the  help  of  Bucer  and  Peter  Martyr. 
 The  collects  of  the  Provisional  liturgy  arc  a  thousand  years  older  th;ni 
 the  Episcopal  liturgy  and  are  taken  from  the  original  sources  from 
 which  the  prayer-book  came.     Our  liturgy  is  not  from  the  Episcopalian. 
 
 Heidelberg  replies  to  thisf  that  if  the  Reformed  were  acquainted  witli 
 the  Episcopalian  prayer-book  when  the  Palatinate  liturgy  was  drawn 
 up,  why  did  they  not  adopt- it,  if  they  liked  responses  so  much.  There 
 was  a  great  variety  in  the  Reformed  liturgies,  but  on  one  point  they 
 all  agree — in  the  absence  of  responses. 
 
 (Star  begins  a  series  of  articles^  on  "The  Reformed  Liturgies."  He 
 calls  attention  to  the  Zurich  liturgy  (1525)  that  it  has  elaborate  re- 
 sponses,   to    which    Heidelberg    replied    by   saying    that    Ebrard    in    his 
 
 *Messenger,  January  15. 
 ^Messenger,  February  19. 
 ■^Messenger,  March  26, 
 
The  Provisional  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.  387 
 
 ' '  Church-book ' '  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Zurich  liturgy  Avas 
 the  only  Eefornied  liturgy  having  responses  and  thus  differing  from 
 all  the  rest.  B.  also  replies  to  this*  that  the  responses  in  the  Zurich 
 liturgy  were  in  the  Lord's  Supper  service,  whereas  the  contention 
 of  the  opponents  to  the  liturgy  was  against  their  use  in  the  regular 
 Lord's  day  sei-vice.  The  responses  in  the  Zurich  liturgy  were  given  up 
 soon,  as  is  shown  by  Zwingli 's  works.f  Finsler,^  the  historian  of  the 
 Swiss  Reformed  Church  and  successor  of  Zwingli  as  antistes,  said  that 
 the  Zurich  liturgy  had  no  responses,  no  altar  service  or  resemblance 
 to  the  Episcopalian  liturgy.  The  Evangelist  says,  "In  in.31  the  responses 
 of  the  Zurich  congregation  stopped  and  the  minister  performed  them 
 alone  or  with  an  assistant,  so  that  they  were  in  use  only  six  years. 
 As  to  pericopes,  Finsler  says  the  Zurich  Church  gave  them  up,  as  the 
 ministers  were  accustomed  to  preach  homilies  on  whole  books  of  the  Bible 
 at  a  time.  Finsler  says  that  the  oldest  liturgies  had  prayers  only  for 
 Sunday  services,  baptism,  the  Lord  's  Supper  and  marriage.  As  regards 
 all  else,  the  minister  had  perfect  freedom.  All  festivals  falling  on  week- 
 days were  rejected  by  the  Swiss.  High-churchmen  got  over  this,  by  say- 
 ing that  our  Church  did  not  have  much  to  do  with  the  Swiss  because  our 's 
 was  a  German  Church. 
 
 Star  states  that  the  Palatinate  liturgy  admitted  no  free  prayer  and,  be- 
 sides, it  says  that  the  congregations  all  joined  audibly  with  the  minister. 
 And,  again,  the  Palatinate  had  confession  and  absolution,  against  which 
 so  much  atfront  had  been. taken. 
 
 B.  replies  that  the  summons  of  the  Palatinate  liturgy  to  the  people 
 to  join  audibly  in  the  services  was  never  carried  out.  Its  simplicity 
 is  in  contrast  with  the  first  forms  of  the  Provisional  liturgy.  It  does 
 not  have  the  many  church  festivals  of  the  Provisional.  It  has  no  altar, 
 only  a  table. 
 
 Star  quotes  the  Hessian  liturgy  (1566)  as  having  many  of  the  saint's 
 days,  as  Epiphany,  Annunciation,  John  the  Baptist's  day,  etc. 
 
 B.  replies  that  the  Hessian  Church  was  only  a  small  part  of  the  Re- 
 formed Church  and  was  the  one  most  under  Lutheran  influences.  Besides, 
 in  that  Hessian  liturgy,  there  were  no  responses.  Star  also  quotes  the 
 Marburg  hymn-book,  published  in  this  country  by  Saur,  176.3,  which 
 had  in  it  collects,  pericopes,  etc.  This  ]\^rburg  hymn-book  was  gen- 
 erally used  by  our  Church  in  Pennsylvania  in  the  eighteenth  century. 
 Our  Church,  therefore,  was  high-church,  he  says,  because  its  hymn-book 
 had  these  forms. 
 
 B.  replies§  that  as  to  hymn-books  the  old  ones  were  of  the  Psalms, 
 as   our   early   Reformed   forefathers   originally   sang   only   Psalms.      Of 
 
 *Messenger,  April  9. 
 
 fSchuler  &  Schulthess  edition.  Vol.  IV,  page  74. 
 
 XKirche  und  Stoat,  page  74. 
 
 ^Messenger,  April  9. 
 
388         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 course  these  allowed  Jio  room  for  the  church  year.  When  hymns  appeareil 
 they  were  put  under  doctrinal  heads  in  the  hymn-books  rather  than 
 under  the  church  year.     And  as  to  the  Marburg  hymn-book  by  Saur: 
 
 1.  It  had  no  ecclesiastical  authority  and  does  not  claim  it,  for  it  was 
 never  adopted  by  our  synod  officially.* 
 
 2.  It  was  superseded  by  a  hymn-book  of  our  own,  which  k'a\  es  out  all 
 these  holy  days,  except  those  that  refer  to  facts  in  Christ's  life. 
 
 Star  attacks  the  charge  of  his  opponents,  that  the  liturgy  was  an  in- 
 novation.f  He  tries  to  show  that  the  worship  of  the  German  Re- 
 formed Church  was  liturgical : 
 
 1.  Free  prayer  was  not  used  in  tlic  pul)lic  services. 
 
 2.  The  confession  of  sin  was  followed  by  the  absolution. 
 
 3.  Other  peculiarities  of  old  Reformed  worship  are  almost  entirely 
 wanting  in  our  modern  worship. 
 
 He  sums  it  up  by  saying  that  the  litui-gy  differed  far  less  from  the 
 Reformed  liturgies  than  does  the  modern  mode  of  worship  in  our  Church 
 in    this    country. 
 
 He  also  defends  himself  from  a  new  standpoint.  He  intimates  that 
 our  Church  had  introduced  a  great  may  innovations,  as  she  had  been 
 originally  a  liturgical  church.  He  asks:  Is  omitting  the  service  on  fes- 
 tival days  no  innovation,  or  omitting  the  Lord's  Supper  at  Easter? 
 Is  confirming  females  with  bonnets  on  and  taking  the  names  of  com- 
 municants, without  reading  the  service,  an  innovation?  Is  sitting  at 
 communion  no  innovation?  Is  administering  the  elements  without  con- 
 secration, no  innovation?  Is  baptism,  without  confession  of  faith  as 
 in  the  creed,  no  innovation?  Is  it  no  innovation  to  use  a  marriage 
 service  where  parties  virtually  marry  themselves,  as  in  Mayer's  liturgy'. 
 "It  is  expedient,"  etc.  Is  it  only  expediency  or  (bity,  only  consent, 
 for  which  they  are  pronounced  husband  and  wife?  Is  it  no  innovation 
 to  make  the  sacrament  nothing  more  than  each  one  makes  by  his  faith? 
 Is  it  no  innovation  to  lead  our  Sunday  schools  and  ccmgregations  in  the 
 vain  repetition  of  chorus  singing?  Is  it  no  innovation  to  conduct  the 
 Lord's  day  sersice  extemporaneously,  when  it  was  not  so  originally? 
 Is  it  no  innovation  for  the  Mayer  liturgy  to  have  no  forms  for  the 
 Sunday  service,  to  have  no  Lord's  Prayer,  creed  or  ton  commandments 
 in  it,  or  any  single  office  from  any  former  liturgy,  not  a  single  prayer, 
 rubric,  paragraph  or  sentence?  He  said  that  his  opponents  were  of  the 
 party  bringing  in  innovations,  not  he.  The  Provisional  liturgy  differed 
 from  the  original  Reformed  liturgies  far  less  than  does  our  modern  order 
 of  worship. 
 
 In  this  description  he  is  hitting?  at  customs  in  our  (yhurcli 
 used   by   his   opponents.      In   casting;   reflections   against   the 
 
 *Dubb8  grants  that  the  Marburg  hymn-book  was  u  private  speculation 
 of  Saur.    Historic  Manual,  page  257. 
 ^Messenger,  January  22. 
 
The  Provision.vl  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.  389 
 
 Mayer  liturgy  he  was  simply  putting  an  argument  into  the 
 hands  of  his  opponents:  for  they  could  reply  that  the  Mayer 
 liturgy  had  been  officially  adopted  by  the  Church  and,  there- 
 fore, the  Church  endorsed  its  views  and  customs,  whereas  the 
 Provisional  liturgy  had  never  yet  been  adopted  by  the  Church 
 officially,  that  is,  had  not  been  sent  down  to  the  classes  for 
 adoption  as  the  constitution  directed. 
 
 B.  says  in  reply,  that  the  Mayer  liturgy,  much  as  it  is  scorned  by  Star, 
 was  a  pretty  fair  exponent  of  the  churchism  of  its  day.  If  that  liturgy 
 "was  too  bald,  let  us -see  to  it  that  the  one  the  Church  now  adopts  is  not 
 to  be  smothered  by  too  much  hair.  B.  says  the  Reformed  liturgies  are 
 seldom  called  Agenda  (things  to  be  done)  but  legenda  (directions). 
 They  were  to  serve  only  as  guides  and  as  directions.  Star,  quoting 
 Klieforth  (the  high-church  Lutheran  of  Germany),  Daniel  and  Herzog, 
 says  that  liturgical  worship  declined  owing  to  the  disheartening  influence 
 of  rationalism,  that  free  worship  came  in  because  of  rationalism.  Bom- 
 berger*  calls  attention  to  a  new  point  of  the  greatest  importance,  that 
 the  liturgical  question  is  becoming  more  and  more  a  question  of  church 
 constitution.  He  lays  down  the  constitutional  position  that  no  pastor 
 and  no  consistory  has  the  power  of  introducing  essential  modifications 
 in  the  form  of  worship  without  consulting  with  and  being  authorized  to 
 do  so  by,  the  congregation  at  a  properly  called  meeting.  This  is  over 
 against  the  high-church  view  of  the  ministry  which  claimed  that  the 
 minister  as  a  priest  could  regulate  the  worship  of  the  congregation  him- 
 self. This  constitutional  point  was  a  prophecy  of  the  later  controversy 
 when  the  liturgical  men  in  1867  felt  themselves  strong  enough  to  some- 
 times attempt  to  force  the  liturgy  on  the  congregation  without  waiting 
 for  the  consent  of  the  congregation. 
 
 The  editor  of  the  Messenger  says  one  thing  is  evident,  the 
 Reformed  Church  is  liturgical :  but  in  what  sense,  there  is  a 
 great  difference  of  opinion.  The  editor  says  the  liturgical 
 question  is  before  the  Church  and  as  such  should  be  venti- 
 lated. It  is  evident  that  it  did  not  suffer  for  want  of  ven- 
 tilation, for  the  controversy  kept  up  all  year  (1862). 
 
 Such  was  the  discussion  about  the  liturgy.  We  desire  to 
 add  something  about  the  various  liturgies  referred  to.  The 
 high-churclunen  defended  their  position  that  the  provisional 
 liturgy  was  like  the  Reformed  Church  liturgies  and  that  it 
 was  a  return  to  the  old  worship  of  the  Reformed  Church. 
 
 *Messenger,  February  12. 
 
390         History  op  Reformed  CnnRcn  in  the  IT.  S. 
 
 The   Old   Reformed,   however,   claimed  that   the   Provisional 
 liturgy  introduced  something  entirely  different  from  the  old 
 Reformed  worship.     We  feel  like  calling  attention  to  the  fact 
 that  the  high-churchmen  are  guilty  of  quite  a   number  of 
 errors  in  their  arguments.     They  refer  sometimes  to  liturgies 
 tliat  never  were  Reformed,  as  the  Hessian  liturgy,   1566,  in 
 order  to  prove  that  pericopes  were  in  use  in  the  German  Re- 
 formed Church.     Now  Hesse  did  not  become  Reformed  until 
 160-1  so  that  this  is  a  Lutheran   liturgj^  that  they  refer  to. 
 Again  both  Star  and  Harbaugh  claim  that  the  Episcopalians 
 got  their  prayer-book  from  the  German  Reformed  Church  and 
 that  Bucer  helped  frame  the   prayer-book.      This  will  come 
 up  later,  when  Prof.  J.  H.  Good  attacks  it.     Suffice  it  to  say 
 here  that  it  is  not  true.     The  Zurich  liturgy   (1525)  was  fre- 
 quently quoted  because  it  had  responses.     But  it  is  to  be  re- 
 membered that  its  responses  were  only  in  the  form  for  the 
 Lord's  Supper,  and  were  not  in  the  regular  Lord's  day  serv- 
 ice.   Besides,  these  responses  were  given  up  some  years  later. 
 They  are  very  fond  of  quoting  the  Marburg  hymn-book,  pub- 
 lished in  this  coimtry  in  the  eighteenth  century  by  Saur.    But 
 it  is  to  be  remembered  that  that  book  had  no  official  recogni- 
 tion by  our  Church  and  was  published  by  a  private  party. 
 And  it  is  also  to  be  noted  that  when  our  synod  published  its 
 own  hyimi-book  in  1797,  it  left  out  all  the  high-church  forms 
 and  festival  days,  showing  that  they  had  no  use  for  them. 
 The  Palatinate  liturgy  was  frequently  quoted  by  them  as  giv- 
 ing authority  for  certain  things,  as,  for  instance,  responses  in 
 worship.    But  the  reply  is  that  the  Palatinate  liturgy  was  not 
 a  responsive  liturgy.    It  had  no  responses  for  the  Lord's  day 
 service  and  has  them  only  in  the  preparatory  service  and  there 
 they  are  only  the  answer  "yes."     There  are  no  responsive. 
 "amens"  in  the  prayers  as  in  the  Provisional  liturgy.     The 
 editor  of  the  Messenger  claimed  that  the  Palatinate  had  qow- 
 fession  and  absolution.     This  is  not  exactly  true.     The  form 
 in  the  Palatinate  was  not  an  absolution  but  "a  declaration  of 
 comfort,"  as  it  was  named  l)y  tlie  Germans.     Its  form  was 
 very  different  from  the  absolution  of  the  Provisional  liturgy 
 and  later  the  Order  of  Worship.    In  the  latter,  the  absolution 
 
The  Provision.u.  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.  301 
 
 is  based  on  the  office  of  the  ministry  as  priests,  in  the  Palatin- 
 ate it  is  based  on  the  Word  of  God  and  was  only  declaratory, 
 that  is,  declaring  what  the  Bible  promised  about  forgiveness. 
 Again,  the  position  in  the  service  is  different.  In  the  Pro- 
 visional liturgy  it  is  in  the  first  part  of  the  service  because  the 
 liigh-churchmen  held  that  no  person  could  properly  worship 
 until  his  sins  had  been  pardoned  by  an  official  act  of  the 
 Church  through  the  minister  declaring  them  pardoned.  But 
 in  the  Palatinate,  the  absolution  comes  after  the  sermon,  near 
 the  end  of  the  service,  showing  that  they  did  not  believe  in 
 any  such  high-churchism.  The  worshiper  could  come  to  God 
 without  waiting  for  the  minister  to  absolve  him  from  sin. 
 Gradually  it  came  about  in  the  Palatinate  that  the  confession 
 and  this  declaration  of  comfort  came  to  be  used  more  seldom. 
 They  were  left  out  of  the  Sunday  services  and  only  used  in 
 the  preparatory  service.  This  had  been  the  custom  when  our 
 German  ancestors  came  to  this  country.  All  this  showed  that 
 this  form  was  less  and  less  used  hy  our  fathers  in  Germany. 
 The  frequent  argument  of  the  liturgical  party  was  that  the 
 tendency  from  liturgical  to  free  worship  was  due  to  the  com- 
 ing in  of  rationalism.  We  reply  that  was  not  always  true. 
 In  Switzerland  as  Geneva  and  Neuchatel,  in  the  eighteenth 
 century,  it  was  the  coming  in  of  rationalism  that  led  to  the 
 enlargement  of  the  liturgies.  Rationalism  sometimes  tries  to 
 make  up  for  its  lack  of  orthodoxy  by  an  increase  of  forms. 
 On  the  whole  subject  of  liturgical  worship,  we  take  issue  with 
 the  high-churchmen, — to  their  claim  that  our  church  was  a 
 liturgical  church.  Our  Church  in  this  country  was  never  al 
 liturgical  Church.  It  was  semi-liturgical.  A  liturgical 
 Church  is  one  where  liturgical  forms  are  always  used  at  the 
 service.  But  our  Church  always  had  the  free  mode  of  wor- 
 ship at  its  regular  Lord's  day  services.  It  was,  therefore,  not 
 liturgical  because  it  did  not  always  use  a  liturgy.  It  was  semi- 
 liturgical,  that  is,  it  sometimes  used  a  liturgy  as  at  sacraments, 
 etc.  It  was  hardly  even  semi-liturgical  because  these  extra 
 services  where  the  liturgy  was  used  were  so  rare  compared 
 witli  the  ordinary  free  worship  of  the  Sabbath.*  j 
 
 *See  my  History  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S.,  pages  G78-682. 
 
392        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 "While  these  writers  were  discussing  the  controversy  from 
 the  liturgical  side,  two  writers  appear  to  defend  the  doctrines 
 underlying  the  liturgy.  Krebs*  writes  a  series  of  articles  on 
 "The  Two  Sides,"  the  experimental  and  the  sacramental,  or 
 the  subjective  and  objective. 
 
 The  experimental  is  the  side  of  religion  in  which  we  are  most  active, 
 the  sacramental,  that  in  which  God  is  most  active.  In  the  one  we  give 
 ourselves  to  God;  in  the  other,  he  gives  himself  to  us.  Any  system 
 ignoring  either  side  is  one-sided  and  can  not  meet  the  wants  of  humanity. 
 Most  persons  do  not  distinguish  between  them.  A  distinction  does  not 
 mean  a  sundering  of  them.  The  sacramental  is  the  ground  of  experi- 
 mental religion,  the  experimental  is  conditioned  on  the  sacrament.  (We 
 can  not  forbear  to  say  we  think  it  is  the  other  way.  The  old  Reformed 
 view  was  that  the  efficacy  of  the  sacrament  depends  primarily  on  our 
 faith. — A.)  The  sacramental  is  what  God  does  for  us,-}-  but  all  he  does 
 for  us  is  not  merely  outward  and  formal  but  inward  and  real.  After 
 applying  this  to  baptism  and  the  Lord 's  Supper,  he  then  turns  from  the 
 sacramental  to  the  experimental.  The  difference  between  the  sacramental 
 and  the  experimental  is  that  in  the  former  we  feel  something  or  experi- 
 ence it,  while  on  the  latter  we  feel  nothing  at  all  (for  life  can  not  be 
 felt,  he  says),  and  we  therefore  require  the  outward  seals  of  inward 
 grace.  The  experimental  is  not  possible  without  the  sacramental:  — 
 feeling, — religion  does  not  exist  without  life-religion.  We  can  not  rise 
 to  God  until  he  descends  to  us.  The  sacramental  comes  first  and  then 
 the  experimental. 
 
 Betat  asks  Krebs  some  questions : 
 
 1.  If  baptism  inserts  life,  Mhy  does  Christ  say  that  some  branches  are 
 dead. 
 
 2.  If  faith  is  lacking  in  the  adult,  is  he  regenerated,  if  baptized. 
 
 3.  How  can  he  reconcile  all  this  with  the  Anxious  Bench,  where  Nevin 
 says  regeneration  takes  place  in  infancy  and  in  the  womb  instead  of  at 
 baptism?  If  infants  are  regenerated  in  the  womb,  what  would  be  the 
 part  that  baptism  would  perform? 
 
 Krebs  replies  that  the  answer  to  the  first  two  questions  are  in  his 
 articles.  Tk)  the  last  three,  he  does  not  feel  bound  to  answer,  but  says 
 he  goes  by  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  as  the  rule  of  interpretation  of 
 Scripture. 
 
 *January  29  and  ending  April  30,  in  Messenger. 
 
 fin  this  distinction  between  the  sacramental  (what  God  does  for  us) 
 and  the  sacrificial  (what  we  do  for  God),  he,  like  the  Mercersburg  school, 
 is  following  Klieforth,  the  high-church  German  Lutheran  of  Germany. 
 The  Reformed  of  Germany  never  spoke  of  worshij)  in  that  way. — A.) 
 
 XMessenger,  April  2. 
 
The  Provision.vl  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.  393 
 
 It  is  very  evident  that  when  Krebs  limits  regeneration  to  the  act  of 
 baptism,  he  narrows  it  too  much.  This  is  not  Biblical  nor  is  it  Reformed. 
 Still  it  is  interesting  to  see  how  he  veers  from  the  philosophical  position 
 of  Schelling,  (which  emphasized  the  objective,  and  which  Nevin  had 
 emphasized  and  so  came  nearly  going  over  to  Rome,)  to  the  Hegelian  posi- 
 tion which  emphasizes  the  relation  between  the  two  extremes.  Still  he 
 makes  the  objective  in  the  sacraments  the  basis,  but  he  allows  more 
 room  for  experience  than  has  hitherto  been  done  by  their  writers. 
 
 Another  doctrinal  development  while  this  liturgical  controversy  was 
 going  on  was  made  by  T.  G.  Apple.  He  begins*  by  an  article  on  Im- 
 putation and  Justification.  He  denies  forensic  imputation,  the  old  Re- 
 formed view  that  Christ 's  merits  are  charged  over  to  our  account  and 
 our  sins  charged  over  to  Christ.  Our  sin  was  not  merely  reckoned  against 
 Christ  as  one  foreign  to  us,  but  it  was  really  laid  on  him,  because  in 
 his  incarnation  he  so  identified  himself  with  man  that  he  occupied  the 
 sinner's  place.  Though  personally  free  from  sin,  yet  he  assumed 
 human  nature  with  all  its  burdens.  Having  attempted  to  show  how 
 our  sins  are  imputed  to  Christ,  he  then  goes  on  to  show  how  Christ's 
 righteousness  is  imputed  to  the  believer.  It  is  not  done  so  forensically, 
 that  is  charged  over  to  his  account,  but  is  effected  by  the  union  of  the 
 believer  with  Christ, — by  becoming  one  with  Christ.  Justification  is 
 making  the  sinner  righteous,  not  merely  calling  him  righteous.  (This 
 view  of  Mercersburg  Theology  is  against  the  old  Reformed  doctrine  of 
 justification  as  it  is  found  underlying  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.  No- 
 where is  there  a  clearer  statement  of  forensic  justification  than  in  answer 
 60.— J.) 
 
 Applef  writes  on  baptismal  regeneration :  Baptism  means  the  implant- 
 ing in  the  soul  of  a  germ  of  new  life — engrafting  into  Christ — the 
 conmiencement  of  a  new  life.  If  it  means  these,  there  is  baptismal  re- 
 generation. If  children  who  die  are  regenerated  in  order  to  be  saved, 
 why  may  not  children  who  live?  If  regeneration  is  not  to  be  ingrafted 
 into  Christ  and  to  receive  the  Holy  Ghost,  what  is  it.  Because  the 
 Heidelberg  Catechism  does  not  have  a  separate  answer  for  regeneration 
 he  infers  it  is  included  in  baptism.  (This  is  rather  a  high  jump  in 
 logic. — A.) 
 
 The  Western  part  of  onr  Chureli  now  begins  to  declare 
 itself  in  regard  to  this  liturgical  (inestion,  which  is  so  distract- 
 ing the  East.  Williard,  the  editor  of  the  Western  Missionary, 
 in  the  spring  of  this  year,  says : 
 
 ' '  Thus  far  we  have  kept  aloof  from  the  controversy,  but  the  West  is 
 not  uninterested.  Some  have  honestly  tried  to  introduce  the  liturgy,  but 
 the  general  result  is  adverse  to  it  in  the  present  form.     Not  a  single 
 
 *Messenger,  February  26. 
 ^Messenger,  March  12. 
 
394         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 congregation  in  the  West  uses  it  in  full.  It  is  evident  that  the  Church 
 does  not  want  it  in  its  present  form.  That  our  Church,  though  a 
 liturgical  church,  has  never  been  so  to  the  extent  proposed  by  the 
 Provisional  liturgy,  is  the  testimony  of  our  older  ministers  and  also 
 of  the  German  part  of  our  Church  with  whom  this  liturgy  finds  no 
 special  favor.  It  is  clear  it  needs  a  thorough  ajul  important  revision." 
 lie  does  not  believe  that  this  liturgy  is  at  all  suited  to  the  people  in  the 
 West. 
 
 The  Ohio  synod  (1861)  elected  Prof.  J.  H.  Ebrard,  of 
 Erlangen,  Germany,  as  professor  of  theology  at  Tiffin.  He, 
 however,  declined  and  Prof.  J.  H.  Good  was  elected.  Tliis 
 placed  in  this  leading  position,  an  ontspoken  opponent  of  IMer- 
 (iersburg  instead  of  a  sympathizer  with  it,  as  Prof.  M.  Kiefifer 
 had  been. 
 
 Another  significant  event  was  the  suspension  of  the  publica- 
 tion of  the  jMercersburg  Review.  It  began  in  1849  and  con- 
 tinued with  a  circulation  of  200  for  ten  years.  In  1857,  it  was 
 hopelessly  insolvent  and  the  next  year  Rev.  G.  Russell  took  it, 
 and  by  1862  it  had  paid  its  debts.  It  was  suspended  in  18G2. 
 the  reason  given  being  the  Civil  War  and  high  prices.  But 
 the  low-churchmen  declared  it  was  because  of  lack  of  support 
 for  Mercersburg  Theology.  It  was  revived  in  1867  and  lati^r 
 changed  into  the  Reformed  Church  Review. 
 
 Skction  8.     The  Synod  of  1862  and  Its  Antecedents. 
 
 Schaff,  as  chairman  of  the  liturgical  conunittee,  issued*  a 
 statement.  He  says  that  the  committee  had  a  meeting  in 
 January,  at  which  Bomberger  wanted  a  pulpit-liturgy,  th(^ 
 others  an  altar-liturgy.  The  discussion  lasted  three  days. 
 It  had  a  second  meeting  in  April,  which  closed  its  labors 
 until  synod.  The  committee  unanimously  agreed,  he  said,  on 
 the  necessity  of  a  liturgj^ — that  it  should  be  substantially  like 
 the  Provisional  liturgy — that  the  Provisional  needed  revision. 
 They  differed 
 
 1.  As  to  the  nature  and  cliaracter  of  that  revision:  The  majority 
 present  (6)  wanted  it  revised  on  its  own  basis  and  in  its  own  order 
 and  si)irit.  The  minority  (1)  (Bomljcrgor)  wanted  it  ri'viHc<l  in  such  a 
 way  as  would  alter  its  distinctive  character. 
 
 *Messenger,  May  14. 
 
The  Provisional  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.  395 
 
 2.  They  difl'eied  in  regard  to  the  responses,  tlie  minority  wanting  them 
 left  out. 
 
 3.  They  differed,  whether  it  should  be  a  pulpit-liturgy  like  Mayer's 
 or  an  altar-liturgy.* 
 
 4.  They  differed  as  to  the  instructions  given  to  the  committee  by  the 
 Synod  of  1852,  the  minority  declaring  that  the  instruction  was  that  the 
 liturgy  was  to  be  according  to  the  Reformed  model,  the  majority  claim- 
 ing that  that  synod's  instructions  gave  them  liberty  to  make  the  liturgies 
 of  the  early  Church  the  model. 
 
 The  majority  might  go  on  with  the  work  and  revise  the  liturgy. 
 But  they  preferred  to  suspend  work  until  instructed  by  synod.  He  said 
 no  member  of  the  liturgical  committee  had  any  idea  of  forcing  the  Pro- 
 visional liturgy  on  the  congregations.  Such  an  attempt  would  be  wrong 
 and  unwise.  Nor  is  it  the  idea  of  the  committee  to  have  it  exclusively 
 used,  so  as  to  do  away  with  free  prayer.  His  own  opinion  was  that  our 
 Church  would  settle  down  to  a  compromise  between  both  parties. 
 Dubbs  later  says,  "The  majority  of  the  committee  were  convinced  that 
 the  times  demanded  worship  that  was  more  thoroughly  liturgical  thau 
 anything  with  which  the  Church  had  been  familiar,  while  the  minority 
 desired  to  adhere  closely  to  the  precedents  afforded  by  the  early  liturgies 
 of  the  Eef  ormed  Church. ' ' 
 
 But  the  bombshell  that  created  the  greatest  sensation  since/ 
 the  d&ys  of  "Early  Christianity"  and  "Cyprian"  ten  years 
 before,  was  the  publication  about  the  first  of  June  of  a 
 pamphlet,  entitled  "The  Liturgical  Question,"  by  Dr.  Nevin. 
 In  the  preface,  he  gives  the  action  of  the  liturgical  committee 
 ordering  him  to  set  forth  a  clear  idea  of  both  schemes  of  wor- 
 ship advocated  in  the  liturgical  committee,  so  that  synod 
 might  be  able  to  understand  the  real  question  at  issue.  He 
 says  he  reported  it  to  the  committee  and  it  was  adopted  and 
 ordered  to  be  published  for  the  consideration  of  the  Church. 
 
 He  first  describes  both  schemes  of  liturgy, — the  pulpit-liturgy  and 
 the  altar-liturgy.  First,  he  states  objections  to  liturgical  worship  and 
 also  the  arguments  for  it.  Here,  however,  it  is  very  clear,  that  his  sym- 
 jiathies  are  for  the  latter.  At  the  close  of  this  description  of  pulpit- 
 liturgies,  he  launches  out  into  a  severe  tirade  against  free  prayer,  calling 
 it  "jejune,  confused,  prosy,  not  sapid,  not  satisfying,  nor  nourishing 
 to  the  soul,"  etc.f     He  then  proceeds  to  describe  an  altar-liturgy.     The 
 
 *A  pulpit-liturgy  omitted  responses  and  consisted  mainly  of  forms  for 
 special  occasions,  as  the  sacraments,  marriage,  etc.  It  centered  in  the 
 pulpit  and  in  preaching.  An  altar-liturgy  had  many  responses  and 
 elaborate  forms.     It  centered  about  the  altar. 
 
 fPage  21. 
 
396         History  of  Reformed  Cht^rch  in  the  IT.  S. 
 
 pulpit-liturgy  is  one  whose  forms  are  thrown  together  in  an  outward 
 and  prevailingly  independent  way.  The  altar-liturgy  is  one  whose  parts 
 are  inwardly  bound  together  by  having  a  common  relation  to  the  idea 
 of  a  Christian  altar  and  referring  to  tlie  niystieal  })resen('e  of  Christ  in 
 the  Holy  Eucharist: 
 
 (1)  Its  conception  must  be  ruled  by  the  sense  of  the  sacramental  in 
 religion  just  as  the  early  liturgies  of  the  Church  centered  around  the 
 Lord's  Supper. 
 
 (2)  The  liturgy  must  bear  ascertain  priestly  character,  for  the  un- 
 priestly  in  worship  leads  to  free  worsJiip.  The  New  Testament  declara- 
 tion "we  have  an  altar"  must  not  be  stultified  to  mean  "we  have  a 
 table  and  nothing  more."  The  full  conception  of  a  liturgy  requires  an 
 altar  service  like  that  of  the  Jews.  "Witluuit  this,  worship  ceases  to  be 
 distinctively   Christian. '  '* 
 
 ,        (3)   Again,  it  must   be  ruled   by   tiie  church  year. 
 
 ^  .He  then  goes  on  to  state  the  advantages  and  the  disadvantages  of 
 free  worship.  Liturgical  worship  gives  the  congregation  a  chance  for 
 active  co-operation  in  worship.  He  rails  against  free  worship,  speaking 
 of  the  licentiousness  of  free  worship,  because  it  is  purely  inward  and 
 spiritual, — it  carries  in  it  the  nature  of  mockery.f  Free  prayer  is 
 spoken  of  as  ' '  an  irregular,  desultory  effusion  entitled  to  little  regard 
 on  the  score  of  pity  or  sense,  making  people  hang  on  the  mouth  of  the 
 minister."  He  calls  it  "extemporized  turns  and  starts, — ranting 
 expectoration, — sentimental  harangues, — an  outrage  upon  the  true  spirit 
 of  Christian  worship. '  '|  He  says,  ' '  Let  the  inward  and  outward  go 
 together.  Let  there  be  risings  and  bowings  in  token  of  adoration, § — say 
 Amen  repeatedly,  as  helpful  to  the  otlHciating  minister  and  themselves. 
 There  must  be  gestures  and  postures  significant  of  faith  in  what  the 
 service  thus  means, — acts  of  bodily  worship  fitly  suited  to  correspond- 
 ing acts  of  the  spirit,  responses  of  the  tongue  to  seal  and  confirm  the 
 silent  responses  of  the  heart. ||  Outward  actings  are  not  only  to  lie 
 tolerated,  they  are  to  be  enjoined  as  tlie  necessary  condition  of  worship 
 in  a  truly  spiritual  form."  Having  described  the  altar-liturgy,  he  de- 
 (dares  that  the  Provisionary  liturgy  is  a  book  of  that  sort.  He  boldly 
 asserts  that  the  Prcjvisional  liturgy  was  a  new  sort  of  liturgy,^ — that 
 it  is  more  than  the  old  Palatinate  liturgy  of  our  Cliurch,  because  its 
 authors  went  back  to  the  early  liturgies  before  the  reformation.  He 
 calls  Reformation   liturgies   (Lutheran  and  Reformed)   "frigid   foini.ili 
 
 *Page  28. 
 fPage  34. 
 |Pages  8-9. 
 §Page  35. 
 II Page  33. 
 iJPages  62  and  77. 
 
The  Provision.vi.  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.  397 
 
 ties.*  He  even  attacks  the  Palatinate,  because  the  Reformed,  he  says, 
 were  not  favorable  to  the  production  of  good  liturgies.  Though  they 
 produced  many  liturgies,  they  were  supremely  unliturgical.  Their  pro- 
 ductions have  all  been  more  mechanical  than  organic,  pulpit-liturgies 
 rather  than  altar-liturgies.  In  thus  going  back  earlier  than  the  Pala- 
 tinate, he  claims  the  committee  were  but  following  the  instructions 
 given  them  by  the  Synod  of  1852.  He  then  argues  that  our  Church 
 wants  more  than  a  Reformation  liturgy,  because  it  has  permitted  the 
 Provisional  to  be  used  and  tliis  liturgy  rests  on  the  sacramental  prin- 
 ciple and  breathes  a  sacrificial  spirit.  The  action  of  the  classes  meant 
 that  there  should  be  a  conservative  revision,  not  a  radical  one.  It 
 meant  an  altar-liturgy.  The  minority  in  the  committee  wanted  a  i)ulpit- 
 liturgy,  with  no  responses  or  strong  sacramental  tone  or  altar  pattern. 
 He  then  declares  that  it  was  not  possible  to  revise  the  liturgy  by  revising 
 individual  parts  and  phrases,  as  Bomberger  desired,  because  the  liturgy 
 was  an  organic  whole.  He  calls  such  a  revision  ' '  murderous. ' '  If 
 revised  in  that  manner,  it  never  would  be  fully  used.  He  says,  ' '  We 
 can  never  be  satisfied  with  the  old  Palatinate  liturgy  or  any  of  the 
 Helvetic  liturgies  used  in  the  sixteenth  century  or  since,  and  still  less 
 with  any  of  the  jejune  fomiularies  used  by  our  ministerial  fathers  of 
 the  last  century  here  in  America,  "f  He  thus  condemned  the  old  Re- 
 formed idea  of  liturgy  as  pseudo-liturgical.  While  thus  condemning  the 
 Palatinate  liturgy,  he  commends  especially  the  Episcopalian  prayer-book. J 
 He  is  therefore  Episcopalian  rather  than  Reformed  in  his  tendencies  and 
 sympathies.  ' '  Directories  were  pseudo-liturgies,  bastard  conceptions  of 
 what  a  liturgy  is,"  he  says. 
 
 Dr.  Nevin  throws  himself  open  to  criticism  in  this  tract.  If,  as  he 
 says,  he  M'as  instructed  to  propose  a  report  giving  the  views  of  both 
 sides  in  the  committee,  he  has  not  obeyed  instructions.  His  tract  is  a 
 defense  of  the  one  side, — of  liturgical  worshiji,  with  a  severe  tirade 
 against  his  opponents.  It  does  not  represent  both  sides  of  the  commit- 
 tee, but  is  intensely  partisan.  And  his  extreme  positions,  in  attacking 
 the  old  Reformed  liturgies  and  also  so  severely  criticising  free  prayer 
 raised  a  storm.  One  of  his  opponents  sarcastically  says,  "According  to 
 this  tract,  our  fathers  never  worshiped  at  all. ' ' 
 
 This  tract  marked  a  great  change  in  the  claims  of  the  liturgical  party. 
 Before  this 
 
 (1)  They  had  declared  that  the  liturgy  was  not  to  interfere  with  free 
 prayer;  now  Nevin  declaims  against  free  prayer  most  bitterly. 
 
 (2)  Before  this  they  had  been  claiming  that  the  liturgy  was  a  return 
 to  the  old  Reformed  method  of  worship;  now  Nevin  claims  the  liturgy 
 is  something  new  and  not  according  to  the  customs  of  our  fathers;  he 
 
 *Page  43. 
 fPage  71. 
 JPages  44  and  60. 
 
398         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 even   speaks   slightingly  of   the  Palatinate   and   Mayer   liturgies  of   our 
 Church. 
 
 Wh^  the  liturgical  party  changed  front  at  this  time  is  an 
 interesting  (luestion.  Perhaps  because  they  now  felt  strong 
 enough  to  defeat  their  opponents  as  during  all  these  years 
 they  had  been  graduating  adherents  from  the  seminary.  An- 
 other reason  may  have  been  that  they  themselves  were  grow- 
 ing more  and  more  liturgical  by  the  logic  of  their  views. 
 Their  doctrine  of  historical  development  Avas  revealing  itself 
 in  themselves. 
 
 This  pamphlet  reveals  a  great  change  in  Nevin's  views,  for 
 in  his  "Anxious  Bench,"  published  in  1843,  he  attacks  "genu- 
 flexions and  prostrations  in  the  Church,  the  effort  to  produce 
 effect  by  mere  outward  postures  and  dress  till  in  the  end  amid 
 the  solemn  mummery,  no  room  has  been  left  for  genuine  peni- 
 tence."* Here  he  approves  of  risings  and  bowings  and  ges- 
 tures and  postures  significant  of  faith.  His  philosophy  so  em- 
 phasized the  objective  not  only  in  his  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
 but  also  in  her  woi*ship  that  our  inward  aspirations  must  be 
 expressed  outwardly. 
 
 It  was  not  very  long  after  the  publication  of  this  paniphU't 
 before  criticisms  on  it  were  heard.  Elder  Rudolph  Kelkerf  calls  atten- 
 tion to  Nevin's  statements  that  the  Provisional  liturgy  was  not  accord- 
 ing to  the  way  in  which  our  forefathers  worshiped  in  this  country. 
 This,  he  says,  was  ditferent  from  their  old  claim  that  the  Provisional 
 liturgy  was  a  return  to  the  custom  of  our  forefathers.  It  is  used  in 
 only  three  out  of  600  congregations  and  in  some  others  as  a  pulpit - 
 liturgy.  If  this  shows  a  felt  want  of  the  Church  for  an  altar-liturgy 
 he  was  much  mistaken.  They  also  attempted,  he  says,  to  educate  the 
 Church  up  to  a  liturgical  service  by 
 
 1.  The  Golden  Censor,  with  its  daily  prayers  copied  from  the  liturgy. 
 
 2.  The  Child's  Catechism,  with  doctrines  too  strong  for  the  synod's 
 approval  and,  therefore,  its  adoption  was  postponed,  but  nevertheless 
 it  was  printed  and  circulated. 
 
 3.  The  Hymns  and  Chants  for  the  Sunday  School,  with  its  collects 
 and  pericopes  verbatim  from  the  liturgy. 
 
 The  last  two  books  were  circulated,  he  said,  forgetful  of  the  provision 
 of  the  constitution,  which  requires  synod  to  sanction  books  of  instruction. 
 
 •Anxious  Bench,  28  and  39. 
 jfMessenger,  July  2. 
 
The  Provisional  Litltkgy  and  Its  Resi'lts.  399 
 
 All  those  Avere  used  to  bring  our  Church  back  to  the  customs  ot  our 
 forefathers,  which  now,  according  to  Nevin,  never  existed.  What  be- 
 comes of  the  historical  reputation  of  some  brethren.  (We  might  add 
 to  Kelker's  point,  what  becomes  of  the  arguments  that  Davis,  Harbaugh 
 and  others  used  in  their  attack  on  Bomberger,  where  they  try  so  hard 
 to  futilely  prove  that  the  liturgy  was  a  return  to  the  old  system  of 
 worship  of  our  Reformed  forefathers. — A.)  He  urges  all  to  read 
 Nevin 's  pamphlet  and  realize  what  the  high-churchmen  are  doing  to 
 swing  our  denomination  out  of  the  old  faith  into  the  wake  of  the 
 Roman  Catholic  and  Episcopal  Churches. 
 
 D.  II.*  writes  against  the  change  of  worship,  saying  that  Daniel 
 in  the  lion's  den  and  Jonah  in  the  whale's  belly  had  no  prayer-book, 
 or  the  Hebrew  children  in  the  fiery  furnace  or  the  thief  on  the  cross. 
 As  a  member  of  the  German  Reformed  Church  for  40  years,  he  never 
 saw  the  older  brethren  use  a  prayer-book  in  the  pulpit  or  speak  of  the 
 necessity  of  one. 
 
 Nevinf  finds  a  defender  in  Candor,  Mho  tries  to  defend  him  by  toning 
 dmvn  his  positions  and  saying  that  the  liturgy  is  both  old  and  new. 
 It  is  amusing,  he  says,  to  see  what  delight  the  anti-liturgical  men  take 
 in  a  remark  or  two  of  Nevin  's,  but  they  forget  his  unanswerable  argu- 
 ment. The  fact  that  the  liturgy  is  in  many  respects  a  new  book,  does 
 not  make  it  unhistorical.  Who  will  say  that  the  German  Reformed 
 Church  has  no  altar,  no  priestly  function  of  minister,  is  not  sacramental 
 and  has  no  Church  festivals?  As  she  has  these,  she  has  the  basis  of 
 the  proposed  liturgy  and  the  liturgy  is  no  new  scheme.  She  has  never 
 yet  succeeded  in  giving  the  Church's  liturgical  life  a  fair,  objective 
 form.  Extreme  Puritanic  worship  was  always  unnatural  to  her.  She 
 found  some  rest  in  different  liturgies,  prepared  for  her.  But  one  after 
 another  they  have  proved  unworthy  of  her,  because  pulpit-liturgies. 
 This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  she  carries  a  life  older  than  the  reformation, 
 — for  the  Church  of  the  third  and  fourth  centuries  forms  the  deepest 
 element  of  her  life.  The  demands  of  this  element  must  be  met  by 
 any  liturgy  that  would  satisfy  her.  He  grants  that  our  forefathers  in 
 this  country  never  used  such  a  form,  but  that  does  not  .make  it  unhis- 
 torical.   We  must  complete  the  defects  of  our  fathers. 
 
 Fidelity^  replies  to  Candor.  Candor  is  a  good  thing,  but  not  so  good 
 as  logic.  Candor  is  evidently  a  convert  to  ritualism.  Candor  is  not 
 candid  and  his  logic  is  not  logical.  He  calls  his  enemies  anti-liturgical, 
 when  they  are  really  not  hostile  to  a  liturgy — only  hostile  to  a  liturgy 
 like  the  Provisional  liturgy.  He  calls  them  Puritanic  because  they  don't 
 agree  with  him,  and  yet  they  do  not  want  Puritanic  worship.  Why  does 
 Nevin  attack,  as  jejune,  the  liturgies  used  by  our  fathers,  when  they  had 
 
 *Messenger,  July  9. 
 ^Messenger,  July  16. 
 ^Messenger,  July  30. 
 
400         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 confession,  the  "declaration  of  comfort"  (not  absolution),  the  Lord's 
 Prayer  and  the  Creed.  Nevin's  report  does  not  attack  Puritanism,  but 
 it  does  attack  the  old  Keformed  worship.  Candor  is  not  candid  but 
 biased  for  ritualism. 
 
 But  the  most  marked  immediate  effect  of  Nevin's  pamphlet 
 Mas  in  the  western  part  of  onr  Chnreh.  This  had  as  yet  taken 
 little  part  in  the  controversy.  But  now  it  becomes  thoroughly 
 alarmed  and  aroused.  The  pamphlet  appeared  just  before  the 
 meeting  of  the  Ohio  synod.  That  s^ynod  at  once  unanimously 
 decided  against  a  liturgy  and  requested  the  General  Synod, 
 soon  to  be  formed,  to  modify  the  Provisional  liturgy.  It 
 decided  against  an  altar-liturgy  as  set  forth  in  Nevin's  tract. 
 It  wanted  the  responses  and  the  doctrinal  phrases  in  the  Pro- 
 visional liturgy  omitted  as  contrary  to  Reformed  doctrine. 
 Indiana  classis  unanimously  declared  (Sept.  28)  that  .it 
 wanted  a  genuine  Reformed  liturg}% — the  old  Palatinate.  It 
 opposed  perieopes  as  Roman  Catholic,  said  the  i)rayer-book 
 was  of  the  synagogue  and  not  of  the  Church.  It  asked  synod 
 to  consider  the  subject  so  as  to  stop  this  Babylonish  confusion. 
 Sheboygan  classis  went  so  far  as  to  appoint  a  committee  th 
 prepare  its  own  liturgy. 
 
 Star*  tries  to  explain  away  the  objection  to  baptismal  rejjeneration 
 based  on  the  argument  of  the  thief  on  the  cross,  who  was  saved  though 
 not  baptized.     He  says  it  is  to  be  remembered : 
 
 1.  That  the  thief  was  a  Jew  because  he  feared  Cod.  As  a  Jew  he  was 
 already  in  the  covenant  with  God  by  circumcision. 
 
 2.  That  this  covenant  of  circumcision  was  in  force  is  shown  by  the 
 fact,  that  the  new  covenant  of  baptism  had  not  yet  come  into  force,  for 
 baptism  was  not  instituted  till  after  Christ's  resurrection. 
 
 3.  Why  did  Christ  not  baptize.  Because  he  is  the  absolute  sacrament. 
 Being  the  source,  he  needs  no  mediatory  sacrament  between  himself  and 
 the  penitent. 
 
 4.  The  thief's  case  is  an  extraordinary  one  and  not  a  precedent  for 
 us.  It  has  already  done  untold  injury  to  those  who  procrastinate  their 
 salvation. 
 
 ■  The  synod  of  1862  met  under  peculiar  circumstances.  Only 
 eight  days  before  the  meeting  tlie  rel)els  visited  Chambers- 
 burg,  where  it  was  to  meet.    The  Civil  War  was  a  type  of  the 
 
 *Messenger,  October  1. 
 
The  Provisional  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.  401 
 
 ecclesiastical  conflict  there  and  in  our  Church  at  large.  At 
 it,  two  reports  came  from  the  liturgical  committee,  a  majority 
 and  a  minority  report.  The  former  had  been  printed  in 
 Nevin's  pamphlet.  The  minority  report  dissented  from  that 
 of  the  majority,  declaring: 
 
 1.-  That  its  action  was  a  virtual  evasion  of  tlie  duty  assigned  to  the 
 committee  by  the  last  synod  and  a  frustration  of  the  wishes  of  the 
 Church.  The  synod  had  ordered  the  revision  of  the  liturgy  to  be  made 
 according  to  the  suggestions  of  the  classes.  Their  suggestions  called 
 for  such  modifications  as  to  make  the  liturgy  consistent  with  the  prin- 
 ciples and  usages  of  the  Eeformed  Church.  This  the  committee  has  not 
 done.  They  have  also  frustrated  the  wishes  of  the  Church,  which  was 
 opposed  to  any  radical  changes  in  our  mode  of  worship. 
 
 2.  The  report  was  not  such  a  paper  as  was  called  for  fey  the  action 
 of  the  committee  itself  at  its  meeting  at  Lancaster.  The  resolution  of 
 the  committee  called  for  an  impartial  report,  setting  forth  the  merits  of 
 both  schemes  of  worship  impartially.  This  their  report  did  not  do, 
 for  Nevin  's  report  was  wholly  on  the  side  of  ritualism.  Had  it  been 
 known  that  Nevin  would  make  such  a  report,  the  resolution  for  him  to 
 do  so  would  not  have  been  unanimously  adopted. 
 
 3.  It  attempts  to  perform  a  service  antagonistic  to  the  purpose  and 
 wishes  of  the  synod  and  Church.  The  action  of  the  Synod  of  18.52  was, 
 that  while  the  committee  was  permitted  to  go  back  to  the  early  liturgies 
 and  appropriate  suitable  material,  yet  they  were  to  have  a  ruling  regard 
 for  the  old  Palatinate  and  other  Eeformed  liturgies  of  the  sixteenth 
 century.  And  now  this  report  ridicules  and  condemns  the  system  sanc- 
 tioned by  the  German  Reformed  Church  for  more  than  three  hundred 
 years.  But  the  report  goes  farther.  The  Provisional  liturgy  tolerates 
 free  prayer  and  some  degree  of  liberty  in  the  devotional  services  of 
 the  sanctuary.  But  this  report  would  have  free  prayer  excluded  and 
 makes  all  forms  to  be  prescribed.  The  report,  if  adopted,  will  commit 
 the  synod  against  free  prayer.  If  the  synod  adopts  it,  it  commits  the 
 Church  to  a  mode  of  worship  which  tolerates  none  but  responsive  and 
 liturgical  services. 
 
 4.  Their  report  assumes,  that  the  changes  demanded,  would  destroy 
 the  integrity  and  unity  of  the  Provisional  liturgy  and  mar  its  liturgical 
 excellence.  The  minority  replies  that  the  liturgy  was  constructed  with 
 this  end  in  view,  that  it  might  possibly,  yes,  probably,  be  revised. 
 Why  was  it  made  a  provisional  liturgy,  he  asks,  if  not  that  it  might  be 
 reWsed?  Yet  now  the  majority  refuse  to  revise  it  by  saying  that  its 
 integrity  would  be  destroyed.  The  report  is  not  therefore  consistent. 
 They  refuse  to  let  a  liturgy,  which  is  only  provisional,  be  revised  ac- 
 cording to  the  instruction  of  the  synod  and  of  the  Church.  The  changes 
 suggested  by  the  minority  are  such  as  that  the  Lord's  Supper  service 
 
402         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 of  the  Palatinate  liturgy  be  substituted  for  that  in  the  Provisional, — 
 that  in  the  preparatory  service  the  questions  and  answers  of  the  older 
 service  be  restored,  because  the  preparatory  and  communion  service  of 
 the  Provisional  liturgy  is  not  suitable  to  the  communion  service  of  the 
 Palatinate.  They  suggest  that  a  number  of  expressions  in  the  forms 
 for  confession,  absolution,  baptism,  ordination  and  confirmation  be  so 
 modified  as  to  make  them  more  in  accordance  with  the  established  doc- 
 trines of  the  Church.  All  the  minority  desired  was  that  the  instructions 
 of  the  last  synod  be  carried  out,  which  they  believed  they  were  doing  by 
 this  report.  The  report  was  signed  by  three  members  of  the  liturgical 
 committee,  Bomberger,  Ileiuer  and  S.  E.  Fisher. 
 
 Both  the  majority  and  minority  reports  were  read  and 
 neither  was  adopted.  The  discussion  on  them  lasted  three 
 days,  the  synod  resolving  itself  into  a  committee  of  the  whole 
 to  do  this.  The  majority  of  the  liturgical  committee  (Xevin, 
 Gerhart,  Schaif  and  Harbaugh)  wanted  no  change  whatever 
 made  in  the  Provisional  liturgy.  The  synod  permitted  the 
 minority  to  read  parts  of  the  modified  service  they  had  pre- 
 pared. Bomberger  read  some  n^vised  forms  to  show  lluit 
 revision  was  possible  by  leaving  out  objectionable  forms  and 
 phrases,  but  it  met  with  no  favor  and  was  criticised  by  Nevin 
 afterward  as  a  "piebald  atfair."  During  the  discussion, 
 Elder  William  Heyser  brought  forward  the  argument  against 
 revision  that  the  contract  made  with  the  publisliers  of  the 
 liturgy,  Lindsay  &  Blakeston,  was  for  ten  years,  and  if  the 
 liturgy  were  revised  it  might  involve  the  synod  in  severe 
 pecuniary  loss,  as  the  publishers  might  claim  damages.  This 
 argument  influenced  a  number  in  voting,  Kremer  saying 
 afterward  that  he  found  six  who  confessed  that  it  had  won 
 them.  The  action  of  the  synod  was  that  the  optional  use  of 
 Ihc  liturgy  be  allowed  as  heretofore  among  our  churches,  that 
 it  be  suffered  to  continue  till  the  end  of  ten  years  from  the 
 time  of  its  first  publicaticm,  and  that  the  whole  ([uestion  of 
 its  revision  be  indefinitely  postponed.  The  vote  was  43  to  13.* 
 This  final  decision  was  hastened  by  the  weariness  of  the  synod 
 with  the  long  discussion  and  their  anxiety  for  adjournment. 
 The  liturgical  party  gained  their  point  and  the  decision  on  the 
 
 *F  W.  Kremer,  J.  F.  Hiester,  P.  Schafer,  Bomberger,  C.  Wanna- 
 macher,  S.  R.  Fisher,  Schneck,  Eebaugh,  Besore,  Lohr,  Welker,  Meyer 
 and  Rust  voting  against  it. 
 
The  Provisionaij  Liturgy  and  Its  Results.  403 
 
 liturgy  was  now  delayed  for  years.  The  whole  matter  thus 
 came  to  be  left  for  the  General  Synod  to  dispose  of  in  some 
 way,  and  in  the  meauM^hile  the  liturgical  party  gained  another 
 year  for  its  provisional  use. 
 
 The  discussion  on  the  liturgy  now  ceased.  Two  reasons 
 probably  caused  the  lull.  One  was  the  hope  that  the  General 
 Synod  soon  to  be  organized  might  find  some  way  out  of  the; 
 difficulty.  The  other  was  that  the  observance  of  the  Tercen- 
 tenary of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  overtopped  everything 
 else  during  the  year  1863. 
 
CHAPTER  III. 
 
 The  Observance  of  the  Tercentenary  of  the  Heidelberg 
 Catechism  (1863). 
 
 Section  1.    The  Preparation  for  the  Tercentenary. 
 
 The  movement  towards  the  observance  of  the  Tereentenary 
 of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  was  first  suggested  by  S.  IMiller, 
 editor  of  the  Eirche^izeitung,  in  3856,  and  by  Harbaugh,  in 
 his  ''Lives  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Reformed  Church,"  in  1857. 
 It  was  not,  however,  until  two  years  later  that  the  movement 
 was  officially  begun  by  any  of  the  classes.  The  elassis  of 
 Mercersburg  in  May,  1859,  adopted  a  motion  proposed  by 
 Prof.  Schaff,  requesting  synod  to  take  suitable  steps  toward 
 observing  the  Tercentenary.  It  suggested  to  synod  the  prepa- 
 ration of  a  critical  standard  edition  of  the  catechism,  together 
 with  a  revised  English  translation,  and  also  the  preparation 
 of  the  digest  of  the  minutes  of  the  synod,  which  would  pre- 
 sent a  complete  constitutional  history  of  the  Church  from  its 
 origin  in  1746  to  that  time;  together  with  an  alphabetical 
 index  of  persons  and  things.  Tlie  sjmod  of  1850  accepted  the 
 suggesti(m  of  Mercersburg  elassis.     It  appointed 
 
 (1)  A  committee  of  arnuigements  for  it  (Harbaugh,  Nevin, 
 Cans,  Apple  and  Elder  GrilTeth). 
 
 (2)  A  committee  to  prepare  a  standard  edition  of  the 
 Heidelberg  Catechism  with  revised  English  translation  (Ger- 
 hart,  Nevin,  Harl)augh,  Kessler,  Zacharias  and  Elders  Heyser 
 and  Kelker). 
 
 (3)  A  coimnittec  to  prepare  a  digest  (S.  R.  Fisher,  Ilar- 
 feaugh,  Bausman,  J.  II.  Derr,  Appel  and  Polders  II(\yser  and 
 Rodenmeyer) . 
 
 At  the  synod  of  1860  the  committee  on  the  catechism  made 
 a  report  which  was  accepted  and  L.  H.  Steiner  added  to  the 
 committee.    It  continued  its  work  and  produced  the  Tercen- 
 
 404 
 
Tercentenary  op  Heidelberg  Catechism.  405 
 
 tenary  Edition  of  the  Catechism.  This  was  a  polyglot  (old 
 German,  Latin,  modern  German  and  English).  This  work 
 revealed  careful  and  scholarly  examination  of  authorities,  but 
 its  value  was  somewhat  vitiated  later  by  the  discovery  in 
 ]8(j4  of  the  first  edition  of  the  catechism  by  Prof.  Schaff 
 at  Bremen,  their  text  having  been  based  on  the  third  edition, 
 the  earliest  then  known.  Since  then  the  second  edition  has 
 also  turned  up.*  The  discovery  of  these  earlier  editions 
 would  now  to  some  extent  make  it  necessary  that  the  work  of 
 the  Tercentenary  edition  be  done  over  again.  The  translation 
 into  English  is  carefully  done  from  a  literary  standpoint,  but 
 it  is  somewhat  marred  by  divergence  from  the  original  text, 
 so  as  to  favor  the  peculiar  views  of  the  Mercersburg  theology ; 
 as  the  translation  of  the  German  word  for  "gives"  by  "im- 
 part" in  answer  56,  and  also  in  answer  60  the  word  "gives" 
 by  "grants";  both  divergences  made  so  as  to  deny  the  doc- 
 trine of  forensic  imputation  of  Christ's  merits  to  us,  which 
 the  catechism  plainly  teaches,  but  which  was  denied  by  the 
 Mercersburg  theology.  They  also  translated  the  German 
 word  "gemeinde"  (congregation)  in  answer  54  and  answer 
 74  by  "people."  This  was  wrong,  because  it  translates  the 
 same  word  in  the  catechism  by  different  words  and  gives  the 
 answers  a  different  meaning.  They  did  this  so  as  to  avoid 
 the  doctrine  of  the  invisible  Church  (which  Mercersburg 
 theology  minimized  until  it  amounted  to  nothing),  and  also 
 to  deny  the  covenant  view  of  baptism,  which  holds  that  chil- 
 dren of  Christian  parents  are  in  the  covenant  by  birth  and 
 before  baptism.  ]\Iercersburg  held  that  it  was  baptism  that 
 put  them  into  the  covenant.  They  ignore  the  Scriptural  proof 
 of  the  covenant  relation  of  children  (1  Corinthians  7:14). 
 But  the  catechism  teaches  both  the  invisible  Church  and  the 
 covenant  view  of  baptism.  This  edition,  however,  was  never 
 ofificially  adopted  by  the  synod  or  the  Church,  and  has  come 
 into  only  partial  use  in  the  Church,  the  older  English  transla- 
 tion of  Laidlie  lieing  the  one  in  common  use. 
 
 *A  copy  of  this  edition  is  in  the  hands  of  the  author  of  this  work. 
 Both  first  and  second  editions  can  be  found  rn  the  library  of  the  Uni- 
 versity of  Utrecht,  in  Holland. 
 
406         History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 The  committee  on  digest  never  completed  its  work.  Indeed, 
 the  material  for  the  digest  was  not  then  sufficiently  complete, 
 as  the  early  minutes  of  our  Church  were  then  unknown,  but 
 have  recently  been  found  (1896)  in  Holland  liy  the  author. 
 Recently  a  digest  has  ])een  published,  but  it  is  only  of  General 
 Synod's  minutes  from  186:3. 
 
 The  committee  on  arrangements  reported  to  tlie  synod  of 
 I860  a  programme. — that  a  convention  be  held  January  19, 
 1863,  at  which  memorials  and  essays  should  be  read,  and  that 
 the  event  be  signalized  by  a  thank-offering  of  the  Church 
 before  October,  1863,  when  these  could  be  reported  to  synod, — 
 that  the  synod  of  1863  be  a  general  synod  of  the  whole 
 Church,  (that  is  not  a  synod  composed  of  delegates  from  the 
 classes  but  of  all  the  ministers  and  an  elder  from  each  charge.) 
 It  suggested  a  number  of  topics  in  cimnection  with  the  cate- 
 chism and  also  asked  that  European  Reformed  professors 
 be  requested  to  prepare  papers.  It  also  proposed  a  union  of 
 the  Eastern  and  Ohio  synods  into  a  General  Synod.  The  synod 
 of  1861  reported  progress  in  the  programme  and  that  Pro- 
 fessors Hundeshagen  and  Ebrard,  of  Germany,  had  already 
 accepted  appointments  to  send  papers. 
 
 The  final  report  of  the  committee  was  made  to  tlie  synod  of 
 1862, — that  the  programme  was  completed  for  the  anniver- 
 sary to  be  held  in  Philadelphia,  January  17,  1863.  It  further 
 proposed  that  each  classis  hold  a  special  meeting  before  the 
 convention  and  provide  for  a  representation  from  each  charge 
 and  arrange  for  a  Tercentenary  collection  in  each  charge  on 
 Trinity  Sunday,  May  31,  1863,  as  a  free-will  offering,  if  pos- 
 sible, from  every  man,  woman  and  child.  It  ordered  thirty 
 thousand  copies  of  the  report  of  this  committee  to  be  printed 
 in  tract  foi"m  for  distribution,  of  which  10.000  were  to  be  in 
 German,  and  instructed  each  minister  to  read  the  report  from 
 his  pulpit.  The  endowment  of  Franklin  jiud  .Miirsluill  Col- 
 lege was  made  a  special  feature  in  the  Tereentenary  offerings. 
 The  synod  also  ordered  that  the  memorials  and  papers  read  at 
 the  convention  and  all  its  actions  be  published  in  a  Tercenten- 
 ary volume,  which  was  done. 
 
Tercentenary  of  Heidelberg  Catechism.  407 
 
 Section  2.     The  Tercentenary  Convention  (1863). 
 
 This  convent  ion  opened  in  the  First  Church,  Phihidelphia, 
 on  Saturday  evening,  January  17.  The  church  was  beauti- 
 fully decorated  with  laurel.  On  one  side  of  the  pulpit  was  a 
 laurel  wreath  with  the  date,  1563;  on  the  other,  another,  with 
 the  date  1863.  Five  hundred  delegates  from  thirteen  classes 
 of  the  Eastern  synod  and  twenty-six  delegates  from  the  Ohio 
 synod  were  present,  of  whom  168  were  ministers.  There  were 
 also  seventeen  Presbyterians,  six  Lutherans,  three  Dutch  Re- 
 formed, two  United  Presbyterians,  four  Methodists,  two  Pro- 
 testant Episcopalians  (one.  Bishop  Potter)  and  one  Moravian 
 also  in  attendance. 
 
 The  convention  was  opened  by  a  sermon  by  S.  R.  Fisher, 
 D.D.,  on  "How  shall  we  escape  if  we  neglect  so  great  salva- 
 tion" (Heb.  2:3).  At  the  same  hour,  at  Salem's  Reformed 
 Church  the  opening  sermon  was  preached  in  German  by 
 Prof.  Schaif,  on  Hebrews  13  :  7  and  8,  "Remember  them  which 
 have  the  rule  over  you."  The  next  morning  (Siuiday)  there 
 was  a  communion  service  in  the  First  Church,  at  which  Rev. 
 J.  W.  Nevin,  D.D.,  preached  the  sermon  on  "Jesus  Christ 
 the  same  yesterday,"  etc.  All  the  sessions  were  held  in  the 
 First  Church  miless  otherwise  stated  in  our  narrative.  On 
 Sunday  evening  a  paper  on  ' '  The  Organism  of  the  Heidelberg 
 Catechism"  M-as  read  by  Rev.  T.  G.  Appel. 
 
 ]\Ionday,  the  convention  proceeded  to  a  permanent  organi- 
 zation. Rev.  J.  W.  Nevin,  D.D.,  was  elected  president,  with 
 seventeen  vice  presidents,  headed  by  Rev.  S.  Helffenstein, 
 Sr.,  two  recording  secretaries,  S.  R.  Fisher  and  L.  H.  Steiner ; 
 treasurer.  Elder  Griffeth,  and  two  corresponding  secretaries, 
 Revs.  P.  C.  Prugh  and  W.  F.  Colliflower.  After  this  pre- 
 liminary business  the  essay  of  Prof.  Hundeshagen,  of  Hei- 
 delberg University,  on  "The  City  and  University  of  Heidel- 
 berg, with  special  reference  to  the  Reformation  period  and 
 the  time  of  the  formation  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,"  was 
 read.  Prof.  Scliaff  later  called  him  the  proper  successor  of 
 Olevianus  at  Heidelberg.  It  was  followed  by  an  essay  on 
 "Elector  Frederick  HI  of  the  Palatinate,"  by  Rev.  B.   S. 
 
408         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Schneck,  D.D.  In  the  evening,  an  essay  on  ''Melancthon  and 
 the  ]\Ielanethouian  tendency  and  its  relation  to  the  German 
 Reformed  Church,"  by  Prof.  Ebrard,  of  Eriangen,  Germany, 
 was  read. 
 
 Tuesday,  at  the  morning  session,  an  essay  was  read,  entitled 
 "The  Swiss  Reformers,"  by  Prof.  Dr.  Herzog,  of  Erlangen. 
 It  was  followed  by  an  address  on  ' '  The  Authors  of  the  Heidel- 
 berg Catechism,  Ursinus  and  Olevianus,"  by  Rev.  T.  C. 
 Porter.  In  the  afternoon  an  essay  was  read,  prepared  by  Rev. 
 Dr.  Ullman,  of  Carlsruhe,  Germany,  entitled  "Sketches  of 
 the  History  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  in  the  Land  of  Its 
 Birth."  It  was  followed  by  an  essay  on  "The  Heidelberg 
 Catechism  in  Holland  and  the  United  States,"  written  by  Rev. 
 Thomas  De  Witt,  D.D.,  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church  of 
 America.  There  was  no  evening  session,  as  the  convention 
 attended  a  sacred  concert  at  Handel  and  Iladyn  Hall,  by 
 Christ  Reformed  Sunday  school. 
 
 Wednesday,  at  the  morning  session.  Dr.  Nevin  read  a  part 
 of  his  introduction  to  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  prepared 
 for  the  Tercentenary  edition  of  the  catechism.  In  the  after- 
 noon, "Creed  and  Cultus  with  Special  Reference  to  the  Rela- 
 tion of  the  Catechism  to  the  Palatinate  Liturgy"  was  read 
 by  Rev.  H.  Harbaugh,  D.D.  On  the  same  evening  a  German 
 meeting  was  held  at  Salem's  Reformed  Church,  where  Dr. 
 Schaff  made  an  address  on  the  Tercentenary  celebration,  and 
 Hundeshagen 's  essay  was  read. 
 
 Thursday,  at  the  morning  session,  "The  Genius  and  Mis- 
 sion of  the  German  Reformed  Church  in  Relation  to  the  Lu- 
 theran Church  and  those  Branches  of  the  Reformed  Church 
 which  are  not  German"  was  read  by  Prof.  Theodore  Appel. 
 Prof.  Schaff  made  some  remarks  on  ' '  The  Mission  and  Signifi- 
 cance of  the  German  Reformed  Church  in  America,"  which 
 were  published  in  the  German  volume  of  the  Tercentenary 
 volume.  "The  Relation  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  to  the 
 Various  Confessions"  was  read  by  Rev.  E.  V.  Gerhart,  D.D. 
 On  Thursday  evening,  a  paper  on  "The  Theological  Semi- 
 nary" was  read  by  Rev.  B.  C.  Wolff,  D.D.,  and  one  on  "The 
 Authority  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,"  by  Rev.  G.  B.  Rus- 
 
Tercentenary  of  Heidelberg  Catechism.  409 
 
 sell.  A  German  service  was  also  held  in  Zion's  Reformed 
 Church,  when  Prof.  Schaff  read  an  essay  on  "The  Heidelberg 
 Catechism,  its  name,  origin,  authors,  adoption,  history,  the- 
 ology, value  and  use." 
 
 Friday,  at  the;  morning  session  an  essay  was  read  by  Prof. 
 M.  Kieflfer,  D.D.,  on  "The  Theological  System  on  which  the 
 Heidelberg  Catechism  rests,  the  Kind  of  religious  Life  it  culti- 
 vates and  the  Theory  of  practical  Religion  it  assumes."  A 
 delegate.  Rev.  Dr.  Baird,  from  the  Presbyterian  Historical 
 Society,  was  heard.  At  the  afternoon  session,  Rev.  D.  Gans, 
 D.D.,  read  a  paper  on  "The  Educational  System  underlying 
 the  Heidelberg  Catechism."  In  the  evening  a  German  session 
 was  held  at  Bethlehem  Reformed  Church,  at  which  Dr.  Ull- 
 man  's  essay  was  read.  At  the  First  Church,  Rev.  B.  Bausman 
 read  an  essay  on  ' '  Catechetics  and  Catechetical  Instruction, '  '* 
 and  Rev.  J.  H.  A.  Bomberger,  D.D.,  an  essay  on  "The  For- 
 times  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  in  the  U.  S. "  At  9  P.  M., 
 the  closing  session  of  the  convention  was  held. 
 
 Section  3.    The  Addresses  at  the  Tercentenary. 
 A. — The  Foreign  Papers. 
 
 These  were  five :  ' '  The  City  and  University  of  Heidelberg, ' ' 
 by  Hundeshageu;  "The  Swiss  Reformers,"  by  Herzog;  "Me- 
 lanchthon  and  the  Melancthonian  Tendency,"  by  Ebrard; 
 "Sketches  from  the  History  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  in  the 
 Land  of  its  Birth, ' '  by  Ullman  ;t  ' '  Brief  History  of  the  Hei- 
 delberg Catechism  in  the  Netherlands,"  by  Prof.  Schotel. 
 The  last  needs  no  special  mention,  as  it  does  not  immedi- 
 ately concern  our  Church.  It  was  an  able,  scholarly  paper  by 
 Prof.  Schotel,  of  Ley  den.  Of  the  rest,  we  will  notice  Herzog 's 
 paper  on  "The  Swiss  Reformers"  first.  The  three  others 
 can  then  be  examined  together,  as  they  all  relate  to  Germany. 
 
 Prof.  Herzog 's  paper  on  "The  Swiss  Reformers"  was  a  very 
 
 able  one  and  shed  much  new  light  on  the  relation  of  the  Swiss 
 
 Reformers  to  the  Reformation  at  Heidelberg. 
 
 *This  address  was  published  in  German  in  the  Studien  und  Eritilen, 
 1864. 
 •j-Also  published  in  German  in  the  Studien  und  Kritilen,  1863. 
 
410         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 After  briefly  describing  the  birth  of  the  Eeformation  in  Switzer- 
 land under  Zwingli  and  Ecolauipadius,  he  discusses  first  their  use  of  the 
 formal  principle  of  Protestantism — the  Bible;  and  then  their  use  of  the 
 material  principle,  justification  by  faith.  Both  Zwingli  and  Ecolam- 
 padius  laid  down  the  proposition  that  the  Word  of  God  can  be  under- 
 stood and  exj)lained  only  through  the  same  Spirit  by  whom  it  was  dic- 
 tated. Calvin  developed  this  in  his  doctrine  of  the  ' '  Testimony  of  the 
 Holy  Spirit  to  Scripture."  This  Swiss  doctrine  of  the  Witness  of  the 
 Spirit  was  not  taken  up  by  the  Lutheran  theologians  till  later.  But 
 Zwingli  did  not  hold  slavishly  to  the  Word  of  God  but  to  the  spirit 
 rather  than  to  the  letter.  And  the  distinction,  that  Zwingli  regarded 
 the  Scriptures  as  positively  regulating,  while  Luther  as  negatively  regu- 
 lating was  not  true;  for  Zwingli  allowed  certain  adiaphora  to  one's 
 own  choice,  as  fasting.  As  to  justification  by  faith,  both  taught  it. 
 It  is  true  that  Luther  attacked  the  Judaism  of  the  Catholic  Church  by 
 his  emphasis  on  justification  by  faith  against  justification  by  works, 
 and  Zwingli  took  his  ground  against  the  paganism  of  Catholicism, — 
 its  idolatry, — the  Catholic  deification  of  the  creature.  But  Zwingli  put 
 the  question  thus:  Who  saves  man,  God  or  creature;  Luther,  What  saves 
 man,  faith  or  works?  Zwingli  was  a  strict  predestinarian,  stronger  on 
 supralapsarianism  than  Calvin,  though  Ecolampadius  was  milder.  His 
 predestination  was  theological,  resting  on  God,  but  not  pantheizing,  as 
 Pieus  of  Mirandula.  Zwingli  and  Ecolamj^adius  held  to  the  doctrine 
 of  the  Lord's  Supper  not  merely  in  the  memorial  sense  but  as  a 
 means  of  grace.  As  to  the  relation  of  the  Church  and  state, 
 Zwingli  knew  no  separation,  but  left  the  Church  disappear  in 
 the  state.  Ecolampadius,  however,  set  forth  the  independency  of  the 
 Church,  at  least  theoretically  and  in  part  practically  in  the  discipline. 
 Herzog  closes  with  a  brief  tribute  to  Zwingli  and  Ecolampadius  as  proper 
 instruments  of  God  for  their  work  in  their  respective  cities,  as  were 
 also  Calvin  and  Farel. 
 
 ' '  The  Relation  of  Germany  to  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  was  discussed 
 by  Hunileshagen,  Ebrard  and  Ullman.  lluiideshagen's  is  a  very  interest- 
 ing summary  of  the  influences  at  Heidelberg  to  prepare  the  Elector 
 Frederick  III  to  issue  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  especially  his  calling 
 of  so  many  foreigners  to  professorships,  some  of  whom  were  inclined  to 
 the  Reformed  rather  than  the  Luthernn  faith.  It  described  the  relation 
 of  Frederick  111  to  the  catechism.  Frederick  aimed  at  unity  of  faitli 
 and  harmony  of  doctrine  in  ordering  its  composition.  Frederick,  in  his 
 Church  Order  ordered  it  to  be  read  in  sections  before  the  congregation 
 and  to  be  placed  in  connection  with  preaching  on  the  answers  of  the  cate- 
 chism on  Sunday  afternoons;  so  that  it  be  gone  over  once  every  year. 
 Ursinus  lectured  on  the  catechism  in  Latin  to  the  candidates  for  the 
 ministry  for  fourteen  years.  He  then  discusses  the  80th  answer,  say- 
 ing that   its   last   clause   was  too    ])olemic,   and   that   Frederick    ma.le   it 
 
Tercentenary  of  Heidelberg  Catechism.  411 
 
 himself  as  a  reply  to  the  Council  of  Trent.  The  80th  answer  was  a 
 stumbling-block  to  the  use  of  the  Catechism  under  Catholic  Electors 
 after  1685.  Elector  Charles  Philip  in  1719  determined  to  suppress  it 
 altogether,  because  of  this  answer.  The  Eeformed  defended  it,  saying 
 that  the  answer  was  directed  not  against  persons  but  only  against  doc- 
 trines, and  that  the  adoration  of  the  host  was  idolatry.  The  catechism 
 was  finally  again  permitted  to  be  used,  but  without  the  Elector's  coat- 
 of-arms  on  its  title  page  as  before.  He  then  describes  the  downfall  of 
 the  Heidelberg  Catechism  in  the  Palatinate  through  rationalism  and 
 tlirough  the  union  of  the  Eeformed  and  Lutheran  Churches  in  the  Pa- 
 latinate, in  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century. 
 
 The  Essay  by  Ebrard  on  "  Melancthon  and  Melancthonianism "  was  of 
 more  importance.  On  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord  's  Supper  he,  like  Herzog, 
 says  that  Zwingli  is  falsely  charged  with  holding  the  memorial  view. 
 Zwingli  's  method  of  viewing  the  contents  of  faith  was  an  objective  one, — 
 that  is,  he  did  not  make  our  faith  in  Christ's  work  the  doctrinal  centre  as 
 much  as  the  historical  work  of  Christ  himself.  He  makes  Melancthon, 
 after  Zwingli  and  Calvin  the  third  reformer  of  the  German  Reformed 
 Church.  But  Zwingli  emphasized  the  fact  that  in  the  Lord's  Supper 
 we  are  concerned  with  the  crucified  body  of  Christ  and  not  so  much  with 
 our  life-union  with  the  glorified  body,  which  he  held  took  place  in  the 
 act  of  faith  and  was  presupposed*  before  the  Lord's  Supper.  The 
 reference  of  the  Lord's  Supper  to  the  glorified  body,  rather  than  to 
 the  crucified  body,  was  Lutheran  and  not  Reformed.f  Melancthon  held 
 that  the  glorified  body  in  the  Lord's  Supper  was  a  sign  of  grace. 
 Melancthon,  after  receiving  Ecolampadius'  "Dialogue,"  held  that  the 
 union  was  no  longer  the  union  of  Christ 's  body  with  the  bread,  etc.,  but 
 the  internal  union  with  the  psychical  centre  of  man.  This  was  sanctioned 
 bv  the  altered  Augsburg  Confession,  but  was  not  the  original  Lutheran 
 iloctrine,  as  Heppe  asserts.  This  doctrine  passed  over  into  the  Reformed 
 more  fully  and  was  better  developed  by  Calvin. 
 
 The  testimony  of  these  foreign  theologians  is  important  on  the  question, 
 whether  the  Reformed  Church  of  Germany  was  Melancthonian  (as  Mer- 
 cersburg  held)  or  not.  For  one  of  the  secondary  objects  of  this  Tercen- 
 tenary celebration  was  the  boosting  of  Mercersburg  theology  whenever 
 possible.  The  adherents  of  this  theology  were  determined  to  make  all  out 
 of  this  Tercentenary  for  their  peculiar  positions  that  they  could.  A  writer 
 in  the  Messengert  said  the  Tercentenary  owed  its  inspiration  to  the  Mer- 
 cersburg Theology.  They  had  been  particular  to  ask  Ebrard  to  take  this 
 subject  in  the  hope  that  he  would  aid  their  cause.  He  claims  that  the  Ger- 
 man  Reformed   Church   was   Melancthonian   on   the   Lord's   Supper,   but 
 
 *Page  92. 
 fPage  93. 
 jMareh  25,  1874. 
 
412         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 grants*  that  it  imbibed  the  rigid  predestinarian  principles,  a  fact  that 
 Mercersburg  denied.  Ulbnan,  too,  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Me- 
 lancthonians  at  Wittenberg  put  forth  a  decidedly  unfavorable  judgment 
 of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  ' '  a  fact, ' '  he  says,  ' '  which  goes  against  the 
 idea  that  the  catechism  was  only  a  transcript  of  the  Melancthonian  scheme 
 of  doctrine. '  'f  This  was  also  against  the  Mercersburg  view  that  the  cate- 
 chism was  Melancthonian.  Thus,  both  Ebrard  and  IJllman  deny  the 
 Mercersburg  positions  that  the  Keformed  Church  of  Germany  was  not 
 predestinarian  and  that  the  catechism  was  Melancthonian.  The  Mercers- 
 burg men  got  rather  cold  comfort  here. 
 
 B. — The  Papers  of  the  American  ^yriters. 
 
 Of  these  there  were  thirteen.  The  paper  of  Dr.  DeWitt 
 we  take  up  first,  as  it  does  not  directly  refer  to  our  Church. 
 It  was  an  able  production  on  "The  Heidelberg  Catechism  in 
 Holland  and  America."  Dr.  Sclmeck's  paper  on  "Frederick 
 III"  was  purely  historical.  Dr.  Bausman's  paper  of  the 
 "Catechism  and  Catechization"  was  practical  and  excellent 
 especially  in  his  description  of  its  methods,  as  follows : 
 
 1.  The  Socratic  method, — education, — to  draw  out  the  ideas  of  the 
 pupils  and  assist  them.  Questioning  is  a  large  part  of  this  method,  so  as 
 to  find  out  what  was  in  the  mind  of  the  pupil. 
 
 2.  Acroamatic  method.  This  held  that  the  pupil  was  passive.  The 
 catechism  aimed  to  pour  truth  into  the  mind  of  the  catechumen. 
 
 3.  Erotematic, — instruction.  A  method  uniting  the  two,  giving  truth  to 
 the  catechumen  and  calling  it  forth  from  him,  both  by  questioning  him 
 and  lecturing  to  him. 
 
 Bomberger's  paper,  too,  was  valuable  but  it  was  merely  a 
 historical  list  of  the  editions  of  the  Heidleberg  catechism  in  the 
 United  States,  of  which  quite  a  number  have  been  discovered 
 since. 
 
 But  the  others  aimed  to  glorify  Mercersburg  Theology. 
 They  may  have  done  it  unconsciously  because  they  knew  no 
 other  as  Reformed,  but  they  did  it  all  the  same.  And  it  har- 
 monized somewhat  awkwardly,  as  we  have  seen,  with  some 
 statements  made  by  the  papers  from  Germany.  They  evi- 
 dently intended  to  make  as  much  out  of  the  Tercentenary  for 
 
 *Page  112. 
 fPage  135. 
 
Tercentenary  of  Heidei.berg  Catechism.  413 
 
 Mercersburg  theology  as  possible.  While  glorifying  the  cate- 
 chism, they  were  not  forgetting  themselves.  Their  leaders 
 had  all  the  doctrinal  subjects  and  in  them  they  tried  to  main- 
 tain the  position  that  the  German  Reformed  Church  was  Me- 
 lancthonian.  Any  opponents  or  lukewarm  adherents  as  Bom- 
 berger  (and  S.  R.  Fisher  at  that  time)  and  Schneck,  were  given 
 the  practical  subjects.  The  Melancthonian  view  found  a  place 
 in  different  papers  and  by  different  writers  again  and  again, 
 as  by  Porter,*  Harbaugh,t  Kioffer.t  Gerhart§  and  Wolff. || 
 The  only  voice  that  was  lifted  up  against  Melancthonianism 
 was  by  Bomberger  in  a  discussion,  when  he  said  that  the  in- 
 fluence of  ]\Ielancthon  on  the  theology  of  the  Palatinate  Re- 
 formed Church  was  being  somewhat  exaggerated.  And  Till- 
 man admitted  as  much,  for  he  says,  "The  Melancthonian 
 divines  at  Wittenberg  put  forth  a  decidedly  imfavorable 
 judgment," — a  fact  which  goes  against  the  idea  that  the  cate- 
 chism was  a  transcript  of  Melanchthonian 's  scheme  of  doc- 
 trine.1l 
 
 One  of  the  most  important  and  comprehensive  papers 
 was  on  "Creed  and  Cultus,"  by  Harbaugh.  He  takes  up 
 especially  the  Palatinate  liturgy  and  in  this  respect  his  paper 
 to  some  extent  parallels  Ullman's.  But  while  Ullman  praises 
 the  Palatinate  liturgy,  Harbaugh  depreciates  it. 
 
 Because  it  was  so  largely  compiled  by  Oleviamis  from  the  Dutch 
 liturgy,  it  was,  he  says,  heavy,  stiff,  didactic  and  deficient  in  liturgical 
 glow  and  devotional  warmth  and  stands  in  marked  contrast  with  the 
 Heidelberg  Catechism,  with  its  free,  warm,  practical,  devotional  fervor. 
 Hence,  he  says,  even  in  the  Palatinate  it  has  long  since  gone  out  of  use 
 as  having  the  radical  defect  which  characterizes  all  liturgies  produced 
 from  the  standpoint  of  the  old  Calvinism.  But  though  disparaging  it 
 thus  he  is  careful  to  note  in  it  any  facts  favorable  to  the  Order  of 
 Worship,  as  it  says  that  a  read  prayer  shall  be  used,  that  confession  and 
 absolution  were  used  and  that  the  congregation  is  ordered  to  join  with 
 the  minister  in  the  confession  of  sin.     (He  fails  to  state  that  this  has 
 
 *Page  2]9. 
 fPages  285-6. 
 JPage  371. 
 §Page  405. 
 ||Pages  58,  563. 
 IfPage  135. 
 
414         History  of  Reformed  Ciiurcii  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 never  been  customary  among  the  Reformed  of  Germany  where  they  never 
 join  with  the  minister  audibly. — A.)  He  quotes  the  baptismal  prayer 
 of  the  Palatinate  to  prove  that  baptism  means  baptismal  grace,  but  he 
 forgets  to  notice  that  it  does  not  say  "  is "  but  ' '  may  be  so. ' '  It 
 nowhere  says  that  regeneration  is  limited  to  the  moment  of  baptism, 
 which  is  the  Mercersburg  position.  He  claims  that  the  baptismal  prayer 
 proves  that  the  child  has  received  forgiveness  of  sin ;  but  the  ])rayer 
 speaks  of  baptism  only  as  confirmatory  of  the  covenant.  On  the  Lord's 
 Supper,  he  claims  it  holds  to  spiritual  real  jiresence  of  Christ,  but  its 
 words  do  not  do  so  necessarily.  He  grants  that  the  liturgy  called  for 
 the  observance  of  only  four  of  the  church  festivals  (Christmas,  Ascension, 
 Easter  and  Whitsuntide  together  with  New  Year),  but  he  consoles  him- 
 self by  quoting  over  against  this  true  Reformed  liturgy  the  Hessian 
 liturgy  of  1526,  which  calls  for  the  observance  of  Epiphany  and  circum- 
 cision. (He  does  not  seem  to  know  that  that  was  a  Lutheran  liturgy, 
 for  Hesse  did  not  become  Reformed  till  ;'<ifl4.  In  the  same  ignorance  he 
 also  quotes  against  the  Palatinate,  the  Hessian  liturgy  of  ITytciG,  which  for 
 the  same  reason  was  also  Lutheran. — A.)  He  also  refers  to  the  Reformed 
 hymn-book  from  the  Hessian  and  Hanau  district,  which  was  indeed  a 
 Reformed  book,  but  he  was  ignorant  that  it  was  constructed  to  suit  both 
 Lutherans  and  Reformed  of  that  laiul  like  their  liturgy.  As  it  was  after- 
 ward published  by  Saur  in  this  country  and  was  extensively  used  in 
 our  Church,  he  concludes  it  was  Reformed.  But  its  publication  by  Saur, 
 as  we  have  seen,  was  entirely  unofficial. 
 
 I  In  his^closing  remarks  he  makes  a  distinction  between  cuitus  and  wor 
 ship, — the  former  what  we  receive  from  Cod,  the  latter  what  we  give  to 
 him.  Cuitus  goes  before  worship.  He  makes  the  sacraments  central  in 
 cuitus  and  the  priestly  office  central  in  the  ministry.  This  is  contniry  ro 
 the  old  Reformed  ideas  which  made  the  Word  central  in  worship  and 
 the  prophetical  office,  the  inost  important  office.  He  says  there  are  two 
 principles  at  work  powerfully  in  the  Reformed  Church  for  the  reduc- 
 tion of  cuitus,  one  began  its  work  early  in  the  reformation,  the  second 
 came  later  as  a  reaction  from  the  first.  They  were  Calvinism  (whicli 
 moulds  all  cuitus  according  to  the  form  of  rational  intellectualism)  and 
 Arminianism  (which  moulds  it  according  to  natural  emotionalism),  lie 
 attacks  Calvinism  because  it  makes  the  (Church  the  result  of  the  elective 
 
 idecree  and  not  its  medium.  The  elect  by  it  are  the  invisible  Church,  the 
 visible  church  being  only  the  realized  decree.  And  by  it  the  visible 
 church  is  a  hiding  of  the  decree, — a  kind  of  deceptive  relevation.  In 
 the  intellectualism  of  Calvin,  which  puts  the  prophefic  office  first,  the 
 priestly  element  disappeared  and  with  it  the  altar  service  and  holy-ilays. 
 Calvin's  life  rendered  him  unapt  for  a  churchly  cuitus.  His  sudden 
 transition  from  Romanism  (This  suddenness  of  Calvin's  conversion  is 
 against  the  later  but  best  life  of  Calvin  by  Doumergue,  who  makes  it 
 gradual. — A.)    made  Calvin   surrender  the  idea   of  a  historical  churchly 
 
Tercentenary  of  Heidelberg  Catechism.  415 
 
 mediation  and  priestly  office.  The  prayers  of  Calvinism  arc  intellectual 
 lather  than  devotional  and  the  Palatinate  liturgy  reveals  this.  Calvinism 
 tends  to  subjectivism.  At  the  other  extreme  was  Arminianism,  as  re- 
 vealed in  Wesleyan  Methodism,  like  it  unchurchly.  He  says  the  German 
 Eeformed  Church  never  surrendered  itself  to  the  logical  tendencies  of 
 Calvinism  either  in  doctrine  or  cultus, — that  before  the  synod  of  Dort 
 ])redestination  did  not  reign  in  more  than  one-third  of  the  Continental 
 Eeformed  Church.  Tt  was  virtually  defeated  in  that  synod  and  de- 
 clined more  and  more.  (in  saying  this  he  evidently  confuses  Cal- 
 vinism with  supralai)sarianism. — A.)  He  then  declared  that  ration- 
 ism  and  pietism  also  interfered  with  cultus  because  too  subjective, 
 lie  quotes  the  Palatinate  liturgy  as  against  free  prayer,  because 
 it  has  not  a  single  illusion  to  it.  Free  prayer  was  not  officially  en- 
 dorsed till  the  Synod  of  Cleve,  1677.  (He  does  not  know  that  free 
 prayer  was  authorized  by  the  Synods  of  Wesel  (1568)  and  Emden 
 (1571). — A.)  He  says  free  prayer  was  due  to  Labadie,  a  separatist  who 
 introduced  it  into  the  Eeformed  Church  of  Germany.  We  reply  that 
 the  Pietism  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Germany  did  not  come  from  La- 
 badie but  from  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church,  from  Lodenstein.*  Har- 
 baugh  accepts  Klieforth,  the  high-Lutheran  of  Germany  as  his  author- 
 ity on  worship  and  follows  his  distinction  betAveen  the  sacramental  and 
 the  sacrificial,  the  former  being  God's  approach  to  man,  the  latter  our 
 approach  to  God,  the  first  being  high  and  more  controlling,  and  also 
 coming  first  in  time.  "Such  a  cultus  must  have  objective  powers,  must 
 allow  objective  force  to  the  sacrament,  must  include  in  it  a  real  media- 
 tion."! "In  the  organism  of  the  catechism  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  cen- 
 tral," he  says.  (If  all  this  is  not  outspoken  Mercersburg  doctrine  then 
 nothing  is. — A.) 
 
 As  to  doctrine,  T.  Appel  attempts  to  show  that  the  Reformed  differed 
 from  the  Lutheran  in  the  relative  position  of  reason  in  interpreting  the 
 Bible.  Both  agree  on  the  supremacy  of  Scripture  but  arrived  at  differ- 
 ent results.  Luther  emphasized  the  mystical  and  claimed  the  Eeformed 
 made  too  free  a  use  of  Scripture.  While  the  Eeformed  emphasized  the 
 rational  and  claimed  the  Lutherans  gave  too  nuich  latitude  to  mystery 
 as  it  was  employed  in  the  ancient  Church. 
 
 2.  On  Tradition,  which  liad  more  acceptance  witli  the  Lutherans 
 than  with  the  Reformed. 
 
 3.  On  the  Church.  The  Lutherans  were  more  chur<-ldy  than  the  Ee- 
 formed, emphasizing  the  sacraments  and  the  official  acts  of  the  ministry. 
 The  Eeformed  enii)]iasized  the  priesthood  of  all,  there  was  no  differ- 
 ence between  the  priesthood  of  people  and  minister, — and  the  Church 
 had  no  such  imme<liate  power  over  the  individual  believer. 
 
 *See  my  History  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Germany,  pages  323-5. 
 fPage  291. 
 
416         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 4.  They  placed  a  different  emphasis  on  grace  and  law,  Luther  empha- 
 sizing the  former,  the  Reformed  the  latter.  The  former  was  mystical 
 in  its  piety,  the  latter,  moral  and  active  in  type.* 
 
 "Predestination  never  had  any  symbolical  authority  and  was  handed 
 over  to  the  schools  and  scientific  theology.  After  Dort  it  was  regarded 
 with  favor  but  qualified  of  its  objectionable  features.f 
 
 Gerhart  had  a  paper  on  the  Relation  of  the  Heidelberg 
 Catechism  to  other  Confessions. 
 
 The  central,  vital  force  of  the  catechism  was  the  creed.  It  is,  there- 
 fore, Christological.  It  is  not  purely  subjective — does  not  turn  on  faith 
 as  a  pivot  as  does  the  Lutheran,  or  grow  out  of  feeling  of  dependence, 
 as  Schleiermacher  holds.  These  two,  the  subjective  and  objective,  are 
 united  in  a  third — a  reciprocal  relation.  The  principle  is  not  Christ  as 
 he  is  in  himself,  but  the  internal  relation  of  Christ  and  the  believer 
 expressed  by  faith.  In  the  clause  of  the  creed  "I  believe  in  Christ," 
 Christ  is  the  object,  I,  the  subject.  The  word  "believe"  expresses  the 
 relation  of  the  individual  believer  to  Christ.  The  catechism  is  an  organ- 
 ism about  the  creed  but  not  perfect.  It  has  deficiencies,  as  in  the  44th 
 answer.  The  catechism  accords  with  the  Ecumenical  creeds  and  opposes 
 the  Tridentine  decree.  On  the  Lord's  Supper  it  completes  the  Lutheran 
 doctrines  which  omits  its  commemorative  idea.  But  no  previous  Re- 
 formed confession  was  an  organic  whole,  developed  from  the  creed  as 
 its  formative  principle.  It  belongs  neither  to  Calvinism  or  Arminian- 
 ism  in  metaphysical  theorizing. 
 
 On  the  catechism  itself  there  were  four  essays.  T.  G.  Apple 
 writes  on  its  organic  structure. 
 
 It  was  not,  he  says,  a  full  scientific  church-confession  or  a  com- 
 piled catechism,  but  between  them.  The  comfort  of  the  first  answer 
 is  the  objective  gracious  gift  bestowed  by  baptism,  appropriated 
 by  subjective  experience.  Its  central  principle  is  union  with  Christ, 
 — Jesus  Christ  in  vital  union  with  the  baptized  member  of  the  Church. 
 Question  20  gives  organic  redemption  made  in  human  nature  and 
 not  merely  for  individual  men.  The  Apostles'  Creed  is  central,  the 
 sacrament  flows  forth  in  its  subjective  character  and  objective  con- 
 tents. He  grants  that  the  catechism  does  not  say  much  of  the  Church, 
 yet  he  comforts  himself  by  saying  it.  assumes  it.     In  speaking  of  the  third 
 
 *Other  differences  are  given  by  Schaff,  as  that  the  polar  points  of 
 the  two  systems  are  the  finite  and  infinite,  God  and  man,  grace  an<l 
 human  will,  and  on  the  formal  side,  divine  truth  and  human  reason. 
 Again,  the  Reformed  opposed  the  paganism  of  Rome,  Lutherans  the 
 Judaism  of  Rome.  The  Reformed  emphasized  the  transcendence  of  God, 
 the  Lutherans  the  immanence. 
 
 fPages  327-8. 
 
Tercentenary  op  Heidelberg  Catechism.  417 
 
 part  of  the  catechism,  he  says  rojientauce  conies  after  regeneration  as  its 
 effect.  Eegeneration  is  the  iniphantation  of  the  germ, — incorporation 
 into  Christ.  God  is  alone  active;  man,  passive.  Eepentance  comes  after 
 and  is  man's  work  not  by  his  own  strength  but  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
 third  part  of  the  cathechism  also  emphasizes  the  law  as  the  rule  of  life. 
 
 Kieffer  lias  a  paper  on  ' '  The  Theological  System  of  the 
 Catechism."  It  was  IMelancthonian  in  doctrine,  he  says.  On 
 the  sacraments  it  gives  the  objective  meaning  of  seal,  bnt  the 
 connnnnication  is  not  orally  but  by  faith.  The  Church  is  de- 
 fined as  a  collective  body  of  believers  (which  is  against  the 
 Mercersburg  view  which  makes  it  organic. — A.) 
 
 Russell  spoke  on  "The  Authority  of  the  Catechism."  It 
 rests  on 'the  Bible  as  interpreted  by  the  Church  in  the  creed. 
 It  rests  on  the  fact  that  it  embodies  the  true  life  of  the 
 Catholic  Church,  but  is  not  a  collection  of  subjective  judg- 
 ments aggregated  by  connuon  consent. 
 
 Gans  read  a  paper  on  ' '  The  Educational  System  of  Religion 
 in  the  Catechism."    He  says: 
 
 There  are  four  Christological  systems :  Ebionism,  Gnosticism,  Eu- 
 tychianism  and  Nestorianism  corresponding  with  the  four  systems  of 
 philosophy:  Kealism,  Idealism,  Absolutism  and  Dualism.  Its  true  con- 
 ception is  that  the  Church  is  the  body  of  Christ  resulting  immediately 
 and  personally  from  the  mystery  of  the  incarnation  under  the  Holy  Spirit. 
 In  a  secondary  sense  the  Church  takes  up  organically  the  individuals  of 
 the  race  as  members  of  the  body.  He  then  goes  on  to  speak  of  the 
 covenant  and  those  in  the  Coven'nnt.  The  covenant  is  ruled  by  the 
 Christological  mystery.  The  covenant  is  not  something  we  do  to  God 
 or  a  mutual  contract  between  God  and  man.  This  does  not  sound  the 
 depths  of  the  covenant  or  apprehend  its  full  objective  grace  and  glory. 
 In  its  inward  nature  and  moulding  power,  man  has  but  to  accept  or  re- 
 ject it.  In  itself,  it  is  what  God  creates  for,  and  the  incarnation  brings 
 to,  man.  This  covenant  may  be  contemplated  in  two  general  aspects, 
 (1)  in  the  light  of  the  family  (2)  in  the  light  of  baptism.  Children 
 inherit  to  some  extent  the  gracious  nature  of  the  parents  and  thus  be- 
 long to  the  covenant.  Christ's  incarnation  was  for  nature.  Grace  enters 
 organically  into  the  natural  organism  of  the  covenant  family.*  This 
 spiritual  relation  is  through  birth.  Baptism  not  only  confirms  this 
 covenant  but  imparts  a  positive  grace.  (This  is  an  attempt  to  add  their 
 sacramontarian  view  of  liaiitism  to  the  covenant  view. — A.)  In  this 
 baptism  God  breathes  into  the  lower  covenanted  being  the  breath  of  life 
 
 *Pages  456-7. 
 
418         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 aufl  the  new  spiritual  creature  is  formed.*  As  the  sun  symbolizes  and 
 gives  light,  so  baptism  symbolizes  and  gives  grace.  This  regenerating 
 grace  is  clearly  recognized  in  the  Palatinate  liturgy  where  it  says 
 "sealed"  (but  it  also  says  it  confirms  — A.).  The  catechism  empha- 
 sizes the  figures  of  planting  and  grafting.  The  grace  that  the  covenant 
 child  receives  at  baptism  is  that  which  gives  it  a  living  relation  to 
 Christ,  the  Church,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  To  illustrate,  there  is  a  parallel 
 between  incarnation  and  regeneration.  In  Christ  the  union  is  real  and 
 organic,  so  in  baptism.  He  then  goes  on  to  show  how  this  baptismal 
 grace  develops  in  the  family,  the  Church,  the  parochial  school  and  the 
 Sunday  school.  Eeligion  is  education :  first  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  etc. 
 He  sneers  at  all  sudden  conversions  and  at  the  doctrine  of  assurance  of 
 forgiveness  of  sins.  He  says  they  are  taught  by  quack  apostles  ' '  who 
 beat  waves  upon  the  emotional  nature."  Educational  religion  has  no 
 spasms  in  the  normal  evolution  of  grace.  This  Christian  nurture  com- 
 pletes itself  at  confirmation.  He  closes  by  turning  to  Calvinism  and 
 Arminianism.  It  is  Calvinism,  "not  in  an  abstract  decree  of  election 
 or  making  the  incarnation  an  afterthought  and  outward  expedient,  but 
 it  views  the  will  of  God  as  embodying  itself  concretely  in  the  person 
 of  Christ  who  is  the  source  and  not  simply  the  means  of  salvation." 
 The  person  of  Christ  himself  is  the  origin  of  the  decree  for  man.  All 
 the  purposes  of  Christ  actualize  themselves  in,  and  do  not  stand  in 
 front  of,  Christ.  In  Christ  lies  the  decree  of  God  and  in  the  Church 
 it  unfolds  its  power  and  grace.  A  rejection  of  what  is  offered  in  these 
 divine  institutions  is  our  reprobation."  The  Catechism  does  not  en- 
 dorse, in  a  high  Calvinistic  sense,  rej)robation.  The  catechism  is  Ar- 
 minian.f  It  grants  gracious  ability,  but  falling  l)ack  on  Christ  who  is 
 the  redeeming  life  of  the  world.  It  also  differs  from  Arminianism  in 
 making  Christ  the  principle  and  not  merely  the  means  of  salvation. 
 
 Wolff  closes  the  volume  with  a  paper  on  the  History  of  the  Theological 
 seminary,  giving  the  facts  of  its  history  from  a  largely  biased  Mer- 
 cersburg  view,  granting,  however,  that  the  professors  at  Mercersburg 
 were  in  advance  of  the  catechism  and  other  standard  writings  of  the 
 Eeformed  Church  on  particuhir  points,  but  in  no  respect  at  variance 
 with  them.  He  thus  tries  to  cover  uj)  the  departures  of  Mercersburg 
 Theology  from  old  Reformed  doctrine. 
 
 Section  4.    The  Org.\ni/ati()n  of  the  General  Synod. 
 
 Ever  since  the  last  triennial  convention  between  the  East- 
 ern and  Ohio  synod,  the  subject  of  a  union  had  been  mooted 
 and  was  finally  approved  by  the  two  synods   (Eastern  and 
 
 *Page  458. 
 
 fAgainst  this  view  see  my  History  of  tlie  Kefornicd  Church  of  Ger- 
 many, pages  589,  623. 
 
Tercentenary  of  Heidelberg  Catechism.  419 
 
 Ohio).  In  1862,  two-thirds  of  the  classes  decided  for  a  gen- 
 eial  synod.  This  union-feeling  had  grown  as  the  Tercenten- 
 ary approached.  The  union  was  consummated  by  the  forma- 
 tion of  a  General  Synod  at  Pittsburg,  November  18,  1863. 
 The  body  contained  94  ministers,  56  from  the  East  and  38 
 from  the  West.  Dr.  Nevin  was  elected  president  and  Rev. 
 I.  11.  Reiter  stated  clerk,  Revs.  Zacharias  and  Kieffer  vice- 
 presidents,  Dr.  Rutenick  German  Secretary,  and  John  Wiest 
 treasurer.  After  adopting  an  order  of  business  for  synod, 
 committees  were  appointed  on  Religious  Exercises,  Minutes 
 of  Synods,  Overtures,  Correspondence.  State  of  the  Church, 
 Missions  and  Finance.  It  appointed  a  Board  of  Orphans' 
 Homes,  a  Board  of  Domestic  Missions  and  also  of  Foreign 
 Missions,  and  gave  expression  of  its  high  appreciation  of  Dr. 
 Schneider,  the  missionary  in  Turkey.  An  overture  had  come 
 to  it  from  Eastern  synod,  asking  it  to  consider  the  advisability 
 of  consolidating  the  theological  seminaries  at  Mercersburg 
 and  Tiffin  into  one,  and  with  it  the  endowment  of  two  addi- 
 tional theological  professorships.  This  the  general  synod  did 
 not  deem  advisable.  In  regard  to  the  liturgy,  an  overture 
 came  in  from  the  Ohio  synod.*  The  Indiana  classis  (1863) 
 had  requested  the  Ohio  synod  of  1863  to  provide  the  Church 
 with  a  liturgy  that  will  meet  with  more  favor  than  any  now 
 in  use.    The  Ohio  synod  had  taken  the  following  action : 
 
 1.  That  it  felt  the  need  of  a  liturgy. 
 
 2.  That  it  is  opposed  to  the  continued  use  of  the  Provisional  liturgy 
 and  requested  General  Synod  to  so  modify  it  so  it  can  be  introduced  into 
 the  congregations. 
 
 3.  If  the  Provisional  liturgy  does  not  admit  of  such  modifications,  tliat 
 General  Synod  take  steps  to  provide  a  liturgy  adapted  to  the  wants  of 
 the  Church. 
 
 4.  If  General  Synod  is  not  prepared  to  act,  that  it  grant  the  Ohio 
 Synod   permission   to   provide   a   liturgy   adapted   to   the   wants   of   our 
 
 *Opposition  to  the  Provisional  liturgy  in  the  West  showed  itself  openly 
 at  first  as  early  as  1859,  when  at  a  pastoral  conference,  Max  Stern  read 
 a  paper  against  Mercersburg  theology.  These  German  conferences  began 
 in  1S57  at  Fort  Wayne,  and  were  continued  annually  up  to  lS(i(i,  when  tlie 
 last  one  was  held  at  Cleveland.  Out  of  them  grew  the  establishment  of 
 the  German  Mission  House  at  Franklin,  Wis.,  and  the  German  Pub- 
 lishing House  at  Cleveland. 
 
420         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Chun-h,  and  that  a  committee  of  five  he  appointed  to  go  forward.     The 
 committee  was:  Eust,  E.  Keller,  Bossanl,  II.  Williard  and  J.  II.  Kline. 
 
 It  had  been  adopted  by  a  vote  of  43  to  16.  Some  voted 
 against  it,  because  it  forbids  entirely  the  use  of  the  Pro- 
 visional liturgy.  This  action  of  the  Ohio  synod  was  caused  by 
 the  publication  of  Kevin's  tract,  "The  Liturgical  Question," 
 in  1862. 
 
 General  Synod  referred  this  item  to  a  committee  consisting 
 of  Williard,  Bossard,  Apple,  Russell  and  Elders  S.  B.  Kieffer 
 and  T.  W.  Chapman.  The  committee  reported  that  the  re- 
 quest of  the  Ohio  synod  be  granted  and  that  it  be  allowed  to 
 prepare  a  liturgy  better  suited  to  the  wants  of  the  Church. 
 Reid  offered  a  substitute  that  a  committee  of  Eastern  synod 
 be  appointed  to  revise  the  Provisional  liturgy.  After  a  dis- 
 cussion of  a  half  a  day,  McConncll  offered  an  amendment  to 
 Reid's  substitute,  instructing  this  committee  to  revise  the 
 Provisional  liturgy  on  the  basis  of  the  instructions  repeatedly 
 given  by  Eastern  synod.  After  another  half-day's  discussion, 
 JMcConnell  's  amendment  was  adopted,  the  friends  of  the  Pro- 
 visional liturgy  generall}^  voting  for  it  and  the  anti-liturgical 
 men  voting  against  it.  Nevin  opposed  Reid's  amendment,  say- 
 ing it  was  discourteous  to  the  Eastern  synod  to  take  the  re- 
 vision of  the  Provisional  liturgy  in  hand  at  its  first  meeting 
 without  being  requested  to  do  so  by  the  Eastern  synod.  So 
 the  General  Synod  ordered,  what  the  Eastern  synod  had  thus 
 far  refused  to  do,  the  revision  of  tlie  Provisional  liturgy. 
 
 Section  5.    The  Closing  Convention  of  the  Tercentenary 
 AT  Reading  (1864). 
 
 This  convention  met  at  Ivcading,  May  21.  The  opening 
 sermon  was  preached  by  Rev.  1).  Zacharias,  D.D.,  on  Psalm 
 146:1.  Dr.  Gerhart  was  made  president.  Revs.  S.  G.  "Wagner 
 and  G.  B.  Russell  secretaries,  Revs.  Foulk  and  liausman  cor- 
 responding secretaries,  and  D.  W.  Gross  treasurer. 
 
 Four  committees  were  a])p()inted  : 
 
 1.  On  the  Census  of  the  Chui-ch,  P>eck,  chairmnn.      • 
 
 2.  On  the  Tercentenary  Offering,  Foulk,  chairman. 
 
Tercentenary  op  Heidelberg  Catechism.  421 
 
 3.  On  Unappropriated  Fimds,  T.  G.  Apple,  chairman. 
 
 4.  To  prepare  a  paper  on  the  best  methods  of  continuing 
 and  developing  the  spirit  of  liberality  manifested  in  the 
 Church  during  the  past  year,  Harbaugh,  chairman. 
 
 Reports  were  then  received  of  the  Tercentenary  operations 
 in  each  classis.  A  committee  was  appointed  to  report  on  the 
 theological  and  religious  aspect  of  the  church  in  the  Tercen- 
 tenary year,  Porter,  chairman.  Another  committee  was  ap- 
 pointed to  consider  the  propriety  of  founding  a  third  pro- 
 fessorship in  the  seminary,  Schaff,  chairman.  Harbaugh  was 
 inaugurated  professor  of  theology  during  its  sessions. 
 
 The  Committee  on  Census  found  itself  unable  to  report  on 
 accoimt  of  imperfect  data  and  was  continued.  The  Commit- 
 tee on  the  theological  and  religious  aspects  of  the  Tercenten- 
 ary reported  that  it  had  awakened  the  Church  to  greater 
 historic  consciousness,  that  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  had 
 been  clothed  with  new  honor  and  authority,  that  the  Apostles' 
 Creed  was  the  basis  and  ruling  power  of  the  catechism.  It 
 had  produced  two  important  works,  the  Triglott  edition  of  the 
 Catechism  and  the  Tercentenary  ]\Ionument,  also  enlarged  en- 
 dowment funds  of  literary  and  theological  institutions  and  it 
 had  increased  their  efficiency  and  brought  the  Church  to  a 
 clearer  consciousness  of  her  mission.  The  committee  on  Ter- 
 centenary contributions  reported  that  as  far  as  reported  there 
 were  $103,018.43,*  but  this  would  yet  be  considerably  in- 
 creased. The  conunittee  reported  favorably  on  a  third  pro- 
 fessorship in  the  seminary,  to  be  known  as  the  Tercentenary 
 professorship,  and  it  was  ordered  that  undesignated  funds 
 be  appropriated  to  that  object.  The  treasurer  of  Franklin 
 and  Marshall  College  reported  at  the  end  of  the  year  the  re- 
 ceipt of  $36,596  from  the  Tercentenary  offerings. 
 
 A  number  of  subjects,  however,  were  left  unfinished,  and 
 were  turned  over  to  the  next  synod  to  complete  such  as  the 
 census,  the  Tercentenary  professorship,  etc.  The  convention 
 set  September  15,  1864,  as  the  time  for  the  closing  of  the 
 receipts  for  the  Tercentenary  fund.     It  also  passed  a  vote  of 
 
 ^Messenger,  June  1,  18G4. 
 
422         History  of  Reformed  Church  ix  the  U.  S. 
 
 sympathy  for  the  Reformed  Clmrch  in  Austria,  wliich,  for 
 the  first  time  in  three  centuries,  was  allowed  to  hold  a  synod. 
 It  also  noted  the  300th  anniversary  of  Calvin  (1564). 
 
 At  this  conference,  advantage  was  again  taken  of  tiie  Tercen- 
 tenary to  aid  the  jVIercer.sburg  theology  as  much  as  possible.  A 
 series  of  resolutions  was  passed.    They  are  as  follows : 
 
 "Our  Tercentenary  jubilee  has  served  a  wholesome  purpose  in  re- 
 newing for  our  ecclesiastical  consciousness,  a  proper  sense  of  what  is 
 comprehended  in  our  confessional  title  "Eeformed, "  as  related  origin- 
 ally to  Lutheranism  in  one  direction  and  to  the  Catholic  Church  of  the 
 olden  time  in  the  other. 
 
 2.  It  is  an  argument  of  sound  and  right  historical  feeling  in  this  case 
 that  the  beginnings  of  our  Church  life  are  referred  not  simply  to  the 
 epoch-  and  crisis  of  the  Reformation  but  through  that  also  to  the 
 original  form  of  Christianity  as  it  existed  in  the  first  ages. 
 
 3.  The  true  genius  and  spirit  of  our  Church  in  this  respect,  as  shown 
 by  the  plan  which  is  assigned  to  the  Apostles'  Creed  in  the  Heidelberg 
 Catechism,  where  it  is  plainly  assumed  that  the  creed  in  its  proper 
 historical  sense  is  to  be  considered  of  fundamental  authority  for  the 
 Reformed  faith. 
 
 4.  It  is  a  matter  for  congratulation  that  our  growing  sympathy  with 
 the  Apostles'  Creed  is  attended  with  a  growing  power  of  appreciation 
 among  us  also  of  that  Christological  way  of  looking  at  the  doctrines  of 
 Christianity,  which  has  come  to  characterize  all  the  Evangelical  theology 
 of  Germany  in  our  time;  and  by  which  only  it  would  seem  the  objective 
 and  subjective  (in  other  words  the  churchly  and  experimental)  sides  of 
 the  Gospel  can  be  brought  into  true  harmony  with  each  other." 
 
 These  articles  thus  drawn  up  and  adopted  were  referred 
 to  the  next  synod.  The  synod  of  1864  adopted  them  and,  as 
 Apple  says  of  it  in  the  Messenger,  Fehru^ry  20,  1867,  "Thus 
 the  Church  unanimously  endorsed  at  the  close  of  the  Tercenten- 
 ary year  jubilee  the  theology  which  is  taught  in  the  Church." 
 What  he  means  by  this  is  explained  by  a  previous  paragraph  in 
 the  same  article  which  said  that  IMercersburg  theology  is  the 
 only  theolog>'  that  has  been  taught  in  the  Clmrch  since  the 
 removal  of  our  institutions  to  Mercersburg  some  thirty  years 
 ago.  lie  therefore  argues  that  the  Church  adopted  and  en- 
 dorsed officially  the  IMei-ccrsburg  tlieology.  We  have  called 
 attention  previously  to  the  fjilsity  of  this  statement  of  Apple. 
 Mercersburg    Theology    was    not    taught    since    the    removal 
 
Tercentenary  of  IlEiDEiiBERG  Catechism.  423 
 
 of  tlie  institutions  to  Mercersburg.  Neither  Ranch  or  even 
 Nevin  in  his  first  years  at  IMercersburg  taught  the  Mercers- 
 burg theok)gj^,  as  it  did  not  develop  until  Schaff  came  (1844). 
 Apple  is  also  wrong  in  claiming  that  this  action  of  the 
 synod  of  1864  conmiitted  the  Church  officially  to  Mercersburg 
 theology.  These  resolutions  are  a  very  vague  statement  and 
 show  no  endorsement  of  anything  but  "  Christocentric  tlie- 
 olt»gy)"  which  is  not  by  any  means  the  peculiarity  of  Mercers- 
 burg theology,  but  of  nuich  theology  that  never  knew  Mercers- 
 burg. That  Christocentric  view  was  first  emphasized  by 
 Schliermacher,  whose  theology  difi^ered  widely  from  Nevinism. 
 Those  resolutions  describe  rather  a  general  theological  move- 
 ment than  that  of  a  particular  school  like  Mercersburg.  So 
 these  resolutions  can  not  be  taken  as  an  endorsement  of  IMer- 
 cersburg theology  because  they  do  not  state  the  peculiar  doc- 
 trines of  that  theology.  Yet  this  was  the  nearest  the  synod 
 ever  got  to  officially  adopting  Mercersburg  teachings.  The 
 truth  was  that  at  that  time  a  large  part  of  the  synod  had  not 
 yet  accepted  Mercersbu-rg  views  and  never  did  accept  them. 
 And  the  Mercersburg  men  were  later  willing  to  make  the  as- 
 sertion that  the  Reformed  Church  never  adopted  Mercersburg 
 theology  officially.  Certain  it  is  that  whatever  the  action  of 
 the  Eastern  synod  of  1864  meant,  Mercersburg  theology 
 never  was  officially  adopted  by  the  General  Synod  of  our 
 Church  when  it  came  into  being  later.  So  that  it  can  not  be 
 claimed  that  Mercersburg  theology  is  the  theology  of  the  Re- 
 formed Church.  At  the  present  time,  many  of  the  graduates 
 of  Mercersburg  and  Lancaster,  who  no  longer  subscribe  to  the 
 Mercersburg  shibboleth  of  Nevinism,  can  rejoice  with  us,  that 
 it  never  was  made  the  official  theology  of  the  German  Re- 
 formed Church. 
 
BOOK   III. 
 
 The    Second  Liturgical    Controversy    (The    Contro- 
 versy About  the  Order  of  Worship). 
 
 CHAPTER   I. 
 
 The  New  "Order  of  AYorsiiip." 
 Section  1.    The  Preparation  of  the  New  Liturgy. 
 
 The  Eastern  synod  of  1SG4  accepted  the  instructions  of  the 
 General  Synod  and  appointed  a  connnittee  to  revise  the  Pro- 
 visional liturg5^  It,  however,  appointed  the  old  liturgical 
 committee,  merely  filling  the  vacancies  caused  by  death.  Thus 
 Hefner's  place  was  filled  by  T.  G.  Apple,  and  Elder  William 
 Heyser's  by  Elder  L.  H.  Steiner.  The  synod  also  elected  Gans 
 a  professor  of  Biblical  exegesis  on  the  Tercentenarj'  Fund, 
 but  he  was  to  take  his  place  only  when  the  sufficient  funds 
 had  been  collected.  He,  however,  never  entered  on  the  office, 
 as  sufficient  funds  were  never  gathered.  And  when  the  next 
 effort  was  made  for  an  addition  to  the  seminary  faculty  it  was 
 by  an  addition  of  a  Hebrew  tutor. 
 
 The  liturgical  committee  had  repeated  meetings.  The  com- 
 pleted liturgy  was  presented  to  the  Eastern  synod  of  1866. 
 Bomberger,  as  a  minority  member  of  the  committee,  presented 
 a  paper  to  the  synod  on  the  subject  of  the  liturgy.  But  he 
 later  withdrew  it,  when  synod  agreed  to  have  it  stated  in  tlie 
 minutes  that  such  a  paper  had  been  presented.  The  com- 
 mittee of  the  synod  (m  the  liturgy  submitted  four  resolutions, 
 the  first  expressing  thanks  to  God,  the  second  thank-s  to  the 
 committee.  The  third  was  the  one  omitted  in  tlie  final  action, 
 namely,  that  we  approve  of  the  revised  liturgy  and  recom- 
 mend it  to  General  Synod."  Tbis  was  amended  into  the 
 action  that  the  revised  liturgy  be  referred  to  the  General 
 Synod  for  acti(m  and  that  in  the  meantime  the  optional  use 
 
 424 
 
The  New  "Order  op  Worship."  425 
 
 of  the  Revised  liturgj^  be  authorized  instead  of  the  Provisional 
 within  the  bomids  of  the  Eastern  synod  until  the  question  be 
 finally  settled  by  the  classes  and  the  General  Synod,  according 
 to  the  constitution.  The  vote  was  53  for  this  action  to  14 
 against.  The  liturgical  committee  was  then  discharged.  The 
 opponents  of  the  liturgy  strongly  opposed  this  action  as  giving 
 some  sort  of  approval  of  the  liturgy,  and  as  prejudging  the 
 case  before  the  General  Synod  had  acted  on  it.  But  it  was 
 explicitly  stated  that  tlie  permission  to  optional  use  should 
 have  no  such  construction.  And  yet  Nevin,  at  the  next  Gen- 
 eral Synod,  claimed  that  tlie  synod  had  endorsed  the  com- 
 mittee and  accepted  in  full  its  action. 
 
 The  debate  on  the  liturgy  was  very  heated.  Bomberger, 
 says  an  eye  witness  (K.),  was  frequently  interrupted  by  a 
 number  of  his  opponents  and  the  president  of  the  synod  gave 
 him  no  protection  against  them.  At  one  time  he  fairly  reeled 
 in  the  chancel  and  placing  his  hands  on  his  forehead  as  if  in 
 extreme  pain,  he  besought  the  brethren  to  give  him  a  fair 
 chance  to  speak.  Elder  Rudolph  Kelker,  when  he  arose  to 
 speak  in  behalf  of  the  elders  against  the  new  liturgy,  suffered 
 all  sorts  of  indignities  from  his  opponents.  (Although  Dr. 
 Nevin  came  to  him  afterward  and  congratulated  him  on  his 
 remarks.)  Tlie  interruptions  were  so  great  when  he  began  his 
 remarks  that  he  said  quietly  ''that  if  the  seminary  created 
 the  spirit  manifested  on  this  occasion,  then  it  was  a  golden 
 age  of  the  Church  when  we  had  no  seminary."  In  his  re- 
 marks, he  turned  to  Dr.  Schaff,  who  sat  near  him  and  asked 
 him  whether  or  not  the  Reformed  Church  of  Switzerland  and 
 Germany  had  such  a  responsive  service  as  the  Order  of  Wor- 
 ship. Dr.  Schaff  replied  emphatically  that  there  was  no  such 
 liturgy  in  the  Reformed  Churches  of  Europe  and  added  with 
 deep  emotion,  laying  his  hand  on  his  breast  as  he  did  it.  "Who 
 does  not  know  that  the  warm  outgushing  of  the  heart  is  better 
 than  any  form  of  prayer  prepared  by  another."  (Dr.  Schaff 
 seems  to  have  forgotten  for  the  moment  his  high-churchism 
 as  his  memory  went  back  to  his  early  Reformed  home  and 
 simple  Reformed  worship  beyond  the  sea  at  Chur  in  Switzer- 
 land. 
 
426         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 Section  2.     "The  Revised  Liturgy"  by  Bomberger. 
 
 Rev.  Pres.  J.  H.  A.  Bomberger,  D.  D. 
 
 About  six  weeks  after  the  meeting  of  the  Eastern  synod  in 
 1866  and  before  the  session  of  the  General  Synod,  Bomberger 
 published  this  pamphlet.  It  was  written,  he  says,  at  the  re- 
 quest of  a  number  of  elders  present  at  the  Eastern  synod  of 
 
 1866.* 
 
 lie  cbarged  the  Eevised  liturgy  (Order  of  Worship)  with  being  a 
 liturgical  revolution.  He  does  not,  he  says,  charge  an  ecclesiastical 
 ('.onsi)iracy  to  foist  a  liturgy  on  the  Church,  but  the  effect  of  such  a 
 niovpinent  may  be  felt  even  with  no  antecedent  purpose  to  produce  it. 
 He  described  the  Reformed  ('hurch  in  this  country  as  having  been  moder- 
 ately but  decidedly  Calvinistic.  Tt  observed  five  of  the  Church  festivals  only. 
 It  used  free  prayer  at  the  Lord's  day  services  and  liturgical  forms 
 only  for  the  sacraments,  etc.  This  had  been  the  custom  from  1730  on. 
 He  then  gives  an  excellent  history  of  the  liturgical  movement  since  1847. 
 Speaking  of  the  liturgical  committee  when  it  met  in  1861  to  revise  the 
 Provisional  liturgy,  he  says  it  was  found  that  there  were  two  parties, 
 one  wanting  a  pulpit-liturgy,  the  other  an  altar-liturgy,  the  first  be- 
 lieving that  the  Provisional  liturgy  could  be  altered  by  taking  out  the 
 objectionable    ]):nts,    the    other    claiming    it    was   such   an    organic    unity 
 
 *The  first  edition  was  exhausted  in  four  days. 
 
The  New  "Order  of  Worship."  427 
 
 that  this  could  not  be  done.  To  cap  the  climax  Nevin  published  in  1862, 
 as  the  report  of  the  conimiLtee  to  the  synod  his  pamphlet,  "The  Litur- 
 gical Question,"  which  was: 
 
 1.  A  violent  and  wholesale  assault  on  free  prayer. 
 
 2.  A  contemptuous  condemnation  of  the  Palatinate  and  other  Ee- 
 forined  liturgies. 
 
 3.  A  eulogistic  vindication  of  an  extremely  responsive  order  of  ritual- 
 ism.    Pulpit  liturgies  were  called  pseudo-liturgies  (false  liturgies),  etc. 
 
 Bomberger's  charges  against  the  liturgical  committee  were: 
 
 1.  That  it  violated  the  instructions  given  to  it,  in  the  external  struc- 
 ture and  form  of  its  leading  services,  (a)  in  the  multiplication  of  re- 
 sponses. While  the  synod  of  1852  enlarged  the  liberty  of  the  com- 
 mittee, yet  its  work  was  to  have  special  reference  to  the  Palatinate 
 and  other  Refonned  liturgies  which  were  not  responsive.  Thus,  in  the 
 regular  service  of  the  Lord's  day  in  the  Order  of  Worship  there  are 
 eighteen  responses,  beside  the  confession  of  sin.  Creed,  Gloria  and 
 Lord's  Prayer.  In  the  evening  service  there  are  seventeen  responses 
 and  the  Creed  and  Lord's  Prayer.  In  the  preparatory  services  there 
 were  thirty  responses,  including  the  litany;  at  the  Lord's  Supper, 
 twenty-nine,  without  counting  the  Nicene  Creed,  Gloria  in  Excelsis, 
 Seraphic  hymn  and  Te  Deum  or  Ambrosian  hymn,  which  last  contains 
 fifteen  long  responses.  It  has  more  responses  than  the  Episcopalian 
 liturgy,  (b)  It  violates  the  instructions  of  the  synod  of  1852  by  not 
 allowing  room  for  free  prayer. 
 
 2.  He  then  passes  over  to  an  examination  of  its  internal  structure 
 or  ruling  spirit  and  genius.  The  instructions  of  the  synod  of  1852  were 
 that  it  should  be  essentially  and  generically  Reformed.  He  quotes  the 
 Church-historians,  Hase,  Kurtz,  Hagenbach  and  Nitzch,  to  prove'  that 
 the  Reformed  worship  was  simple  and  without  responses  or  altar.  He 
 also  quotes  the  Ee formed  KircJienseitiing  of  Germany,  the  official  paper 
 of  our  Church  there,  which  in  November,  1859,  declared  that  our  Re- 
 formed worship  was  without  responses  and  special  altar  service.  The 
 Order,  he  says,  cast  out  the  "table"  from  the  Reformed  liturgies  and 
 put  the  altar  in.  The  "declaration  of  pardon"  in  the  "Palatinate 
 liturgy  was  to  weak  penitents  who  were  already  pardoned,  and  was 
 usually  called  in  Germany  "the  assurance  of  comfort,"  but  it  was  not 
 intended  to  convey  pardon  as  docs  the  Order  of  Worship.  Instead  of 
 making  the  Lord's  Supper  a  memorial  as  in  the  Palatinate  liturgy,  the 
 Order  makes  it  the  offering  up  of  a  sacrifice  in  which  they  present  an 
 ofi'ering  to  God.  As  Nevin  says,  the  new  liturgy  is  not  patterned  after 
 any  in  use  in  the  Reformed  Church  in  the  United  States  or  elsewhere. 
 
 Its  doctrinal  points  were  as  objectionable  as  its  liturgical,  as 
 1.  Its  teaching  of  the  relation  of  Christ's  glorified  body  to  the  be- 
 liever. 
 
428         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 2,  That  the  sacraments  work  regenerating  grace  through  the  Holy 
 Spirit,  whereas  the  catechism  says  it  is  by  the  Word. 
 
 The  effects  of  the  introJiiction  of  this  liturgy  will  be  a  radical  change  : 
 (1)  in  worship,  (2)  in  the  conceptions  of  Christianity  and  the  Church, 
 (3)  in  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Church,  (4)  the  substitution  of 
 the  altar  and  the  priesthood  and  the  subordination  of  preaching  in  our 
 services,  (5)  greater  diversity  in  worship,  (6)  discord  in  the  Church,  (7) 
 decay  of  the  Church.  The  remedy  is  a  revision,  Avhich  will  take  out  all 
 objectionable  forms  and  phrases.  These  changes  would  not  exceed  twenty 
 pages. 
 
 Comparing  it  with  the  Provisional  liturgy  which  had  preceded  it,  it 
 was  even  more  ritualistic.  That  was  a  double  liturgy,  containing  both 
 an  altar-  and  a  pulpit-liturgy.  Of  the  31  forms,  27  were  cast  after  the 
 model  of  the  Eeformed  Church.  In  the  Order,  every  vestige  of  these 
 27  forms  were  eliminated;  and  the  four,  most  at  variance  with  the  Re- 
 formed liturgies  were  retained.  On  the  other  hand,  its  objectionable 
 features  were  intensified.  The  committee  did  what  they  had  before 
 said  could  not  be  done.  They  tore  the  Provisional  liturgy  to  pieces  and 
 changed  its  parts.  The  two  liturgies — the  Provisional  and  the  Order — 
 differ  both  in  inward  and  outward  arrangement. 
 
 Section  3.     The  General  Synod  of  1866. 
 
 The  General  Synod  met  at  Dayton.*  Rev.  Dr.  Zacharias 
 was  elected  president.  lie  had  always  been  considered  as  be- 
 longing to  the  Old  Reformed  party,  but  here  he  gave  the  con- 
 trol of  the  synod  to  the  Mercersburg  men.  It  received  the 
 reports  of  both  synods  on  the  liturgj^  The  Ohio  synod,  hav- 
 ing received  permission  of  the  previous  General  Synod  to 
 prepare  a  liturgy,  did  so  and  now  reported  that  it  was  busy  at 
 work  but  had  not  j^et  completed  it.  The  Eastern  synod  pre- 
 sented the  Order  of  Worship.  Hoth  reports  were  referred  to 
 a  special  eommiltce.  This  committee  could  not  agree  and  so 
 brought  in  a  majority  and  minority  report.  The  majority 
 recommended  that  the  Order  of  Worship  1)e  liandiMl  down  to 
 the  Church  for  optional  use.  The  minority  opposed  this,  be- 
 cause the  Order,  they  said,  made  essential  changes  in  worship 
 and  doctrine  and  it  was,  therefore,  imsafe  and  unwise  to  do 
 this  even  for  optional  use.     The  minoi-ity  report  also  stated 
 
 *In  the  Lutheran  Church,  as  the  Reformed  Church  was  not  yet  finished. 
 
The  New  "Order  op  Worship."  429 
 
 fifteen  objections  to  the  Order,   whieli  were  summed  up  by 
 Prof.  J.  li.  Good,*  its  leader. 
 
 A  long  discussion  followed,  which  lasted  two  days.f  In  it, 
 in  reply  to  a  charge  made  that  the  high-churchmen  had  gotten 
 so  high  as  already  to  have  bishops,  J.  II.  Wagner  tried  to  ex- 
 plain away  the  charge  by  J.  II.  Good  that  the  Order  led  to 
 episcopacy  because  Westmoreland  classis  already  had  a  bishop. 
 The  name  of  superintendent  was  first  proposed,  Init  it  was  not 
 considered  churchly  enough,  as  we  have  superintendents  of 
 oil  companies.  But  bishop  is  Scriptural  and  was,  therefore, 
 used.  The  ministers  are  all  bishops  and  the  missionary  bishop 
 (such  as  they  have  in  Westmoreland  classis)  is  not  above  the 
 rest  of  the  clergy.  In  the  discussion.  Dr.  Fisher  also  explained  v^ 
 why  he  had  opposed  the  Provisional  liturgy  but  now  endorsed 
 the  Order;  for  he  says  he  had  been  charged  with  being  a 
 traitor.  The  Provisional  liturgy,  he  said,  had  no  unity  in  it. 
 This  is  a  unit, — one  system — one  order  of  w^orship.  It  is  far 
 better  than  the  Provisional  and  is  the  result  of  a  compromise. 
 
 Apple  said,  "It  is  for  them  (the  churches)  to  determine 
 whether  they  will  accept  it  or  not  and  use  it."  Gans  said, 
 ' '  We  owe  it  to  the  people  to  say  whether  they  want  it. ' '  Ger- 
 hart  declared  "It  must  be  submitted  to  the  people."  Russell 
 said,  "Let  the  liturgy  go  to  the  churches  for  optional  vise  and 
 trial."  All  these  leaders  of  the  high-church  party  thus 
 granted  at  that  time  that  the  use  of  the  liturgy  must  be  de- 
 cided by  the  congregation.  We  shall  see  how  by  and  by  they 
 later  advanced  beyond  this  position. 
 
 When  the  vote  was  taken,  the  majority  report  had  seven 
 majority  (6-4-57).  A  change  of  four  votes  would  have  changed 
 the  result.    Rust  says|  ' '  that  one  large  classis  in  the  West  was 
 
 *The  J.  H.  Good  so  often  mentioned  in  this  book  is  not  tlio  author  of 
 this  book,  but  his  uncle.  The  initials  of  tiieir  names  are  so  alike  that 
 they  are  often  confused  with  each  other.  The  writer  was  then  only  a 
 young  man,  not  in  the  ministry  yet.  lie  refers  to  this  because  he  does 
 not  want  to  seem  to  be  quoting  himself  so  often,  as  would  appear  to 
 any  one  who  confuses  his  uncle's  name  with  himself. 
 
 fFor  this  discussion,  see  the  Messenger  and  Christian  World,  1866-7. 
 
 tChristian  World,  February  28,  1867. 
 
430         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 not  represented  at  all  and  several  by  only  one  pastor.     If  the 
 western  delegation  had  been  full,  the  old  R<?forine(l  party 
 would  have  had  12-15  more  votes." 
 The  action  was  as  follows : 
 
 " Eesolved,  That  the  Western  synod,  in  conformity  with  its  own  re- 
 quest, be  authorized  to  continue  its  labors  in  preparing  a  liturgy, — 
 
 That  the  Revised  liturgy  reported  to  this  synod  by  the  Eastern  synod, 
 according  to  the  direction  of  the  General  Synod  at  Pittsburg,  entitled 
 'An  Order  of  Worship  for  the  Reformed  (church,'  Ite  and  is  hereliy  al- 
 lowed as  an  order  of  worship  projier  to  be  used  in  the  congregations 
 and  families  of  the  Reformed  Church, — 
 
 That  this  action  is  not  designed  to  interfere  in  any  way  with  that 
 freedom  which  is  now  enjoyed  in  regard  to  liturgy  by  all  such  ministers 
 and  congregations  as  may  not  be  prepared  to  introduce  it  in  whole  or 
 in  part. " 
 
 The  Messenger,  in  an  editorial*  says  "The  report  of  the  committee 
 is  a  compromise  measure,  allowing  the  use  of  the  Order,  yet  giving 
 the  Western  committee  time  to  complete  its  work.  There  is  no  dispo- 
 sition to  force  this  or  any  other  liturgy  on  the  Church.  The  genius  of 
 the  Reformed  Church  will  never  admit  of  anything  of  the  kind.  No  at- 
 tempt should  be  made  by  any  of  its  friends  to  introduce  its  use  in  ad- 
 vance of,  or  in  opposition  to,  public  sentiment  nor  should  undue  measure 
 be  resorted  to  for  the  purpose  of  manufacturing  sentiment. 
 
 The  phrase  in  the  synod's  action  "as  an  order  of  worship 
 proper  to  be  used"  was  afterward  made  use  of  to  show  that  it 
 was  approved  by  this  General  Synod.  This  was  done  to  get  it 
 introduced  into  the  congregations.  Ihil  this  action  of  the 
 General  Synod  was  not  an  approval,  only  a  permission. 
 
 Right  on  the  heels  of  this  General  Synod  came  the  news  of 
 the  defection  of  one  of  the  Mercersburg  graduates  to  Rome, 
 Rev.  ]\Ioses  A.  Stewart,  of  Burkittville,  which  made  rpiite  a 
 sensation.  At  this  General  Synod  a  resolution  containing  the 
 word  "Evangelical"  in  it  happened  to  be  offered.  Immedi- 
 ately a  Nevinite  moved  to  strike  out  the  word.  After  some 
 debate  the  motion  to  strike  out  the  word  was  lost  by  only  a 
 few  votes.  Some  of  the  Nevinists  not  only  rejected  the  word 
 hut  ridiculed  its  use  by  others. 
 
 *December  19. 
 
The  New  "Order  of  Worship."  431 
 
 Section   4.     "Vindication   of   tpie   Revised   Liturgy,"   by 
 Nevin,    and    "Reformed    Not    Ritualistic,"    by    Bom- 
 
 Early  in  1867,  Dr.  Nevin  published  this  tract  in  reply  to 
 Bomberger's  tract,  "The  Revised  Liturg>'."     lie  says: 
 
 Bomberger 's  tract  will  do   harm   Vjv  charging  the   liturgy  as  a   great 
 fraud,   palmed   off   on    the   Church   by   the   liturgical   committee.      Bom- 
 berger's tract  had  been  published  just  before  the  General  Synod  so  as 
 to    influence   its   members  against   the    Order    of   Worship.      Dr.    Nevin 
 then  tries  to  answer,  what  he  calls  Bomberger's  charge  of  conspiracy, 
 that   the    friends   of   the   liturgy   and   the   liturgical   committee   had   all 
 along  been  trying  to  palm  off  a  liturgy  on  the  Church  and  thus  make 
 the   Church   liturgical, — that   the   liturgical   committee   continually   went 
 contrary  to  the  wish  of  the  synod.     He  divided  his  tract  into  two  parts : 
 1.  Historical    Vindication;     2.  Theological    Vindication.      In    the    first 
 he  denied  that  the  liturgical  committee  had  gone  ahead  of  or  against 
 the   wishes   of,   the   synod.      He  claimed   that   the   synod   of    1852   gave 
 authority   to   the   liturgical   committee   to   go   back   of   the   Eeformation 
 to   the  early   liturgies.      Bomberger  had   charged   them   with  asking   for 
 the  provisional  use  of  this  liturgy,  because  they  felt  the  liturgy  would 
 be  too  extreme.     He  claimed  over  against  Bomberger  that  the  liturgical 
 committee   had   merely   fulfilled   the   wishes   of   synod   by   following   the 
 ancient  creeds  and  by  its  provisional   introduction.     He  gives  the  his- 
 tory of  its  inception:     "We  started  in  1849,  the  committee  and  synod 
 having   in   mind   at   that   time   almost   entirely   the   notion   simply   of   a 
 book  of  forms  for  the  pulpit.     But  we  Avere  gradually  carried  beyond 
 this  to  a  liturgy  belonging  to  the  altar.     The  pulpit-liturgy  gradually, 
 by  plastic  force  of  sentiment,  ran  into  an  altar-liturgy."     He  differed 
 from  Bomberger  by  claiming  that  the  Provisional  liturgy  was  prevail- 
 ingly an  altar-liturgy  and  not  a   pulpit-liturgy.     Instead  of  the  synod 
 being  out  of  sympathy  with  the  liturgical  committee,  the  synod  showed 
 its  confidence  in  the  liturgical  committee  by  re-appointing  it  twice  to  do 
 the  work  (in  1861  and  again  in  1864),  and  finally  fully  approved  its  last 
 work.     After  such  an  effort  to  prepare  a  liturgy  lasting  seventeen  years, 
 the  effort  of  the  minority  at  the  General  Synod  of  1866  to  set  it  aside 
 was  absurd  and  monstrous.     He  charges  that  it  was  an  attempt  of  the 
 West   to   rule  the  East.     He  then   attacks   the   liturgical   material   pre- 
 pared by  the  West  as  "botched  stuff,"  and  ridicules  the  report  of  its 
 committee.     Bomberger's   tract   failed  to   have  any   effect,   he   said,   on 
 the  eastern  delegates  at  the  General  Synod,  as  they  all  favored  the  Order 
 except   Bomberger  and  his  colleagues,  two   of  whom  were   from   North 
 Carolina.     He  called  these  North  Carolinians  "ciphers"  (a  charge  which 
 Dr.  Welker  never  forgot. — A.)     The  vote  of  the  General  Synod  was  not 
 
432         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 intended  as  an  endorsement,  but  only  so  that  the  Order  might  have 
 fair-play. 
 
 In  the  Theological  Vindication,  he  says  that  in  the  discussion  at 
 General  Synod,  he  was  surprised  that  so  little  stress  was  laid  on  points 
 of  ritual,  as  the  responses,  and  that  the  discussion  related  mainly  to  the 
 theological  character  of  the  Order  of  Worship.  The  reigning  tlieology 
 of  the  liturgy  was: 
 
 1.  Christological  or  Christoceutric. 
 
 2.  It  moved  in  the  bosom  of  the  Apostles'  Creed. 
 
 3.  It  was  objective  and  historical. 
 
 Such  a  Churchly  theology  is  always  sacramental.  He  then  attacks  his 
 anti-liturgical  opponents,  as  he  calls  them,  and  calls  them  rationalizing, 
 subjective  and  making  the  doctrine  of  assurance  out  of  their  own  fancy. 
 As  to  ordination,  the  choice  is  between  a  theorj'  that  ordination  is 
 nothing  and  one  that  holds  it  carries  force.  Transmission  flows  through 
 ordination, — actual  investiture  of  office, — the  sacramental  seal  of  the 
 heavenly  commission. 
 
 As  to  confession  and  absolution,  are  they  nothing  but  declarations 
 of  what  is  plainly  true.  The  objection  to  this  is  due  to  the  rationaliz- 
 ing spirit  of  his  opponents.  As  to  baptism,  he  was  surprised  at  the 
 statement  of  Eust,  a  professor  of  theology,  which  was  blank  Pelagian- 
 ism,  because  he  could  not  go  with  the  statement  of  the  liturgy  that 
 children  were  under  the  power  of  the  devil.  As  to  its  teaching  bap- 
 tismal regeneration,  the  liturgy  avoids  the  phrase  because  it  is  ambigu- 
 ous; but  it  teaches  the  reality  of  sacramental  grace.  It  does  not  mean 
 that  baptism  converts  the  baptized  by  magic  but  that  it  imparts  grace. 
 As  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sujjper,  that  it  taught  a  real  union  of 
 Christ  with  the  elements,  all  he  had  to  say  was  that  that  doctrine  was 
 "Reformed  and  Calvinistic. 
 
 Nevin's  "Vindication  of  the  Liturgy"  was  reviewed  by  Williard  in  the 
 Western  Missionary.  He  says  it  is  not  a  vindication,  but  a  vindictive 
 assault  on  Nevin's  opponents.  The  Order  had  been  described  as  an  inno- 
 cent little  infant.  But  lo,  within  three  months  after  General  Synod,  it 
 had  risen  up  brandishing  its  sword.  He  utterly  denied  the  charge  of 
 Nevin  that  Bomberger  and  the  eastern  opponents  of  the  liturgy  had 
 formed  a  conspiracy  with  the  West  to  win  a  political  game  at  the  last 
 General  Synod.  Nevin  speaks  very  disrespectfully  of  the  liturgical  work 
 of  the  Western  synod  when  he  calls  it  "botched  stuff."  He  insulted 
 the  North  Carolina  delegates  })y  representing  them  as  "cijdiers. " 
 
 Boiiilx'i'gcr  replied,  in  ]\hiy  ])y  his  tract  "Reformed  not 
 Ritualistie,"  written  at  tlie  recpiest  of  a  number  of  laymen, 
 who  declared  thai  Xe\in  had  grossly  and  personally  abused 
 him. 
 
The  New  "Order  of  Worship."  433 
 
 He  has  a  brief  introduction  in  which  he  says  that  IVevin  at  the  General 
 Synod  had  utilized  the  occasion  for  a  personal  attack  on  him.  He  also 
 refers  to  Nevin  's  attack  on  the  Western  delegates  in  his  Vindication  and 
 to  Harbaugh's  hoMing  up  the  Palatinate  liturgy  to  public  ridicule  in  its 
 absolution,  or,  as  it  was  properly  called,  fonuula  "for  comforting  peni- 
 tents. ' '    After  fhis  introduction,  he  replies : 
 
 (1)  To  Nevin,  denying  that  he  had  ever  charged  the  liturgical  com- 
 mittee with  a  conspiracy  and  referred  to  his  tract,  "The  Revised  Lit- 
 urgy" (page  9)  as  disclaiming  it.  But  ho  granted  that  he  had  charged 
 three  things: 
 
 A.  Disobedience  of  the  committee  to  the  Eastern  synod 's  instruc- 
 tions. 
 
 B.  Persevering  attempts  to  introduce  ritualism. 
 
 C.  Desire  to  secure  delay. 
 
 The  synods  of  1849,  1852  and  1861  had  enjoined  at  least  equal  regard 
 for  Reformed  liturgies  of  the  sixteenth  century  to  which  the  committee 
 paid  no  regard. 
 
 (2)  To  NeA-in's  attack  on  him  for  his  inconsistency  (that  he  had 
 approved  of  Nevinism  in  1853  and  the  Provisional  liturgy  in  1857,  and  yet 
 attacked  it  in  1862.  He  says  that  in  his  first  article  in  the  Mercersbitrg 
 Review  (1853),  he  had  already  expressed  decided  dissent  on  some  points 
 with  Nevin.  He  had  early  objected  to  certain  forms  in  the  Provisional 
 liturgy,  but  had  been  answered  that  they  could  be  omitted.  He  then 
 turns  on  Nevin,  saying  that  he  too  was  quite  inconsistent. 
 
 1.  In  1840-7  he  was  quite  favorable  to  the  spirit  of  the  Reforma- 
 tion, but  in  1862-3  unfavorable  to  the  Reformation  and  inclined  to  go 
 back  to  the  early  Church.  In  1844  he  was  against  the  Christianity  of 
 the  second  century  and  in  1866-7  decidedly  for  it. 
 
 2.  In  1844  he  was  against  genuflections  and  prostrations  and  ritual, 
 and  in  1862-3  very  much  in  favor  of  them. 
 
 Yet  Nevin  said  at  the  General  Synod  at  Dayton,  "I  stand  whore  I  did 
 while  professor  at  Mercersburg. ' ' 
 
 3.  Nevin 's  third  attack  on  him  had  been  for  factiousness.  Nevin  had 
 spoken  of  Bomberger  and  his  friends  as  a  miserable  faction  of  the  East- 
 ern .  synod.  This  he  denies.  His  party  was  not  a  faction,  for  the 
 Order  had  not  yet  been  endorsed  at  all.  At  the  Eastern  synod  of  1866 
 the  synod  had  been  careful  to  say  that  its  action  was  not  an  endorse- 
 ment; and  at  General  Synod,  Gans  said  in  the  discussion,  "We  want 
 no  authority  to  go  with  the  book.  No  endorsement  is  sought.  We 
 are  not  yet  prepared  for  that  point."  The  phrase  of  General  Synod's 
 action,  ' '  an  order  of  worship  proper  to  be  used, ' '  does  not  therefore  carry 
 with  it  any  endorsement.  Yet  Nevin  quotes  it  as  endorsed.  How  could 
 his  party  be  factious  against  the  Order  when  the  Order  was  not  yet 
 officiallv  endorsed  bv  the  Church. 
 
434        History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 He  then  takes  up  again  the  history  of  the  liturgical  movement.  He 
 claimed  that  on  five  points,  the  liturgical  committee  violated  the  instruc- 
 tions of  the  synod  of  1852  and  gives  facts  to  prove  it.  He  closes  by 
 stating  the  differences  between  the  two  systems  of  liturgy. 
 
 1.  The  Order  is  responsive.  These  are  said  to  be  unimportant,  but 
 it  is  a  scheme  to  sever  our  Church  from  its  historic  past. 
 
 2.  The  Order  destroys  the  personal  relation  of  the  believer  to  Christ. 
 This  is  taken  away  by  its  teaching  of  the  priesthood  of  the  ministry, 
 which  was  the  Jewish  idea,  not  Christian. 
 
 3.  The  Order  is  ritualistic.  The  difference  between  liturgical  and 
 ritualistic  is  that  the  former  refers  to  the  use  of  suitable  forms  and 
 uses  only  those  as  are  indispensable,  the  latter  invests  these  forms  with 
 extra  drapery  and  ceremonies,  "risings  and  bowings,"  as  Nevin  said; 
 "also  turning  of  all  faces  toward  the  altar  as  the  shekinah  forth  from 
 which  must  radiate  continually  the  glory  of  God's  house."* 
 
 4.  The  Order  lays  emphasis  on  the  objective  and  outward  in  worship 
 to  the  disparagement  of  the  subjective  and  experimental.  By  exalting 
 the  sacraments,  it  lowers  the  authority  of  the  Word  of  God. 
 
 5.  The  Order  excludes  free  prayer. 
 
 He  concludes  by  replying  to  Nevin 's  Theological  Vindication  of  the 
 Order,  where  he  made  God  in  Christ  central.  This  is  no  peculiarity  of 
 Mercersburg  theology.  This  was  firmly  taught  by  the  Eeformed  Church 
 long  before  Nevin  came  into  our  Church.  In  reply  to  Nevin 's  statement 
 that  this  Christocentric  theology  is  founded  on  the  Creed,  he  answers 
 by  attacking  Nevin 's  view  of  the  organic  unity  of  the  Creed.  Nevin 
 had  declared  that  the  clauses  of  the  Creed  were  organically  arranged, 
 gradually  rising  through  the  Father,  Son  and  Spirit  to  the  Church — 
 that  it  was  significant  that  the  clause  about  the  Church  came  before 
 that  of  forgiveness  of  sin,  thus  showing  that  forgiveness  of  sin  comes 
 through  the  Church.  Bomberger  shows  that  the  clauses  came  into  it 
 at  different  intervals  and  some  as  late  as  the  eighth  century.  The 
 clause  ' '  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  left  off  ' '  Catholic ' '  until 
 400  to  500  B.  C.  And  that  article,  instead  of  being  placed  after  I  be- 
 lieve in  Christ  and  also  the  Holy  Ghost  (of  which  Nevin  makes  so 
 much)  was  often  placed  last  in  the  Creed.  The  forgiveness  of  sins  often 
 preceded  the  article  on  the  Church. 
 
 As  to  Nevin 's  third  characteristic  of  the  Order  that  it  made  religion 
 objective  and  historical,  he  replies  that  our  catechism  emphasized  the 
 subjective.  (Answer  20,  "receive  all  these  benefits  by  a  true  faith.") 
 Before  closing,  he  defends  Rust  from  Nevin 's  charge  of  being  a  Pe- 
 lagian. Rust  did  not  deny  original  sin,  as  did  the  Pelagians.  But  he 
 was  opposing  the  view  of  the  Order  that  the  children  of  believers  are 
 as  much  under  the  power  of  the  devil  as  those  of  unbelievers.  Their 
 high  view  of  baptism   tends  to   exorcism.     He  quotes  from   a  leading 
 
 *Liturgical  Question,  page  29. 
 
The  New  ''Order  of  Worship."  435 
 
 Mercersburg  writer:  "A  sinner  may  be  penitent  for  his  sins,  but  until 
 he  has  received  baptism  as  God's  act  of  remission  for  him  he  has  no 
 assurance  of  remission.  And  when  after  baptism  he  sins  through  in- 
 firmity, he  can  not  be  sure  of  pardon  till  his  absolution  is  spoken,  sealed 
 and  signed  by  Christ  by  means  of  a  divine  act  through  the  Church. 
 "How  different  this  from  the  .56th  answer  of  the  catechism. 
 
 The  ordination  service  of  the  Order  is  to  be  considered  as  the  min- 
 ister's actual  investiture  with  the  very  power  of  the  office  itself,  the 
 sacramental  seal  of  their  heavenly  commission — appointed  to  offer  up 
 before  Him  the  prayers  of  the  people — charged  with  the  government 
 of  the  Church  and  the  proper  use  of  it — discipline  in  the  way  of  cen- 
 sure and  absolution  according  to  Matthew  16:  18.  At  the  question  of 
 ordination,  he  receives,  through  the  laying  on  of  hands,  the  gift  and 
 grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Baptismal  formula  says:  "You  present 
 this  child  and  do  seek  the  new  spiritual  life  of  the  Holy  Ghost  through 
 the  sacrament  of  baptism  which  Christ  hath  established  for  the  communi- 
 cation of  such  great  grace."  In  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  well-known 
 phrases  are  not  found  as  "his  broken  body"  and  "shed  blood."  The 
 memorial  aspect  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  left  out  or  minimized. 
 
CHAPTER  11. 
 
 The  Action  of  the  General  Synod  of  lS6d  on  Both 
 Liturgies. 
 
 Section  1.     Liturgical  Events  in  the  P]ast  (1866-9). 
 
 In  1866  appeared  the  first  eonipendium  of  Mercersburg  The- 
 ology. Nevin  had  developed  its  doctrines  on  the  Lord's  Sup- 
 per and  the  Church.  Gradually  other  doctrines  had  heen  de- 
 veloped, as  baptism.  But  there  was  no  book  that  compre- 
 hended them  all  in  a  system.  As  a  good  deal  of  their  theology 
 was  speculative,  it  was  all  the  more  important  that  some  au- 
 thoritative work  on  it  should  be  published.  This,  "Mercers- 
 burg and  Modern  Theology  Contrasted."  by  Rev.  Samuel 
 Miller,  aimed  to  do.  It  was  a  compend  of  considerable  value. 
 ]\Iiller  Avas  a  man  of  some  ability  and  aimed  at  profundity. 
 He  had  been  a  minister  of  the  Evangelical  Association,  but 
 had  been  greatly  impressed  by  Schaff's  inaugural  address. 
 "The  Principle  of  Protestantism."  Captivated  by  the  new 
 ideas  of  historical  development,  he  entered  the  ministry  of  our 
 Church  and  was  made  one  of  tlie  editors  of  the  Church  papers 
 ill  the  East,  the  Messenger  and  Kirehenzeifung.  His  book  is 
 a  fair  summary  of  Mercersl)urg  theology,  but  he  fearfully  mis- 
 states the  positions  of  Evangelical  theology,  wliicli  lie  here 
 calls  Modem  Thi^ology.  He  believes  the  latter  to  be  rational- 
 izing. 
 
 And  yet  his  l)ook  was  not  accepted  by  the  iMercersburg 
 theologians.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  quite  severely  criticised 
 by  the  Mcrccrshurg  Review  in  1867.  It  says,  "IMilb^r  had 
 not  properly  mastered  the  Mercersburg  theology,  as  on  the 
 doctrine  of  the  new  creation,  faith  and  the  evidence  of  Chris- 
 tianity. In  his  doctrine  of  the  trinity  he  imported  views  from 
 somewhere  else  than  Mercersburg.  It  calls  Miller's  idea  of  tlie 
 trinity   and   his   trinitarian  views   of   the   Church   fanciful. 
 
 436 
 
General  Synod  op  1869.  437 
 
 Rev.  G.  R.  RiLsscll  later  (18G9),  in  his  "Creeds  and  Cus- 
 toms," gave  a  brief  epitome  of  INtercersbiirg  theology  which 
 was  more  satisfactory  to  them. 
 
 On  January  14,  the  consistory  of  St.  Paul 's  congregation 
 at  Lancaster  took  action  against  the  Order  of  Worship,  de- 
 claring that  as  it  would  })roduee  a  radic-al  change  in  the 
 doctrine  and  genius  of  the  Reformed  Church,  it  ordered  that 
 when  a  liturgy  was  used  it  should  be  the  Palatinate.  This 
 action  led  to  the  resignation  of  their  pastor  (Rev.  H.  Mosser), 
 who  publicly,  in  the  Messenger,  declared  that  this  action  was 
 taken  in  his  absence  and  met  with  his  disapproval. 
 
 Rev.  Mr.  Ileilman  introduced  the  liturgy  into  the  Jones- 
 to\\Ti  congregation,  claiming  that  in  doing  so  he  was  carrying 
 out  the  wishes  of  the  General  Synod.  Yet  the  action  of  the 
 General  Synod  as  interpreted  by  the  liturgical  leaders  at  that 
 synod,  was  one  of  permission  and  not  of  adoption. 
 
 Rev.  T.  J.  Johnson  says  the  liturgy  should  be  left  to  the 
 people  to  express  their  opinion.  S.  W.  later  asks  where  can 
 the  people  meet  to  express  their  opinion.  Classis  and  con- 
 sistory and  congregation,  the  liturgists  say,  have  no  jurisdic- 
 tion, for  they  declare  that  the  General  Synod  alone  has  juris- 
 diction. 
 
 In  February,  1867,  there  was  a  conference  of  the  old  Re- 
 formed or  low-church  party,  held  at  the  house  of  Emanuel 
 Kelker  at  Ilarrisburg,  says  Ilelffrich.*    It  was  there  decided: 
 
 1.  To  call  a  general  conference  of  those  opposed  to  the  liturgy. 
 
 2.  To  found  a  college.  (This  was  necessary,  as  the  Order  of  Worship 
 had  been  introduced  at  the  College  at  Lancaster.) 
 
 3.  To  start  a  monthly  to  defend  their  principles,.  As  a  result,  the 
 Eeformed  Church  Monthly  began  in  1868. 
 
 The  constitutional  question  about  the  liturgy  was  now  com- 
 ing to  the  front  more  and  more, — how  the  liturgj'  was  to  be 
 introduced;  whether  by  the  pastor  alone  or  also  by  the  consent 
 of  the  consistory  and  congregation.  The  former  was  the  prac- 
 tice of  the  high-churchmen,  the  latter  the  claim  of  the  low- 
 churchmen.  The  plan  of  the  Old  Reformed  now  was  to  get 
 the  dasses  to  adopt  an  action  requiring  the  consistory  and 
 
 •Autobiography,  page  377. 
 
438        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 congregation  to  decide  whether  tlie  Order  should  be  intro- 
 duced.   We  will  see  how  they  acted  on  it. 
 
 On  May  10,  Zion  's  classis  took  action  on  the  introduction  of 
 the  liturgy.  It  forbade  it  to  be  introduced  into  any  of  its 
 congregations  without  first  obtaining  the  consent  of  the  ma- 
 jority of  the  members  of  the  consistory  and  of  the  congrega- 
 tion. It  declared  that  it  looked  with  regret  on  its  exclusive 
 use  in  the  Theological  seminary  at  Mereersburg  and  the  col- 
 lege at  Lancaster,  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  a  large  part  of  the 
 ministry.  It  asked  synod  to  take  action  to  secure  their  rights 
 in  these  institutions.  It  expressed  itself  strongly  against  the 
 Messenger  for  its  partisan  advocacy  of  the  liturgical  move- 
 ment and  also  against  the  Mercershurg  Review  for  the  same 
 reason. 
 
 Philadelphia  classis  took  the  same  action  as  Zion's  about  the 
 introduction  of  the  liturgy  into  the  congregations.  These  two 
 classes  seem  to  have  been  under  the  control  of  the  Old  Re- 
 formed party. 
 
 But  these  efforts  of  the  anti-liturgical  men  to  get  these 
 actions  taken  by  the  classes  produced  a  reaction  and  led  some 
 of  the  other  classes  to  take  action  very  favorable  to  the  in- 
 troduction of  the  Order  of  Worship.  Before  East  Pennsyl- 
 vania classis  met,  a  conference  was  held  at  Allentown  with 
 Rev.  Mr.  Phillips,  where  Bomberger  brought  the  action  of  the 
 Pliiladclphia  and  North  Carolina  classes  against  the  liturgy. 
 This  classis  did  not  follow  this  low-church  action  but  approved 
 of  General  Synod  making  the  use  of  the  Order  optional  and 
 requested  pastors  to  circuhite  it  among  their  members  so  as 
 to  afford  them  an  opportunity  to  become  acciuainted  with  the 
 work.  It  asked  that  the  Order  be  translated  into  Clcniiaii  for 
 use  in  their  Pennsylvania-German  congregations. 
 
 Mereersburg  classis  (May  17)  took  favorable  action  on  the 
 Order,  that  it  was  eminently  adapted  to  the  wants  of  the 
 Church.  It  rejoiced  at  the  favor  Avith  whidi  it  was  ))eing  re- 
 ceived and  recommended  it  to  the  people. 
 
 Lancaster  classis  (June  27)  took  favorable  action  on  it.  It 
 directed  pastors  and  consistories  to  adopt  proper  measures  to 
 bring  the  Order  to  the  knowledge  of  their  congregations.     It 
 
General  Synod  of  1860.  439 
 
 approved  of  the  efforts  of  the  pastors?  to  try  it  in  the  full 
 M'orship  of  the  sanctuary  as  an  act  of  respect  to  the  synod  and 
 an  act  of  justice  to  the  people.  But  it  said  it  had  no  idea  of 
 forcing  it  on  the  people. 
 
 Gans  has  an  article*  defending  the  action  of  these  classes. 
 He  says : 
 
 "The  General  Synod  allowed  the  Order  to  go  down  to  the  Churches  as 
 'an  order  of  worship  proper  to  be  used  in  the  congregation  and  families 
 of  the  Reformed  Church.'     General  Synod  felt  itself  incompetent  to  send 
 it  down  for  trial  directly  to  the  people.     Some  say  the  majority  of  the 
 consistory  and  of  the  congregation  must  agree  to  its  use  before  it  can  be 
 introduced.     This,  he  says,  is  a  false  application  of  the  majority  rule. 
 If  this  rule  applies,  it  follows  that  synod  has  no  legitimate  power  to 
 recommend   anything   for   trial   directly   to   the   congregation   except   as 
 each  congregation  by  a  majority  vote  shall  agree  to  the  trial.    Is  not  this 
 preposterous,  he  asks,  to  the  last  degree.     No  such  majority  either  of 
 consistory   or   congregation   is   required   to   carry   out   any   experimental 
 design  of  the  synod.     Is  it  fair,  honorable  and  manly  to  kill  the  liturgy 
 by  requiring  a  majority  rule  to  ajiply  to  it,  even  before  a  trial  is  made 
 of  its  merits  in  the  congregation.     (This  is  the  opposite  of  what  he  had 
 said  before  that  General  Synod.     But  in  it  all,  we  see  the  high-church 
 views  of  Church-law  coming  out  more  and  more. — A.)     "Lex  and  Law" 
 says,   in  the  Messenger,  ' '  To   force  the  Order   into   use   or   out  of  use 
 is  against  the  wish  of  General  Synod.     The  congregation  and  consistory 
 could  not  prevent  its  optional  use,  if  the  pastor  were  in  favor  of  it  and 
 they  opposed ;  but  a  prudent  man  would  not  use  it.     He  denounced  the 
 efforts  made  to  raise  prejudice  against  it.     He  claimed  that  the  constitu- 
 tion does  not  plainly  in  Article  80  give  the  order  by  which  any  ordinances 
 as  the  liturgy  is  to  be  adopted.     There  is  not  a  word  about  the  neces- 
 sity of  submitting  it  to  classis.     There  is  nothing  in  the  constitution  to 
 prevent   the  General  Synod  making  it   optional  for  twenty  years  if  it 
 sees  fit. 
 
 By  June,  the  editor  of  the  Messenger,  fearing  the  result  of 
 further  discussion  on  the  liturgy,  closed  his  columns  to  it. 
 Perhaps  this  was  due  to  the  attack  made  on  him  hy  Zion's 
 classis  for  so  strongly  advocating  the  liturgy. 
 
 On  Deceml)er  18,  1867,  Rev.  Prof.  H.  Ilarbaugh,  D.D.,  died  ' 
 at  Mercersburg.    His  death  was  a  severe  loss  to  the  liturgical 
 party.     In  many  respects  he  was  the  leading  mind  of  the 
 Mercersburg  theologians.     Dr.  Nevin  founded  the  theology, 
 
 *Messenger,  June  19. 
 
440         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 but  he  never  systeniatizod  it.  This  Harbaugh  did  in  a  mas- 
 terly way  in  his  lectures  on  theology.  Were  these  published, 
 they  would  give  the  best  sunnnary  of  j\Iercersburg  theology. 
 A  criticism  has  been  passed  on  his  theological  work — the 
 same  as  was  made  on  the  German  theologian  Lange,  by  whom 
 he  was  greatly  influenced, — that  he  was  too  much  of  a  poet 
 to  be  a  theologian  and  too  much  of  a  theologian  to  lie  a  poet. 
 
 Rev.  Prof.  H.  Harbaugh,  D.  D. 
 
 IIar))augh  added  to  the  dogmatic  mind  a  rcmai-l^alih^  a'sthctie 
 taste  as  is  shown  by  his  poems  and  hymns.  cspcM-ially  his  im- 
 mortal hymn,  "Jesus,  I  live  to  Thee."  which  was  written 
 especially  to  embody  the  idea  of  Christ's  life  as  revealed  in 
 the  Mercersburg  doctrine  of  the  theanthropic  life.  This 
 aesthetic  taste  led  him  to  formulate  the  worshiji  and  archi- 
 tecture of  the  Mercersburg  movement.  The  introduction  of 
 the  high-altar  into  our  churches,  thus  setting  the  jiulpit 
 (which  was  always  the  main  object  in  the  Reformed  Church) 
 to  tlu!  side,  and  the  early  (^lu-istmas  (liturgical)  service  are 
 illustrations  of  this.  He,  too,  it  was  who  led  in  the  new  ideas 
 of    Church    government    with    the    high    synodical    antliority 
 
General  Synod  op  1869.  441 
 
 ("the  voice  of  the  Church  is  tlie  voice  of  God").  This  can 
 all  he  traced  to  an  article  of  his  in  the  Mercershurg  Beview 
 of  1860  on  ''Reformed  Synods."  lie  thus  represents  all  the 
 phases  of  the  Mercershurg  Movement,  dogmatic,  liturgical 
 and  constitutional,  all  of  which  reveal  his  eminent  ability  and 
 versatility  of  mind.  ) 
 
 Gans  wrote  in  1868  on  "  Troulilcrs  in  the  Cluircli,"  saying  that  the 
 ('hui\'h  was  tired  of  controversj^,  charging  that  those  opposed  to  the 
 Order  were  the  troublers  in  Israel  and  threatening  them  with  the  exercise 
 of  Church  authority. 
 
 Wiiliard  replies  that  the  Mercersburg  men  were  the  feal  troublers 
 because  they  brought  in  a  liturgy  that  was  not  Eeformed  and  was  some- 
 thing new  and  this  Nevin  himself  admits  in  "The  Liturgical  Question." 
 Besides,  General  Synod  gave  no  sanction  to  the  Order  of  Worship.  Has 
 Gans  forgotten  what  he  said  at  the  General  Synod  of  1866,  "We  owe 
 it  to  the  people  to  say  what  they  mean. ' ' 
 
 In  the  Ilevietv  of  July,  1868,  Russell  had  an  article  on  "The  Faith 
 of  Christ,"  in  which  he  tried  to  objectify  faith  just  as  Mercersburg 
 Theology  had  been  doing  with  the  Church  and  the  sacraments.  Faith 
 is  a  difficult  thing  to  objectify  because  it  is  so  subjective  and  per- 
 sonal, or  at  least  that  is  the  Old  Reformed  view  of  it.  But  Russell 
 claimed  that  the  faith  of  Christ  was  the  living  active  principle  that 
 controlled  his  being.  This  faith  of  Christ  comes  before  our  faith  in. 
 (!hrist.  We  must  be  partakers  of  the  faith  of  Christ  before  we  can 
 have  faith  in  him.  This  faith  of  the  Son  of  God  is  made  over  to  us 
 through  his  divine-human  life.  This  article  was  severely  attacked  in  the 
 Eeformed  Church  Monthly  by  Bomberger,  who  said  that  the  Eeformed 
 view  was. that  faith  was  a  personal  act  of  ours,  (Answer  21  of  the 
 catechism — "an  assured  confidence" — "in  my  heart")  and  that  faith 
 was  not  transferable  because  a  personal  thing.  This  view  of  Russell 's, 
 like  the  rest  of  Mercersburg,  tended  to  make  salvation  an  outward  pro- 
 cess by  the  Church  and  sacraments  through  which  the  faith  of  Christ  was 
 nuide  over  to  us. 
 
 West  Susquehanna  elassis  passed  five  resolutions  against  the 
 Old  Keformed  party  in  1869.  These  resolutions  reflect  un- 
 boimded  confidence  in  Dr.  Nevin,  declare  that  the  doctrines  of 
 the  Order  was  orthodox  and  Reformed  and  recommend  it  for 
 general  use.  They  request  the  Eastern  synod  to  call  the  op- 
 posers  of  the  Order  of  Worship  to  account,  if  they  do  not  cease 
 their  activity. 
 
442        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Gans  published  (1869)  "Gospel  Lessons  according  to  the 
 Church  Year" — a  question  book  for  higher  classes  in  the 
 Simday  school, — a  stepping  stone  to  the  Church.  This  Avas 
 intended,  like  the  child's  catechism,  the  Golden  Censor,  the 
 Sunday  school  prayer-book  and  hymn-book  of  Harbaugh  be- 
 fore it,  to  aid  in  making  our  young  people  liturgical.  In  1870 
 he  published  another  volume,  "Epistle  Lessons,"  with  the 
 same  end  in  view.  But  both  books  had  a  very  limited  circu- 
 lation. 
 
 "Whitmer  began  a  series  of  articles  on  the  liturgy  in  1869 
 in  which  he  tried  to  show  where  it  came  from.  He  tried  to 
 make  out  that  it  was  Reformed.  He  compared  it  with  the  Pa- 
 latinate. Prof.  J.  H.  Good  replied  that  the  synod  of  Wesel, 
 1568,  ordered  free  prayer.  Free  prayer  did  not  come  from 
 the  separatist  Labadie  as  the  liturgists  had  claimed.  Calvin 
 had  all  prayers  free  but  one. 
 
 Section  2.    Lay-Baptism  (1866-70). 
 
 During  this  controversy  an  interesting  development  of  Mer- 
 cersburg  theology  began  to  appear.  We  have  noted  how  that 
 theologj^  began  with  the  Lord's  Supper  and  only  later  began 
 to  develop  its  views  about  baptism,  by  applying  the  objective 
 to  it  as  it  had  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  By  this  time  their 
 view  of  the  outward  form  has  become  so  high  that  they  were 
 led  into  collision  with  the  old  Reformed  view  about  lay  bap- 
 tism. 
 
 It  came  up  in  this  way.  East  Pennsylvania  classis  sent  up  an  over- 
 ture to  the  synod  of  1866  for  a  decision  in  the  case  of  lay-bajjtism.  Rev. 
 Mr.  Loos,  of  Bethlehem,  stated  that  a  lady  of  his  Church  was  baptized 
 by  her  mother  when  a  babe  because  supposed  to  be  in  danger  of  death, 
 as  no  minister  could  be  procured.  When,  as  a  young  lady,  she  came 
 to  be  confirmed.  Loos  wanted  to  re-baptize  her,  but  the  parents  (the 
 father  being  a  Lutheran),  refused.  So  he  only  confirmed  her.  But 
 he  brought  the  subject  before  the  East  Pennsylvania  classis  for  a  de- 
 cision. Its  vote  stood  6  to  6.  So  the  subject  was  sent  up  to  synod  for 
 a  judgment.  Synod  (1866)  referred  it  to  a  committee  to  report  at  the 
 next  synod. 
 
 At  the  synod  of  1867  the  committee  presented  a  majority  and  a 
 minority  report.     No  unanimity  could  be  reached  by  the  synod,  so  both 
 
443 
 
 of  their  reports  were  laid  on  the  table  till  the  next  synod.  The  synod 
 of  1868  again  deferred  action  another  year.  The  truth  was  that  the 
 synod  was  evidently  afraid  to  meet  the  issue.  There  was  apparently 
 a  great  difference  of  opinion.  The  high-churchmen  favored  the  validity 
 of  lay-baptism,  because  they  held  that  the  sacrament  had  in  itself  ob- 
 jective and  intrinsic  power  regardless  of  the  ecclesiastical  character 
 of  the  person  baptizing.  The  Old  Keformed  party  were  against  it,  be- 
 <:ause  they  declared  that  lay-baptism  had  never  been  used  or  recognized 
 by  the  Eeformed  Church.  But  in  spite  of  these  repeated  postponements, 
 the  subject  would  not  down.  In  1809,  East  Pennsylvania  classis,  which 
 had  originally  brought  the  matter  before  synod,  overtured  for  a  decision. 
 The  subject  was  referred  to  a  new  committee,  consisting  of  Nevin,  Ger- 
 hart  and  Callender.  The  committee  avoided  giving  a  direct  judgment, 
 but  said  that  without  considering  it  necessary  to  give  judgment  on 
 lay-baptisn\,  it  gave  its  judgment  in  this  particular  case.  It  declared 
 the  baptism  to  be  valid  because  it  had  been  performed  in  the  name  of 
 the  trinity  and  therefore  needed  no  repetition.  When  the  report  was  re- 
 ceived there  was  a  good  deal  of  discussion  in  synod.  Synod  did  not  ac- 
 cept the  judgment  of  the  committee  and  evidently  the  majority  were  not 
 in  sympathy  with  it  (for  it  expressed  the  high-church  view).  It  post- 
 poned the  case  again  until  next  year.  The  synod  of  1870  declined  to 
 pronounce  any  general  judgment  on  lay-baptism.  It  declared,  however, 
 that  when  a  minister  stands  in  doubt  as  in  the  case  reported,  he  should 
 have  recourse  for  the  relief  of  all  to  hypothetical  or  conditional  baptism. 
 
 This  action  closed  the  case,  which  had  been  pending  for  five 
 synods.  Why  did  synod  have  so  much  difficulty  ?  Because  it 
 had  always  been  the  custom  of  the  Reformed  from  the  be- 
 ginning to  refuse  to  recognize  the  validity  of  lay-baptism. 
 Yet  the  logic  of  the  Efereersburg  theology,  which  laid  so  much 
 stress  on  the  objective,  made  it  necessary  to  give  validity  to 
 it,  because  the  water  had  been  sprinkled  in  the  name  of  the 
 Trinity,— the  outward  act  had  been  performed  and  the  ele- 
 ment been  joined  to  the  Words  of  institution.  So  there  was  a 
 clash  between  the  Old  Reformed  and  this  new  view.  The  ]\Ier- 
 cersburg  men  for  years  were  afraid  to  meet  the  logical  issue 
 of  their  views  in  lay-baptism.  The  synod  refused  to  accede 
 to  the  report  of  a  high-church  committee  at  the  synod  of  18G9. 
 Tlie  final  action  was  really  an  interjection  of  a  new  element 
 into  the  case,  namely,  hypothetical  baptism.  Hypothetical 
 baptism  is  baptism  where  one  is  not  sure  of  having  been  bap- 
 tized and  so  is  baptized  over  again.     This  diverted  attention 
 
444         History  of  Reformed  Ciitjrcii  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 from  the  real  issue  and  the  committee's  report  was  finally 
 adopted  so  as  to  bring  the  long-drawn-out  case  to  an  end.  But 
 this  did  not  answer  the  ease  before  the  synod.  In  the  case 
 presented  by  Loos  there  was  no  hypothetical  baptism,  for 
 parents  and  child  knew  she  was  baptized  and  there  was  no 
 doubt  about  it.  Although  the  action  was  said  not  to  favor 
 lay-baptism,  yet  the  effect  of  such  an  action  was  in  its  favor. 
 Still  it  showed  that  the  Eastern  synod  never  olTicinlly  adopted 
 lay-baptism. 
 
 There  is  another  curious  phase  of  the  case.  The  ]\Iercer.s- 
 burg  men  were  really  in  a  quandary.  As  they  placed  such 
 a  high  estimate  on  the  objective,  they  voted  for  lay-baptism. 
 Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  by  permitting  lay-baptism  they  tended 
 to  lower  the  distinctive  offive  of  the  ministry  over  against  the 
 laity.  It  is  a  wonder  that  their  high-views  of  the  ministry 
 did  not  lead  them  to  see  that  lay-baptism  was  lowering  the 
 ministry.  Here,  strange  to  say,  the  low-churchmen  were 
 higher  on  the  ministry  than  the  high-churchmen,  for  they 
 claimed  that  baptism  was  the  peculiar  right  of  the  ministry 
 iind  should  not  be  performed  l)y  laymen.* 
 
 Section  2.     The  Liturgical  Events  of  1SG6-18G7  in 
 the  West. 
 
 The  opposition  to  the  liturgy  continued  to  grow  rapidly  in 
 the  West.  The  Ohio  synod  of  186G  passed  an  action  about 
 the  consolidation  of  the  theological  seminaries  at  Mercersburg 
 and  Tiffin  and  overtured  the  General  Synod  at  its  next  meet- 
 ing to  take  such  steps  as  would  most  effectually  and  speedily 
 accomplish  this.  The  Messenger  favored  the  union  and  in  the 
 Western  Missionarij  Rev.  P.  Prugh  wrote  several  ai'tieles 
 favoring  it,  beginning  September  20,  18GG.    He  said: 
 
 1.  It  would  lead  to  an  increase  of  endowment. 
 
 2.  By  uniting  the  two  faculties,  the  seminary  would  lir  licttci'  ('(iniiiiieii, 
 as  each  seminary  was  undermanned  at  present. 
 
 3.  It  would  increase  tlie  lihrary  of  the  institution. 
 
 *Tlus  new  develojiment  of  Mercersliur;^  tlieolotjy  js  pMrallcl  to  their 
 views  on  the  validity  of  the  acts  of  a  (h'posed  iiuiiistcr,  of  which  we 
 have  previously  spoken. 
 
445 
 
 4.  It  would  promote  the  unity  of  the  Church, — one  in  faith  and  prac- 
 tice as  well  as  in  name.  He  suggested  that  the  locatuiu  of  the  semi- 
 nary ought  to  be  at  Pittsburg. 
 
 Williard,  however,  replies*  that  the  action  of  the  Ohio  synod  was  taken 
 when  it  was  on  the  eve  of  adjournment,  when  all  were  anxious  to  nin 
 for  the  cars, — that  there  was  strong  opposition  to  the  subject  although 
 there  was  no  discussion  at  the  time.  Prugh  re])lies  that  the  subject  came 
 up  in  regular  order  in  the  business,  after  the  resolutions  on  union  with 
 the  Dutch  Church.  Prugh  had  made  the  motion  for  the  consolidation 
 at  the  synod.  Williard  continues  that  he  is  decidedly  opposed  to  the 
 union,  believing  it  would  work  disastrously  to  our  Church.  The  removal 
 of  the  seminary  eastward  would  prevent  the  students  from  going  West. 
 Besides  the  institutions,  if  united,  would  lose  the  local  results  coming 
 from  the  separate  location. 
 
 jTii>J,L.p*>T»L''»-<i 
 
 The  Mission  House  at  Franklin,  Wis. 
 
 Sene.\  repliesf  that  the  project  to  remove  the  seminary  to  Pittsburg 
 should  have  been  brought  before  the  classes  for  their  decision  before 
 it  ever  came  before  the  General  Synod.  If  the  western  seminary  had 
 done  so  much,  it  ought  to  be  left  alone;  so  of  the  German  Mission 
 House  in  Wisconsin.  The  General  Synod  ought  to  plant  seminaries 
 in   different   localities   instead   of   centralizing   them.     Another  objection 
 
 ^Western  Missionary,  September  27. 
 ■fTTestern  Missionary,  October  4. 
 
446        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 is  that  it  would  separate  the  seminary  from  the  college.  He  thus  answers 
 Prugh's  arguments  and  especially  lays  stress  on  the  fact  that  vested 
 funds  could  not  be  thus  diverted  according  to  the  law  of  Ohio. 
 
 Z.,  of  Lancaster,  Pa.,  gives*  the  eastern  view  against  consolidation, — 
 that  the  Church  was  large  enough  to  maintain  two  seminaries.  If  we 
 consolidated  we  but  narrow  the  foundation  on  which  we  bulM. 
 
 Nothing  seems  to  have  eoine  of  this  effort  to  unite  the  two 
 seminaries.  Dr.  Prugh,  who  favored  the  Mereersburg  party, 
 probably  found  that  the  Old  Reformed  sentiment  in  the  West 
 was  too  strong  for  any  union  with  Mereersburg. 
 
 In  1867  the  Western  Missionary  comes  out  in  strong  articles 
 against  the  liturgy,  written  especially  by  Revs.  J.  H.  Good  and 
 Williard.  On  January  10,  Prof.  Good  begins  a  long  series  of 
 articles  against  the  Order  of  Worship.  For  clearness  of 
 statement  and  trenchant  argument  they  are  among  the  best 
 attacks  on  the  new  liturgy.  They  continued  to  appear  weekly 
 imtil  the  middle  of  July  of  that  year.  His  object,  he  says, 
 was  to  acquaint  the  Western  Church  with  the  important  issues 
 at  stake.  He  first  gives  several  reasons  why  the  Order  of 
 Worship  be  sent  dowTi  to  the  classes : 
 
 The  intention  of  the  General  Synod  of  1863,  which  said  that  both  litur- 
 gies were  to  come  before  the  General  Synod  of  1866,  "with  a  view  to 
 final  action  on  the  subject."  The  constitution  (article  80)  required  its 
 submission  by   General   Synod   to   the  classes  for  adoption   or  rejection. 
 
 He  then  takes  up  and  supports  the  fifteen  objections  made  by  the 
 minority  in  their  report  at  the  General  Synod  of  1866  to  prove  the  Order 
 unsuited  to  the  Church: 
 
 1.  It  involved  a  fundamental  change  in  our  Order  of  Worship.  Over 
 against  what  our  constitution  requires  in  article  138,  as  the  elements  of 
 worship,  this  proposes  an  Episc<)])alian  mode  of  worship. 
 
 2.  It  is  against  the  genius  and  character  of  our  Church.  It  proposes 
 an  altar  service.  The  original  object  of  the  liturgical  movement  in  1847 
 was  the  restoration  of  the  Palatinate  liturgy.  Not  that  the  Palatinate 
 was  perfect,  but  it  should  be  made  the  basis  of  our  liturgy.  The  Order 
 is  not  in  harmony  with  the  Reformed  liturgies  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
 because  it  is  an  altar-liturgy  while  the  Palatinate  was  a  pulpit-liturgy. 
 
 3.  It  is  not  in  accord  with  the  history  and  traditions  of  our  Clmrch 
 in  this  country.  There  have  been  three  developments  of  our  worshi]>: 
 1,  prayer  meetings;  2,  Sunday  schools;  3,  free  prayer.     The  Church  has 
 
 *  Western  Missionary,  October  25. 
 
General  Synod  of  1860.  447 
 
 developed  from  liturgy  into  free  prayer.     But  the  Order  is  against  free 
 prayer. 
 
 4.  It  is  not  in  accord  with  the  present  needs  or  circumstances  of  our 
 Church.  (At  the  General  Synod  he  had  said  our  needs  are  very  diversi- 
 fied and  can  be  satisfied  by  no  one  type  of  worship.)  The  desire  of  the 
 Church  was  for  a  liturgy  like  the  Palatinate  and  not  for  an  Episcopal 
 liturgy.  To  change  the  various  kinds  of  worship  in  use  in  our  Cliurch 
 into  the  one  like  the  Order  of  Worship  is  the  height  of  folly.  The 
 Order  is  not  suited  for  three  reasons: 
 
 (a)  No  congregation  has  expressed  a  desire  for  such  a  book. 
 
 (b)  The  impulse  to  prepare  it,  sprang  not  from  the  Church,  but  from 
 individuals. 
 
 (e)  The  Provisional  liturgy,  the  parent  of  the  Order,  was  before  our 
 Church  for  nine  years  and  though  great  influence  was  brought  to  bear 
 on  the  congregations  to  adopt  it,  only  three  or  four  did  so  and  one  of 
 them  was  ruined  by  it. 
 
 5.  There  is  little  prospect  of  its  introduction  and  it  is  likely  to  be  a 
 failure  in  the  end. 
 
 6.  It  will  be  the  cause  of  loss,  strife  and  division  in  our  congrega- 
 tions. 
 
 7.  Its  tendencies  are  to  merge  our  Church  into  another  denomination — 
 the  Episcopalian. 
 
 8.  It  will  unsettle  the  foundations  of  our  Church  government,  which 
 is  Presbyterian.  He  charged  that  the  Episcopal  form  of  government 
 had  been  advocated  at  Mercersburg  for  several  years.  Nevin,  in  his 
 advocacy  of  the  Church  of  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  urged  it.  The 
 Westmoreland  classis  already  had  a  bishop.*  There  was  no  liturgy  like 
 this  one  except  where  Episcopacy  prevailed. 
 
 9.  It  will  tend  to  unsettle  our  established  doctrines.  The  same 
 force  that  has  made  a  change  in  the  liturgy  has  made  a  change  in  doc- 
 trine. At  synod  it  was  boldly  proclaimed  that  our  catechism  was  to 
 be  interpreted  by  the  Creed.  But  the  Eeformed  Church  never  took  this 
 ground.  On  the  contrary,  the  catechism  includes  the  Creed  and  inter- 
 prets it  to  us.  The  catechism  explains  the  Creed;  not  the  Creed,  the 
 catechism.  If  we  must  adopt  primitive  Christianity,  as  Nevin  says,  we 
 must  adopt  it  all, — purgatory,  intercession  of  saints,  miracles  performed 
 by  relics,  etc.,  because  all  belong  to  the  same  system. 
 
 He  says  that  Gerhart  at  General  Synod  said  "the  opponents  of  the 
 Order  were  compelled  to  choose  between  an  alternative  that  the  com- 
 mittee was  either  not  competent  (not  able  to  distinguish  between  truth 
 
 *We8tmoreland  classis  in  1866  elected  a  niissionarv  bishop,  choosing 
 Rev.  G.  H.  Johnson  to  that  office.  Thus  Mercersburg  theology  (by  his- 
 torical development)  developed  a  new  order  in  our  Church— bishops. 
 This  office  was  continued  by  that  classis  for  a  number  of  years,  Levan 
 being  also  missionary  bishop  after  Johnson. 
 
448         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 and  heresy)  or  dishonest  and  unfjiithful  to  their  olilij^ations  and  that 
 they  must  take  either  horn  of  the  dih^ninia.  As  no  one  was  prepared 
 to  take  either  of  these  alternatives,  the  conclusions  were  that  the  teacli- 
 ings  of  the  Order  were  correct.  Dr.  Gerhart  as  a  teacher  of  logic 
 should  be  more  careful  in  the  practice  of  it.  Years  ago,  Prof.  Lewis 
 Mayer  was  charged  with  erroneous  teaching  and  Dr.  Gerhart,  then  one 
 of  his  students,  was  one  who  made  the  charges  before  the  board  of 
 visitors.  Dr.  Mayer  couhl  have  jiroj^osed  the  same  dilemma,  that  ac- 
 cording to  their  charges  he  was  either  incompetent  (could  not  tell  the 
 difference  between  tnith  and  error)  or  he  was  dishonest.  Is  Dr.  Ger- 
 hart willing  to  take  either  horn  of  the  dilemma?  Yet  no  one  ever  pre- 
 tended that  such  positions  were  true  of  Dr.  Mayer.  Neither  are  they  true 
 now.  Dr.  Gerhart 's  logic  would  say  that  if  the  Order  teaches  errone- 
 ous doctrine,  then  its  authors  were  either  knaves  or  fools.  Neither  of 
 these  alternatives  can  be  maintained.  Hence  the  Order  does  not  teacn 
 errors.  But  this  dilemma  violates  one  of  Gerhart 's  own  rules,* — ' '  in 
 order  to  the  correctness  of  a  dilemma  all  the  disjunctive  members  must 
 be  stated  in  the  major  proposition;"  and  he  adds,  "If  these  rules  are 
 disregarded,  the  dilemma  can  be  easily  abused  and  instead  of  exposing 
 error  subserve  the  purpose  of  a  delusive  sophistry."  The  truth  here  is 
 that  all  the  disjunctive  members  are  not  contained  in  the  major 
 proposition.  The  point  at  issue  does  not  involve  a  dilemma  or  a  Iri- 
 lemma  or  a  tetralemma.  It  is  possible  to  give  a  dozen  solutions  as  to 
 the  mode  in  which  the  committee  were  led  to  embody  errors  in  the 
 Order.  But,  after  all,  the  question  is  not  one  of  logic,  as  Gerhart 
 makes  it,  but  one  of  fact  and  we  need  not  be  troulded  about  the  expla- 
 nation of  the  fact.  It  must  be  done  by  comparison  with  the  Bible 
 and  our  catechism.  Gerhart 's  statement  was  nothing  more  than  the 
 "delusive  sophistry"  of  which  he  R])eaks. 
 
 11.  It  will  ultimately  infringe  on  tiie  lilierties  of  minister  and  people. 
 It  will  limit  them  in  free  ])rayer.  Kverywliere  the  language  is  "shall," 
 precisely  like  the  Episcopalian  Prayer-book,  which  allows  no  (dianges. 
 Nevin  is  against  free  prayer  in  his  tract,  "The  Liturgical  (Question." 
 Ilarbaugh  says,  "It  is  not  proposed  to  exclude  free  prayer  at  once  from 
 public  worship."  Here  the  inference  is  that  it  is  its  aim  to  do  so  ulti- 
 mately. Let  us  stand  fast  in  the  liberty  wherewith  in  which  we  are  free. 
 L3.  It  does  not  pay  due  respect  to  the  German  K'efornuNl  Church,  tiie 
 mother  of  us  all. 
 
 14.  Its  system,  beautiful  in  itself,  is  totally  uiisuited  tu  the  great 
 body  of  plain  people  who  com])ose  our  congregations. 
 
 15.  The  influence  of  the  liturgy  will  be  of  doulitful  liciicfif.  In  our  mis 
 sions,  now  numbering  71,  not  a  single  one  will  succecMJ.  if  built  up  mi 
 the  liturgv,  especially  among  the  Gernians,  who  have  the  simple  worship 
 
 *Sce  his  Philosophy  and  Logic,  page  L'tK). 
 
General  Synod  op  1869.  449 
 
 (if   the  Fatherland.     Few   of  our  Germans  will   enter   the  ministry   and 
 some  of  our  graduates  will  go  to  the  Catholic  and  Episcopalian  Churches. 
 
 Prof.  M.  Kieffer,  of  Tiffin,  replied*  for  the  Mercersburg  side.  He 
 said  ' '  every  question  has  two  sides. "  "  Prof.  Good  has  failed  to  appre- 
 hend the  essential  nature  of  the  question  and  hence  his  misgivings." 
 Kieffer  writes  in  order  "to  unfold  truth  and  dissipate  fears."  He 
 says  that  the  Order  represented  the  real  old  Reformed  worship,  but  the 
 low-church  worship  did  not.  He  objects  to  Good's  statement  that  the 
 Reformed  had  no  altar.  A  service,  he  says,  that  ignores  the  altar  is  de- 
 fective,— that  an  altar-service  grows  out  of  the  doctrine  of  the  priest- 
 hood of  the  ministry. 
 
 Good  replied  that  the  Reformed  had  always  protested  against  a  local 
 altar  in  the  Church.  If  the  Church  ought  to  have  an  altar  so  as  to 
 fit  the  priestly  office  of  the  ministry,  as  Kieffer  suggests,  then  it  ought 
 to  have  a  throne  for  the  minister  in  his  kingly  office,  with  swaying  of 
 scepter  and  wearing  of  mitre.  Kieffer  had  charged  Mm  with  Gnosticism. 
 He  reminded  Kieffer  that  the  Gnostics  were  more  like  the  high-churchmen 
 than  he,  for  they  multiplied  symbols  and  liked  pompous  worship  and  this 
 Gnostic  worship  would  suit  Dr.  Kieffer 's  taste  very  well.  He  reminded 
 Kieffer  that  it  was  suspicious  for  them  that  the  first  to  charge  Protestant- 
 ism with  Gnosticism  was  Mohler,  a  Catholic. 
 
 Against  Prof.  Good's  charge  that  the  Order  was  not  suitable  to  the 
 Church,  Kieffer  placed  the  action  of  the  General  Synod  that  "it  was  an 
 order  of  worship  proper  to  be  used  in  the  Church.  "He  denied  that  the 
 Order  was  not  Reformed,  but  claimed  it  was  fully  Reformed  and 
 praised  the  Reformers. ' '  Good  replied,  ' '  Then  why  not  stick  to  the  Re- 
 formers and  their  Palatinate  liturgy,  why  go  back  to  the  early  Church? 
 If  Nevin  said  it  was  a  new  scheme,  how  could  Kieffer  make  out  that  it 
 was  Reformed ?i' 
 
 On  May  24  tlie  Carrollton,  0.,  charge  took  strong  action 
 against  the  Order,  refusing  to  give  any  money  to  missions  or 
 to  professorships  or  to  endowments.  It  requested  its  classis 
 to  forbid  its  use  within  its  bounds.  Its  refusal  to  give  money 
 led  Callender,  of  Greencastle,  to  say  that  this  is  a  new  prin- 
 ciple to  be  applied  and  hints  that  the  Eastern  Church  might 
 apply  it  in  missions  to  its  benefit  against  the  low-churchmen 
 of  the  West. 
 
 Tiffin  classis  took  action  against  the  Order,  requesting  Gen- 
 eral Synod  to  send  it  dowTi  to  the  classes,  so  that  it  might  be 
 accepted  or  rejected  according  to  the  constitution.     This  ac- 
 
 *Wester7i  Missionanj,  Febn.iary  7  and  later. 
 
450         History  of  Reformed  Ciiukcii  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 tion  was  followed  in  October  by  both  Lancaster,  0.,  JNIiami 
 and  Sandusl^  classes. 
 
 Another  controversy  came  up  between  Revs.  Drs.  Swander 
 and  Good,  the  former  defending  the  absolution  in  the  Order  of 
 Worship.    Good  replied,  calling  his  attention  to  the  fact 
 
 that  "the  declaration  of  pardon"  in  the  old  Palatinate  liturgy  was  in 
 the  regular  Lord 's  day  service  and  also  in  the  communion  service. 
 Later  liturgies  in  the  Palatinate  however  limit  it  only  to  the  Lord's 
 Supper  service.  Swander  and  his  school  had  charged  that  this  abbrevia- 
 tion of  the  liturgy  came  through  rationalism.  Good  reminded  him  that 
 this  omission  of  the  ' '  declaration  of  pardon ' '  from  the  regular  service  of 
 the  Lord's  day  took  place  long  before  rationalism  came  in.  He  calls 
 Swander 's  attention  to  the  difference  betwen  the  absolution  in  the 
 Order  and  the  "declaration  of  pardon"  in  the  Palatinate.  They  were 
 not  alike,  as  Merccrsburg  claimed,  but  quite  different.  Thus,  in  the 
 Palatinate  the  penitents  are  regarded  as  believing  that  they  are  fully 
 pardoned  through  the  merits  of  Christ  and  then  by  way  of  confession 
 of  faith  the  minister  announces  such  remission.  They  were  pardoned  be- 
 fore the  minister's  announcement  of  it  and  not  after  his  declaration  of 
 their  pardon  in  the  absolution  and  because  of  it  as  the  Order  of 
 Worship,  its  theology  and  adherents  hold.  In  the  Palatinate  liturgy 
 it  is  a  declaration  not  to  pardon  (as  by  a  priest)  as  in  the  Order,  but 
 to  confirm  pardon  already  given  by  Christ,  because  the  Christian  has 
 already  had  direct  access  to  the  mercy-seat.  But  in  the  Order  there 
 is  no  recognition  that  the  sinner  is  already  pardoned.  For  it  inti- 
 mates that  he  will  not  be  pardoned  until  the  process  is  complete  by  the 
 act  of  the  minister  as  priest  announcing  the  words  of  forgiveness.  Tluis 
 this  form  of  absolution  like  ordination  is  elevated  by  ihe  Order  into  a 
 sacrament.  The  Order  is  more  high-church  than  the  Episcopalian 
 prayer-book.  The  Episcopal  liturgy  is  more  like  the  Palatinate  than 
 like  the  Order. 
 
 Good  begins*  a  new  series  of  articles  on  the  relntion  of  the 
 Reformed  reformers  in  England  to  the  composition  of  the 
 Episcopalian  Prayer-book. 
 
 The  Mercersburg  men  had  been  quoting  the  fact  that  the  Reformed  re- 
 formers, as  Bucer  and  Peter  Martyr,  had  aided  in  the  formation  of  that 
 prayer-book  and  had  approved  it;  hence  our  Reformed  Church  of  the 
 Reformation  was  liturgical.  His  articles  are  headed,  "Did  the  Re- 
 formed theologians  of  Germany  apj)rove  of  the  Anglican  prayer- 
 book."     He  quotes  Lasco's  action  in  framing  a  liturgy  of  his  own  for 
 
 *  Western  Missionary,  OciohcT  24. 
 
General  Synod  of  1869.  451 
 
 his  congregation  in  London.     Wliy  did   he  do  this  if  he  had  been  satis- 
 fied with  the  Anglican  prayor-book  ? 
 
 West  attacks  Good,  saying  that  Lasco  was  not  Reformed  and  Good 
 ought  not  thus  to  quote  him.  Good  replies  that  Lasco  had  always  been 
 rated  as  Reformed  and  not  Lutheran.  Even  Harbaugh,  a  high-church- 
 man, in  his  "Fathers  of  the  Refonued  Church,"  makes  him  to  be  Re- 
 formed. The  Reformed  abroad  considered  him  Reformed,  as  they  placed 
 him  among  the  "Fathers  of  the  Reformed  Church"  in  their  recent 
 series  of  biographies.  Lasco  founded  the  coetus  of  East  Friesland, 
 which  is  still  Reformed.  Lasco  was  therefore  Reformed  and  his  use  of 
 another  liturgy  shows  he  did  not  ajiprove  of  the  prayer-book  of  the 
 Anglicans.  The  authors  of  our  Palatinate  liturgy  in  composing  it, 
 passed  by  the  Anglican  prayer-book  and  made  extensive  use  of  Lasco 's 
 liturgy.  Why  did  they  do  this  if  they  favored  the  prayer-book  of  the 
 Episcopalians? 
 
 Prof.  Good  also  brings  out  another  historical  fact.  Calviu  has  said 
 that  in  the  prayer-book  were  found  many  "tolerable  fooleries"  and 
 that  he  * '  could  not  understand  persons  who  discovered  such  fondness  for 
 popish  dregs."  Hence  the  German  Reformed  did  not  approve  of  an 
 Episcopalian  liturgy  like  the  Order.  Rev.  T.  G.  Apple  had  tried  to 
 evade  this  by  making  a  distinction  between  the  Palatinate  and  the 
 Calvinistic  liturgies.  The  latter  ran  into  rationalism,  while  the  catechism 
 was  irenic.    But  all  this  was  speculative,  Good  said,  for: 
 
 1.  The  Palatinate  liturgy  had  the  same  doctrine  as  the  lleidelburg 
 Catechism. 
 
 2.  The  same  men  i)repared  both  works,  and  they  prepared  the  liturgy 
 to  be  the  companion  of  the  catechism. 
 
 Prof.  Higbee  tries  to  parry  Good's  arguments  by  showing  there  was  a 
 difference  between  the  Reformers  and  the  nineteenth  century  and,  there- 
 fore, the  liturgies  should  be  different.  For,  he  says,  the  Reformers  an- 
 tagonized Rome,  which  is  now  unnecessary,  while  we  now  antagonize 
 the  opposite,  the  Pelagian  and  rationalistic  view.  And,  too,  he  adds,  the 
 Church  has  developed  since  the  sixteenth  century.  Evidently  the  force 
 of  Dr.  Good's  arguments  had  gone  home,  for  before  this,  his  opponents 
 had  claimed  that  the  Order  of  Worship  was  Reformed, — now  they  are 
 being  driven  to  grant  that  it  is  something  new,  something  better  suited 
 to  the  nineteenth  century  than  the  Palatinate. 
 
 West  tries  unavailingly  to  answer  Good's  arguments,  saying  that 
 Lasco 's  congregation  did  not  use  a  liturgy  because  they  did  not  expect 
 to  remain  in  England,  and  that  the  patent  to  Lasco  says  nothing  of  a 
 liturgy,  only  that  they  were  allowed  to  have  their  own  peculiar  discijjline. 
 (Both  of  these  statements  are  not  historically  true.  But  they  show  to 
 what  extremity  the  highchurchmen  were  driven  in  history. — A.) 
 
 Hev.  Dr.  Klein  read  an  essay  before  the  Northwest  synod  in  1868, 
 "What  kind  of  a  liturgy  docs  our  Church  need?"     He  answered  it  by 
 
452         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 saying,  one  that  agrees  with  the  faith  of  our  forefathers,— that  holds 
 to  the  atonement  and  that  Christ  communicates  the  benefits  of  redemp- 
 tion through  the  Holy  Spirit,  or,  as  the  catechism  says,  "the  Holy 
 Spirit  works  faith  by  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  and  confirms  it  by  the 
 use  of  the  sacraments. ' '  The  liturgy  should  be  no  altar-liturgy  and 
 should  have  no  priestly  absolution.  The  synod  orderctl  the  publication 
 of  this  essay. 
 
 D.  L.,  of  Constantino,  tries  to  minimize  this  action  of  the  North- 
 western synod.  He  says  that  there  were  only  28  ministers  present,  less 
 than  one-third  of  the  synod, — that  not  nil  tho  members  i)resent  agreed 
 with  it,  that  it  dishonored  the  Eastern  syiio<l  l)y  saying  that  all  who 
 held  different  views  were  not  Reformed.  The  editor  of  the  Messenger 
 says  that  this  action  of  the  Northwestern  synod  was  plainly  unconsti- 
 tutional and  would  doubtless  receive  proper  attention  at  the  hands  of  the 
 next  General  Synod.  This  w'as  one  of  the  many  threats  impliedly  made 
 by  the  high-churchmen  up  to  the  General  Synod  of  1872,  so  as  to  intimi- 
 date their  opponents.  It  was  based  on  their  higli  views  of  the  (Church 
 and  its  power  to  discipline. 
 
 Section  4.     The  Myerstown  Convention    (1867). 
 
 Tlic  ]\Iyersto\vn  convention  marks  an  epoch  in  the  history  of 
 our  Church.  The  okl  Reformed  liavino:  been  defeated  in  the 
 classes  (except  Philadelphia  and  Zion's)  in  their  attempt  to 
 get  a  vote  of  the  consistory  and  con^refjation  before  the 
 Order  could  be  introduced,  determined  on  another  step.  They 
 would  liold  a  convention  to  protest  against  the  Order,  and  it 
 Avas  held  at  Myerstown.  Ai)pel*  d(^preciates  its  influence,  say- 
 ing that  it  was  a  harmless  affair.  That  is  not  true,  for  it  led  to 
 the  founding  of  another  college  and  fheologicjd  seiiiiiKii'v  and 
 nuide  permanent  the  pivvious  division  existing  in  the  Church 
 on  accomit  of  the  liturgy. 
 
 During  the  winter  of  18()()-7  tliere  liad  been  a  conference 
 at  ITarrisburg  where  ])lans  wei-e  laid  to  get  the  different 
 classes  to  take  action  against  the  improi)er  introduclion  of  the 
 Order  of  Worship  without  the  permission  of  the  consistory  or 
 the  congregation.  Only  two  classes,  as  we  have  seen,  Phila- 
 delphia and  Zion,  adopted  such  resolutions.  Put  as  the 
 others  did  not  take  such  action  oi-  took  action  against  such 
 proceedings,  it  was  felt  that  the  time  had  come  tiiat  something 
 
 *Life  of  Nevin,  page  50. 
 
General  Synod  of  1860.  453 
 
 must  be  done  to  cheek  any  further  progress  of  the  liturgicaf 
 party.  xVt  the  coiunieneenient  of  Franklin  and  IMarshall  col- 
 lege whisperings  of  some  meeting  soon  to  be  held  began  to 
 l)e  heard.  A  few  of  the  old  Reformed  came  together  at  ]\Iyers- 
 town,  and  soon  after  a  member  of  Lebanon  classis,  Rev.  F.  W. 
 Kremer,  visited  the  Cumberland  Valley  on  this  subject,  so 
 as  to  get  signatures  of  members  in  the  congregations  (who 
 were. friendly  to  the  old  Reformed)  to  the  call  for  the  conven- 
 tion. On  July  22-3,  a  committee  of  ministers  and  elders 
 at  Myerstown  unanimously  resolved  to  hold  a  convention.* 
 This  convention  was  to  be  held  so  as  to  protest  against  the 
 liturgj'  and  the  unwarranted  attempts  to  introduce  it  into 
 congregations  without  constitutionally  gaining  the  consent 
 of  the  congregations.  A  circular  was  sent  out,  signed  by  Rev. 
 F.  W.  Kremer,  pastor  at  Lebaiu^n,  calling  for  a  convention  to 
 meet  September  24,  1867. 
 
 Rev.  F.  W.  Kremer,  D.  D. 
 
 The  circular  stated  that  an  extreme  liturgical  movement  at  variance 
 with  the  j)ractice,  historical  character  and  established  constitution  of  the 
 Gernum    Reformed    Ciuircli    is   in   progress:    and    changes    are    proposed, 
 
 *As  they  felt  that  they  could  get  no  help  from  the  high-church  classes 
 or  synods  in  the  East  because  these  turned  them  down  continually;  they 
 therefore  had  recourse  to  a  conveutiou  as  a  last  resort. 
 
454         TTisTORY  OF  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 ATihicb  would  effect  a  pernieioiis  revolution  in  our  worship  and  life  and 
 cause  diversities  and  dissensions.  As  efforts  were  being  made  to  intro- 
 duce the  Order  of  Worship  without  the  consent  of  the  congregations  and 
 thus  contrary  to  our  constitution,  therefore  tliis  convention  was  called 
 in  order  to  protest  against  it.  ■ 
 
 By  August  14  articles  began  to  apj)oar  in  the  Messenger  against  this 
 convention  as  a  movement  toAvard  schism, — as  directed  against  the  Gen- 
 eral Synod,  which  had  declared  the  Order  to  be  a  book  "suitable  to  be 
 used  by  the  people."  Tt  was  styled  a  private  cousi)iracy  to  overawe 
 the  Eastern  synod.  It  was  compared  to  the  rebellion  in  the  South, 
 which  led  to  the  civil  war.  The  Mesnenger  did  not  believe  that  forty 
 minsters  and  forty  elders  could  be  found  to  go  to  the  convention,  as  the 
 circular  hoped. 
 
 Eev.  F.  W.  Kremer  published  an  articlef  explaining  the  movement, 
 stating  that  the  convention  was  not  designed  either  to  be  unconstitu- 
 tional, as  had  been  charged  by  the  Mercersburg  men,  or  was  it  designeil 
 to  be  a  secret  meeting.  His  hope  was  that  if  a  large  number  of  the 
 ministers  and  laymen  were  to  unite  in  a  memorial  to  synod  it  would 
 serve  a  good  purpose.  The  Messenger  replied  that  no  minister  had  a 
 right  to  do  as  Kremer  had  done, — go  into  the  bounds  of  another  min- 
 ister's congregation  and  tamper  Avith  his  members.  Such  action  was 
 irregular  and  unconstitutional.  It  urged  that  everything  be  done  ac- 
 cording to  the  constitution,  that  if  the  liturgy  were  forcibly  introduced 
 into  any  congregation,  complaint  should  be  made  about  it  to  the  proper 
 Church  court. 
 
 The  convention  met  at  Myerstown,  Septem])er  24,  1867. 
 The  opening  sermon  was  preached  by  Rev.  D.  Ziegler,  of  York. 
 Pa.  Rev.  W.  A.  Good  was  made  the  English  secretary  and 
 Rev.  N.  Geln-  the  German  secretary,  and  Elder  John  AViest 
 the  treasurer.  On  the  calls  for  the  convention  thei-e  were 
 337  names  from  Pennsylvania,  JNIaryland  and  North  Gai-olina. 
 There  were  190  delegates  i)resent,  ot*  whom  30  wein^  ininislei-s. 
 They  passed  twenty-five  resolutions. 
 
 These  first  of  all  claimed  their  riglit  to  hohl  sucli  a  convention,  and 
 declared  that  there  was  nothing  contrary  to  it  in  tin-  constitution.  Tlicy 
 then  declared  their  unfaltering  fidelity  to  the  (ierman  Reformed  Church, 
 to  its  constitution  :nid  the  enactments  of  synods  when  constitutionally 
 exjiressed  ami  in  accordance  to  the  Word  of  God.  Then  they  took  up 
 the  Order  of  Worshij).     They  said  that  it  was  an  innovation  and  quoted 
 
 *For  full  text  of  the  call,  see  the  Messenger,  August  14,  18G7. 
 ^Messenger,  September  11. 
 
General  Synod  op  1869.  455 
 
 Nevin  as  saying  so, — that  it  contained  doctrinal  statements  and  proposed 
 a  sacramental  theory  at  variance  with  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  and  the 
 Bible, — that  the  use  of  the  liturgy  at  present  was  unconstitutional, — 
 that  it  was  entirely  unconstitutional  to  introduce  it  in  opposition  to  the 
 wishes  of  the  majority  of  the  congregation, — that  this  was  a  violation 
 of  promises  made  about  it  at  synods  and  in  the  Church  papers  and  tliat 
 it  was'  improper  to  introduce  it  into  the  seminary  and  college  when 
 contrary  to  the  wishes  of  so  many  jiarents  and  students. 
 
 The  resolutions  favored  a  good  Reformed  liturgy  after  the  old  Re- 
 formed type, — held  to  the  importance  of  free  prayer.  They  stated  that 
 this  liturgical  controversy  had  given  rise  to  unfavorable  agitation  and 
 bitter  feeling  between  ministers  and  that  the  continued  introduction  of  the 
 Order  of  Worship  would  only  produce  greater  diversity  in  the  Church  and 
 lead  many  opposed  to  it  to  leave  the  Church,  while  it  would  train  up 
 others  for  the  Episcopalian  Church.  One  prominent  object  of  the  con- 
 vention was  to  prevent  schism  by  removing  the  cause  of  it,  namely, 
 the  forcible  and  unconstitutional  use  and  introduction  of  the  Order  of 
 Worship  into  the  congregations  by  the  minister  without  their  consent. 
 
 In  the  discussion  on  these  resolutions.  Rust  made  some  re- 
 marks against  the  doctrine  of  baptism  in  the  Order,  for  which 
 he  was  afterwards  attacked  by  Nevin  and  others.  Vaughn 
 also  delivered  a  lengthy  address  on  the  theology  of  ]\Iercers- 
 burg.  Kremer  called  attention  to  the  difference  between  the 
 questions  of  the  liturgy  at  confirmation  and  those  in  the  con- 
 stitution. Kelker  told  how  the  effort  was  made  at  Harris- 
 burg  early  in  1866  to  introduce  it  forcibly  on  the  congrega- 
 tion. The  pastor  had  done  it  by  a  vote  of  the  consistory  at  a 
 special  meeting  called  for  another  purpose,  when  a  number  of 
 the  consistory  were  absent.  The  congregation  was  never  asked 
 about  it.  Sheats  said  the  liturgy  was  forced  on  the  congrega- 
 tion at  Pittsburg  with  less  ceremony  than  at  Harrisburg. 
 There  the  minister  introduced  it  without  even  asking  the  con- 
 sistory. Rupley  called  attention  to  the  men  who  had  gone 
 over  to  the  Catholic  Church  from  Mercersburg. 
 
 Helfrich*  desired  that  at  this  convention  the  cultus  should 
 be  put  into  the  foreground  rather  than  doctrine;  for  he  be- 
 lieved that  if  the  cultus  were  purified,  the  doctrine  would  take 
 care  of  itself.  But  against  his  wislies,  doctrine  was  made 
 prominent,  the  doctrines  of  the  Order  rather  than  its  litur- 
 
 *Autobiography,  page  386. 
 
456         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 gical  forms  being  discussed.  He  says  he  was  not  satisfied 
 with  this  Puritanic  decision  and  quietl.y  took  no  part  in  the 
 rest  of  the  convention.  Leberman  and  several  Lancaster  men 
 attended  the  convention  as  spectators.  They  saw  his  dissatis- 
 faction and  tried  to  get  him  back  to  the  Lancaster  side,  but 
 in  vain.  Later,  when  he  saw  how  severely  handled  the  Old 
 Reformed  were  at  the  next  Eastern  synod,  he  threw  in  his 
 sympathies  entirely  with  them,  although  always  feeling  that 
 the  liturgical  aspect  of  the  controversy  was  more  important 
 than  the  doctrinal. 
 
 The  convention  appointed  a  committee  of  nine  to  lay  its 
 resolutions  before  the  Eastern  sAnod.  And  it  appointed  a 
 business  committee  of  eleven,  Rupley,  Vaughn,  Bomberger 
 and  George  Wolff,  together  with  seven  elders,  to  look  after  the 
 interests  of  the  Reformed  Church  as  represented  in  this  con- 
 yention.  This  committee  led  to  the  founding  of  the  Reformed 
 Church  Monthly  in  1868  as  the  organ  of  the  old  Reformed 
 party.  Later,  in  January,  1869,  the  next  step  was  taken  by 
 them  in  the  purchase  of  Freeland  seminar}^,  Collegeville,  Pa., 
 where  Ursinus  college  was  opened  in  September,  1870.  While 
 the  old  Reformed  were  thus  caring  for  their  interests,  tlieir 
 opponents  attacked  the  Myerstown  convention  in  the  Messen- 
 ger, denouncing  it  as  a  "rebellion," 
 
 Section  5.     The  Eastern  Synod  of  1867, 
 
 This  synod  was  looked  forward  to  with  great  anxiety  be- 
 cause of  the  friction  in  the  Church  and  the  importance  of 
 handling  delicately  the  subjects  at  issue.  The  resolutions  of 
 the  Myerstown  convention  were  brought  before  the  synod 
 by  the  conunittee  appointed  at  that  convention.  The  synod 
 appointed  a  committee,  of  which  Rev.  T.  G.  Apple  was  chair- 
 man, to  inquire  into  the  nature  of  the  Myerstown  convention 
 and  of  the  documents  presented  by  that  convention, — to  ascer- 
 taifl  whether  it  was  proper  to  receive  such  documents.  The 
 Lebanon  classis,  in  whose  territory  the  convention  had  been 
 held,  sent  a  request  to  the  synod  not  to  entertain  any  memorial 
 coming  from  that  convention. 
 
GenerxVl  Synod  op  1869.  457 
 
 The  committee  of  the  synod  reported  that  the  I\Iyerstown 
 convention  was  a  body  not  recognized  by  the  constitution  of 
 the  Church, — that  that  convention  had  aimed  to  bring  a 
 new  power  to  bear  against  the  decisions  of  the  Greneral  Synod, 
 — that  it  had  assailed  the  character  of  the  Eastern  sj^nod  and 
 made  provision  for  a  permanent  existence,  if  its  resolutions 
 were  not  granted.  The  report  declared  that  it  could  not,  with 
 any  sense  of  dignity  and  self-respect,  recognize  the  conven- 
 tion or  receive  its  papers;  but,  in  so  doing,  did  not  wish  to 
 shut  out  the  right  of  complaint  or  petition  in  the  constitu- 
 tional form.*  It  appointed  a  committee  to  prepare  a  pastoral 
 letter,  giving  to  the  congregations  counsel  in  regard  to  this 
 Myerstown  convention.  It  pronounced  the  convention  irregu- 
 lar and  schismatic  and  it  earnestly  enjoined  all  its  members 
 to  abstain  from  such  meetings  as  calculated  to  interfere  with 
 the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the  Church.  Revs.  T.  G.  Appel, 
 J.  W.  Nevin  and  A.  H.  Kremer  were  appointed  a  committee 
 to  prepare  the  pastoral  letter  of  the  synod.  John  Wiest  and 
 Andrew  Myers  gave  notice  of  complaint  to  General  Synod. 
 The  president  of  synod  refused  the  appeal  to  General  Synod 
 because,  as  the  Messenger  afterward  said,  the  appellants  were 
 not  on  trial  before  the  synod.  But  he  told  them  that  they  had 
 the  right  to  complain,  of  which  they  then  availed  themselves. 
 (This  distinction  between  an  appeal  and  a  complaint  was  a 
 new  one  in  the  custom  of  the  Church.)  Their  grounds  of  com- 
 plaint were : 
 
 1.  That  Synod,  by  condemning  the  Myerstown  convention  and  for- 
 bidding, with  threat  of  censure,  attendance  on  similar  conventions, 
 denied  a  constitutional  right,  thus  arbitrarily  interfering  with  the  rights 
 of  ministers  and  elders. 
 
 2.  That  this  condemnation  of  the  convention  was  based  on  a  false 
 charge,  namely,  that  the  convention  had  arrayed  itself  against  the 
 liturgy.  It  was  held  in  order  to  show  the  General  Synod  that  the  state- 
 ment   that    all   wanted    a    liturgy   was    false.      It    was    held    in    accord- 
 
 *Appel  (Life  of  Nevin,  page  510)  says  that  synod  told  the  Myerstown 
 convention  to  bring  up  their  complaints  through  the  regular  judicatories 
 of  the  Church  which  were  constituted  for  that  purjtose.  But  tlie  Old  Re- 
 formed had  the  old  democratic  spirit  of  our  early  Reformed  Church  and 
 could  not  be  bound  by  such  limitation  of  mere  churchliness,  which  was  as 
 yet  new  in  the  Church. 
 
458         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 ance  with  General  Synod  's  instructions  l)ecause  it  aimed  to  declare  the 
 mind  of  the  Church." 
 
 3.  While  the  convention   was  ignored,  yet   such  action  was  taken   by 
 the  synod  as  would  stigmatize  it  and  excite  susjucion  against  it. 
 
 4.  By  couimantling  the  pastoral  letter  to  be  read,  the  synod  inflicts  a 
 wrong  on  innocent  parties. 
 
 .').  The  right  of  appeal  is  arl)itrarily  and  unconstitutionally  denied. 
 
 The  committee  appointed  by  the  synod  prepared  the  pas- 
 toral letter  to  be  read  to  the  churches.  That  letter  started  out 
 on  this  basis,  that  the  General  Synod  of  1866  had  declared 
 the  Order  to  be  a  "  book  proper  to  be  used  in  the  churches  and 
 families  of  the  Reformed  Church. ' '  All  churches  were,  there- 
 fore, bound  to  give  due  respect  to  the  Order.  Its  opponents 
 have  denounced  the  Order  as  a  great  evil  and  held  a  conven- 
 tion at  Myerstown,  September  24.  They  there  denounced  the 
 Order  as  heretical,  adopted  a  series  of  resolutions  in  direct 
 and  flagrant  opposition  to  the  action  of  General  Synod.  The 
 •  synod  refused  to  recognize  the  Myerstown  convention.  It  re- 
 garded it  as  having  entered  on  an  unwise,  dangerous  and 
 schismatic  course.  The  synod  therefore  enjoined  the  members 
 of  the  Churches  from  assembling  in  such  conventions,  which 
 were  calculated  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Church.  This  pas- 
 toral letter  w'as  read  only  in  a  part  of  the  churches;  many 
 pastors,  even  those  who  sympathized  with  Nevinism,  not  deem- 
 ing such  an  extreme  procedure  to  be  wise  and  did  not  therefore 
 read  it.  In  the  case  of  Rev.  Mr.  Gies}^  who  read  it  in  Christ 
 Reformed  Church,  Philadelphia,  in  December,  1867,  its  read- 
 ing led  to  a  schism  in  his  congregation. 
 
 ]^ut  although  tlie  synod  did  not  formally  recognize  the  My- 
 erstown convention  and  officially  ignored  its  proceedings,  it 
 did  virtually  recognize  it,  for  it  ordered  an  investigation  into 
 the  orthodoxy  of  one  of  the  ministers.  Rev.  A.  S.  Vaughn,  for 
 views  uttered  at  that  convention  and  printed  in  its  minutes. 
 "While  it  did  not  recognize  the  standing  of  the  convention  as 
 ecclesiastical,  it  yet  recognized  it  as  a  fact.  It  ordered  Leb- 
 anon classis,  to  which  Vaughn  belonged,  to  make  an  investiga- 
 tion into  the  matter.  Dr.  Nevin  denounced  Vaughn's  views 
 before  tlie  synod -as  damiiiiblc  heresy.     lie  besought  synod  to 
 
Generaij.  Synod  of  1869.  459 
 
 call  him  to  account  and  moved  that  Le])anon  classis  inquire 
 into  the  matter. 
 
 Lehanon  eJas.sis  met  Novemher  21.  Its  committee  reported 
 that  in  Vaughn's  address  at  the  Myerstown  convention,  there 
 were  views  expressed  contrary  to  the  TTeidelher<>:  Catechism. 
 Their  charges  were  that : 
 
 1.  lu  regard  to  human  depravity,  he  held, 
 
 (a)  That,  by  virtue  of  the  incarnation,  infants  were  not  under  the 
 guilt  and  curse  of  sin. 
 
 (b)  Generic  grace  entered  the  womb  and  delivered  them  from  guilt. 
 
 2.  In  regard  to  baptism  he  taught, 
 
 (a)  That  no  external  and  spiritual  washing  takes  place  at  baptism. 
 
 (b)  He  rejects  the  sacramental  theory  of  the  Reformed  Church. 
 
 (c)  There  is  no  spiritual  washing  at  baptism,  because  there  is  no 
 faith. 
 
 The  connnittee  recommended  that  classis  ask  Vaughn : 
 
 L  Whether  he  believes  that  according  to  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  we 
 
 are  so  guilty  that  we  must  be  washed  by  the  blood  and  spirit  of  Christ. 
 2.  Whether  he  believes  that  at  baptism  there  is  a  double  washing  of 
 
 water  and  of  the  spirit. 
 
 Vaughn  answered  in  the  affirmative  and  his  answer  was 
 accepted  by  the  classis. 
 
 This  action  of  the  classis  occurred  at  a  very  awkw^ard  time 
 for  Vaughn,  for  he  was  about  changing  from  Lebanon  classis 
 to  Zion's,  where  he  had  a  call  to  York.  Classis  refused  to 
 dismiss  him  while  charges  were  pending;  but  after  all  was 
 settled,  it  granted  him  his  dismissal,  although  some  time  had 
 elapsed. 
 
 Another  matter  of  great  significance  was  synod's  decision 
 on  the  appeal  of  Rev.  S.  R.  Fisher  against  Philadelphia 
 classis.  Philadelphia  classis,  in  accordance  with  the  plan  of 
 the  Old  Reformed,  had  passed  an  action  forbidding  any  miu- 
 ister  to  use  the  Order  of  Worship  without  first  having  ob- 
 tained the  consent  of  his  consistory  and  congregation.  It  hap- 
 pened that  S.  R.  Fisher  was  president  of  the  classis  at  this 
 meeting,  and  as  a  high-churchman  he  ruled  the  motion  out  of 
 order,  because  a  motion  in  a  prohibitive  form  is  legislativgJincL 
 assumes  a  prerogative  which  he  claihied  ^SeTonged  only  to 
 General  Synod.     The  classis  deeidetTagamst  himand  he  ap- 
 
460         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 pealed  to  synod.  Synod  now  sustained  him  by  a  vote  of  54 
 to  18.  Philadelphia  classis  then  gave  notice  of  an  appeal  to 
 General  Synod. 
 
 An  attempt  was  made  at  the  synod  to  get  it  to  pass  the 
 action  taken  by  Philadelphia  and  Zion's  classes  forbidding  the 
 use  of  the  Order  unless  by  consent  of  the  consistory  and  con- 
 gregation. But  after  several  substitutes  were  offered  for  it, 
 it  was  laid  on  the  table  and  no  action  taken.  In  acting  thus, 
 it  is  our  opinion  that  synod  was  clearly  partisan  and  imcon- 
 stitutional,  for  the  constitution  neyei:._gave  to  the  minister 
 alone  the  right  to  regulate  the  worship  without  the  consent  of 
 the  consistory  or  congregation. 
 
 The  synod  also  took  action  against  the  American  Church  Mis- 
 sionary Register  of  February,  1867,  for  its  severe  strictures  on 
 Mercersburg  theology  b}^  one  who  signed  himself  "An  Emi- 
 nent Clergyman  of  the  German  Reformed  Church."  It  ap- 
 pointed a  committee  to  ascertain  from  the  editor  who  the  au- 
 thor of  that  article  was  and  also  censured  the  paper  for  its 
 breach  of  courtesy.  The  editor  refused,  however,  to  reveal 
 the  name  of  the  Reformed  minister  and  the  matter  was,  there- 
 fore, dropped  at  the  next  synod.  But  the  action  helped  stir 
 up  the  bitterness  still  more  and  was  a  forerunner  of  later 
 drastic  actions  of  the  synod  leveled  especially  at  Dr.  Bom- 
 berger,  who  was  supposed  to  be  the  author. 
 
 At  this  synod  the  view  was  openly  propounded  that  "the 
 voice  of  the  synod  was  the  voice  of  God"  and  its  authority 
 must  be  obeyed. 
 
 This  synod  by  four  actions  made  the  breach  greater  between 
 the  two  parties : 
 
 ] .  Its  refusal  to  receive  the  memorial  of  the  Myerstown  con- 
 vention. Even  had'that  convention  been  unecclesiastical,  it 
 would  have  been  wiser  for  the  synod  to  have  respected  the 
 feelings  of  so  large  a  minority.  But  its  action  in  calling  it 
 schismatic  and  rebellious  against  the  General  Synod  angered 
 the  Old  Reformed  party.  Indeed  its  action  on  the  Myerstown 
 convention  was  quite  contradictory.  It  refused  to  receive  its 
 memoi'ial  and  yet  recognized  enough  of  it  to  find  ground  to 
 proceed  against  Vaughn. 
 
General  Svnod  of  1869,  461 
 
 2.  Its  pastoral  letter  greatly  angered  the  Old  Reformed  by 
 its  denunciations  of  their  course. 
 
 3.  Its  arbitrary  course  in  singling  out  Vaughn  as  the  scape- 
 goat for  its  wrath.  This  looked  as  if  it  was  intended  as  a  warn- 
 ing against  others  for  being  so  outspoken,  and  an  effort  to  si- 
 lence the  opposition  as  had  been  done  with  Heiner  and  Zach- 
 arias  in  1853.  But  by  this  time  the  disaffected  party  had  be- 
 come too  strong  to  be  silenced. 
 
 4.  Its  action  in  upholding  Dr.  Fisher  against  Philadelphia 
 classis  was  virtually  a  refusal  of  the  synod  to  endorse  the  con- 
 stituti(mal  position  of  that  classis,  that  no  minister  had  the 
 right  to  introduce  the  Order  without  the  consent  of  the  con- 
 sistory or  congregation.  It  thus  gave  its  moral  support  to  any 
 minister  who  felt  like  using  the  Order  if  he  pleased.  More 
 and  more  the  actions  of  the  synod  were  become  partisan  and 
 favored  only  the  high-churchmen.  Dr.  Bomberger  says  later 
 that  the  course  of  the  Nevinites  at  this  synod  was  the  immedi- 
 ate cause  of  the  founding  of  the  Reformed  Church  Monthly. 
 He  says,  "The  cause  of  the  uprising  against  the  liturgy  M^as 
 due  to  the  continued  attempts  to  introduce  the  liturgy  into 
 congregations  in  obedience  to  the  rule  of  the  synod"  (that  is 
 without  the  consent  of  the  congregation). 
 
 After  the  synod  was  over,  there  was  quite  a  controversy  between  the 
 Messeiifjer  and  the  Eeformed  Church  Monthly  about  its  action.  Nevin* 
 attacked  the  Myerstown  convention  very  severely  as  schismatical  and 
 irregular,  saying  the  synod  issued  a  kind  pastoral  letter.  He  granted 
 that  the  synod  was  inconsistent  in  disowning  the  convention  and  yet 
 recognizing  it  by  issuing  a  pastoral  letter.  His  attack  led  to  the  publica- 
 tion of  a  "Defense  of  the  Convention"  (Dec.  11)  signed  by  43  of  its 
 members.  They  claimed  synod  was  not  infallible  and  that  it  erred  here  be- 
 cause misled.  It  declared  that  as  the  president  at  synod  had  refused 
 them  the  right  of  appeal  according  to  article  29,  this  convention  was 
 the  only  method  of  defense,  left.  It  denied  the  charges  of  the  Nevinist 
 party,  denying 
 
 (1)  That  it  was  held  because  of  a  bad  spirit  of  discontent  and  in  a 
 secret  way. 
 
 (2)  That  it  was  irregular  and  unconstitutional,  because  not  assembled 
 by  the  permission  and  authority  of  the  synod.  For  the  Tercentenary 
 Convention   was   not   recognized   by   the   constitution,   yet   that   did   not 
 
 *Messenger,  November  6,  1867. 
 
462         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 make  it  unlawful.  The  boards  of  the  Church  are  the  results  of  antece- 
 dent conventions  but  they  were  not  unlawful.  The  Germans  of  the  East 
 in  1865  held  a  convention  at  Philadelphia  to  promote  the  use  of  the 
 German  language  in  our  institutions,  yet  synod  did  not  denounce  it  or 
 call  it  unlawful.  It  is  true  the  constitution  does  not  use  the  ii;iiiio 
 "convention."  But  if  that  were  an  objection,  the  constitution  also  did 
 not  recognize  coiigrpgational  meetings  or  Sunday  schools  or  weekly  lec- 
 tures or  prayer-meotings — all  of  whidi  would  be  outlawdl  by  their  line 
 of  argument. 
 
 3.  That  the  convention  sat  in  judgment  on  the  decisions  of  synod. 
 But  no  synod  had  ever  adopted  the  Order  of  Worship  and  therefore 
 what  they  said  against  it^  was  not  against  the  synod.  But  even  if  the 
 book  had  been  adopted,  there  was  nothing  to  prevent  dissatisfied  mem- 
 bers from  using  every  method  to  have  it  set  aside.  The  decisions  of  the 
 synods  are  not,  like  those  of  the  Medes  and  Persians,  irrevocable.  How 
 often  does  one  synod  undo  what  a  previous  synod  has  done. 
 
 4.  That  it  was  schismatical.  On  the  contrary  it  was  to  avoid  schism 
 that  it  was  held.  They  declare  they  came  respectfully  to  synod,  having 
 confidence  in  it  that  it  would  hear  them.  They  came  A-.ith  the  hitherto 
 acknowledged  right  of  petition.  Their  petition  was  respectful  and 
 reasonable  and  just.  Synod  placed  arbitrary  hindrances  in  the  way  of 
 their  undoubted  right  of  petition  and  they  felt  themselves  aggrieved 
 by  it. 
 
 The  Messenger  replied  to  the  Vindication  of  the  Convention, 
 saying  it  grossly  insulted  the  synod.  It  denied  undue  severity 
 by  the  synod,  as  it  had  not  pronoimced  any  formal  sentence 
 against  any  one.  It  tried  to  get  over  the  argument  for  the 
 right  of  holding  conventions  in  our  Church,  and  it  denied  that 
 the  INIyerstown  convention  was  as  legitimate  as  the  Tercenten- 
 ary and  as  the  German  convention  of  1865.  The  petition  from 
 the  latter  came  from  the  German  ministers  and  elders  as  indi- 
 viduals and  not  as  a  conference  as  at  Myerstown.  (This  argu- 
 ment that  the  petition  of  the  German  conference  came  as  from 
 a  convention  as  a  whole,  was  very  lame.  The  petition  from 
 the  Myerstown  convention  came  just  as  much  from  individuals. 
 Both  came  in  the  same  way.  The  one  was  respectfully  re- 
 ceived, the  other  disrespectfully  turned  down  by  the  synod. 
 — A.)  Then,  too,  the  Myerstown  convention  was  composed  of 
 partisans,  composed  of  persons  of  one  kind  only,  which  was 
 not  true  of  the  other  conventions. 
 
General  Svnod  of  1869.  463 
 
 Vaughn  having  at  hist  gotten  free  from  the  imsynipathetic 
 atmosphere  of  Lebanon  classis,  now  turned  on  Nevin  and  bit- 
 terly attacked  his  theology.  He  published  in  1868  a  parody 
 on  Nevin 's  Anxious  Bench,  entitled  "The  New  Altar,"  in 
 Avhich  he  assailed  the  extravagances  of  the  Mercersburg  the- 
 ology and  the  liturgy  just  as  Nevin  had  assailed  those  of  the 
 anxious  bench.  It  was  an  argumentum  ad  hominem.  He  also 
 in  his  articles  charges  Nevin  with  being  a  follower  of  Schell- 
 ing  on  creation, — that  Nevin 's  philosophy  was  neither  logical 
 nor  Christian  but  a  medley,  and  that  he  was  Romanizing. 
 
 The  synod,  to  offset  the  movement  of  the  Old  Reformed 
 party  to  foimd  a  college,  passed  the  dollar  plan  for  the  endow- 
 ment of  Franklin  and  Marshall  college  so  as  to  forestall  the 
 founding  of  a  new  college.  They  also  began  the  agitation  of  a 
 ]\Iission-House  in  Eastern  Pennsylvania  like  the  German  Mis- 
 sion House  of  our  Church  in  Wisconsin.  East  Pennsylvania 
 classis  (November  18,  1868)  proposed  to  establish  such  a  W\h- 
 sion  House  and  appointed  a  committee  to  lay  the  subject  be- 
 fore the  neighboring  classes  and  with  their  committees  to 
 draw  up  a  plan  for  such  an  institution  and  lay  it  before  the 
 next  synod  for  action.  But  only  two  classes  appointed  com- 
 mittees, East  Pennsylvania  and  Goshenhoppen,  Lebanon 
 classis  declining  to  go  into  it.  The  joint  committees  met  at 
 Bethlehem  July  13,  1869.  The  movement,  however,  was  se- 
 verely attacked  in  the  Messenger  by  G.  D.  Wolff,  although  de- 
 fended by  Higbee  and  Apple,  professors  at  Mercersburg.  But 
 the  movement  failed  to  materialize  into  anything  and  Mas 
 given  up.  Helffrich,  in  his  Autobiography,  says  the  move- 
 ment was  gotten  up  to  forestall  the  foimding  of  Ursinus  col- 
 lege. Still  it  reveals  some  dissatisfaction  in  Eastern  Penn- 
 sylvania with  the  educational  movements  at  Lancaster  and 
 Mercersburg. 
 
 Section  6.     Controversy  on  Infant  Baptism. 
 
 The  two  doctrines  of  baptism  soon  came  into  conflict,  the 
 covenant  theory  of  the  old  Reformed  and  the  high-church 
 theory  of  the  Mercersburg  theolog}^  According  to  the  former, 
 the  child  of  Christian  parents  is  born  in  the  covenant  to  pecu- 
 
464         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 liar  privileges.  Of  all  this,  baptism  is  a  sign  and  seal  when  it 
 is  administered.  F.  AV.  Kremer*  describes  the  old  Reformed 
 view  that  the  children  of  believing  parents  were  saved.  This 
 was  not  because  of  natural  holiness  on  their  part  (Pelagian- 
 ism),  for  grace  is  not  inherited.  It  rested  on  Christ's  atone- 
 ment. We  might  add  that  its  Scriptural  basis  is  1  Corinth- 
 ians 7:  14.  "Else  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  they 
 are  holy. ' ' 
 
 The  Mercersl)urg  view,  on  the  other  hand,  was  that  the  bap- 
 tism was  not  merely  confirmatory  of  any  such  covenant  with 
 the  child  at  birth.  It  held  that  the  child  was  not  really  in  the 
 covenant  at  birth  or  at  any  time  until  it  was  baptized, — that 
 baptism  puts  him  into  the  covenant.  This  view  is  clearly 
 taught  by  Gerhart's  "Child's  Catechism,"  which  says,  "I 
 became  a  Christian  at  my  baptism."  Gansf  was  charged  with 
 saying  that  baptism  made  the  children  full  members  of  the 
 Church. 
 
 These  were  the  two  views,  (iradually  the  lines  became  drawn  between 
 them.  At  the  General  Synod  of  1866  in  the  debate  on  the  Order  of 
 Worship,  Prof.  Eust  said  that  although  he  believed  in  original  sin,  yet 
 he  did  not  believe  in  the  teaching  of  the  Order  of  Worship,  that  the  chil- 
 dren were  under  the  absolute  power  of  the  devil  until  baptism  delivered 
 them.  Nevin  attacked  him  severely,  charging  him  with  blank  Pe- 
 lagianism  in  saying  this  and  with  violating  his  vow  as  a  teacher  of  theol- 
 ogy in  the  Reformed  Church  by  holding  any  such  heretical  views, — with 
 having  less  sound  theology  than  the  children  of  the  Sunday-schools.  He 
 called  this  "the  Tiffin  heresy."  This  charge  was  again  raised  against 
 Prof.  Rust  after  the  Myerstown  convention  in  1867  by  the  Mercersburg 
 theologians.  Rust  and  Williard,  who  continued  the  discussion,  claimed 
 that  their  view  was  the  Old  Reformed  view  and  that  it  was  not  Pelagian, 
 because  they  did  not  claim  that  grace  came  at  birth  by  nature,  but 
 through  the  covenant  of  God.  The  discussion  afterward  turned  on  the 
 meaning  of  the  74th  answer  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  especially 
 on  its  word  "Gemeinde"  translated  by  "church,"  until  Mercersburg 
 theology  came  in  and  translated  it  "people."  (But  the  word  "Ge- 
 meinde  in  that  answer  clearly  means  more  than  "people,"  it  means 
 congregation." — A.)  Rust  claimed  that  this  answer  proved  his  view 
 of  baptism,  for  it  said  that  infants  as  well  as  adults  are  included  in  the 
 covenant  and  promise  of  God.     This  was  said  of  them  before  baptism. 
 
 *Messenger,  March  4,  1868. 
 fMessenger,  February  14,  1868. 
 
General  Synod  of  1869,  465 
 
 Nevin,  on  the  other  hand,  declared  that  the  word  ' '  Gemeinde ' '  meant 
 Christian  community,  and  not  church.     In  1867,  Harbaugh  takes  up  the 
 subject    in    the   Mercershurg   Review,    saying    that    if    the   word   meant 
 ' '  church, ' '  and  that  they  are  already  in  the  Church,  then  the  first  part 
 of  the  answer  contradicted  the  last  part,  which  says  they  must  be  ad- 
 mitted into  the  Church  by  baptism.     He  says  ' '  Gemeinde ' '  means  those 
 belonging    to   a    Christian    community   though   not   incorporated   in    the 
 Church.     He  would  also   translate  the  word   ' '  adults ' '   in  that  answer 
 by  "parents."     His  attention  was  called  to  the  fact  that  this  misses 
 the  sense  of  the  German  entirely,  for  the  German  word  for  parents  is 
 Eltern,  while  the  German  word  in  the  74th  answer  is  Alten — old  people. 
 Rust  answers  Nevin  by  saying  that  his  meaning  of  "Gemeinde"  was 
 heathen   not  Christian,  that  among  the  Germans,  the  words  "church" 
 and   ' '  congregation ' '    were   used    interchangeably    and    Gemeinde   could 
 mean  both   (Ebrard  says  "Gemeinde"  means  "congregation," — a  col- 
 lective number  of  the  baptized.)     Rust  quotes  from  the  various  Reformed 
 Creeds   as  of   Elector   Frederick   III,   of   Nassau,   of   Bremen  and  East 
 Friesland,  to  prove  his  position.     He  quotes  from  Ursinus  who,  in  his 
 commentary  on  the  74th  answer  of  the  catechism,  treats  the  word  "Ge- 
 meinde" in  the  catechism  as  if  it  meant  "church,"  and  says  not  a  word 
 about  any  such  meaning  as  Nevin  held.     Rust  quotes  from  Heppe  and 
 even  from  Dr.  Nevin  himself  in  ] 849-50,  where  he  said  that  "infants 
 were  proper  subjects  of  baptism  because  they  belonged  to  the  Church." 
 In  1868  the  controversy  reverts  to  the  pastoral  letter  of  the  Eastern 
 synod  of   1846,  which   had  been   drawn  up  by  Heiner.     Harbaugh   had 
 hazarded  the  statement  that  the  Reformed  Church  never  in  its  history 
 had  taught  that  the  children  of  the  Church  were  members  prior  to  bap- 
 tism.    Williard  replies  to  this  by   quoting   from   the  pastoral  letter  of 
 the  synod  of  1846  as  proving  that  our  Church  had  officially  endorsed  that 
 view.     S.  R.  Fisher,  in  the  Messenger,  tried  to  evade  this  argument  by 
 saying  that  Heiner  in  that  letter  had  blundered  and  misrepresented  the 
 view  of  the  synod  on  the  subject, — that  that  synod  never  had  adopted 
 the  letter  but  that  it  had  been  prepared  after  the  synod  and  been  sent 
 out  in  the  name  of  the  synod  by  the  committee  of  whom   Heiner  was 
 chairman.     Williard  replied  that  he  did  not  hold  that  the  children  were 
 in  the  Church  by  birth,  but  were  in  the  covenant  and  that  baptism  simply 
 was  the  seal  of  that  covenant.     He  replied  to  Fisher  that  he  knew  that 
 Heiner  sent  that   pastoral  letter  out  after  the  synod  of   1846,  but  the 
 synod  had  unanimously  instructed  him  so  to  do  and  had  ordered  4,000 
 copies  to  be  printed  and  distributed  throughout  the  Church,  and  Fisher 
 had  made  a  speech  in  favor  of  the  subject.     He  said  Harbaugh,  Nevin 
 and  Fisher  were  all  at  the  synod  the  following  year,  when  Heiner  re- 
 ported what  he  had  done.     But  they  never  attempted  to  raise  any  ob- 
 jection to  it,  as  if  he  had  misrepresented  synod.     On  the  contrary,  Dr. 
 Heiner 's   two   hours'   speech   on   the   subject   was   highly   spoken   of   by 
 
466        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Fisher  in  the  Messenger,  and  synod  unanimously  adopted  Heiner's  re- 
 port. Thus  our  own  synod  had  supported  the  old  covenant  view  of  bap- 
 tism officially  before  Mercersburg  doctrine  had  come  up. 
 
 This  controversy  on  baptism  also  assumes  a  new  phase  in  1867,  and  later 
 Mhen  Eev.  F.  W.  Kremer  carries  out  the  Mercersburg  view  to  its  logical  end 
 and  charges  that  the  Order  of  Worship  made  baptism  not  merely  a  sealing 
 ordinance  (as  was  the  old  Reformed  view)  but  a  saving  ordinance, — 
 it  was  now  a  regenerating  ordinance.  If  so  and  baptism  saves,  the 
 inference  is  that  unbaptized  infants  were  lost.  For  the  Order  confines 
 the  grace  of  God  to  baptism  for  it  says  ' '  by  baptism  Christ  has  ordained 
 the  communication  of  such  great  grace."  Callender  replied  that  baptism 
 was  the  ordinary  way,  but  that  does  not  mean  that  there  is  an  extra- 
 ordinary way.  But  Dr.  Kremer  continued  strongly  attacking  them  on 
 this  point. 
 
 Perhaps  the  most  important  statement  of  Mercersburg  theology  on 
 baptism  appeared  in  Tract  No.  3,  published  at  first  anonymously  but 
 later  its  author  was  discovered  to  be  Eev.  Prof.  E.  V.  Gerhart,  D.D. 
 After  giving  what  he  calls  defective  views  of  baptism,  he  states  what 
 he  conceives  to  be  the  true  nature  of  baptism: — that  there  are  two 
 parts  in  baptism,  the  washing  with  water  and  the  washing  in  the  name 
 of  the  Trinity.  Neither  the  water  or  the  Spirit  alone  are  baptism,  but 
 joined  together  they  form  the  sacrament.  Water  alone  is  not  baptism, 
 neither  is  the  grace  of  baptism  present  and  active  without  water.  (There 
 is  no  way  in  which  a  man  can  be  created  anew  by  the  Spirit  according 
 to  the  established  economy  but  by  baptism.)  On  the  other  hand,  there  is 
 no  washing  with  water  in  baptism  without  the  efficacious  presence  of  the 
 proper  grace  of  Christ.  The  grace  is  as  truly  given  as  the  water  is  ap- 
 plied. The  two  are  one  in  holy  baptism.  He  then  adds  that  the  way 
 the  blood  and  spirit  of  Christ  cleanse  us  is  not  by  faith,  which  does 
 not  make  man  a  new  creature,  but  by  the  Spirit,  that  is,  by  baptism; 
 so  that  in  baptism  we  have  "the  forgiveness  of  sins  from  God"  and 
 "are  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  sanctified  to  be  members  of 
 Christ." 
 
 This  controversy  revealed  the  two  views  on  baptiism,  the  old 
 and  the  new,  the  covenant  and  the  high-chnrch  view,  M^iich 
 had  come  up  to  tran.splant  the  old  view.  Thus  the  old  doc- 
 trine of  baptism  as  well  as  of  the  Lord's  Supper  and  of  the 
 Church  was  changed  by  Nevin's  emphasis  on  the  objective. 
 There  must  be  objective  efficacy  in  baptism  as  well  as  in  the 
 Lord's  Supper  and  the  Church.  This  efficacy  they  described 
 as  being  not  in  the  water  alone,  but  in  the  union  of  grace  with 
 the  water,  just  as  at  the  Lord's  Supper  it  was  the  union  of 
 grace  with  the  elements,  and  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
 
General  Synod  op  1869.  467 
 
 grace  was  linked  to  the  outward  organization.  Thus  the  ob- 
 jective was  placed  before  the  subjective,  and  the  latter  made 
 to  depend  on  the  objective.  This  was  different  from  old  Re- 
 formed ideas,  which  placed  the  subjective  first  and  emphasized 
 it  and  made  the  objective  depend  on  the  subjective.  Mercers- 
 burg  theology,  because  it  so  emphasized  the  objective,  could 
 not  see  any  force  in  the  covenant  view  of  baptism  because 
 there  was  nothing  objective  for  the  child  before  baptism. 
 
 Section  7.    The  Preparation  of  the  Western  Liturgy. 
 
 The  movements  in  the  Ohio  synod  toward  the  preparation 
 of  a  liturgy  were  as  follows:  Its  synod  of  1862  desired  the 
 Provisional  liturgy  to  be  modified  so  as  to  omit  the  responses 
 in  the  ordinarj^  services  of  the  Church  and  such  phrases  in  it 
 as  were  in  conflict  with  the  generally  received  doctrines  of  the 
 German  Reformed  Church. 
 
 In  1863  Indiana  classis  retiuested  synod  to  furnish  the 
 Church  with  a  suitable  liturgy.  The  synod  of  1863  took  the 
 following  action  : 
 
 1.  That  synod  feels  the  necessity  of  a  liturgy  that  can  be  brought 
 into  general  use  throughout  the  entire  Church  so  as  to  secure  uniformity 
 of  worship. 
 
 2.  That  this  synod  is  opposed  to  the  continued  use  of  the  Provisional 
 liturgy  as  such,  and  would  request  the  General  Synod  so  to  modify  it 
 as  to  enable  it  to  introduce  it  into  our  congregations.  Tlic  vote  on  these 
 resolutions  was  43  to  16. 
 
 3.  That  should  the  Provisional  liturgy  not  admit  of  such  a  modifica- 
 tion, the  General  Synod  be  earnestly  requested  to  take  measures  at  once 
 to  provide  a  liturgy,  which  in  our  opinion  will  be  adapted  to  the  wants 
 of  our  Church,  and  in  case  General  Synod  refuse  that  a  committee  of 
 five  be  appointed  to  go  forward  in  the  work.  The  committee  appointed 
 was:   Rust,  Eli  Keller,  Bossard,  Williard  and  Kline. 
 
 The  General  Synod  (1863)  in  reply  gave  Ohio  synod  per- 
 mission to  prepare  a  liturgy  adapted  to  the  wants  of  the 
 Church.  At  the  Ohio  synod  of  1864  the  committee  reported 
 that  they  had  commenced  their  labors  soon  after  the  meeting 
 of  the  previous  synod  by  a  meeting  in  March,  1864,  at  Tififin. 
 They  adopted  as  the  basis  of  the  new  liturgy  the  Reformed 
 liturgies  of  the  Reformation.     They  had  gathered  a  good  deal 
 
468        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 of  material  and  had  prepared  several  forms  on  the  sacra- 
 ments which  they  were  ready  to  lay  before  the  synod.  They 
 suggested  some  changes  in  the  committee,  so  as  to  make  it  more 
 efficient.  The  committee  was  changed  to  Rust,  Keller,  Wil- 
 liard,  Kline  and  J.  H.  Good. 
 
 The  liturgical  committee  laid  650  printed  specimen  copies 
 of  the  liturgy  for  examination  before  the  synod  of  1865. 
 Synod  distributed  350  English  copies  to  the  English  classes 
 and  300  German  to  the  German  classes  for  examination  and 
 approval  and  recommended  the  continuation  of  the  work. 
 
 To  the  Ohio  synod  of  1866  the  committee  reported  very 
 little  progress.  Though  the  last  synod  had  favored  the  lit- 
 urgy, yet  the  subseciuent  action  of  a  number  of  the  classes 
 was  of  such  a  discouraging  nature  that  the  chairman  of  the 
 committee  (Rust)  declined  to  take  any  farther  part  and  asked 
 to  be  relieved.*  Several  forms,  however,  one  for  the  regular 
 Lord's  day  service  and  one  for  the  burial  of  the  dead  had 
 been  prepared  by  two  members  of  the  connnittee.  The  report 
 was  referred  by  synod  to  a  committee.  The  committee  re- 
 ported that  the  abandonment  of  the  work  would  be  detri- 
 mental to  the  future  of  the  Church,  reconunended  that  other 
 members  be  appointed  and  that  the  committee  re({ue8t  Gen- 
 eral Synod  to  allow  them  to  continue  their  work.  The  com- 
 mittee now  appointed  was  Kline,  Keller,  "Williard.  Bossard, 
 Jjichtenstein,  Kieffer,  Rutenick,  Derr  and  Stern.  Fortunately 
 when  the  new  committee  was  appointed,  Dr.  Williard  was 
 placed  at  the  head  and  the  success  of  tlie  itioN'eiiient  was  due 
 to  his  perseverance. 
 
 To  the  Ohio  sjTiod  of  1867  Ihe  Ii1ur<iical  cominittee  reported 
 that  it  had  been  able  to  accomplish  little.  A  meeting  had  been 
 called  at  Dayton  in  1866,  August,  but  was  interfered  with  by 
 the  prevalence  of  the  cholera.  So  the  chairman  and  several 
 other  members  could  not  be  present  and  there  was  no  (iiioniin. 
 Those  who  met  agreed  on  thorough  revision  of  previously  pi-e- 
 
 *The  Westmorolaiul  flasa  was  in  sympatliy  with  the  Provisional  liturjry. 
 And  as  Rust  could  not  compete  with  RchafT  in  encyclopa-dic  knowledfje  of 
 liturgies,  criticisms  started  in  tlie  West  and  spread  to  Indiana  (dassis 
 and  elsewhere.     Rust  felt  this  and  therefore  resigned. 
 
General  Synod  of  1869. 
 
 469 
 
 pared  forms  and  the  preparation  of  new  forms.  But  the  chair- 
 man, Lichtenstein,  resigned  and  no  meeting  was  held  until  May 
 14  at  Tiffin,  when  Kline  was  appointed  chairman  instead  of 
 Lichtenstein  and  it  was  agreed  to  recommend  to  the  two 
 synods  (Ohio  and  Northwestern)  : 
 
 1.  That  the  committee  be  requested  to  go  forward  as  rapidly 
 as  possible  on  the  basis  of  work  already  done. 
 
 2.  That  a  committee  of  six  be  appointed,  three  from  each 
 synod  to  whom  the  work  l)e  entrusted. 
 
 Ohio  approved  this  and  appointed  Williard,  Kieffer  and  J. 
 H.  Derr.  Northwestern  synod  also  approved  the  report  and 
 appointed  M.  Stern.  Kline  and  Eli  Keller. 
 
 Rev.  Pres.  George  W.  Williard,  D.  D. 
 
 In  1868  the  joint  committee  of  the  two  synods  had  had  two 
 meetings.  At  the  first  meeting  the  general  outline  was  agreed 
 upon  and  the  different  parts  assigned  to  different  members  of 
 the  committee.  At  the  second  meeting  there  were  but  few 
 present.  Though  some  members  made  no  report,  yet  the  com- 
 mittee decided  that  there  was  material  enough  in  Reformed 
 liturgies  to  complete  the  work  on  the  basis  already  laid  down. 
 They  had  completed  prayers  for  the  Lord's  day,  and  also 
 
470         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  IT.  S. 
 
 formulas  for  infant  and  adult  baptism.  Confirmation,  prepara- 
 tory sendee,  Lord's  Supper,  ordination  and  installation  were 
 nearly  completed.  As  some  members  of  the  committee  had  not 
 labored  with  them,  it  was  suggested  that  the  committee  be 
 changed.  The  Ohio  sjmod  (1868)  received  the  report  and 
 it  was  referred  to  a  committee  who  recommended  its  speedy 
 completion.  It  changed  its  committee  to  "Williard,  Good, 
 Bucher  and  I.  H.  Reiter.  Thus  the  high-churchmen  of  the 
 committee  were  left  off  except  Bucher,  because  they  had  no 
 s^anpathy  with  the  movement. 
 
 To  the  Ohio  synod  of  1869  the  committee  reported  consider- 
 able progress  but  said  the  work  was  one  of  great  difficulty  and 
 magnitude.  Still  the  committee  is  nearly  prepared  for  final 
 revision.  Northwestern  synod  appointed  Kline,  M.  Stern,  Eli 
 Keller  and  Greding  to  continue  the  work  in  connection  with 
 the  committee  of  the  Ohio  synod.  The  Ohio  synod  ordered  a 
 special  meeting  of  the  synod  to  pass  on  the  committee's  work 
 and  such  a  meeting  was  held  in  the  spring  of  1869  before 
 General  Synod.  The  work  of  the  committee  was  approved 
 by  this  synod  and  the  synod  requested  General  Synod  to  give 
 permission  for  the  use  of  the  liturgy.  (The  Northwestern 
 synod  also  held  a  special  session,  November,  1869,  to  approve 
 the  liturg3^)  The  liturgy  was  translated  into  German  by  a 
 committee  of  both  synods. 
 
 This  history  of  the  preparation  of  the  liturgy  reveals  the  di- 
 versity of  opinion  among  those  who  wanted  a  liturgy  and  the 
 lethargy  on  the  subject  on  the  part  of  those  who  did  not.  Rust, 
 discouraged  by  the  diversity  of  opinion  and  by  criticism,  re- 
 signed. The  work  was  further  hindered  by  the  resignation  of 
 Lichtenstein.  Then  two  high-churchmen  went  out  of  the  com- 
 mittee, Kieffer  and  Derr.  They  evidently  did  not  care  to  work 
 with  the  committee  on  the  basis  agreed  upon,  namely,  of  mak- 
 ing the  Reformed  liturgies  the  model.  At  last  a  liarmonious 
 and  zealous  committee  was  secured,  who  finished  the  woi-k 
 rapidly. 
 
 The  internal  history  of  the  committee's  work  has  been  diffi- 
 cult to  ascertain,  as  tlie  minutes  seeni  to  have  been  lost.  The 
 committee,  however,  aimed  to  make  the  Reformed  liturgies  the 
 
General  Synod  op  1860.  471 
 
 basis  of  the  new  liturgy  and  not  to  go  back  to  the  liturgies  of 
 the  early  Church,  which  had  led  the  makers  of  the  Provisional 
 liturgy  so  far  astray.  Especially  was  the  Palatinate  liturgy 
 considered  and  next  to  it  the  Bremen  Reformed  liturgy. 
 
 Section  8.    The  Dorner  Controversy  (1868). 
 
 At  the  General  Synod  of  1866,  Nevin  had  cited  Dorner* 
 as  being  in  full  accord  in  his  work  on  the  person  of  Christ, 
 with  the  order  and  with  Mercersburg  theology.  A  graduate 
 of  Mercersburg  Theological  seminary  happened  to  be  studying 
 at  Berlin  under  Dorner  and  placed  in  his  hands  a  copy  of 
 ''The  Order  of  Worship"  and  of  Miller  on  "Mercersburg  and 
 Modern  Theology  Contrasted."  After  three  or  four  weeks 
 he  called  on  Dorner  for  a  statement  of  his  views  and  was  sur- 
 prised to  find  that  Dorner  was  not  in  harmony  with  Nevin. 
 Dorner  afterwards  (1867)  published  his  views  of  Nevin  in  the 
 German  "Yearbook  for  German  Theology."  It  was  trans- 
 lated and  published  in  the  Reformed  Church  Monthly  of 
 1868. 
 
 lu  the  begiQuing,  he  states  the  reason  for  writing  his  pamphlet,  that  he 
 had  been  appealed  to  by  Nevin  at  the  General  Synod  of  1866,  as  en- 
 dorsing his  position,  lie  was  thus  drawn  into  the  controversy.  He 
 first  gives  the  history  of  the  liturgical  movement  in  our  Church,  which 
 is  excellent,  especially  considering  his  distance  from  America.  He 
 speaks  of  the  two  kinds  of  liturgies,  the  altar-  and  the  pulpit-Kturgy. 
 But  there  is  a  deeper  question  than  that  of  liturgy,  namely,  doctrine, — • 
 Does  the  Order  of  Worship  depart  from  the  Evangelical  faith  of  the 
 German  Keformed  Church?  If  so,  it  is  wrong;  for  faith  is  fundamental, 
 while  liturgy  ought  to  be  secondary  and  dependent.  A  liturgy  ought  not 
 to  he  the  means  of  inoculating  the  Church  with  new  doctrines,  but  simply 
 to  furnish  a  proper  expression  of  its  aclnowledged  faith.  (This  is  a  very 
 important  statement  of  the  relation  of  doctrine  and  liturgy.  And  Dorner 
 is  right  and  Mercersburg  wrong. — A.) 
 
 Then,  after  stating  the  great  fundamental  truths,  on  which  Nevin  and 
 himself  agree,  he  goes  on  to  show  where  they  disagree.  They  come  to 
 a  point  where  their  paths  no  longer  run  parallel,  since  Nevin  holds 
 positions  in  regard  to  the  Church  which  he  does  not  correctly  derive 
 from  him, — which  are  no  longer  Evangelical  and  which  he  must  discard, 
 if  he  acknowledges  the  principles   of   the  Reformation   in   its   full   sig- 
 
 *The  professor  of  theology  at  the  University  of  Berlin,  Germany. 
 
472        History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 nificance.  Nevin  says  that  the  first  mark  of  the  liturgy  is  that  it  is 
 Christological.  But  Nevin  is  a  Pelagian  because  he  grants  a  true 
 knowledge  of  Christ  before  there  is  an  experience  of  redemptive  power.* 
 Nevin  makes  no  mention  of  conversion  as  the  necessary  basis  of  the 
 true  knowledge  of  redemption.  Nevin  is  anti-Keformed  in  saying  that 
 the  dogmatic  products  of  the  ancient  Church  in  their  purely  ob- 
 jective form  form  the  basis  and  condition  of  his  system  and  hence 
 he  is  silent  regarding  the  fundamental  import  of  faith  in  an  Evangelical 
 system.  He  grants  that  Nevin 's  theology  had  restored  the  Creed 
 to  a  degree  of  honor  which  it  had  lost  in  America  through  Puritanism. 
 But  he  then  attacks  Nevin 's  theory  of  the  Creed,  where  he  makes  it  the 
 necessary  form  of  the  Gospel  as  first  apprehended  by  faith,  whereas 
 it  was  a  summary  of  doctrine  for  the  understanding.  He  denies  that  the 
 Creed  is  Christocentric,  as  Nevin  holds,  for  it  is  trinitarian.  Nevin  ele- 
 vates the  Creed  at  the  expense  of  the  Bible. 
 
 Another  mark  of  the  new  liturgy  is  its  objective  character.  Nevin 
 makes  the  objective  follow  the  subjective.  He  tends  to  the  deification 
 of  the  Church.  This  identification  of  the  Church  with  Christ  tends  to  the 
 ignoring  of  the  atonement  and  of  justification.  He  then  passes  on  to 
 criticise  Nevin 's  views  as  revealed  in  the  Order: 
 
 1.  Ordination  is  openly  made  a  sacrament,  for  it  is  called  "the  sacra- 
 mental seal  of  their  heavenly  commission. ' '  The  tenets  of  ordination,  ac- 
 cording to  it,  go  far  beyond  the  bounds  of  those  which  are  hierarchical. 
 Its  subscription  to  the  ancient  creeds  as  well  as  to  the  Bible  leads  to  hier- 
 archy. The  closing  words  of  the  formula  for  ordination  make  the  union 
 of  the  supernatural  with  the  natural  to  be  the  union  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
 with  the  person  ordained.  Nevin  is  contradictory,  for  he  grants  that  some 
 ordained  do  not  receive  ordaining  grace  because  of  lack  of  faith.  How, 
 Dorner  asks,  can  there  be  any  unbroken  apostolic  succession  if  such  be 
 the  case.  These  high  views  tend  to  keep  the  ecclesiastical  power  in 
 the  hands  of  the  ministerial  office  and  rob  the  laity  of  their  proper  rights. 
 Nevin  sets  every  minister  higher  than  the  Romish  Church  sets  her 
 bishops. 
 
 2.  In  the  Order,  confession  and  absolution  are  objective,  because  they 
 lead  to  the  idea  that  forgiveness  is  bound  to  the  outward  organs  and 
 forms  of  the  Church.  But  that  cuts  off  the  individual  Christian  from  di- 
 rect communion  with  God  by  introducing  a  new  priesthood.  The  formula 
 for  baptism  omits  the  requirements  for  antecedent  or  subsequent  faith, 
 over  against  its  magical  efficacy.  Forgiveness  of  sin  holds  no  proper 
 place,  while  the  guilt  and  damnableness  of  original  sin  as  the  ground  of 
 baptism  is  brought  out  prominently.     Such  are  Corner's  criticisms. 
 
 Nevin  replies  to  Dorner,f  saying  that  Dorner  is  conijilimontary  because 
 his  review  recognizes  merit  in  American  theology,  a  point  rarely  granted 
 
 *Beformed  Church  Monthly,  1868,  page  345. 
 ^Messenger,  July  22,  1868. 
 
General  Synod  of  1869.  473 
 
 by  Germans.  He  says  Dorner  's  article  is  far  above  tiie  peltings  he  had 
 received  in  this  country,  which  deserved  no  notice.  He  then  replies  to 
 the  criticisms  of  Dorner: 
 
 1.  That  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  Dorner  is  a  Lutheran.  (But  Nevin 
 had  quoted  him  as  soundly  Evangelical  at  the  General  Synod  of  1866 ; 
 now  he  bids  liis  readers  beware  of  his  views  because  of  their  Lutheran 
 standpoint. — A.) 
 
 2.  If  Dorner  is  a  great  (ierman  theologian,  that  is  no  reason  why 
 we  should  follow  him  in  a  slavish  way.  We  can  not  accept  the  unfinished 
 processes  of  thought  of  Germany  as  revealed  by  Dorner. 
 
 3.  He  is  so  far  away  geographically  and  politically  that  his  stand- 
 point detracts  from  the  value  of  his  criticisms.  Dorner,  too,  is  Erastian.* 
 He  is  therefore  incompetent  to  estimate  the  Mercersburg  theology. 
 (A.  R.  Kremer  later  said  that  it  was  Dorner 's  Erastiauism  that  caused 
 him  to  have  low  views  on  the  ministry,  which  were  out  of  harmony  with 
 the  Mercersburg  views.)  Nevin  said  that  all  he  meant  when  he  referred 
 to  Dorner  at  the  General  Synod  of  1866  was  that  Dorner  with  Ullman 
 had  come  to  represent  .the  Christological  way  of  thinking.  He  criti- 
 cises Dorner 's  description  of  the  liturgical  controversy  in  our  Church  as 
 very  vague  and  shadowy.  Dorner  does  not  differ  from  him  except  on 
 points  ludicrously  small,  wliile  he  agrees  with  him  in  full  over  against 
 his  opponents.  Dorner  objects  to  the  forms  in  the  Order  for  ordina- 
 tion as  Anglican  and  not  German — as  involving  a  third  sacrament  and 
 not  a  proper  harmony  with  Protestantism.  Nevin  freely  admitted  that 
 his  theology  was  Anglican  rather  than  German  in  finding  Christianity 
 embodied  in  the  creeds.  (This  was  a  different  claim  from  that  he 
 formerly  made,  for  he  had  represented  that  he  stood  for  German  and 
 Continental  thought. — A.)  He  charges  Dorner  with  being  contradictory, 
 for  he  makes  the  atonement  a  deeper  principle  than  the  life  of  the  Sou 
 of  God,  in  and  through  whom  we  receive  the  atonement.  This  is  con- 
 tradictory to  Dorner 's  view  in  his  ' '  History  of  Protestant  Doctrine. ' '  He 
 criticises  Dorner  for  not  having  full  sympathy  with  the  Creed  and  the 
 Church-idea.f 
 
 Nevin  also  replies  by  saying  that  to  magnify  the  incarnation  is  to 
 magnify  the  atonement.  He  denied  that  the  Order  obscured  the  atone- 
 ment, as  Dorner  implied,  but  said  it  magnified  it  by  putting  it  into  right 
 relations.  He  then  takes  up  Dorner 's  objections  to  the  forms  for  bap- 
 tism, confession  and  absolution  in  the  Order,  saying  Dorner  is  ruled  by 
 too  low  a  view  of  the  ministry.  Dorner  had  said  that  he  makes  the 
 ordination  a  sacrament.     This  he  denies  in  the  sense  that  Dorner  uses 
 
 *An  Erastian  is  one  who  placed  the  Church  under  the  state  or  united 
 with  the  state,  Avhereas  in  America  the  Church  is  free  from  the  state. 
 
 fLevan,  Messenger,  September  2,  1868,  says  he  does  not  see  why  Dorner 
 makes  everything  of  Miller's  book  on  Mercersburg  Theology  when  Schaff 
 and  Harbaugh  are  forgotten. 
 
474        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 that  ^ord.  Dorner  ajjplies  it  to  the  two  sacraments,  while  he  uses  the 
 word  sacrament  in  a  broader  sense.  He  acknowledged  that  he  disagrees 
 with  Dorner  on  the  ministry,  for  the  continuance  of  the  minstry  is 
 apostolic  succession.  He  then  takes  up  Dorner 's  objection  that  the 
 reigning  spirit  of  the  Order  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  genius  of  the 
 Evangelical  Church  and  grants  that  they  differ  there,  Dorner  making 
 the  subjective  act  of  faith  fundamental,  while  he  makes  the  objective. 
 Dorner  said  that  Mercersburg  theology,  according  to  Miller,  made  faith, 
 not  to  be  faith  in  personal  salvation  in  Christ,  but  only  faith  in  ob- 
 jective Christianity  (the  Church).  Nevin  says  that  Christ's  person  and 
 presence  is  the  ground  of  all  subjective  Christianity, — faith  in  its  last 
 and  deepest  sense  is  simply  submission  to  such  objective  authority. 
 Dorner 's  view  allows  no  room  for  the  Church. 
 
 Prof.  Bernard  Wolff  tries  to  mollify  the  heat  of  the  discussion  by  say- 
 ing that  Dorner  speaks  approvingly  of  Nevin  on  several  points,  but 
 grants  that  Nevin  made  a  mistake  when  he  quoted  Dorner  as  a  supporter 
 of  his  views  at  the  General  Synod.  Nevin  had  claimed  that  Dorner 
 and  Ullman  supported  his  views  on  Christology  and  nothing  more.  He 
 tries  to  show  that  Dorner  agreed  with  Nevin  on  his  Christology,  but  dif- 
 fered from  him  on  the  Church.* 
 
 Miller  also  replied  to  Dorner,  stating  the  differences  between  Nevin 's 
 point  of  view  and  his  own.  In  the  controversy  between  faith  and  reason, 
 faith  is  the  organ  or  faculty  by  which  absolute  certainty  is  reached  in 
 reference  to  anything.  Christ  is  the  ultimate  objective  ground,  and  faith 
 is  the  ultimate  subjective  ground  for  all  truth.  Nevin  starts  out  with 
 Christian  faith,  while  Miller  claims  he  goes  one  step  back  of  this.  He 
 proceeds  from  a  more  general  idea  of  faith  as  it  underlies  and  condi- 
 tions Christian  faith  itself.  Miller  found  the  mental  difference  between 
 Modern  and  Mercersburg  Theology  to  be  their  underlying  anthropology, 
 to  which  Christology  and  other  points  of  difference  referred.  Nevin, 
 on  the  other  hand,  emphasized  the  Christological  side.  Dorner  based  the 
 certainty  of  objective  truth  on  personal  faith;  and  all  else  is  a  blind 
 acceptance  of  Church  authority.  Miller  says  the  Bible  is  higher  ground 
 than  any  man's  personal  experience.  He  charges  Dorner 's  position  with 
 having  a  demoralizing  effect  and  leading  to  irreconcilable  confusion. 
 Miller  uses  faith  in  the  wide  sense  as  underlying,  conscious,  personal 
 faith  etc.  Mercersburg  does  not  aim  to  repristinate  hierarchy,  but  to 
 maintain  the  right  of  the  Church  to  govern  itself.  Dorner  had  ob- 
 jected to  his  views  on  the  ministry.  He  says  the  ministry  is  not  a  mere 
 witness  of  the  truth  but  carries  with  it  an  objective  force  and  authority, 
 which  binds  and  loosens  the  conscience.  The  official  acts  of  an  execu- 
 tive officer  are  objective  acts  and  are  acts  of  God  and  the  whole  Church. 
 It  is  assumed  that  Mercersburg  theology  is  opposed  to  the  experimental 
 because  it  refuses  to  make  it  the  supreme  authority.     To  objective  and 
 
 *Nevin's  replies  to  Dorner  continue  till  October  21,  1868. 
 
General  Synod  of  1869.  475 
 
 subjective  there  must  be  added  a  tliird,  the  life  of  Christ.  Mercers- 
 hurg  has  never  denounced  the  religious  experience  that  precedes  religious 
 education,  but  it  has  refused  to  make  it  the  basis.  He  charges  Corner 
 with  saying  that  Church  authority  is  a  dogmatic  error, — that  the  Church 
 is  not  the  body  of  Christ. 
 
 J.  H.  Good*  then  takes  a  part  in  the  discussion,  re-stating  Dorner's 
 differences  from  Nevin  and  adds,  ' '  Mercersburg  theology  is  not  clear. 
 But  it  is  clear  that  it  is  not  the  German  Evangelical  theology  of  Dorner 
 or  Ullman.  If  Dorner,  who  is  a  half  Lutheran,  could  find  so  much 
 fault  with  Mercersburg  theology,  how  much  more  should  we,  who  are 
 Reformed.  If  Nevin  refused  to  accept  the  finished  processes  of  German 
 theology,  so  also  we  can  refuse  to  accept  the  unfinished  processes  of 
 Mercersburg  theology  because  neither  Miller  nor  Eussell  give  it  com- 
 plete." He  declares  that  Dorner's  history  of  the  liturgical  controversy 
 in  our  Church  was  wonderfully  complete  and  reliable  for  a  foreigner. 
 He  says  Nevin  never  wrought  out  his  system,  for  only  he  claims  to  give  the 
 principles  of  it,  but  it  is  in  great  confusion,  at  one  time  the  incarnation, 
 at  another  the  divine-human  Christ,  again  the  person  of  Christ,  again 
 Christ  himself.  The  Protestant  world  is  tolerably  well  acquainted  with 
 the  principle  of  Protestantism,  but  what  is  the  principle  of  Nevinism. 
 
 Bomberger,  in  the  Eeformed  Church  Monthhi,  not  only  published 
 Dorner's  pamphlet  as  against  Nevin  but  also  took  up  his  doctrinal 
 points  against  Nevin  at  length.f 
 
 Section  9.    The  High-Church  Movement,  • 
 
 In  the  Wdchter  {The  Watchman)  the  German  Church 
 paper  of  our  Western  Church,  Ruetenik,  the  editor,  gave  a 
 trenchant  article  on  "The  High-Church  Movement."  He  de- 
 scribed it  as  having  risen  in  the  nineteenth  century  in  tliree 
 coimtries,  in  England  under  Pusey,  in  Germany  under  Klie- 
 forth  (where  Reformed  districts  were  Lutheranized  by  the  in- 
 troduction of  responses  and  altar  services),  and  in  America 
 under  Nevinism.  High-churchism  claims  to  be  Christocentric, 
 but  Bishop  IMcIlvaine,  an  Episcopalian  low-churchman,  claims 
 to  be  as  Christocentric  as  Nevin.  Tlie  high-church  movement 
 makes  the  incarnation  central  rather  than  Christ's  death.  He 
 quotes  the  67th  answer  of  our  Catechism  against  the  incarna- 
 tion being  central,  because  it  says  the  whole  of  salvation  de- 
 pends on  the  cross.  It  gives  no  place  for  the  invisible  Church, 
 as  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  (answer  54)  does.  j 
 
 *Chris1ian  World,  August  27.  ^ 
 
 •j-See  Eeformed  Church  Monthhi,  1868,  pages  456  and  501. 
 
476        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Nevin  attacks  this  article,*  but  in  doing  so  he  does  not  trans- 
 late its  title  right.  Its  heading  in  German  was  "Th*  High- 
 Church  JNIovement"  (Hochkirchliehe  Bewegung),  but  Nevin 
 leaves  out  the  "high"  and  translates  it  "The  Church  Move- 
 ment." 
 
 Nevin  denies  that  the  Order  of  Worsliip  lays  no  stress  on  the  atone- 
 ment of  Christ,  as  Ruetenik  declared.  This  is  not  done  in  the  way  that  is 
 called  "the  blood  theology,"  but  by  imbuing  the  service  with  the  sense 
 of  atonement  as  a  personal  fact.  Ruetenik  not  only  wrongs  the  incarna- 
 tion but  the  atonement  also;  for  he  reduced  the  atonement  to  a  mere 
 figure  or  device.  The  Gospel  becomes,  according  to  him,  mere  meta- 
 physical theory  and  loses  its  historical  character.  If  the  atonement  is 
 sundered  from  the  life  of  Christ  it  amounts  to  nothing.  (Here  Nevin 
 is  attacking  a  man  of  straw  again,  for  his  opponents  never  severed 
 the  atonement  from  the  incarnation. — A.)  The  order  of  our  faith  is  the 
 mediator  first  and  then  mediation.  Nevin  also  turns  to  the  Creed  again. 
 The  order  of  our  faith  in  the  Creed  is  not  a-posteriori  induction  from  the 
 facts  of  the  Church,  but  a-priori  coming  to  us  before  all  facts,  from  tlie 
 person  of  Christ  himself. 
 
 Bomberger  then  takes  up  this  controversy  in  the  Eeformed  Church 
 Monthly. ^  Nevin,  he  says,  charges  his  opponents  with  views  they  never 
 held.  Thus  Bomberger  denied  any  separation  between  Christ 's  person 
 and  work  and  proves  it  from  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  and  other  Re- 
 formed creeds.  He  charges  Nevin  with  pantheism,  with  holding,  in 
 his  idea  of  a  generic  race  of  the  redeemed,  to  an  emanation  of  the  sub- 
 stance of  the  living  Word.  He  charges  Nevin  with  changing  the  doctrine 
 of  justification.  Man  is  justified  not  by  Christ's  merits  but,  according 
 to  Nevin,  by  virtue  of  his  organic  conjunction  with  the  incarnation  by 
 baptism  as  the  organic  chaiintd  through  the  intervention  of  the  sacra- 
 mental order. 
 
 y.  W.  Kremer  also  has  an  article  in  the  Eeformed  Church  Monthlif 
 on  Ruetenik 's  article,  showing  that  the  atonement  was  central  and  that 
 the  invisible  Churcli  was  not  identical  with  the  visible,  as  Nevin  held. 
 As  proof  of  the  first,  he  quotes  answers  67  and  81  of  our  Catechism. 
 In  the  Order  of  Worship  the  atonement  is  placed  secondary.  Thus  for- 
 giveness is  not  asked  for  the  sake  of  the  holy  suffering  of  Christ  but 
 simply  for  ' '  the  sake  of  thy  dear  Son. ' '  p]ven  in  the  prayer  that  pre- 
 cedes the  distribution  of  the  elements  at  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  death 
 of  Christ  on  the  cross  is  not  mentioned,  but  stress  is  laid  on  the  com- 
 munication of  Christ's  life.  There  his  body  is  never  spoken  of  as 
 "broken"  or  his  blood  as  "shed,"  which  would  bring  out  prominentl.y 
 
 *Mef<Renger,  April  8,  1868. 
 11868,  page  a02. 
 
General  Synod  of  1869.  477 
 
 the  thought  of  atonement.  The  communication  of  Christ's  life  is  men- 
 tioned five  times  in  the  communion  services  and  all  the  while  his  death  is 
 minimized.  As  to  the  second  point,  answer  54  of  our  catechism  proves 
 that  there  is  an  invisible  Church.  Again,  the  Order  of  Worship  never 
 speaks  of  the  necessity  of  repentance  as  related  to  baptism. 
 
 Section  10.     Constitutional  High-Churchism  or  Church 
 
 Authority. 
 
 We  have  been  following  the  history  of  the  controversy 
 mainl}'  along  the  lines  of  doctrine  and  liturgy  thus  far.  But 
 it  is  evident  by  this  time  that  the  constitutional  phases  of  the 
 controversy  are  becoming  more  and  more  prominent.  The 
 original  form  of  our  Church  government  in  this  country  was 
 democratic  Presbyterian,  that  is  with  large  power  and  liberty 
 for  the  congregations.  Under  the  coetus  it  rarely  dared  to  dis- 
 cipline congregations — only  once  if  we  remember  rightly,  in 
 the  case  of  Boehm's  church,  for  accepting  Weikel,  an  inde- 
 pendent minister.  The  congregations  evidently  had  great 
 power  in  the  coetus.  The  Mercersburg  theology,  on  the  other 
 hand,  with  its  high  views  of  the  Church,  brought  in  the  oppo- 
 site theory, — the  authoritj'"  of  the  Church  in  its  upper  courts 
 and  of  the  ministry  over  congregations  and  members.  The 
 magna  charta  of  these  new  views  of  church  government  was 
 Harbaugh's  article  in  the  Mercersburg  Revieiv  (1860)  on  "Re- 
 formed Synods,"  which,  however,  did  not  produce  practical 
 results  until  this  later  period.  The  sj'nod,  he  said,  is  the  high-  \ 
 est  earthly  authority, — the  final  judge  of  error  in  doctrine  and 
 conduct.  Classis  can  only  have  such  power  as  the  synod  gives 
 them,  and  all  their  acts  are  subject  to  the  review  of  the  synod. 
 Consistories  have  only  such  power  as  the  classes  give  them. 
 The  synod  over  the  classis,  the  classis  over  the  consistory,  the 
 consistory  over  the  members.  (This  is  a  very  simple  and  beau- 
 tiful order  of  Church  government,  but  it  was  not  Reformed. 
 They  made  Church  authority  descend  from  above  down, 
 whereas  historically  the  old  Reformed  custom  has  been  from 
 below  up. — A.)  Gerhart  follows  these  views  also,  stating  that 
 a  minister  is  the  bearer  of  a  supernatural  gift  received  from 
 Christ  by  ordination.    For  saying  that  he  is  not  to  consult  the 
 
478         History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 people  as  to  the  matter  and  manner  of  prayer,  S.  W.  attacks 
 him  as  an  Episcopalian.  Rev.  T.  G.  Apple  also  takes  the  same 
 positions  in  some  of  his  articles  as  in  Mcrccrsburg  Review, 
 1868. 
 
 To  this  view,  Dr.  Greding  replies  in  the  Wdcliter*  denying 
 any  such  view  of  Church  government  and  declaring  that 
 the  old  Reformed  view  was  the  opposite, — that  the  congrega- 
 tion came  historically  and  logically  before  any  of  the  upper 
 courts  and  that  the  upper  courts  have  only  such  authority 
 as  is  delegated  by  the  lower  courts  to  them.  In  those  things 
 the  latter  are  supreme,  but  as  to  others  undelegated,  the  lower 
 court  retains  its  jurisdiction.  The  view  of  ]\Tercersburg  grew 
 out  of  their  high  doctrine  of  the  Church  and  of  the  ministers 
 as  priests,  which  elevated  them  above  the  people. 
 
 HarbauKli  lia<l  quoteil  certain  Scripture  proofs  for  his  view,  which 
 Greding  takes  up  and  answers  one  by  one.  Thus  he  had  quoted  Matt.  18: 
 18-19:  "Whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven  and 
 whatsoever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven,"  to  prove 
 the  authority  of  the  Church  that  whatsoever  it  bound  here  was  bound 
 in  heaven  and  loosed  here,  was  loosed  in  heaven.  But  how  about  Luther, 
 asks  Greding.  He  was  excommunicated  by  the  Church, — and  Huss. 
 "Were  they  not  in  heaven?  According  to  the  Mercersburg  view  the  ar- 
 bitrary assumption  is  made  that  Church  and  synod  coincide.  The  synod 
 is  the  Church.  But  if  that  be  true,  how  would  it  work  out.  Mercers- 
 burg would  say  to  the  Philippian  jailor  at  his  conversion,  "Connect 
 yourself  with  the  synod ' '  instead  of  ' '  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. ' ' 
 
 Again,  Harbaugh  claimed  that  the  meeting  of  the  Apostles  in  the  Acts 
 was  a  synod.  But  it  was  not.  Church  history  shows  tiiat  only  at  the 
 end  of  the  second  century  and  the  beginning  of  the  third  century  did 
 synods  appear,  and  they  appeared  first  in  Asia  Minor,  not  at  Jerusalem. 
 The  Catholic  cnmicils  were  not  synods  because  there  were  no  laymen 
 present  in  thorn  as  members.  At  the  Catholic  council  of  Trent  the  Holy 
 Spirit  came  down  on  them  not  from  above  but  from  the  city  of  Rome, 
 where  the  pope  held  control  of  it. — not  in  the  form  of  a  dove  but  in 
 that  of  a  mail  bag.  Often  the  Church  stood  over  against  the  synod. 
 The  Mercersburg  view  makes  the  distinction  between  a  Church  and  a 
 sect,  to  be  that  the  former  has  synods,  the  latter  not.  But  this  will  not 
 hold,  for  abroad  on  the  Continent  there  is  often  no  free  action  of  synods 
 as   the   Church   is   united   to   the   state.      In    New   Testament   the   word 
 
 *His  article  is  translated  into  English  in  the  Reformed  Church  Monthly 
 of  1868,  page  185. 
 
General  Synod  op  1869.  479 
 
 '"ecclesia"  does  not  mean  Church,  but  congregation, — the  assembled 
 people  of  God.  If  it  meant  the  same  as  synod,  would  the  Mercersburg 
 men  give  the  baptized  children  (who  are  members  of  the  Church  accord- 
 ing to  Mercersburg  theory)  a  seat  in  the  synod.  Certainly  not.  They 
 would  likely  be  heard,  he  humorously  says,  but  certainly  they  would  not 
 be  given  a  vote.  "If  " ecclesia ' '  were  the  same  as  ' '  sunesis, ' '  their 
 view  would  be  true.  But  this  is  arbitrary  exegesis.  ' '  Christ  is  against 
 their  view  of  excommunication,  for  he  received  sinners  after  they  were 
 ecclesiastically  ostracized. 
 
 In  the  case  of  Matthias'  election,  that  meeting  was  not  a  synod  as 
 Harbaugh  claims.  Only  120  persons  were  present,  not  one-fourth  part 
 of  the  500  who  were  members  of  the  Church.  But  the  reply  is  made 
 they  represented  the  500.  How  do  you  know.  If  they  were  delegates, 
 then  there  were  woman-delegates,  for  Mary  is  among  them.  (Mercers- 
 burg did  not  believe  in  woman-delegates. — A.)  The  phrase  "we  and 
 us"  in  Peter's  speech  does  not  look  as  if  they  were  there  as  delegates  in 
 an  official  sense.  The  argument  of  Mercersburg  proves  too  much,  for  ac- 
 cording to  it  there  would  be  not  twelve  Apostles  but  121,  if  Paul  were 
 included. 
 
 Again,  the  meeting  in  Acts  6:  1-7,  ns  referred  to  by  Harbaugh,  is 
 not  a  synod.  Placing  this  equal  to  the  apostolic  college  is  sheer  as- 
 sumption. In  verses  2  and  5  they  create  an  office  but  do  not  act  with- 
 out the  congregation.  Polanus  the  Eeformed  theologian,  says,  "As 
 pastors,  the  Apostles  have  successors  but  as  Apostles  they  have  none. ' ' 
 
 In  Acts  16 :  5,  as  to  the  apostolic  council,  which  Harbaugh  quotes  for 
 the  authority  of  the  synod,  this  resembles  a  synod  more  than  the  two 
 other  cases  quoted  above;  for  in  it  we  have  two  congregations, — but  a  very 
 small  number  when  we  remember  the  number  of  Christian  congregations  at 
 that  time.  Does  a  body  composed  of  leaders  and  members  of  one  congre- 
 gation and  delegates  from  another  congregation  as  here  compose  a  synod? 
 No.  According  to  verses  12  and  22,  at  the  request  of  the  congregations  of 
 Antioch,  they  call  a  meeting  at  Jerusalem  (they  do  not  seem  to  have 
 called  it  arbitrarily  of  their  own  will).  Again,  the  account  does  not  say 
 the  delegates  from  Antioch  were  elders,  such  as  a  synod  requires.  Also 
 the  congregation  from  Jerusalem  took  separate  part  (verse  24).  The 
 synod  represented  only  two  congregations,  a  minority  of  the  Christian 
 congregations.  No  elders  are  said  to  be  present.  In  this  synod  the 
 congregation  stands  first  and  this  synod  owed  its  existence  to  the  call  of 
 a  congregation.  Therefore  the  Church  government  rests  on  the  congrega- 
 tion and  builds  up  from  below  and  not  from  above  down. 
 
 Again,  synods,  if  infallible,  must  not  contradict  one  another.  But 
 they  have  done  so  in  Church  history.  Our  own  Eastern  synod  had  con- 
 tradicted its  action.  It  recalled  its  first  resolution  about  the  intro- 
 duction of  Schaff's  hymn  book  because  it  offended  against  the  order 
 of  the  Church.    (We  might  also  add  that  the  General  Synod  of  1905  re- 
 
480         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 called  the  action  of  our  General  Synod  of  1902  about  that  body  being  re- 
 sponsible for  the  sentiments  uttered  by  the  president  in  the  opening  ser- 
 mon.— A.) 
 
 Thus  the  Bible  does  not  prove  their  high  views  of  the  power  of 
 synods.  The  Scripture  they  quote  is  not  in  their  favor  but  against  them. 
 But  now  Church  history  joins  with  Scripture  against  them.  Take  the 
 French  Eeformed  Church.  In  it  first  came  the  congregations  and  out 
 of  them  finally  grew  the  synod.  (We  might  add  that  this  was  the  order 
 of  our  Church  in  America.  First  came  the  congregations  formed  from 
 1725  on.  Then  a  number  of  these  congregations  in  1747  united  to  form 
 a  higher  court,  a  coetus.  This  coetus  was  not  a  synod,  as  the  adherents 
 of  the  Mercersburg  theolog;^^  have  claimed.  It  was  not  even  a  classis, 
 for  it  was  amenable  to  a  classis  (the  classis  of  Amsterdam)  and  also  to 
 a  committee  of  the  Holland  synods,  the  deputies  of  Holland.  It  was 
 only  a  committee  of  high  power,  not  even  a  classis.  Later,  in  1793, 
 this  coetus  grew  into  a  synod.  Thus  the  growth  of  our  Church  in 
 America  came  from  below  up,  from  the  congregation  through  the  coetus 
 to  a  synod.  This  is  historical  development,  and  Mercersburg  is  com- 
 mitted to  that  as  a  principle. — A.)  When  the  Ohio  synod  changed  itself 
 from  a  classis  into  a  synod  it  was  insubordinate  to  the  Kastern  synod. 
 But  its  members  were  not  ex-communicated,  loosed  from  heaven  for  it,  as 
 Mercersburg  claims.  The  high-church  view  is  an  application  of  Cyprian 's 
 view  that  bishops  are  supreme  over  councils.  But  Heidegger,  one  of  the 
 greatest  Reformed  theologians,  says  "Church  government  is  not  mon- 
 archical, aristocratic  or  democratic,  but  simply  a  service  and  a  steward- 
 ship. ' ' 
 
 Again,  the  Church  constitution  is  against  Mercersburg  as  well  as  the 
 Bible  and  Church  history.  Take  article  25:  "A  higiier  judiciary  shall 
 have  power  to  act  only  in  cases  that  could  not  be  determined  by  a 
 lower."  Also  article  51  secures  the  rights  of  the  lower  judicatory 
 against  the  higher.  "The  classis  shall  take  cognizance  of  whatever  con- 
 cerns the  welfare  of  the  congregations  committed  to  their  care  and  which 
 does  not  come  witliin  the  power  of  the  consistory."  Articles  22  and  40, 
 III  also  give  the  rigid  to  the  congregation  to  buy  j)rojierty  and  choose 
 the  consistory.* 
 
 Thus  the  constitution  joins  with  the  Bible  and  Church  history  against 
 the  high  views  of  Mercersburg.  (If  the  ('hurch  and  the  synod  are  the 
 same,  then  the  verse  "Tell  it  to  Ihc  Church"  woidd  read  "Tell  it  to  the 
 synod.")  Kbrard  says  that  our  Church  government  rises  from  below 
 from  the  basis  of  consistories.f 
 
 *The  best  description  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Church  gov- 
 ernment of  the  Reformed  is  found  in  Hundeshagen,  "  Beitrage  zur  Kirch- 
 enverfassungsgeschichte  und  Kirchenpolitik. " 
 
 fSee  his  Dogmatics,  i^age  463. 
 
General  Synod  of  1869.  481 
 
 We  shall  now  have  an  illustration  of  the  way  in  which  these 
 high-church  views  of  church  government  were  applied  in  1868, 
 when  Lancaster  classis  took  action. 
 
 We  have  seen  that  the  Provisional  liturgy  had  been  used  in 
 the  congregation  in  Lancaster  before  any  other  Church  and 
 that  it  had  produced  trouble.  When  the  Order  was  published, 
 it  was  used  by  the  pastor,  Rev.  A.  H.  Kremer,  for  three  years, 
 but  the  congregation  wanted  an  action  of  the  congregation 
 about  it.  The  pastor  resisted  this,  claiming  that  by  virtue 
 of  his  priestl}^  office  as  a  minister,  he  had  the  right  to  decide 
 on  the  manner  of  the  worship  of  the  congregation.  Finally  a 
 consistory  was  elected-  that  was  determined  to  put  out  the 
 Order  and  it  ordered  the  discontinuance  of  its  use.  The  ac- 
 tion of  the  consistory'  at  its  meeting  February  17  was  as  fol- 
 lows : 
 
 "Whereas,  Great  dissatisfaction  exists  among  the  mem- 
 bers of  the  Church  in  regard  to  the  use  of  the  liturgy  in  the 
 Church,  it  is 
 
 ^'Resolved,  That  the  use  of  it  hy  the  pastor  be  dispensed 
 with." 
 
 Elders  Zahn  and  Roth  appealed  from  this  to  Lancaster 
 classis  on  the  ground  that  the  consistory  had  no  control  in 
 the  premises, — that  the  control  of  the  worship  belonged  to 
 the  spiritual  council  and  not  to  the  consistory  and  also  because 
 the  trustees  had  participated  in  the  action. 
 
 That  classis  had  a  special  meeting  April  14,  1868,  and  the 
 report  of  the  case  came  before  the  classis  at  its  meeting 
 May  22.  Zahn  argued  before  classis  for  the  appellants  and 
 Welchans  for  the  consistory.  Classis  sustained  the  appellants 
 by  a  vote  of  14-4.  Classis  appointed  a  committee,  with  Ger- 
 hart  as  chairman  to  formulate  its  judgment  in  the  case.  This 
 judgment  declared  that  the  consistory  had  not  the  authority  to 
 direct  the  worship  of  the  sanctuary — "that  that  authority  be- 
 longs to  the  ordained  minister  of  the  AVord."  The  consistory 
 has  no  right  to  forbid  the  minister  to  use  the  liturgy.  It  has 
 the  right  to  request  him,  but  not  to  command, — the  decision 
 
482         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 rests  with  him.  The  General  Synod  has  authorized  pastors  to 
 use  the  Order  (what  a  perversion  of  the  action  of  the  General 
 S3'nod  of  1866  and  even  of  their  own  interpretation  of  it  as 
 given  by  the  high-church  leaders  there. — A.)  and  the  Eastern 
 synod  endorsed  the  Order.  Lancaster  classis  has  already 
 passed  resolutions  recommending  the  book.  It  remains  for 
 the  pastor  alone  to  determine  in  what  way,  manner  or  extent 
 it  is  to  be  done.  Any  interference  by  any  church  court  is  a 
 violation  of  order.  If  the  pastor  is  imprudent,  the  consistory 
 has  the  right  to  complain  against  him  and  they  advised  the 
 consistory  of  Lancaster  to  enter  complaint  against  their 
 pastor  if  they  so  desired.  If  they  made  complaint,  classis  will 
 not  hesitate  to  interpose  its  authority.  The  reply  was  made  to 
 him,  how  can  classis  interpose  its  authority  when  he  says  in 
 the  report  it  has  no  authority  to  interpose, — that  all  authority 
 in  the  matter  belongs  to  the  General  Synod. 
 
 The  Beformed  Church  Monthhj  says  that  at  this  meeting  of  classis, 
 Dr.  Nevin  ruled  supreme.  His  motions  settled  all  disputes  and  his 
 arguments  gave  color  to  all  action.  It  adds,  "At  the  vote  on  the  judg- 
 men  of  classis*  only  three  elders  voted  for  it.  Rev.  Mr.  Graeff  was 
 brought  all  the  way  from  Akron,  O.,  to  help  it  through.  Gerhart  did 
 not  ask  for  his  dismissal  to  Mereersburg  classis  until  after  the  vote  was 
 taken.  Every  man  was  needed  to  carry  this  high-handed  procedure 
 through.f 
 
 GoodJ  severely  criticises  this  action  of  Lancaster  classis.  He  said  that 
 the  action  of  the  General  Synod  of  1866  on  the  liturgy  would  have  been 
 defeated,  if  it  had  been  known  that  such  an  interpretation  would  be  put 
 on  the  words  ' '  an  order  of  worship  suitable  to  be  used. ' '  The  speeches  of 
 Gans,  Apple,  Steinmetz,  Russell  and  Gerhart  were  then  against  any  such 
 interpretation.  Gans  then  said:  "We  want  no  authority  to  go  with  the 
 book.  No  endorsement  is  sought."  Gerhart  then  said:  "The  Order 
 must  be  submitted  to  the  Churches.  If  it  meets  their  wants  it  will  be 
 accepted  and  stay  there;  if  not,  it  will  be  thrown  off  by  them."  Yet 
 now  Gerhart  does  not  let  the  Church  through  the  consistory  take  action 
 on  it.  Good  also  quoted  the  constitution  to  prove  that  article  44 
 recognized  the  full  right  of  the  people  in  such  matters.  The  congrega- 
 tion existed  before  the  Church-courts,  and  General  Synod  has  no  power 
 
 *This  vote  was  14-10,  Rev.  Messrs.  Hertz,  Fritchoy,  Eckert  and  seven 
 elders  voting  against  it. 
 
 jBeformed.  Church  Hlonthl/i,  1868,  page  41.3. 
 XReformed  Church  Monthly,  1868,  page  441. 
 
General  Synod  of  1860.  483 
 
 not  granted  by  them,  and  this  power  is  not  specially  mentioned  as  being 
 granted  by  them  to  General  Synod.  Again  article  40  makes  the  minister 
 only  a  member  of  the  spiritual  council  as  an  elder.  He  is  not  above  the 
 rest  and  has  no  supreme  authority  on  worship.  Again,  the  spiritual 
 council  is  for  discipline,  not  for  worship  (Art.  11,  111,  107). 
 
 S.  W.,  in  Beformed  Church  Monthly,  1868,  says  of  this  action:  The 
 classis  of  Lancaster  by  this  action  forestalled  and  cut  off  every  resource 
 of  the  constitution.  We  are  told,  he  says,  to  send  a  delegate  to  classis 
 and  General  Synod,  but  it  is  certain  he  never  would  be  elected  to  General 
 Synod.  We  are  reminded  of  our  constitutional  prerogative  of  preferring 
 charges  against  Dr.  Kramer.  But  classis  said  he  did  right, — that  the 
 spiritual  council  had  no  jurisdiction,  that  nobody  had,  outside  of  the 
 General  Synod,  except  the  pastor  and  from  his  decision  there  was  no 
 appeal.  At  the  synod  of  1807  the  "voice  of  the  synod  was  the  voice 
 of  God."  In  Harrisburg,  when  a  majority  of  the  consistory  is  favor- 
 able to  the  Order,  they  have  jurisdiction;  but  not  here,  because  the 
 consistory  is  against  them.  Lancaster  classis  now  says  that  it  has  no 
 jurisdiction — no  one  has  but  the  General  Synod, — and  yet  Lancaster 
 classis  some  time  before  passed  a  resolution  favorable  to  the  Order. 
 How  could  it  do  that  if,  as  it  now  says,  it  has  no  jurisdiction. 
 
 This  constitutional  controversy  about  the  use  of  the  Order  was  con- 
 tinued the  next  year.  Dr.  Gerhart  in  1869  has  an  article  on  ' '  Eef  ormed 
 Church  Government. ' '  He  says  ' '  The  right  of  the  minister  is  not  given 
 by  the  people.  They  may  elect,  but  that  does  not  constitute  him  a 
 minister.  His  office  is  divine,  because  it  comes  from  Christ,  who  bestows 
 supernatural  powers  by  the  laying  on  of  hands.  He  is  the  bearer  of 
 supernatural  gift,  received  from  Christ  at  ordination.  He  must  disregard 
 public  sentiment  about  the  administration  of  the  sacrament.  Nor  is  he 
 allowed  to  consult  the  people  as  to  the  matter  and  manner  of  public 
 prayer.  The  people  can  not  determine  what  he  shall  pray  for  or  how 
 he  shall  pray.  So,  in  regard  to  discipline,  the  opinion  of  the  people  is 
 not  his  criterion.  Still  he  is  not  irresponsible.  But  the  limitation  comes 
 not  from  below  but  from  above — from  the  Church  through  her  proper 
 organ.  Answering  to  the  ministers'  rights  are  the  laymen's  duties. 
 He  owes  duties  to  himself,  the  Church,  the  state,  the  family  and  God. 
 Rights  and  duties  mutually  condition  each  other.  But  the  rights  of  the 
 layman  are  not  those  of  the  minister.     The  minister  is  above  the  layman. 
 
 For  these  high  views  of  the  ministry  and  Church  government,  S.  W. 
 attacks  Gerhart  in  the  Christian  World,  saying  his  Church  government 
 is  Episcopal, — ' '  the  voice  of  the  synod  is  the  voice  of  God. ' '  The 
 pastor  says  "I  am  your  pastor  and  your  master."  ^But  the  Reformed 
 Church  always  consults  the  views  of  the  laity.  We  are  democratic,  be- 
 lieving in  a  republican  form  of  government.  Our  constitution  is  demo- 
 cratic. Elders  are  to  take  heed  of  ministers.  Discipline  belongs  to  the 
 elders,  not  to  the  minister  alone.     Gerhart  denies  strict  authority  to  the 
 
484         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 spiritual  eoiiucil  anil  gives  it  all  tn  the  niiuister.  The  minister  has  the 
 right  to  conduct  the  worship  of  God.  The  consistory  at  Lancaster  had 
 no  rights.  The  pastor  had  the  right  to  use  the  book  so  as  to  test  its  suit- 
 ableness. The  classis  could  not  interfere,  only  the  General  Synod.  S.  W. 
 said  he  had  hoped  the  organization  of  the  General  Synod  would  give  some 
 centre  of  unity  and  correct  errors.  But  the  General  Synod  has  not  come 
 up  to  the  ideal.  Instead  of  a  centre  of  unity,  it  is  a  theatre  of  strife.  It 
 is  the  liturgy  that  causes  strife. 
 
 Section  11.     The  Eastern  Synod  of  1868. 
 
 A  special  meeting  of  the  Eastern  synod  was  held  Mar.  3,  1868, 
 to  elect  a  professor  in  the  place  of  Dr.  Harbaugh  (deceased). 
 At  this  sA^nod  an  nnldnd  act  was  done  by  synod  which  only 
 made  the  breach  wider  between  the  two  parties  and  which 
 showed  its  determination  to  heap  indignity  on  Dr.  Bomberger, 
 the  leader  of  the  Old  Reformed  party.  A  committee  was  ap- 
 pointed by  the  synod  to  propose  a  candidate.  When  it  re- 
 ported only  a  single  name,  that  of  E.  V.  Gerhart,  objection 
 w^as  raised  by  Bomberger  and  others,  as  the  early  custom  of 
 the  synod  had  been  to  have  several  candidates  placed  in  nomi- 
 nation by  the  synod.  The  report  was  then  recommitted  to  the 
 committee  to  add  another  name.  (Everything,  here,  must  be 
 churchly.)  Bomberger  and  his  friends  wanted  tliem  to  nomi- 
 nate Dr.  Bausman.  The  synod,  however,  decich^d  that  no 
 name  could  be  voted  for  luiless  it  were  put  in  nomination  by 
 the  committee  appointed  by  the  synod  for  that  purpose.* 
 When  the  nominating  committee  returned,  it  reported  Bom- 
 berger as  the  other  nominee.  Bomberger  refused  the  nomi- 
 nation, for  he  knew  he  would  not  be  elected  by  a  synod  com- 
 posed so  largely  of  his  opponents.  He  very  properly  begged 
 synod  to  shield  him  from  such  insult  and  injury.  He  desired 
 to  nominate  Bausman 's  name  instead  of  his  own.  But  S.  R. 
 Fisher  and  Leberman  declared  themselves  authorized  by  Bans- 
 man  not  to  allow  his  name  to  be  used  at  all.  So,  finally,  Bom- 
 berger's  name  was  permitted  to  be  taken  off  and  Gerhart 's 
 alone  stood  an-d  he  was  elected  professor  of  dogmatics  by  a 
 
 *At  present  the  custom  of  the  Eastern  .synod  seems  to  be  for  .synod  to 
 nominate  directly  and  not  by  a  committoe  (the  very  thing  contended  for 
 by  Bomberger)  as  in  the  recent  elections  of  Eastern  synod. 
 
 i 
 
General  Synod  of  1869.  485 
 
 vote  of  54  to  9.  Boniberger  afterwards  said  in  the  Reformed 
 Church  Monthly  that  those  unwilling  to  vote  for  Gerhart  were 
 not  permitted  to  name  their  candidate.  In  the  Evening  Tele- 
 graph he  expressed  himself  more  severely,  saying  that  such  a 
 refusal  to  nominate  additional  candidates  was  a  most  extra- 
 ordinary procedure,  unknown  even  to  secular  politics  and 
 without  a  precedent  in  the  Church.  The  Evening  Telegraph 
 said  that  the  seminary  was  under  the  control  of  the  liturgical 
 party  and  was  becoming  un-Reformed. 
 
 The  regular  synod  met  at  Hagerstown  October  21.  As  soon 
 as  it  was  opened  for  business,  Callender,  the  retiring  presi- 
 dent, called  attention  to  the  articles  in  the  Reformed  Church 
 Montldy,  of  which  Dr.  Bomberger  was  the  editor,  and 
 in  the  Evening  Telegraph  as  seriously  reflecting  on  the 
 synod's  action  in  the  election  of  Gerhart.  Bomberger  was 
 not  present  at  the  opening  of  the  synod  when  this  came  up, 
 and  Klopp  begged  the  synod  to  defer  action  until  he  arrived. 
 But  synod  was  bent  on  taking  action  and  it  referred  the 
 matter  to  a  committee  composed  of  Russell,  Davis  and  Loos. 
 The  committee  reported  that  the  articles  were  a  libel  on  synod 
 and  that  Bomberger  should  be  required  to  present  a  full  and 
 imequivocal  retraction  in  writing,  so  as  to  purge  himself  of 
 the  offense  to  the  synod.  If  that  were  not  done  by  Saturday 
 at  11  A.  M.^he  would  be  suspended  from  all  the  privileges  of 
 the  synod.  Objection  was  made  to  the  report,  that  it  con- 
 tained every  point  involved  in  a  prosecution  (as  trial,  convic- 
 tion and  sentence)  and  that  Bomberger  ought,  before  convic- 
 tion, to  have  at  least  an  opportunity  for  defense.  Dr.  Bom- 
 berger after  his  arrival  first  offered  a  paper  retracting  the 
 committee's  sense  of  his  language,  but  did  not  declare  that 
 their  sense  was  his  meaning  of  the  articles.  He  refused  to 
 confess  himself  a  liar  (as  they  seemed  to  make  him  to  be) 
 when  he  did  not  feel  that  he  was.  He  claimed  that  he  put  an 
 entirely  different  construction  cm  the  comparison  to  secular 
 politicians  from  what  they  did.  But  as  that  sort  of  re- 
 traction was  not  satisfactory  to  the  sjTiod,  he  finally  withdrew 
 it.  At  the  opening  of  Saturday  afternoon's  session,  he  pro- 
 posed another  form  which  was,  after  considerable  discussion, 
 
486         History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  IT.  S. 
 
 accepted  by  the  synod.  "I  retract  the  publications  deemed 
 objectionable  by  synod  and  regret  that  they  should  have  been 
 made  the  occasion  of  offense. ' ' 
 
 After  the  synod,  Dr.  Bomberger  published*  a  card  saying  that  he  had 
 received  no  notice  of  such  charges  being  preferred  against  him  until  the 
 committee  reported  the  case  to  synod,  lie  complained  that  he  should 
 have  been  convicted  and  sentenced  in  synod  without  having  had  an  im- 
 partial trial  and  a  fair  opportunity  to  prove  his  innocence.  He  was  told 
 that  no  opportunity  would  be  given  to  him.  The  retraction  he  made  was 
 compulsory  and  as  such  had  therefore  only  the  value  of  such  a  forced 
 retraction.  It  was  a  retraction  not  of  the  words  or  of  the  language 
 charged  against  him  as  slanderous,  but  it  was  a  retraction  simply  of 
 their  publication  and  not  of  their  meaning. 
 
 Philadelphia  classis  (May  20,  1869)  passed  an  action  regretting  the 
 proceedings  of  synod  about  Bomberger  in  thus  attacking  him  and  acting 
 on  his  case  without  a  regular  trial.  And  as  the  action  of  synod  was 
 irregular  (as  synod  assumed  original  jurisdiction  in  the  case,  which 
 right  belonged  only  to  the  classis)  and  reflected  on  his  character,  it 
 passed  an  action  that  his  character  was  unsullied  and  irreproachable. 
 The  vote  in  the  classis  was  28-4  (the  latter  being  Fisher,  Cians,  C.  P. 
 Fisher  and  Elder  Brock). 
 
 At  the  General  Synod  of  1869,  Welker  called  attention  to  the  consti- 
 tutional error  of  the  high-churchmen  at  this  synod,  that  synod  erred 
 in  assuming  original  jurisdiction  in  the  case  of  Bomberger,  for  the 
 constitution  makes  a  minister  amenable  to  his  classis.  In  this  he  was 
 right.  Synod,  instead  of  acting  so  hastily,  should  have  referred  his  case 
 to  his  classis,  which  alone  had  original  jurisdiction.  If  dissatisfied 
 with  the  action  of  classis,  it  could  then  have  taken  action  against  him. 
 Bomberger,  too,  would  have  acted  more  constitutionally  if  he  had  left 
 them  go  on  without  making  a  retraction  and  simply  taken  an  appeal 
 to  General  Synod  against  the  synod  for  assuming  original  jurisdiction 
 (as  was  afterward  done  in  1872  in  the  Super  Appeal  case). 
 
 The  action  of  this  synod  against  Dr.  Bomberger  was  the  high-water 
 mark  of  high-church  authority,^ — when  attempted  again  against  Dr. 
 Bomberger  in  1872  it  was  rebuked  l)y  General  Synod  and  then  this  high- 
 church  tendency,  which  gave  all  authority  to  the  syiio(l  and  ignored  the 
 rights  of  the  classis,  was  checked. 
 
 The  liefornicd  Church  Monthli/  also  called  attention  to  another  point, 
 that  nobody  presumes  to  j)unisli  contempt  done  to  a  j)revious  body.  The 
 synod  of  March,  1868,  had  ceased  to  be, — had  been  dissolved  and  the  new 
 synod  was  composed  of  new  delegates  and  was  newly  constituted. 
 
 *Messenger,  November  11. 
 
General  Synod  of  1869.  487 
 
 Another  case  that  came  before  the  synod  which  revealed 
 the  controversy  was  the  appeal  of  certain  members  of  Christ 
 Church,  Phikidelphia,  against  their  pastor,  Rev.  Mr.  Giesy, 
 —or  rather  it  came  up  as  the  complaint  of  Wolff  against 
 the  action  of  Philadelphia  classis  in  that  case.  We  have  seen 
 that  as  the  result  of  Dr.  Giesy 's  reading  the  pastoral  letter  of 
 the  synod  of  1867  to  his  congregation,  a  large  part  of  his 
 members  seceded.  The  classis  of  Philadelphia  had  organized 
 them  into  a  congregation  (Heidelberg)  and  had  directed 
 Christ  Church  to  give  them  their  letters  of  dismissal,  which  it 
 had  before  refused  to  do.  So  Mr.  Wolff'  appealed  to  synod. 
 The  synod  decided  for  Giesy  and  declared  that  Philadelphia 
 classis  had  acted  irregularly  and  unconstitutionally.  It  or- 
 dered Philadelphia  classis  to  revoke  permission  for  the  organi- 
 zation of  a  new  congregation  and  also  to  revoke  its  decision 
 that  Christ  Church  should  give  letters  of  dismissal  to  the  new 
 congregation.  It  prohibited  the  formation  of  the  new  congre- 
 gation within  six  squares  of  Christ  Church.  And  it  directed 
 the  president  of  synod  to  personally  visit  Christ  Church  and 
 represent  to  that  congregation  that  the  synod  stood  ready  to 
 defend  their  pastor  against  the  injury  done  to  him  by  the 
 efforts  of  the  classis.  This  action  of  synod  was  a  logical  one. 
 It  had  ordered  its  pastors  to  read  the  pastoral  letter  to  their 
 congregations  and  it  could  do  nothing  less  than  stand  by  them 
 when  they  did  it.  But  the  synod  was  too  late  to  stop  the 
 organization  of  the  new  congregation,  as  it  had  already  been 
 organized. 
 
 Philadelphia  classis  then  appealed  to  General  Synod  against 
 this  action  of  the  synod  because  the  prohibition  to  six  squares 
 was  irregular  and  unconstitutional,  as  the  organization  of 
 congregations  and  their  boundaries  belonged  properly  to  the 
 classis  and  not  to  the  synod  (Constitution,  Arts.  51  and  67) 
 and  also  because  synod  by  ordering  the  president  of  synod  to 
 come  within  its  dominions  and  interpose,  undertook  to  adjudi- 
 cate matter  not  brought  before  the  synod  by  classis  by  way 
 of  either  appeal  or  complaint. 
 
 At  the  previous  synod,  a  committee  had  been  appointed 
 to  find  out  who  had  published  what  synod  called  a  slanderous 
 
488         History  of  Reformed  CiirRCii  ix  the  U.  S. 
 
 article  in  the  American  Church  Missionary  Register  by  "a 
 minister  of  the  German  Reformed  Church."  That  committee 
 reported  to  this  synod  that  the  editor  declined  to  give  the 
 name  of  the  person.  So  the  synod  passed  an  action  charging 
 the  editor  with  a  breach  of  courtesy.  The  synod  also  elected 
 Gans  (over  T.  G.  Appel)  professor  to  enter  the  seminary  as 
 soon  as  the  endowment  fund  was  raised  to  $30,000. 
 
 Section  12.    The  Iowa  Controversy. 
 
 The  liturgical  controversy  now  enters  a  new  phase.  We 
 have  seen  that  it  had  first  a  dogmatic  phase  in  the  formation 
 of  Mercersburg  theology,  then  a  liturgical  phase  in  the  pro- 
 duction of  the  Provisional  liturgy  and  of  the  Order  of  Wor- 
 ship, then  a  constitutional  phase  in  the  introduction  of  the 
 Order  into  the  individual  congregations.  Now  it  assumes  a 
 missionary  phase.  (A  church  controversy  is  apt  to  ramify 
 into  all  departments  of  the  Church.  Its  last  and  most  serious 
 effect  is  apt  to  be  on  the  practical  activities  of  the  Chureli, 
 which  it  paralyzes.  The  controversy  was  as  to  which  party 
 should  gain  control  of  Iowa  classis  and  with  it  the  far  West. 
 
 The  difference  between  the  two  parties  began  to  show  itself  when 
 Apple*  spoke  of  the  want  of  unity  between  the  East  and  the  West, — 
 that  five-sixths  of  the  missionary  money  came  from  the  East  and  yet 
 the  West  claimed  the  direction  of  the  funds,  and  that  the  president  of  the 
 Home  Mission  board  (Bomberger)  sets  himself  against  the  wishes  of  the 
 East.  Eev.  C.  Cort,  a  strong  high-churchman,  had  gone  West  and  was 
 severely  criticised  for  it.  Williard  had  said  at  the  General  Synod  of 
 1866  that  young  men  from  the  East  made  trouble  in  the  West. 
 
 Higbee  says,  in  the  same  paper,  that  the  East  should  not  allow  the 
 West  to  use  its  funds  against  itself.  The  West  ought  not  to  oppose  the 
 East  when  its  missions  were  supported  by  Eastern  money. 
 
 Bombergerf  replies  to  Apple.  He  says  Apple  made  mis-statements, — 
 that  the  Board  of  Home  Missions  sets  itself  against  the  wishes  of  the 
 Eastern  synod.  He  utterly  denied  it  and  asked  Apple  to  bring  proof  of 
 it.  He  had  never  objected  to  a  man  for  the  mission-field  because  he  had 
 studied  at  Mercersburg.  Instead  of  five-sixths  of  the  mission  money 
 of  the  East  going  West,  less  than  one-eighth,  only  $800,  does.  Can  the 
 West  sell  itself  for  $800  for  theological  aggrandizement.     Apple  also 
 
 *Messenger,  March  10,  1869. 
 ^Messenger,  March  17. 
 
General  Synod  of  1869.  489 
 
 assumes  too  nmch  when  he  says  that  all  the  Eastern  money  came  from 
 Mercersburg  men.  A  part  comes  from  their  opponents  in  the  East. 
 In  his  private  capacity,  he  claimed  liberty,  but  as  president  of  the 
 board,  he  had  none  as  to  the  i^lace  where  the  appointees  of  the  board 
 came  from. 
 
 Apple  replied  that  he  did  not  say  Bomberger  had  so  acted  in  his 
 official  capacity,  but  he  had  heard  him  express  himself  against  Mercers- 
 burg men  for  missions  as  far  back  as  the  General  Synod  of  18(56.  He 
 called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Home  Mission  report  to  the  synod  of 
 1868  was  $2,000  less  than  the  previous  year,  intimating  that  this  was 
 caused  by  the  facts  he  had  given. 
 
 Higbee*  says  that  any  opposition  of  the  West  will  be  viewed  by  the 
 East  as  intermeddling,  a  shameful  impertinence,  revolutionary,  and  trou- 
 blesome to  the  peace  of  the  Church.  He  especially  attacks  Williard  for 
 charging  Cort  with  intermeddling  out  West  in  loM'a  classis.  Williard 
 replies  that  the  West  nearly  balances  the  East  in  contributions  received. 
 
 This  friction  needed  but  some  event  to  bring  it  to  a  head. 
 This  appeared  at  the  next  meeting  of  the  Iowa  classis.  That 
 classis  was  called  to  meet  in  order  to  receive  Rev,  Mr.  Cort. 
 Because  of  a  delay  of  the  train,  some  members  did  not  reach 
 the  meeting  on  the  evening  when  it  was  called.  Rev.  G.  Rettig, 
 therefore,  moved  to  adjourn,  but  Cort's  friends,  though  his 
 ( Rettig 's)  members  protested,  held  the  meeting  and  hurried 
 his  case  through  and  he  was  received  as  a  member.  Those  who 
 arrived  next  morning  appealed  to  synod.  (According  to  the 
 recent  custom  of  the  Eastern  synod,  that  appeal  stayed  action 
 but  it  did  not  stop  Cort  from  taking  his  seat  as  a  member.) 
 Four  ministers  dissented  from  the  high-churchmen's  action, 
 the  two  Rettigs,  Young,  Karshner  and  four  elders.f  The 
 classis,  thus  under  the  control  of  the  high-churchmen,  passed 
 a  resolution  against  the  editor  of  the  Christian  World,  Wil- 
 liard, for  his  attacks  on  Cort. 
 
 When  the  appeal  came  before  the  Ohio  synod  (1869),  the 
 president  decided  that  Cort  could  not  be  received  as  a  member 
 because  his  case  was  under  appeal  and  according  to  the  custom 
 of  the  Eastern  synod  an  appeal  always  stayed  the  sentence. 
 
 *Messenger,  March  31. 
 
 fit  seems  that  when  classis  refused  to  adjourn  on  the  evening  before, 
 so  bitter  was  the  feeling  that  the  congregation  refused  to  entertain  the 
 members  of  classis,  and  they  had  to  go  to  a  hotel.  When  the  motion  to 
 adjourn  was  made,  Rev.  Mr.  Fouse  said,  "Let  the  congregation  go," 
 and  they  went. 
 
490        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 The  Iowa  appeal  was  referred  to  a  committee.  It  brought  in 
 two  reports.  The  majority  (liigh-chnrch)  reported  the  appeal 
 out  of  order.  The  minority  reported  it  in  order.  The  minor- 
 ity 's  report  was  accepted  by  the  synod  and  Johnson  gave  notice 
 of  appeal  to  General  Synod.  Thus  the  Ohio  synod  Avas  treat- 
 ing Cort  just  as  the  Eastern  synod  had  been  treating  Bom- 
 berger,  refusing  him  membership. 
 
 Apple  tried*  to  show  that  the  two  cases  were  not  identical, 
 because  Bomberger  was  at  first  received  as  a  member  and  Cort 
 was  not. 
 
 Iowa  classis  had  a  meeting  at  Wheatland,  August  25,  1869, 
 when  the  president  ordered  the  clerk  to  strike  Cort's  name 
 ■from  the  list.  Cort  appealed  from  the  chair,  but  classis,  being 
 now  under  the  control  of  the  Old  Reformed,  sustained  the  de- 
 cision of  the  chair.  Rev.  Mr.  Cort  gave  notice  of  appeal  and 
 complaint.  But  as  he  was  not  recognized  as  a  member  of  classis 
 Riale  did  this  for  him.  Rev.  G.  Rettig  then  offered  a  reso- 
 lution that  as  Rev.  Mr.  Bauman,  the  stated  clerk,  had  called 
 the  meeting  of  classis  without  the  knowledge  of  the  president, 
 and  made  it  a  few  hours  before  the  meeting  called  by  the 
 president,  that  his  act  be  declared  disorderly,  irregular  and 
 invalid.  Rev.  Mr.  Bauman  was  suspended  from  his  seat  for  a 
 year.  He  then  gave  notice  of  appeal.  Classis  elected  Rev.  ]\Ir. 
 Buser  clerk  in,  his  place,  but  Bauman  refused  to  give  up  the 
 records  of  classis  and  retired.  Rev.  ]\Ir.  Fouse  then  offered 
 complaint  against  classis.  The  classis  being  now  in  the  control 
 of  the  Old  Reformed,  reconstructed  its  board  of  Missions,  mak- 
 ing it  consist  of  two  old  Reformed,  G.  Rettig  and  Buser,  and 
 one  Mereersburg  man,  Riale, 
 
 The  Iowa  classis  (or  those  who  were  high-eburchmen)  then 
 met,  October  13,  at  Brandon.  It  appointed  a  connnittee  to 
 defend  the  classis  against  the  appeal  of  Rettig.  It  complained 
 against  Ohio  synod  for  not  receiving  Cort.  It  declared  the 
 above  meeting  of  classis  at  Wheatland  null  and  void. 
 
 The  Old  Reformed  party  also  held  a  meeting  at  Wheatland, 
 stating  that  as  the  president  had  been  informed  they  could  not 
 
 *Messenger,  June  20. 
 
General  Synod  op  1869.  491 
 
 meet  at  Brandon,  he  had  appointed  the  meeting  at  "Wheatland. 
 It  deehired  the  aets  of  the  Brandon  meeting  schismatical  and 
 began  a  process  of  trial  and  called  the  attention  of  the  Ohio 
 synod  to  it.  Thus  the  Iowa  classis  virtually  split.  Four 
 members  met  at  Brandon  (Riale,  Fouse,  Bauman  and  Cort), 
 the  others,  the  majority,  at  Wheatland.  Each  elected  dele- 
 gates to  the  next  General  Synod  so  that  it  was  evident  there 
 would  be  a  new  problem  at  the  General  Synod.  The  old  Re- 
 formed defended  the  Wheatland  meeting,  saying  the  Bran- 
 don meeting  was  a  secret  meeting,  kept  secret  from  the  other 
 members  of  the  classis. 
 
 Section  13.    The  Eastern  Synod  op  1869. 
 
 The  sensation  of  the  fall  of  1869  was  the  publication  of  an 
 article  bj'  Nevin  on  "The  Church  Crisis."* 
 
 He  says  it  is  evident  that  the  Order  of  Worshijj  can  not  be  adopted 
 and  also  that  no  other  liturgy  can  have  any  more 'favorable  reception. 
 But  our  crisis  is  not  liturgical  but  deeper  than  that.  The  difficulty  lies 
 with  our  present  Church  government.  Its  organization  in  the  General 
 Synod  is  not  working  well.  There  is  doubt  in  the  minds  of  many  about 
 the  expediency  of  the  whole  arrangement.  Mutterings  of  this  were 
 found  in  the  West  and  in  the  East  there  was  a  certain  amount  of  restive- 
 ness.  The  Lord  had  not  called  us  to  bondage.  The  German  Eeformed 
 Church  was  not  made  for  the  General  Synod,  but  the  General  Synod  for 
 the  Eeformed  Church.  The  question  of  questions  is  the  relation  of  the 
 General  Synod  to  the  individual  synods.  There  will  be  many  appeals 
 at  the  next  General  Synod.  Will  the  action  of  a  lower  court  rule  out 
 from  voting  the  whole  court  appealing,  or  only  individuals  in  it  if  they 
 voted  in  the  lower  court.  He  suggests  that  the  Eastern  synod  take  action 
 to  prepare  the  way  for  the  right  method  of  deciding  these  appeals.  He 
 then  goes  on  to  say  that  the  General  Synod  is  anomalous  and  not  neces- 
 sary to  the  Presbyterial  Order.  Indeeed,  it  is  a  serious  departure  from 
 it,  because  it  has  an  ascending  scale  of  representation.  A  General  Synod 
 that  has  power  to  revise  all  the  business  of  synod  is  an  abandonment  of 
 the  Presbyterial  theory  and  the  door  is  thrown  open  to  confusion.     Tliat 
 
 *Messengcr,  September  15.  The  Eeformed  Church  Monthly  later 
 said  that  before  the  G-eneral  Synod  of  1869,  the  Mercersburg  party  was 
 greatly  alarmed  because  the  other  jiarty  had  elected  a  large  number  of 
 delegates,  probably  a  majority.  This  caused  a  great  deal  of  anxiety 
 in  tlie  East  and  may  have  been  one  of  the  influences  that  led  Nevin,  by 
 publishing  "The  Church  Crisis,"  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  dissolution 
 of  the  General  Synod  if  against  them. 
 
492        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 synod  should  reserve  to  itself  the  establishment  and  care  of  its  colleges 
 and  theological  seminaries  is  an  inconsistent  and  arbitrary  reservation. 
 It  ought  to  control  the  fountains  of  learning.  This  reservation  is 
 nominal  rather  than  real  and  can  be  carried  up  to  General  Synod  by  way 
 of  appeal.     He  suggests  two  ways  of  correcting  this: 
 
 1.  Either  that  General  Synod  meet  every  year,  so  as  to  avoid  delay 
 in  settling  appeal  cases. 
 
 2.  That  General  Synod  be  reduced  to  a  merely  advisory  body.  In  that 
 case  one  meeting  in  three  years,  as  at  present,  would  be  all  that  was 
 necessary. 
 
 Prof.  J.  H.  Good  replies  to  Nevin's  "Church  Crisis,"*  saying  that 
 Nevin  always  has  a  crisis  on  hand.  For  some  years  he  had  the  liturgy- 
 crisis,  but  now  at  last  he  has  concluded  that  the  Reformed  do  not  want 
 the  liturgy  and  given  it  as  his  advice  to  bend  before  the  storm.  Nevin 
 says  there  is  no  reason  for  insisting  on  full  unity  of  worship  in  the 
 Churches.  This  statement  was  very  different  from  the  early  claim  of  the 
 liturgical  men,  who  said  it  would  produce  a  uniformity  of  worship. 
 Nevin  wants  the  trial  of  the  Order  of  Worship  continued.  But  he  pre- 
 judged the  Western  liturgy,  which  was  not  yet  published,  when  he  said 
 it  would  never  be  adopted.  Dr.  Nevin  now  said  that  the  crisis  of  the 
 Church  was  no  longer  the  liturgy  but  it  was  the  constitution  of  the 
 Church, — that  the  General  Synod  was  not  what  it  ought  to  be, — unless 
 changed  it  had  better  be  done  away  with.  Nevin  says  the  Eastern  synod 
 ought  to  consider  this  matter,  but  Good  objects  that  it  is  not  the  duty  of 
 the  synod  to  do  so,  for  it  was  not  the  synod  that  had  made  the  constitu- 
 tion, but  the  General  Synod  and  the  vote  of  the  individual  classes.  (We 
 see  in  all  this  the  two  views  of  Church  government  appearing,  Nevin 
 emphasizing  with  Harbaugh  the  rights  of  the  upper  court.  Good,  with  the 
 Old  Reformed,  emphasizing  the  rights  of  the  lower  Court. — A.)  Dr. 
 Bomberger,  in  writing  about  Nevin  's  Church  Crisis,  saysf  he  is  not  sure 
 what  Nevin  means  by  it,  whether  a  permanent  peace  or  an  armistice. 
 He  seems  to  doubt  Nevin's  sincerity  in  suggesting  that  the  liturgy 
 question  be  dropped  or  also  the  theological.  (Thus  Nevin's  enemies  took 
 up  his  statements  and  used  them  against  his  party,  especially  when  he 
 said  the  liturgy  would  not  be  adopted  and  was  a  failure. — A.) 
 
 Nevin 's  friends  then  became  alarmed  about  the  effect  of  his  state- 
 ments about  the  liturgy  and  some  of  them  denied  that  he  had  given  up 
 hope  of  the  adoption  of  the  liturgy.  Certainly  they  had  not  given  up 
 hope  of  its  ultimate  adoption,  whatever  may  have  been  his  views. 
 
 Dr.  Williard  says  Dr.  Nevin's  articles  certainly  gave  a  different  color 
 from  other  articles  in  the  East.  They  grant  that  the  liturgy  is  not 
 taking.  They  used  to  say  the  laity  wanted  such  a  book  even  when  the 
 consistory  refused,  but  now  all  is  different  according  to  Nevin. 
 
 *  Christian  World,  October  7  and  14. 
 ■fEeformed  Church  Monthly,  1869,  page  494. 
 
General  Synod  of  1869.  493 
 
 These  articles  by  Dr.  Nevin  and  the  controversy  that  re- 
 sulted from  them,  caused  the  meeting  of  the  Eastern  synod  in 
 1869  to  be  looked  to  with  considerable  anxiety.  Its  first  act 
 in  electing  Nevin  as  president  was  significant.  It  took  action 
 on  the  questions  raised  b}'  his  Church  Crisis  as  follows: 
 
 It  declared  that  as  the  constitutional  relations  between  the 
 synods  and  the  General  Synod  were  still  open  to  discussion 
 and  as  a  committee  of  the  General  Synod  will  report  to  the 
 next  General  Synod  on  the  matter,  that  they  therefore  felt  at 
 liberty  to  appoint  a  committee  to  prepare  a  report  expressing 
 the  sense  of  this  synod  on  the  constitutional  points  raised.  Of 
 this  committee,  Gerhart  was  appointed  chairman.  The  com- 
 mittee reported  as  follows : 
 
 1.  Whether  the  General  Synod  should  be  continued  because  of  the  dif- 
 ferences between  the  East  and  the  West  on  constitution,  theology  and 
 liturgy. 
 
 2.  If  notwithstanding  these  differences,  the  Church  ought  to  be  thus 
 organized,  then  came  the  question  whether  the  General  Synod  should 
 possess  ultimate  legislative  and  judiciary  authority,  or  should  be  only  an 
 advisory  body. 
 
 3.  If  the  General  Synod  be  not  an  advisory  body,  then  two  questions 
 arise, — 
 
 a.  How  should  the  General  Synod  be  constituted,  from  the  classes  or 
 from  the  synods? 
 
 b.  Should  the  power  of  the  General  Synod  be  limited  or  unlimited? 
 
 4.  If  the  General  Synod  be  constituted  from  the  synods  and  not  from 
 the  classes,  then  should  all  the  classes  be  represented  or  not? 
 
 5.  If  the  power  of  the  General  Synod  be  unlimited,  should  it  be  both 
 judicial  and  legislative? 
 
 6.  But  if  it  be  limited,  what  are  the  powers  of  the  General  Synod 
 and  what  power  should  be  ultimate  in  the  synods. 
 
 The  aim  of  this  report  seemed  to  be  to  have  delegates  to 
 General  Synod  elected  from  the  synods  and  not  from  the 
 classes,  as  heretofore.  This  would  entirely  obliterate  the  rep- 
 resentation of  Philadelphia,  North  Carolina  and  Zion  classes 
 which  were  prevailingly  low-church.  The  second  item  was 
 whether  appeals  and  complaints  should  have  the  General 
 Synod  as  their  final  arbiter  or  whether  they  should  stop  in  the 
 synods.  If  the  latter,  then  the  Old  Reformed  party  in  the 
 Eastern  synod  would  have  as  its  last  court  of  appeal  a  synod 
 
494        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 mainly  deeply  hostile  to  itself,  as  was  shown  hy  its  recent  ac- 
 tions and  decisions.  Whereas,  if  its  last  court  of  appeal  were 
 the  General  S^^nod,  it  would  find  many  friends  and  probably 
 be  sustained,  as  was  later  done  at  the  General  Synod  of  1872. 
 So  that  underneath  this  move  of  the  Eastern  synod  was  a 
 design  to  put  its  old  Reformed  minority  out  of  the  field. 
 
 Another  significance  of  this  action  was  that  by  thus  raising 
 questions  about  the  relation  of  the  General  Synod,  it  made 
 a  stroke  that  looked  to  a  separation  between  the  West  and  the 
 East,  between  the  Mercersburg  men  and  the  Old  Reformed, — 
 an  implied  threat.  It  remained  to  wait  until  the  next  General 
 Synod  met  to  see  whether  that  would  come  to  pass. 
 
 Several  other  actions  of  the  synod  also  had  their  bearing  on 
 the  liturgical  controversy-.  One  was  on  Philadelphia  classis. 
 That  classis  having  sent  a  memorial  to  General  Synod  against 
 the  decision  of  the  last  Eastern  synod  for  so  summarily  caus- 
 ing Dr.  Bomberger  to  retract  his  language  under  penalty  of 
 exclusion.  This  appeal  from  the  classis  direct  to  the  General 
 Sj'nod  was  reported  as  irregular.  It  ought  to  come  to  General 
 Synod  through  the  synod.  The  committee  claimed  the  synod 
 had  the  right  to  decide  on  its  regularity — that  it  had  to  go 
 up  to  the  General  Synod  through  the  synod,  instead  of  direct 
 from  the  classes,  as  had  always  been  the  custom  in  our  Church. 
 (But  if  the  synod  were  to  have  authority  to  pass  on  its  regu- 
 larity, it  could  stop  the  appeal  if  it  desired.  This  was  con- 
 trary to  the  freedom  always  given  in  our  Church,  which  had 
 always  looked  to  the  classes  rather  than  the  synod  as  most 
 fully  expressing  the  mind  of  the  whole  Church. — ^1.) 
 
 The  synod  tried  to  condone  its  action  by  saying  it  did  not 
 take  from  Bomberger  his  office  as  a  minister  of  the  Gospel 
 or  as  a  delegate  of  his  classis,  but  it  endeavored  to  show  that  he 
 was  unworthy  of  their  association  and  it  declared  that  synod 
 had  adopted  the  mildest  course  possible.  The  committee  re- 
 ported that  the  action  of  Philadelphia  classis  was  more  than  a 
 petition, — that  it  was  virtually  a  complaint,  and  that,  as  synod 
 had  received  no  notice  of  such  action,  it  was  therefore  ir- 
 regular. It  was  referred  to  a  committee  to  take  charge  of 
 synod's  interests  in  the  case  at  General  Synod. 
 
General  Synod  op  1869.  495 
 
 The  Eeformed  Church  Monthly  retorts  that  sj'iiod  resorted  to  a  sub- 
 terfuge in  saying  that  the  synod  did  not  take  from  Bomberger  his  char- 
 acter as  a  ministerial  delegate.  This  is  just  what  they  did,  but  the  con- 
 stitution (article  107)  says  that  a  minister  must  be  tried  by  his  classis 
 and  not  by  synod. 
 
 The  synod  also  took  a  sigxiificant  action  showing  its  increas- 
 ing emphasis  on  the  riglits  of  the  s3aiod  ov(^r  the  classis, — that 
 sjTiod  had  the  right  to  excuse  absentees  from  its  body  instead 
 of  allowing  the  classes  to  do  it,  as  heretofore.  The  synod 
 was  thus  gradually  taking  the  rights  of  the  classes  on  itself. 
 
 It  appointed  a  committee  of  five  to  examine  the  translation 
 of  the  Order  of  Worship  made  under  the  direction  of  the  East 
 Pennsylvania  classis.  It  also  passed  an  action  asking  General 
 Synod  to  place  the  Western  liturgy  on  the  same  basis  as  the 
 Eastern  liturgy,  and  that  it  make  its  use  provisional.  Thus 
 they  again  aimed  to  gain  more  time  to  educate  the  Church  up 
 to  their  liturgical  ideas. 
 
 The  Feformed  Church  Monthly  also  calls  attention  to  the 
 language  of  the  report  on  the  state  of  religion  drawn  up  by 
 Rev.  G.  D.  Wolff. 
 
 The  report  uses  such  high-church  language  as:  "The  Church  is  the 
 actual  body  of  Christ  and  those  who  do  not  realize  that  as  its  body  it 
 possesses  all  the  authority  which  of  right  belongs  to  him,  of  course  do 
 not  realize  their  duty  to  be  obedient  unto  the  Church  as  unto  Christ. 
 They  are  unable  to  comprehend  that  in  the  Church  is  now  lodged  the  pre- 
 rogative of  teaching  the  priestly  function  of  the  Saviour  and  also  his 
 kingly  functions  and  must  continue  them  in  virtue  of  his  appointment. 
 The  spirit  of  unbelief  is  associated  with  the  spirit  of  unsubordination. 
 Such  a  spirit  rends  the  body  of  Christ,  breaks  the  unity  of  the  Spirit 
 and  follows  Antichrist,  the  father  of  lies." 
 
 All  this  was  evidently  aimed  at  the  low-churchmen,  espe- 
 cially those  in  the  East. 
 
 Section  14.    The  General  Synod  op  1869. 
 
 This  General  Synod  met  in  Philadelphia  on  November  24. 
 At  the  opening  of  the  synod  there  was  a  test  of  strength  be- 
 tween the  two  parties,  Gerhart  and  Williard  being  the  oppos- 
 ing candidates  for  the  presidency.  The  former  was  elected  by 
 a  majority  of  eight  although  it  was  said  by  the  old  Reformed 
 
496         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  V.  S. 
 
 tliat  twenty-eight  delegates  were  absent  at  tlie  time.*  Dr.  Ger- 
 hart,  according  to  the  statements  of  the  other  party,  was  very 
 partisan  in  his  rulings  and  appointments  of  comniittees.f 
 
 Rev.  Pres.  E.  V.  Gerhart,  D.  D. 
 
 The  Western  liturgy,  liaving  been  approved  by  the  Ohio 
 synod  of  186!),  who  had  asked  General  Synod  to  grant  its  free 
 use  in  the  Churches,  was  referred  to  a  conunittee  consisting 
 of  Apple,  Bossard.  Kevin,  etc.  The  committee  reconnnended 
 its  provisional  use,  like  that  given  by  the  previous  General 
 Synod  to  the  Order  of  Worship.  Williard  then  offered  a 
 resolution 
 
 *Some  western  delegates  were  absent  and  some  Germans  who  were 
 more  anxious  for  the  interests  of  the  Germans  than  about  the  liturgy 
 voted  with  the  high-cluirchmen.     This  lessened  the  low-church  vote. 
 
 fThey  charged  that  he  ignored  the  makers  of  motions  in  the  appoint- 
 ment of  committees  called  for  by  their  motions,  which  had  been  the 
 previous  custom.  In  appointing  the  committee  to  consider  the  acts  of 
 the  Eastern  synod  of  1869  on  the  constitutional  relations  of  the  Gen- 
 eral S.>Tiod  to  the  synods,  he  appointed  only  men  of  the  Eastern  synod, 
 the  West  being  entirely  ignored.  This  was  entirely  contrary  to  the  previ- 
 ous custom  of  the  General  Svnnd. 
 
General  Synod  of  1869.  497 
 
 (1)  that  both  liturgies  be  submitted  to  the  classes  for  ap- 
 proval and  rejection  according  to  the  constitution,  and  that 
 meantime  the  use  of  each  be  optional, 
 
 (2)  but  that  neither  should  be  introduced  without  the  formal 
 consent  of  the  consistory  and  the  congregation. 
 
 This  motion  sharply  defined  the  issue  between  the  two 
 parties.  There  was  a  strong  discussion  on  that  amendment, 
 the  Old  Reformed  claiming  that  the  amendment  proposed  the 
 constitutional  method  and  would  stop  the  strife  in  the  Church. 
 Rinehart  said  the  strife  had  already  split  congregations.  P]sch- 
 l)ach  demanded  proof.  He  replied  "the  Church  in  which 
 we  are  meeting."  (He  referred  to  the  quarrel  in  Christ  Re- 
 formed Church  of  Philadelphia,  which  had  been  caused  by 
 their  pastor.  Rev.  Dr.  Giesy,  reading  the  pastoral  letter  of  the 
 synod  of  1867.)  At  last  a  division  of  the  amendment  was 
 granted.  On  the  first  part  of  the  amendment  the  vote  stood 
 74  yeas  to  106  nays.  The  second  part  was  also  lost  by  a  vote 
 of  81  yeas  to  101  nays.  Some  of  the  Mercersburg  men  after- 
 ward gloried  in  this  vote,  claiming  that  it  showed  the  growth 
 of  their  party  in  the  General  Synod.  This  action  was  a  great 
 victory  for  the  liturgical  men,  for  it  gave  them  two  advan- 
 tages : 
 
 1.  It  made  the  Western  liturgy  provisional  and  thus  aided 
 their  continual  claim  for  a  provisional  use  of  their  liturgy. 
 General  Synod  granted  the  provisional  use  of  the  Western 
 liturgy  as  it  had  done  in  regard  to  the  Eastern  liturgies. 
 
 2.  The  General  Synod  also  virtually  approved  their  position 
 about  its  introduction, — that  it  did  not  require  the  action  of  a 
 consistory  or  congregation  to  have  it  introduced. 
 
 Another  subject  brought  before  the  synod  was  the  presenta- 
 tion of  memorials  from  congregations  of  the  Eastern  synod 
 and  of  Westmoreland  classis  of  the  Ohio  synod  (signed  by 
 about"  2,000  names),  requesting  the  discontinuance  of  the 
 Order  because  of  the  harm  it  was  doing.  The  object  of  pre- 
 senting these  memorials  Avas  to  acquaint  the  General  Synod 
 with  the  real  state  of  affairs  in  the  Eastern  synod, — that  there 
 was  a  great  deal  of  opposition  to  the  Order  of  Worship.  The 
 committee  appointed  on  the  subject  stated  that  seventy-one 
 
498         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 such  memorials  had  com£  in.  Its  report  was  very  partisan. 
 It  said  the  memorialists  were  irregular, — that  serious  injustice 
 was  done  to  the  Eastern  s^^nod  b}^  the  memorials  because  it  had 
 authorized  the  use  of  the  Order  of  Worship,  and  that  these 
 wronged  also  the  General  Synod,  who  had  allowed  it  as 
 "an  order  proper  to  be  used."  It  declared  that  the  worst 
 feature  of  the  memorials  was  that  the}^  flew  into  the  face  of 
 Reformed  Church  history  by  asking  synod  to  take  away  the 
 rights  of  others  and  curtail  the  generous  freedom  of  the  Re- 
 formed Church  in  matters  of  worship.  The  report  affirmed 
 the  right  of  petition,  but  disapproved  the  tone  of  disrespect 
 to  the  General  Synod  in  the  memorials.  An  amendment  was 
 offered  to  the  report  to  strike  out  the  phrase  that  the  me- 
 morialists wronged  General  Synod.  The  vote  on  this  was  75 
 nays  to  72  yeas,  a  very  close  vote  which  perhaps  revealed  the 
 relative  strength  of  the  two  parties. 
 
 The  General  Synod  failed  to  re-elect  Bomberger  on  the 
 Home  Missionary  board,  of  which  he  had  been  president  for 
 some  years.  This  was  taken  by  his  party  as  a  blow  at  him, 
 because  of  his  founding  of  Ursinus  college  and  his  opposition 
 to  the  Order  of  Worship.  The  liturgical  party  also  at  this 
 election  aimed  to  get  the  home  missious  of  the  Church  more 
 under  their  control,  so  as  to  spread  their  influence. 
 
 Another  matter  noted  in  the  controversy  (and  which  was 
 seized  upon  by  the  old  Reformed  party)  was  the  fact  that 
 in  the  report  on  the  state  of  religion  there  was  a  confession 
 that  there  were  two  tendencies  in  the  Church  whose  contro- 
 versy seriously  interfered  with  home  missions.  The  General 
 synod,  therefore,  in  adopting  this  report  officially  recognized 
 the  two  tendencies. 
 
 From  the  Iowa  classis  there  was  a  double  delegation,  one 
 from  the  high-church  party,  one  from  the  low.*  The  case 
 was  referred  to  a  committee  who  presented  a  report  throwing 
 out  both  delegations,  the  delegates  of  the  low-churchmen  be- 
 cause of  legal  and  technical  errors  at  the  Wheatland  meeting, 
 the  high-churchmen  because  of  errors  in  equity  at  the  Brandon 
 meeting.    The  appellants  on  both  sides  withdrew  their  appeals 
 
 *See  pages  488-491. 
 
General  Synod  of  ]869.  499 
 
 on  permission  being  given  to  divide  the  elassis  into  an  English 
 and  a  German  elassis.  After  some  friction  between  the  two 
 parts  of  the  elassis,  Ohio  synod  in  1871  divided  Iowa  elassis 
 into  an  English  and  a  German  elassis,  the  latter  calling  itself 
 the  Ursinus  elassis. 
 
 This  was  a  synod  of  appeals  and  complaints  from  classes  and 
 synods,  most  of  which  were  caused  by  the  liturgical  contro- 
 versy. Thus  the  case  of  the  Heidelberg  congregation  of  Phila- 
 delphia was  brought  before  General  Synod  by  the  Philadel- 
 phia elassis.  This  had  ordered  its  organization,  but  Christ 
 Church  appealed  to  synod.  When  Eastern  synod  decided 
 against  Heidelberg  Church,  then  Philadelphia  elassis  appealed 
 to  General  Synod.  The  case  was  finally  compromised  by 
 changing  the  action  of  the  Eastern  sjoiod,  which  had  permitted 
 the  organization  at  a  distance  of  six  squares  from  Christ 
 Church  to  a  distance  of  five  squares. 
 
 There  was  a  memorial  from  Philadelphia  elassis  complaining 
 against  the  treatment  of  Dr.  Bomberger  by  Eastern  synod. 
 The  committee  of  General  Synod  reported  it  irregular.  Classis 
 said  it  was  a  memorial,  but  the  committee,  being  of  the  Mer- 
 cersburg  type,  decided  it  was  a  complaint  and  therefore  threw 
 it  out.  It  thus  virtually  allowed  the  action  of  Eastern  synod 
 of  1869  in  the  matter  to  remain.  This  decision  was  regarded  as 
 against  the  low-churchmen. 
 
 Philadelphia  classis  had  appealed  from  the  decision  of 
 Eastern  synod  endorsing  Dr.  S.  R.  Fisher's  appeal  from  it 
 about  introducing  the  Order  of  Worship  without  the  consent 
 of  consistories.  Another  complaint  was  from  John  Wiest 
 and  Mr.  Myers  against  the  action  of  Eastern  synod  for  con- 
 demning the  Myerstown  convention.  Bomberger  complained 
 against  the  Eastern  synod  for  its  action  against  the  Reformed 
 Church  Monthly  and  for  its  action  against  himself  without 
 previous  knowledge  or  notice  in  his  absence.  Bomberger 's  com- 
 plaint against  the  action  of  the  Eastern  synod  of  1868  was  re- 
 fused to  be  heard  by  a  vote  of  97  to  80. 
 
 From  the  liturgical  side  there  was  the  double  appeal  about 
 Cort  against  the  Ohio  synod.  In  all  there  were  five  or  six  ap- 
 peals, communications,  memorials  bearing  on  the  controversy. 
 
500        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 If  the  synod  had  taken  them  up,  they  could  have  sat  for  many 
 days  more.  So  finally  they  were  almost  all  posti)()ned  on  the 
 plea  that  a  new  constitution  was  about  to  be  prepared.  Of 
 course  this  did  not  really  meet  the  ease,  for  the  appeals,  etc., 
 referred  to  the  past;  while  the  adoption  of  the  constitution 
 referred  to  the  future.  TIk^  new  constitution,  if  adopted, 
 would  not  have  had  any  bearing  on  what  had  happened  under  a 
 former  constitution.  But  the  two  parties  grew  weary  and  the 
 members  of  synod  desired  to  return  home,  so  they  agreed  to 
 compromise  action  thus. 
 
 One  of  the  most  striking  events  that  occurred  on  the  floor  of 
 this  General  Synod  was  the  motion  of  Nevin  to  dissolve  the 
 General  Synod.  He  made  a  motion  that  the  present  organiza- 
 tion, so  far  as  the  General  Synod  was  concerned,  be  ended,  so 
 as  to  make  room  for  a  more  satisfactory  form  answering  to  the 
 first  preliminary  qviestion  of  the  overture  of  the  P^astern  synod 
 of  1869.  He  asked  that  a  committee  be  appointed  to  do  this. 
 But  the  opposition  was  so  great  that  it  was  lost  by  a  large 
 vote.  Fisher  rightly  contended  that  a  resolution  like  that  was 
 not  a  constitutional  way  of  dissolving  the  General  Synod. 
 
 Apjtle  said*  that  most  of  the  business  of  the  last  General  Synod  was  in 
 reference  to  the  liturgy  and  that  it  gave  little  attention  to  the  eonstitu- 
 ion,  missions,  etc.  Yet  it  settled  for  itself  one  point :  It  declared  itself 
 in  favor  of  maintaining  the  continuance  of  the  General  Synod.  After 
 the  synod  the  Mercersburg  party  gleefully  quoted  the  majorities  in  the 
 General  Synod  to  show  that  their  party  was  rapidly  growing  in  the 
 ("hurch.  At  the  General  Synod  of  lS6fi  their  majority  was  only  7, 
 while  at  the  General  Synod  of  1869  it  was  29,  they  said.  The  Order 
 was  approved,  they  said,  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  General  Synod,  one 
 direct  at  Dayton  186(),  the  other  indirect  here  in  1869.  The  luw  cliurch- 
 men  were  defeated  at  this  synod.  But  as  Ilelflfrich  says,  the  action  vir- 
 tually broke  the  j)owcr  of  the  high-churchmen.  He  says  that  Nevin,  after 
 the  peniiission  had  been  given  for  the  use  of  the  Western  liturgy,  felt 
 that  the  liturgical  and  Churdi  ntuNrinciit  was  a  failure.  One  of  the  lead- 
 ing Nevinists  declared  that  only  the  immaculate  conception  of  Mary 
 kept  him  from  entering  the  TJomish  f-hurch.  And  another  had  preached 
 at  the  synod  at  Pittsburg  that  at  the  consecration  of  the  elements  at  the 
 Lord's  Sujiper,  the  Holy  Ghost  came  to  them  and  brought  them  to  be 
 the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  Dr.  Nevin  teaches  that  one  should  bow 
 before  the  altar  because  there  is  tlie  shekinah,  and  his  pupils,  as  usual, 
 
 ^Messenger,  Aug.  5,  1870. 
 
General  Synod  op  1869.  501 
 
 go    beyond    their    teaclier.      So    says    the    Reformed    Kirchcnzcilung    of 
 Germany.* 
 
 Section  15.    The  "Mercersburg  Review"  and  the  Western 
 
 LiTURGY.f 
 
 The  Mfirrrshiirg  Review  (1871)  criticised  the  Western  lit- 
 urgy. It  elaimed  tliat  the  judgment  of  General  Synod  carried 
 with  it  no  opinion  or  judgment  in  regard  to  the  work,  for 
 the  liturgy  received  no  particular  examination  or  discussion 
 at  its  hands.  The  permission  to  use  it  amounted  to  this,  that 
 the  Church  was  to  luive  a  certain  amount  of  liberty  in  its  use. 
 
 It  claimed,  however,  that  this  permission  differed  from  tlie  per- 
 mission given  by  General  Synod  to  the  Order  of  Worship.  That  was 
 given  only  after  thorough  discussion  and  examination,  and  then  the 
 General  Synod  declared  it  "an  order  proper  to  be  used,"  while  this  action 
 about  the  Western  liturgy  was  given  without  such  careful  preparation 
 and,  hence,  the  permission  was  of  lower  authority.  The  friends  of  the 
 Order  did  not  ask  for  endorsement  only  for  permission,  but  the  opposi- 
 tion forced  a  discussion  which  really  brought  out  the  merits  of  the  Order. 
 (This  was  an  unfair  use  of  tlie  action  of  the  General  Synod  of  1866. 
 That  action  was  merely  permissive,  while  here  they  claimed  it  was  au- 
 thoritative.— A.) 
 
 He  then  notes  the  advantages  and  defects  of  the  Western 
 liturgy. 
 
 1.  As  compared  with  the  Mayer  liturgy,  it  reveals  a  long  advance.  It 
 opens  with  a  recognition  of  the  church  year  and  its  great  festivals,  to- 
 gether with  all  the  Sundays  named  in  the  church  year.  It  also  contains 
 tables  of  the  pericopes. 
 
 2.  In  its  rubrics,  some  say  the  minister  "shall"  instead  of  "may." 
 Here  is  an  advance,  for  the  Maj'er  liturgy  gave  no  forms  for  the  Lord 's 
 day.  It  then  gives  the  three  creeds,  the  Gloria,  the  Te  Deum,  the 
 Litany.^     The  principle  of  the  book  is  that  tlie  forms  may  be  varied  and 
 
 *1S70,  page  161. 
 
 jAlthough  this  discussion  chronologically  occurred  later  yet  the  sub- 
 ject })roperly  belongs  here  as  it  was  this  General  Synod  that  took  action 
 on  the  Western  liturgy. 
 
 JThese  forms  we  understand  were  placed  in  the  Western  liturgy  at  the 
 request  of  Bucher,  one  of  the  committee  who  was  a  high-churclunan  in 
 his  sympathies.  The  low-church  granted  it,  in  the  hope  of  gaining 
 friends  for  the  liturgy  among  the  high-churchmen,  for  some  of  the  com- 
 mittee entertained  tiie  ambitious  hope  that  their  liturgy  would  finally 
 be  adopted  by  the  high-clniri-hmen  and  tluis  become  the  liturgy  of  the 
 whole  Church.  They  hoped  by  admitting  these  forms  to  placate  the  high- 
 churchmen. 
 
502        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 noue  of  them  be  binding.  He  grants  tliat  there  should  be  liberty  in  wor- 
 ship, but  that  liberty  should  come  not  from  the  minister  but  from  the 
 synod.  A  liturgy,  he  says,  can  not  provide  room  for  a  free  service  with- 
 out interdicting  itself.  It  should  give  a  complete  service  or  it  will  be 
 only  a  compilation  of  forms.     He  criticises  the  Western  liturgy, — - 
 
 (1)  That  its  worship  centers  around  the  sermon  rather  tlian  around 
 the  eucharist  and  altar. 
 
 (2)  It   holds  that  the   liturgical  prayers   for   the  Lord's   day   do   not 
 constitute  a  necessary  part  of  the  service. 
 
 (3)  It  gives  no  place  to  the  people  to  take  part  in  the  service  of  the 
 regular  Lord's  day.  There  is  not  a  single  response.  How  does  this  non- 
 responsiveness,  he  asks,  accord  with  their  theory  that  all  Christians  are 
 priests.  It  leaves  out  the  absolution.  Creed  and  Gloria,  all  familiar  to  the 
 early  Keformed  litugies.  The  theory  of  the  sacraments,  underlying  this 
 liturgy  is  that  they  are  institutions  for  teaching,  only  part  of  the 
 prophetical  function  and  there  is  no  room  for  the  priestly  office.  It 
 makes  the  sacraments  confirmatory  only.  Baptism  does  not  give  remis- 
 sion of  sin.  But  this  is  unscriptural  and  against  our  catechism  (answer 
 69).  He  attacks  the  baptismal  service  because  it  has  the  pernicious 
 theory  of  the  covenant  in  it.  There  is  no  recognition  in  baptism  of 
 the  proper  grace  of  the  sacrament.  Adult  baptism  is  also  confirmatory. 
 The  Lord 's  Sujiper  service  is  only  confirmatory.  He  becomes  indignant 
 at  the  frequent  use  of  the  word  "confirm"  in  the  service  before  the 
 minister  distributes  the  elements.  He  also  criticises  its  demand  for  the 
 communicant  to  look  away  from  the  elements  up  to  heaven  where 
 Christ  is.*  He  says  this  is  contradictory,  first  consecrating  the  elements 
 and  then  ordering  them  to  turn  away  from  them.f  Confirmation  it  rep- 
 resents as  the  act  of  the  catechumen  and  not  of  the  Church.  The  sen- 
 tence "to  increase  their  confidence,"  etc.,  is  bad  English  and  worse 
 theology.  Adult  baptism  and  confirmation  can't  be  combined  as  here. 
 He  speaks  more  favorably  of  the  ordination  service,  but  criticises  the 
 forms  of  the  sacraments  for  continually  speaking  of  them  as  a  sign  and  a 
 seal.  The  effort  is  thus  made  to  weave  into  the  liturgy  the  language  of 
 the  catechism,  but  this  has  no  merit.  For  the  language  of  devotion  is  not 
 the  language  of  teaching, — a  liturgy  should  differ  in  style  from  the 
 catechism.  This  shows  a  slavish  adherence  to  the  catechism  and  to  the 
 Reformed  liturgies,  from  which  this  book  is  compiled.  This  liturgy  is 
 not  a  reproduction  but  a  compilation.  It  is  not  honu)genous.  In  some 
 forms,  as  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  seems  to  be  a  living  organ  of  worship, 
 in  others  it  is  a  mere  directory  or  guide.     But  even  in  the  Lord's  Supper 
 
 *But  it  is  a  peculiarity  of  the  old  Reformed  liturgies  that  they  have 
 this  admonition  to  look  from  the  elements  up  to  Christ  in  heaven. — A. 
 
 •j-But  this  was  Calvin's  doctrine — lifting  the  mind  to  heaven,  where 
 Christ's  humanity  is. 
 
General  Synod  of  1869.  503 
 
 it  does  uot  rise  to  proper  devotional  glow.  It  ought  to  receive  a  re- 
 vision, as  the  Eastern  liturgy  had  received. 
 
 To  this  criticism  of  the  Review,  Williard  replies*  in  a  series  of 
 articles  on  the  Western  liturgy.  He  denies  Apple's  assertion  that  the 
 liturgy  was  an  advance  on  the  Mayer  liturgy  about  Church  festivals,  for 
 these  had  always  been  observed.  There  was  no  such  ueglect  of  church- 
 festivals  in  Prof.  Mayer's  time  as  the  Eeview  states.  The  Western 
 liturgy,  while  it  recognizes  them,  does  not  give  them  undue  prominence. 
 When  he  (Williard)  was  a  boy,  the  Reforaied  ministers  used  to  observe 
 Christmas,  Easter,  Whitsunday  and  often  Ascension.  One  of  the  reasons 
 for  the  lack  of  observance  then  was  the  fewness  of  ministers  and  the  com- 
 parative rarity  of  church  services. 
 
 Apple  replied  by  denying  that  the  ministers  of  Mayer's  time  used  the 
 Church  festivals.!  Williard  reiterated  his  statement  that  the  Mercers- 
 burg  men  had  gone  too  far  in  denying  this.  He  said  the  main  festivals 
 were  used  by  Wagner,  Rahauser,  Pomp,  Reily  and  Mayer. 
 
 *Christian  World,  February  23,  1871. 
 
 fThey  made  the  claim  for  Mercersburg  that  it  had  revived  the  Church- 
 year  in  our  Church. 
 
CHAPTER  111. 
 
 The  Endorsement  of  Ursinus  Theological  Dei'aktmext  by- 
 General  Synod  (1872). 
 
 Section  1.     Littrgical  Events  (1870-71). 
 
 The  General  Synod  of  1869  had  closed  only  a  few  months 
 when  the  high-ehurehnien  began  to  claim  that  it  had  endorsed 
 their  position. 
 
 Gerhart,  the  president  of  the  General  Synod,*  says  that  both  General 
 Synods  (1866  and  1869)  approved  of  the  Order  of  Worship.  He  says 
 that  the  rejection  of  Williard's  amendment  at  the  last  General  Synod 
 proved  that  that  body  endorsed  the  position  of  Lancaster  appeal  case. 
 That  meant,  not  that  the  minister  had  a  right  to  force  the  liturgy  on 
 an  unwilling  people  or  that  they  had  no  remedy  against  the  arbitrary 
 course  of  an  injudicious  minister;  but  that  they  had  no  jurisdiction  in 
 the  case,  because  it  is  his  prerogative  to  conduct  public  worshii).  The 
 consistory  can  not  compel  him  to  introduce  it  against  his  judgment  or 
 to  suspend  it  when  he  has  seen  fit  to  introduce  it.  The  remedy  for 
 such  differences  between  the  minister  and  the  consistory  is  to  be  sought 
 in  the  jurisdiction  of  classis. 
 
 He  also  triesf  to  argue  that  General  Synod's  action  placed  the  Order 
 somewhat  above  the  Western  liturgy.  He  says  both  liturgies  are  on 
 the  same  footing,  yet  there  is  a  difference.  General  Synod  permitted  the 
 Western  liturgy  to  be  used  throughout  the  C'luirch,  but  the  Ea.stcrn 
 received  a  higher  recommendation,  ft  was  allowed  "as  a  liook  jjrojier 
 to  be  used  in  the  Church,"  which  was  not  said  of  the  Western  liturgy. 
 Again,  the  Order  of  Worship  was  ap})roved  after  a  careful  examination, 
 which  was  not  given  to  the  Western  liturgy.  The  latter  was  adopted 
 not  after  a  careful  examination,  but  only  out  of  respect  to  the  western 
 synods. 
 
 Dr.  Goodf  attacks  Gerhart  for  saying  what  lie  did  nliont  llic  Western 
 liturgy.  He  denied  that  the  I'lnstcrn  iitingy  had  :niy  highiT  |iositiiin 
 in  the  (.'hurch  than  the  Western.  The  (Icncnil  Synod  oi'  18(16  had  not 
 approved   of   the   Order   as   Gerhart    had    said;    it   only   allowed    its   use. 
 
 ^Messenger,  February  2,  1870. 
 ^Messenger,  February  9. 
 %Christian  World,  March  10. 
 
 504 
 
Endorsement  op  Urrtnus  Theological  DepartiAient.  505 
 
 No  speaker,  even  of  the  higli-chui-L'h  party,  then  made  any  sucli  a 
 claim.  Gans  had  said  "we  want  no  authority  to  go  with  the  book, 
 DO  endorsement  is  sought. ' '  They  simply  asked  that  their  child  should 
 live.  And  as  to  its  being  approved  at  the  General  Synod  of  1869,  it 
 is  to  be  remembered  that  when  Graeff  brought  in  the  report  against  the 
 memorialists,  it  spoke  of  the  Order  as  ai)proved  by  General  Synod  of 
 1866.  When  Dr.  Good  objected  to  this,  Apple  moved  to  strike  it  out 
 and  it  was  done  by  a  unanimous  vote.  This  was  a  confession  that  the 
 Order  of  Worship  had  not  been  approved. 
 
 A  new  method  of  the  high-churchmen  now  began  to  appear. 
 Before  this  it  had  not  been  customary  for  a  classis  to  appoint 
 a  supply  committee  for  a  vacant  charge  unless  asked  to  do  so 
 by  the  congregation  or  charge.  But  East  Pennsylvania  classis 
 in  1870  first  began  to  try  the  appointment  of  such  a  committee 
 with  increased  powers,  so  as  to  get  men  of  Mercersburg  lean- 
 ings into  these  charges.  The  effort  was  made  to  appoint  such 
 a  committee  for  the  Brodheadsville  charge  which  was  then 
 vacant,  even  though  the  charge  had  made  no  request  for  a 
 committee  on  supply.  The  former  custom  of  the  classis, 
 however,  prevailed  and  the  motion  was  lost.  Later,  a  very 
 determined  effort  was  made  by  them  to  get  control  of  Slating- 
 ton.*  An  effort  was  also  made  in  some  of  the  classes  to  the  same 
 end  by  the  appointment  of  a  committee  on  missions.  This  act 
 of  the  ]\Iercersl)urg  men  of  course  led  to  protective  action  on 
 the  other  side.  The  Ursinus  Union  was  formed  in  1871  at 
 York  to  offset  this  (>ffort  by  aiding  missions  and  beneficiary 
 students.     It  continued  in  existence  until  1890. 
 
 The  division  between  the  two  parties  was  increasing  and 
 more  friction  was  of  course  constantly  developing.  A  new 
 phase  of  the  controversy  began  to  appear, — a  financial  one, 
 being  added  to  tlie  doctriufil,  liturgical,  constitutional  and  mis- 
 sioiuuy  ])hases,  which  already  have  ])een  noticed.  The  Old 
 Reformed  i)arty,  now  that  Ursinus  college  was  started  de- 
 cided not  1o  ])ay  any  assessments  for  college  or  seminary  i)ur- 
 poses  to  Lancaster  or  iNIercersburg.  but  to  pny  such  money  to 
 the  support  of  Ursinus  College.  Some  classes,  as  Lebanon. 
 granted  them  this  permission.  But  East  Pennsylvania  classis 
 did  not.     It  ;i|)i)oiiited  a  committee  to  considin'  fining  them  or 
 
 *llelffrich 's  Autobiograjdiv,  ]iage  4.']2. 
 
506        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 bringing  them  before  court.  Their  attorney,  however,  got 
 them  to  give  up  the  latter  plan,  as  he  said  there  was  no  law  to 
 support  their  case.  Helffrich*  says  that  East  Pennsylvania 
 classis  ordered  that  if  delinquents  did  not  pay  these  assess- 
 ments they  should  be  suspended,  but  later  they  rescinded  this 
 action.  That  classis,  he  says,  declared  that  its  beneficiary 
 students  must  go  to  the  institution  which  it  supported.  He 
 and  some  of  the  Old  Reformed  mirjisters  took  their  stand 
 against  this.  He  declared  he  would  not  pay  either  synod's  or 
 classis'  dues  until  classis  took  back  this  assessment  for  bene- 
 ficiaries.f  He  claimed  that  the  classis  increased  the  number  of 
 beneficiaries  at  Mercersburg  and  Lancaster,  so  as  to  get  all  the 
 money  sent  there. 
 
 The  Reformed  Church  of  Allegheny  City  took  the  altar  and 
 carried  it  out  of  the  Church,  to  the  horror  of  its  pastor,  Rev. 
 
 Mr.  K ,  who  "having  declared  himself  unable  to  preach 
 
 without  an  altar  or  hold  a  prayer-meeting,  resigned  at  once." 
 "Thus,"  says  a  low-church  writer  gleefully,  "K — ,  as  author 
 of  the  articles,  "Altar  and  Priest"  in  the  Mercersburg  Review, 
 lost  his  altar  and  as  priest  he  shook  the  dust  from  off  his  feet." 
 
 Rev.  F.  W.  Kremer  gave  the  fact  that  just  before  the  seminary  was 
 removed  to  Lancaster,  1871,  the  services  on  Sunday  and  Wednesday 
 were  liturgical.  Some  of  the  students  had  a  praj^er-meeting  of  their 
 own  on  Tuesday  evening,  in  which  a  few  were  interested.  On  being 
 asked  how  the  prayer-meeting  was  attended,  a  student  replied,  "I  do  not 
 know;  I  never  attend  it."  "Do  you  not  think  it  well,"  he  was  asked, 
 "for  young  men  preparing  for  the  ministry  to  attend  a  meeting  where 
 free  prayer  is  offered  ? ' '  He  replied,  ' '  I  prefer  read  prayers. ' '  Such 
 was  the  tone  of  the  institution  at  that  time.  And  some  of  the  graduates 
 came  out  either  unpracticed  in  making  free  prayers  or  unwilling  to 
 make  them. 
 
 r 
 
 Section  2.    The  Priesthood  of  the  IMinistry. 
 
 The  Mercersburg  theology  had,  as  we  have  seen,  been  bring- 
 ing into  prominence  the  idea  that  the  minister  is  a  priest,  and 
 making  that  office  of  Christ  the  central  and  most  important 
 
 *Autobiography,  pages  448-9. 
 
 fHe  claimed  that  he  and  his  charge  had  the  right  to  say  whore  their 
 money  should  go. 
 
.  Endorsement  of  Ursinus  Theological  Department.  507 
 
 of  the  three  offices  of  Christ  (prophet,  priest  and  king).  With 
 it  came,  of  course,  its  correlatives,  the  altar  and  the  sacrifice, 
 without  wliicli  the  doctrine  of  the  priesthood  is  incomplete,  i 
 Dr.  Nevin,  soon  after  he  developed  Mercersburg  views,  had 
 severely  attacked  Rev.  H.  A.  Boardman,  D.D.,  for  his  sermon 
 before  the  Presbyterian  General  Assembly  on  ^'The  Pro- 
 phetical Office  of  the  Minister,"  in  which  he  made  the  pro- 
 phetical office  the  central  one  and  denied  the  priestly  office 
 of  the  ministry,  saying  "Christ  was  the  true  high-priest  and 
 not  the  minister."  The  high  views  of  Mercersburg  on  the 
 priestliness  of  the  ministry  in  course  of  time  led  the  old  Re- 
 formed to  reassert  the  old  view  of  the  ministry,  that  the 
 prophetical  office  was  central  and  not  the  priestly.  This  was 
 especially  brought- out  in  a  sermon  by  Dr.  Bomberger  at  the 
 funeral  of  Rev.  Samuel  Helifenstein,  D.D.,  Sr.,  October  22, 
 1866,  where  he  says  "Ministers  are  only  priests  in  the  sense 
 that  all  members  of  the  Church  are  priests." 
 
 The  Mercersburg  Beview  took  great  exception  to  this  sermon  because 
 Dr.  Bomberger  had  been  sent  to  that  funeral  as  the  official  representa- 
 tive of  the  Eastern  synod,  and  because  he  used  that  occasion  to  refer 
 to  Dr.  Helflfenstein  's  Old  Eeformed  views  of  doctrine,  especially  on  the 
 ministry,  which  were  that  it  Avas  a  prophetic,  not  a  priestly  office. 
 Dr.  Bomberger  was  right  in  stating  that,  for  such  were  Helff enstein 's 
 views.  However,  his  severe  attack  on  the  priestly  views  held  by  Mer- 
 cersburg caused  a  sensation.  Dr.  Harbaugh,  in  reviewing  severely  Bom- 
 berger's  Address,  says  that  Helff  enstein  disapproved  and  condemned 
 Berg's  opposition  to  Mercersburg  theology.  (In  this  he  is  in  error, 
 for  the  classical  records  reveal  that  Helffenstein  always  voted  with  Berg 
 and  for  him  even  down  to  his  dismissal  to  the  Dutch  Church. — A.) 
 Harbaugh  also  criticised  Bomberger  for  saying  that  the  minister  in 
 his  priesthood  is  like  the  members.  He  says  that  a  minister  is  a  member 
 of  the  Church  is  true,  but  that  a  member  is  a  minister  is  new. 
 
 It  was,  however,  the  inaugural  address  of  Prof.  Jeremiah  H. 
 Good  on  his  entrance  into  the  professorship  of  dogmatics  and 
 practical  theology  at  Tiffin,  July  1,  1870,  that  gave  this  subject 
 new  prominence.    His  subject  was :  ' '  The  Christian  Ministry. ' ' 
 
 He   defined   the   ministry   as   an   "order   of   men,   instituted   by   God,   ' 
 called  of  Christ,  fitted  with  proper  gifts  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  designed 
 to  be  in  perpetual   succession  in   Clod's  own  way  until  the  end  of  the 
 world.    *He  denied,  however,  the  position  of  Mercersburg  theology  that 
 
508 
 
 History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 the  office  of  the  ministry  flows  direetly  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as 
 the  fruit  of  his  lesurrection  aud  triumphant  asc-ension  to  heaven.  For 
 it  was  before  his  resurrection  that  he  had  called  the  twelve  to  be 
 ministers  and  })rej)ared  them,  as  he  had  also  the  seventy.  Again,  wlien 
 Mercersburg  bring  Ephesians  4:  11-lS  as  a  formal  statement  of  the 
 instituting  of  ministerial  gifts,  he  says  that  Paul  is  there  describing 
 not  the  different  orders  of  the  Church,  but  the  gracious  gifts  of  the 
 Saviour.  He  also  takes  issue  with  them,  when  he  says,  "How  expressly 
 our  forefathers  repiuliated  the  notion  that  ministers  were  an  order  of 
 mediating;'   j>riests   between    Christian    ]ieoiile    and    (lod,    is   slidwn    by    the 
 
 Rev.  Prof.  Jeremiah  H.  Good,  D.  D. 
 
 Second  Helvetic  Confession"  (c-liapter  19),  which  he  quotes.  The  Heidel- 
 berg Catechism  teaches  (answer  32)  the  jiriesthood  of  all  believers.  It 
 nowhere  gives  the  slightest  idea  of  priests  of  another  sort,  but  calls  them 
 ministers  (which  means  servants),  not  priests.  He  quotes  the  two 
 Helvetic  Confessions  to  prove  that  ordination  is  the  confirming  of  a  call 
 to  office  and  not  a  channel  of  supernatural  official  endowment  for  the 
 work  of  the  ministry.  The  Reformed,  with  this  idea  of  ordination,  would 
 be  compelled  to  answer  "No"  to  the  ordination  formula  of  the  Order. 
 Dr.  Nevin  says  in  his  "  V'^indication "  that  the  Old  Reformed  view 
 of  the  mini.stry  was  but  "a  mimicry, — the  powwow  of  Pagan  super- 
 stition." He  re])lies  that  as  Nevin  had  Ijcch  (irdained  by  the  Pres- 
 byterians, who  held  such  low  views  of  ordination,  his  ordination  there- 
 fore, according  to  his  own  words,  was  only  '  *  a  powwow  of  a  Pagan 
 superstition,"  and  a  mocking  of  high  heaven.  Dr.  Good  quotes  Ebrard 
 and  Heppe,  two  of  tlic  leading;  lud'orincd  theologians  of  Gennany,  as 
 proving  his  views.  The  Order  goes  beyoml  even  the  Episcoj)al  prayer- 
 book  by  requiring  the  person  ordained  to  say  he  expects  to  receive  by 
 ordination  the  gift  of  the   Holy  Ghost.     But  the  work  of  the  Christian 
 
ice    J 
 
 J 
 
 Endorsement  of  Ursinus  Theological  Department.  509 
 
 ministry  is  a  diaconate,  which  means  service  and  from  which  we  have 
 the  Latin  word  ministry.  Ff  then  the  ministry  is  a  service,  is  it  man- 
 ward  or  Godward.  Are  they  servants  of  God  or  servants  of  the  Church? 
 It  has  been  asserted  by  Mercersburg  tliat  they  stand  over  and  above 
 the  people  as  a  higher  order.  But  they  are  not  set  over  the  Church  as 
 lords;  their  lives,  however,  are  to  be  in  the  truest  sense  a  servantship  of 
 believers,  even  as  Christ  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto  but  to  minister. 
 The  ministry  has  a  fourfold  office,  (1)  of  the  Word,  (2)  of  the  sacra- 
 ments, (3)  of  discipline,  (4)  of  government,  which  he  briefly  develops. 
 
 The  editor  of  the  Mercersburg  Eeview  criticises  Dr.  Good's  views  of 
 the  ministry  in  this  Inaugural  Address.  He  says  his  views  of  the  min- 
 istry ignore  the  sacramental.  He  can  not  agree  with  him  that  the  sacra- 
 ments address  themselves  to  man  in  the  same  way  as  the  preaching  of 
 the  Word.  He  also  criticises  him  for  saying  the  minister  is  not  a  priest. 
 Dr.  Good 's  address  is  contradictory,  now  calling  the  ministry  an  office 
 and  now  denying  it.     However,  he  endorses  much  in  the  address. 
 
 Dr.  Good  replies*  to  Fisher,  showing  from  the  Reformed  confessions 
 that  the  minister's  office  is  a  prophetical  office  and  not  a  priestly.  Dr. 
 Fisher  had  criticised  him  for  saying  that  there  was  nothing  more  in  the 
 sacrament  than  there  was  in  the  Word  of  God.  (This  brings  out  the  dis- 
 tinction between  the  high-churchman  and  the  low-churchman.  The 
 former  places  the  sacraments  above  the  Word  of  God,  the  latter  places 
 the  Bible  and  sacraments  as  equal,  or,  as  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  states 
 it,  the  sacraments  are  confirmatory  of  the  Word.  Answer  65. — A.) 
 Dr.  Good  asks,  will  Dr.  Fisher  tell  what  this  is,  of  which  there  is  more 
 in  the  sacrament  than  in  the  Word.  Is  it  grace,  regeneration,  forgive- 
 ness of  sin,  justification,  sanetification: — all  of  these  are  exhibited  in 
 the  Word.  Fisher  says  that  all  three  offices  of  the  minister  (prophetical, 
 priestly,  kingly)  have  been  prominent  in  the  Reformed  Church.  If  so, 
 why  did  Dr.  Fisher,  who  helped  to  draw  up  our  constitution  in  1840,  omit 
 any  trace  of  the  priestly  function  or  of  the  threefold  division  in  article 
 2  of  the  constitution? 
 
 As  an  illustration  of  the  extreme  to  which  the  priesthood  of  the  min- 
 istry was  pushed  by  some  of  the  Mercersburg  men  we  give  the  following: 
 
 The  Lutheran  Observer^  and  also  the  Christioii  IntelUgeiieer^  had  had  an 
 article,  signed  "Aleph"  and  entitled  "Legitimate  Fruits  of  Nevinisni." 
 This  article  was  given  to  that  paper  by  a  Lutheran  minister  in  whose 
 union  church  the  event  occurred  about  two  years  before. 
 
 *Reformed  Church  Monthly,  1870. 
 fJune  24,  1853. 
 ^August  25,  1853. 
 
510        HiPTORY  OF  Reformed  Church  in  the  U,  S. 
 
 It  says,  speaking  of  a  newly-fleilged  theologian  of  the  Mercersburg 
 type,  that  there  had  been  a  revival  in  the  Lutheran  Church  when  this 
 man  was  called  to  preach  a  funeral  sermon.  (He  evidently  believed  very 
 strongly  in  their  doctrine  of  the  "priesthood  of  the  ministry." — A.) 
 He  took  advantage  of  the  circumstances  to  refer  to  the  fact  that  there 
 were  a  large  number  of  anxious  souls  among  his  hearers.  In  order  to 
 assist  them  more  easily  to  accomplish  their  aspirations  for  eternal  life, 
 he  extended  both  his  hands  over  the  congregation  and  in  a  solemn  and 
 impressive  manner  said,  "I  know  that  a  number  of  you  are  deeply  con- 
 cerned for  your  soul's  salvation, — that  you  feel  the  burden  of  your 
 sins.  I  therefore,  in  virtue  of  the  office  I  bear,  herewith  absolve  you 
 from  all  your  sins."  And  then,  shaking  his  finger  very  significantly  at 
 them,  added,  "if  you  don't  believe  this,  you  have  fallen  from  grace." 
 
 This  youth,  says  the  Observer,  acted  out  honestly  the  views  he  had 
 been  taught  at  Mercersburg.  Rev.  Mr.  Rupley  took  the  Observer  to  ta.sk 
 for  this  account  and  demanded  the  name  of  the  author.  He  found  that 
 its  author  was  Rev.  Dr.  Wedekind,  one  of  the  most  prominent  ministers 
 of  the  Lutheran  Church,  who,  however,  refused  to  give  the  name  of  the 
 minister  who  gave  him  the  account.  For  this,  Ruply  severely  attacks 
 him  and  Wedekind  severely  replies.  Wedekind  gives  affidavits  (un- 
 signed) in  the  Lvtheran  Observer,  October,  1853,  obtained  from  several 
 persons  substantiating  the  truth  of  his  statements. 
 
 Section  3.    The  Eastern  Synod  of  1870. 
 
 The  first  matter  that  came  before  this  synod  was  the  com- 
 plaint of  Dr.  Fisher  against  Philadelphia  classis  about  the 
 teaching  of  theology  in  Ursiniis  college,  as  there  were  rumors 
 that  the  teaching  of  theology  would  be  begun  there.  Dr. 
 Fisher,  at  Philadelphia  classis  (June  10,  1870),  had  called 
 the  attention  of  the  classis  to  the  provision  of  the  constitution 
 about  professors  of  theology  and  declared  that  these  provisions 
 were  openly  violated  by  an  advertised  course  of  theology  at 
 Ursinus  college.  After  a  brief  discussion,  Dr.  Bomberger 
 moved  that  it  be  laid  on  the  table.  Fisher  appealed  from  this. 
 The  difference  between  them  was  on  this  point:  l>omberger 
 claimed  that  all  ministers  were  teachers  of  theology;  Fisher 
 claimed  that  the  constitution  recognized  only  those  as  teachers 
 of  theology  who  were  elected  by  synod.  He  said  the  constitu- 
 tion recognized  the  teacher  of  theology  as  a  separate  office. 
 This  then  became  another  issue  between  the  two  parties,  the 
 Old  Reformed  party  claiming  on  the  other  hand  that  the  pro- 
 
Endorsement  of  Ursinus  Theological  Department.  511 
 
 fessor  of  theology  was  not  a  different  office  from  that  of  the 
 ministry.  They  claimed  that  snch  a  distinction  had  no  Scrip- 
 tural basis  and  that  it  was  contrary  to  the  old  custom  of  the 
 Reformed  Church,  where  the  ministers  had  often  instructed 
 3^oung  men  in  theology  and  prepared  them  for  the  ministry,  as 
 had  been  done  by  Hendel,  Becker  and  Herman.* 
 
 Heidelberg  claimedf  that  the  right  for  theological  teaching  in  Ursinus 
 college  was  based  on  the  history  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  this  country. 
 
 1.  Many  of  the  ministers  of  the  Church  had  received  their  theological 
 training  privately.     This  right  had  never  been  repealed. 
 
 2.  The  word  ' '  may ' '  in  the  article  of  the  constitution  means  that  a 
 synod  may  establish  a  theological  seminary,  but  it  does  not  say  ' '  must. ' ' 
 
 3.  Every  minister  has  a  right  to  establish  a  college,  seminary,  female 
 college,  etc.  There  is  nothing  in  all  this  forbidding  ministers  teaching 
 theology.  The  Mission  House  at  Wisconsin  v('as  for  ten  years  a  private 
 theological  institution,  yet  had  never  been  looked  upon  as  irregular.^ 
 In  Germany  such  private  theological  seminaries  were  considered  proper 
 and  right.  Again,  high-church  ministers  teach  theology  privately.  Dr. 
 T.  G.  Apple,  one  of  their  leaders,  studied  privately  under  Rev.  G.  D. 
 Wolff. 
 
 Dr.  Fisher  replied  to  the  attacks.§  All  ministers,  he  says,  are  teach- 
 ers of  theology  but  not  in  the  sense  used  here.  The  constitution  created 
 the  office  of  teacher  of  theology  and  prescribed  how  individuals  can  be 
 invested  with  it.  The  constitution  would  not  have  done  all  this  if  it 
 had  intended  to  allow  a  minister  to  teach  at  will.  Another  answer  was 
 made  to  the  high-church  argument  by  a  low-churchman  that  this  article 
 of  the  constitution  related  only  to  those  institutions  that  are  under  the 
 direct  care  of  the  Church  and  not  to  others,  such  as  Ursinus.|[ 
 
 Such  was  the  discussion  before  the  synod  met.  At  the  synod 
 the  complaint  of  Fisher  M^as  heard  and  synod  (which  had 
 been  giving  decisions  favorable  to  the  high-churchmen  right 
 along,  so  that  the  low-churchmen  felt  by  this  time  that  they 
 
 *See  pages  12-20. 
 
 ^Reformed  Church  Monthly,  August,  1870. 
 
 JThis  statement  is  not  quite  correct,  as  the  Mission  House  was  under 
 the  control  of  the  Sheboygan  classis  from  the  beginning.  But  it  was 
 correct  in  this,  that  it  was  not  under  the  direct  care  of  a  synod  for  that 
 length  of  time,  and  its  professors  had  not  been  elected  by  the  synod, 
 which  was  the  demand  of  the  Mercersburg  men,  who  denied  that  a 
 classis  had  the  right  to  found  a  seminary. 
 
 §Messc7ig€r,  August  3,  1870. 
 
 \\Reformcd  Church  Monthly,  1870. 
 
512         History  of  Reformed  Ciitrch  in  the  IT.  S. 
 
 could  not  get  any  recognition  or  justice  from  the  synod)  sus- 
 tained it  against  the  classis.  Its  resolution  was  that  the  synod 
 did  not  in  this  decision  intend  to  pass  upon  the  merits  of  the 
 particular  points  involved  in  tlie  case,  ])ut  simply  returned  the 
 subject  to  the  elassis  with  instructions  to  take  it  U]->  and  dis- 
 pose of  it  in  the  regular  way.  So  action  was  taken  only  on  the 
 action  of  Philadelphia  classis  in  ivfusing  to  hear  Fisher  and 
 not  on  the  merits  of  the  case.  It  was  sent  back  to  Philadelphia 
 classis  for  reconsideration. 
 
 The  committee  of  synod  (of  which  Dr.  Xevin  was  chairman) 
 appointed  to  examine  the  German  translation  of  the  Order  of 
 Worship  made  under  the  direction  of  East  Pennsylvania 
 classis,  reported  it  highly  credit;) ble  to  the  source  from  whicli 
 it  came.  But  at  the  same  time  they  were  of  the  opinion  that  it 
 does  not  come  up  fully  to  the  style  and  tone  wliich  is  needed  to 
 make  the  liturgy  what  it  ought  to  be  for  our  foreign  German 
 (Jhurch,  and,  therefore,  the  cominittiM^  reported  that  they  could 
 not  sanction  its  pul)licati(m.  The  synod  then,  at  the  request 
 of  East  Peiuisylvania  classis,  appointed  a  committee  to  im- 
 prove it  and  to  have  it  published.  Another  important  acti(m 
 of  the  synod  was  its  decision  to  remove  the  theological  semi- 
 nary from  Mercersburg  to  Lancaster. 
 
 Section  4.     Fritsciiei/s  Review  of  ^Merceksbcrc;  Tiieolo(;v. 
 
 Prol)ably  the  most  trencliant  cr-ilicism  ever  made  of  i\I(n-cers- 
 burg  theolog>^  was  made  l)y  Rev.  l*rof.  G.  Fritgchel,  of  the 
 Wartburg  (IMissouri)  Tlieoh)gical  Seminary  of  the  Lutheran 
 Church.  In  him  Dr.  Xevin  found  a  foe  worthy  of  his  steel.* 
 He  makes  three  ])oints  against  Nevinism: 
 
 (1)  It  is  not  in  hai-nion\-  witli  Calvin's  views  e\-en  tliough 
 Nevin  so  asserts. 
 
 (2)  It  is  Ijutlier;ni  r;i1Iier  tban  Reformed  in  its  doctrines. 
 
 (3)  Its  doctrines  were  contradictory  to  each  otlicr,  espe- 
 cially those  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper. 
 
 1.  His  statciiioiit  i)t'  Dr.  Ncnin's  licpartui-o  from  C-ilvin's  views  is 
 very  clear.     Calvin,  he  says,  docs  not  nuikc  baptism   a   menus  of  yrace, 
 
 *IIis  review  of  Nevin 's  theology  was  i>ul)lislioii  in  t]]r  Thcdhxilcal 
 Monthly  (1870-71)  of  Brobst,  at  AJlentown. 
 
Endorsement  op  Ursinus  Theological  Department.  513 
 
 but  only  a  sign  and  seal  of  that  grace.  But  Mercersburg  theology 
 makes  baptism  a  means  of  grace: — baptism  is  the  objective  communica- 
 tion of  the  heavenly  grace.  In  baptism  there  is  a  real  transplanting 
 from  the  kingdom  of  Satan  to  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  But  the  old  Ee- 
 formed  doctrine  of  the  covenant-relation  of  the  child  was  that  (accord- 
 ing to  1  Corinthians  7:  ]4)  the  children  of  believing  parents  stand  in 
 themselves  in  communion  with  God, — that  from  birth  they  are  included 
 in  a  special  act  of  grace  of  God  in  the  covenant — that  through  birth 
 they  are  in  the  sphere  of  grace,  that  baptism  only  confirme  this  and  that 
 out  of  it  they  go  to  conscious  sin.  But  this  old  Reformed  view,  the 
 Mercersburg  theology  sets  aside.  It  claims  that  the  doctrine  of  original 
 sin  makes  even  the  children  of  believing  parents  to  be  in  a  state  of  con- 
 demnation, out  of  which  they  must  be  taken  to  be  placed  in  a  state  of 
 grace  by  an  act  of  grace,  namely,  bajitism,  if  they  are  ever  to  receive 
 eternal  life. 
 
 Again,  the  Mercersburg  view  holds  that  baptism  is  not  only  a  trans- 
 planting into  Christ,  but  also  that  by  it  forgiveness  of  sin  is  given. 
 Thus,  the  doctrine  of  forgiveneiss  is  connected  with  baptismal  grace;  and 
 repentance  and  absolution  are  nothing  else  than  a  use  of  baptism  and  a 
 continual  return  to  the  grace  given  once  for  all  in  baptism.  This,  how- 
 ever, is  different  from  Calvin 's  view,  which  disconnected  forgiveness 
 from  baptism  because  of  his  view  of  predestination.  He  placed  for- 
 giveness in  connection  with  the  eternal  decree  rather  than  with  baptism. 
 Mercersburg  also  held  that  with  forgiveness  came  the  communication  of 
 a  new  and  spiritual  life.  As  Adam's  life  comes  down  to  us,  so  Christ's 
 is  impartcil  to  us.  Baptism  is  the  bath  of  regeneration.  It  includes  the 
 root  of  all  the  powers  of  the  new  life.  The  will  of  men  and  their  condi- 
 tion (that  is  their  faith)  does  not  condition  baptism.  The  inward  grace 
 goes  with  the  outward  use  of  the  water.  Water  alone  is  not  baptism. 
 Baptism  is  the  union  of  the  visible  sign  with  the  invisible  grace.  Bap- 
 tism is  thus  a  vehicle  of  grace. 
 
 Again,  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  Nevin's  views  were  not  Calvin's.  Mer- 
 cersburg theology  made  Christ's  humanity  to  be  present  in  the  liord's 
 Supper  in  and  through  which  he  makes  us  partakers  of  the  divine  na- 
 ture,*— this  humanity  being  a  rich  inexhaustible  fountain,  which  causes 
 the  life  to  stream  over  to  us.  But  Calvin,  though  he  uses  language  which 
 may  lead  to  this  meaning,  in  other  places  denies  ever  eating  of  the  sub- 
 stance of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  as  Mercersburg  asserts.  His  con- 
 stant teaching  is  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  far  from  us  in  heaven  instead 
 of  being  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  Mercersburg  declares.  Calvin  holds 
 that  only  by  the  lifting  up  of  the  mind  to  heaven  is  there  any  enjoyment 
 of  the  strength  of  the  body  of  Christ.  And  he  claims  that  this  lifting 
 up  of  the  mind  can  occur  at  other  times  than  at  the  Lord's  Supper. 
 Even  when  our  mind  is  lifted  up,  there  is  nothing  more  than  a  streaming 
 
 ^Mercersburg  Bevicw,  1867,  page  365. 
 
514         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 forth  of  strength  from  his  body,  just  as  the  -svarmth  of  the  sun  streams 
 out.  This  is  no  communication  of  his  life.  Just  as  when  Jesus  healed 
 the  woman  with  an  issue  of  blood,  it  was  not  the  sul:)stance  of  his  life 
 that  went  out  of  his  body;  so  neither  does  this  substance  proceed  out 
 of  his  body  at  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  body  of  Christ  is  in  heaven,  far 
 from  the  Lord's  Supper.  And  the  substance  of  Christ's  body  is  in  no 
 way  received  by  mouth  or  spiritually.  To  prove  this,  Fritschel  quotes 
 Calvin's  Institutes,  Vol.  IV,  17,  32,  against  Nevin's  view.  Calvin  teaches 
 the  real  communication  of  Christ's  body,  as  did  Zwingli.  Even  Nevin 
 himself  seems  to  feel  that  his  views  are  not  those  of  Calvin,  for  ho 
 grants  that  Calvin's  is  not  a  satisfactory  statement;  for  speaking  of  Cal- 
 vin 's  requirement  to  lift  our  minds  to  Christ  in  heaven  at  the  Lord 's 
 Supper,  he  says,  "the  attempt  which  is  made  to  bring  the  two  parties 
 together,  notwithstanding  such  vast  separation  in  space,  must  be  allowed 
 to  be  somewhat  awkward  and  violent. ' ' 
 
 Fritschel  says  Nevin  has  three  points  on  which  he  hopes  to  make  Cal- 
 vin's doctrine  clearer  than  Calvin  did  and  therefore  he  adds  to  Calvin. 
 
 The  first  is  a  view,  taken  from  Fichte,  who  suggested  that  the  person- 
 ality or  the  true  inner  essence  of  the  body  lay  in  the  identity  of  the 
 ground-form  of  the  body  and  not  in  the  changing  material  particles. 
 This  view  Nevin  applies  to  Christ.  His  material  body  and  blood  are  not 
 communicated  to  us,  but  his  inner  real  substance — the  organic  law  of 
 the  human  body. 
 
 A  second  addition  of  Nevin  to  Calvin  is  the  emphasis  laid  on  the 
 absolute  unity  of  the  divine-human  person  of  Christ.  Instead  of  divinity 
 and  humanity  being  distinct,  though  united  in  his  person;  all,  body,  soul 
 and  divinity,  are  united  in  the  indivisible  life. 
 
 Ilis  third  addition  to  Calvin  is  his  philosophic  realism,  on  wliicli  Nevin 
 founds  his  view.  In  each  sphere  of  life  the  universal  and  the  individual 
 are  bound  close  together  in  the  same  subject,  as  for  instance  in  the 
 vegetable  world.  This  Fritschel  denies.  The  Lutheran  Church  denieil 
 the  philosophic  statement  of  the  relations  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ 
 as  to  his  presence  in  the  Lord 's  Supper.  It  simply  accepts  the  Biblical 
 statement.  Nevin  rejects  as  insutficicnt  Calvin's  view  that  the  eating 
 of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  communicated  by  faith  to  the  soul.  The  real 
 communication,  says  Nevin,  is  from  the  center  of  Christ's  life  to  the 
 center  of  our  life. 
 
 2.  The  socond  point  that  Fritschel  makes  is  that  Nevin  liad 
 become  Liitheranizing.  Unlike  the  Reformed,  Mereersburg 
 theology  places  high  value  on  the  Church  and  the  sacraments, 
 — "Christianity  is  sacramental." 
 
 Nevin  places  forgiveness  in  connection  with  baptism  as  the  Lutherans 
 do.    Fritschel  rejoices  that  among  the  Eeformed,  one  is  found  who  holds 
 
Endorsement  op  TIrsinus  Theological  Department.  515 
 
 the  Lutherau  view, — that  baptism  is  a  fundamental  doctrine — the  bath 
 of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  lie  also  rejoices  that 
 in  the  Lord's  Supper,  Nevin  corrects  the  error  of  the  Keformed  theology 
 by  emphasizing  the  unity  of  the  natures  of  Christ.  In  speaking  of 
 Nevin 's  doctrine  of  baptism,  Fritschel  says,  "What  a  joy  it  would  be 
 for  the  whole  Lutheran  world  if  the  Reformed  and  all  Protestants 
 teach  that  baptism  is  the  Imth  of  regeneration.  He  thus  claims  that 
 Nevin  virtually  taught  Lutherau  doctrine" — that  Nevin  in  all  those 
 views  is  like  the  Lutheran  theologians  as  Nicolai.* 
 
 .'5.  Tlie  tliii'd  point  that  Fritsehcl  makes  is  that  Nevin  is  con- 
 tradii'toiy  in  liis  own  doctrine,  that  his  doctrine  of  l)aptis!ii 
 and  of  the  Lord's  Snpper  contradict  each  other. 
 
 Nevin  holds  in  regard  to  baptism  that  by  it  the  child  is  implanted  into  ' 
 Christ.  He  emphasizes  the  power  of  the  objective  activity  in  that  sacra- 
 ment. Whether  Paul  or  Simon  Magus  is  baptized,  the  sacrament  is 
 the  same  baptism, — is  itself- the  vehicle  of  grace.  But  here  appears 
 Nevin 's  contradiction.  What  he  grants  in  baptism,  he  denies  in  the 
 Lord's  Supper.  Faith,  according  to  Nevin,  does  not  affect  the  efficacy 
 of  baptism  because  it  has  objective  force  (here  he  takes  Lutheran 
 ground).  And  yet,  when  Nevin  comes  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  he  requires 
 faith.  He  says  we  are  not  participants  of  Christ's  body  and  blood 
 through  the  eating  and  drinking  except  through  faith.  This  is  the  old 
 Reformed  position,  which  Nevin  gives  up  in  regard  to  baptism.  All  the! 
 benefits  of  Christ  are  received  only  through  faith.  "Why,"  Fritschel 
 asks,  "does  Mercersburg  disown  in  the  Lord's  Supper  what  it  says  be- 
 long to  baptism, — that  faith  is  necessary  in  the  one  and  not  in  the  other? 
 Why  is  there  not  the  same  relation  between  the  outward  act  and  the  in- 
 ward grace  in  both  sacraments?  Why  must  faith  mediate  the  benefits 
 in  the  Lord's  Supper  and  not  in  baptism?  Why  does  it  deny  that  in  the 
 Lonl's  Supper  the  communication  of  the  body  and  blood  goes  with  tlie 
 outward  means.  Nevin  calls  this  separation  of  the  water  from  the  in- 
 ward transaction  at  baptism  a  Gnostic  view.  But  does  he  not  come 
 under  this  Gnostic  delusion  himself  by  sundering  them  in  the  Lord's 
 Supper  and  requiring  faith.  There  is  therefore  a  breach,  a  dissonance, 
 an  inconsistency  in  the  Mercersburg  theology.  If  INIercersburg  holds  to 
 baptismal  grace  it  ought  to  hold  to  oral  manducation.f 
 
 Dr.  Apple|  comments  on  Fritschel 's  statements  that  the  Mercersburg 
 theology  was  Lutheran.     He  refers  to  Zwingli's  low  view  of  the  saera- 
 
 *An  article  by  Prof.  Krautli,  of  the  Lutheran  Theological  seminary 
 in  Philadelphia,  published  in  the  Mercersburg  Kcviciv  (1874),  in  which 
 he  reviewed  Dr.  Hodge  on  Infant  Baptism,  also  stated  that  Mercersburg 
 theology  was  Lutheran  rather  than  Reformed. 
 
 f Receiving  Christ's  body  through  the  mouth  at  tlie  Lord's  Supper. 
 
 fMcsscngcr,  November  23,  1870. 
 
510         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 nients  and  shmvs  that  the  Mercorsburg  view  is  not  Zwinglian.  And  then 
 by  quotations  from  Calvin  and  other  authorities,  he  shows  that  it  is  not 
 just  consistent  with  any  of  these,  but  is  fully  Lutheran  and  sometimes 
 even  a  little  more  than  Lutheran.  We  cannot,  says  Dr.  Apple,  but  agree 
 with  him,  when  he  says  that  Calvin's  expressions  on  the  sacrament,  while 
 they  are  sound  and  Scriptural,  yet  in  a  sense  are  often  slippery;  and  wo 
 are  quite  willing  to  admit  that  the  Keformed  symbols  generally  have  a 
 tendency  to  escape  the  full  Scrii)tural  presentation  of  the  nature  of  the 
 sacraments.  That  the  IMercersburg  views  on  this  subject  have  ap- 
 proached Lutheranism  only  ])roves  that  Mercersburg  is  not  a  mere  rc- 
 pristination  of  the  Eeformoil  theology  of  the  Keforniation,  1)ut  an  ad- 
 vance toward  overcoming  the  antithesis  between  the  Lutheran  and  the 
 Eeformed  faith  of  the  Eeformatiou.  This  only  shows  the  Catliolic 
 spirit  of  the  Mercersburg  theology.  Apple  adds  that  the  main  point 
 turns  on  Prof.  Fritschel 's  view  of  the  relation  of  the  outward  to  the 
 iuAA-ard  in  the  sacrament.  The  Eeformed  were  inclined,  he  says,  to 
 separate  these  two :  so  as  not  to  allow  to  the  sacrament  the  full  character 
 of  a  means  of  grace.  The  inward  transaction — the  grace  of  the  sacra- 
 ment was  made  to  run  parallel  with  the  outward  sign  and  symbol,  but 
 not  to  come  into  full  sacramental  union  with  it.  We  grant  this  tendency 
 in  the  Eeformed  faith,  which  Mercersburg  has  aimed  to  correct." 
 
 Dr.  Williard  quickly  took  advantage  of  Apple's  admission  that  Mer- 
 cersburg theology  was  an  advance,  but  an  advance  toward  Lutheranism, 
 not  toward  other  denominations.  (Ajjple  had  been  attacking  the  Evan- 
 gelical Alliance  severely.) 
 
 Dr.  Good  also  takes  up  the  matter  and  says  that  MiTccrsburg  tlioidogy 
 was  not  truly  Eeformed,  although  Fisher  used  to  claim  it  was.  But  it 
 tended  tow-ard  Lutheranism  and  even  beyond  it,  toward  Romanism. 
 Apple  had  granted  that  their  theology  aimed  to  correct  what  was  wrong 
 in  the  Eeformed  theology,  when  it  separated  too  much  the  outward  and 
 inward  in  the  siicranients.  Wlicii  Apjilo  did  this,  he  gave  up  what  dis- 
 tinguished the  Eeformeil  from  the  Lutheran.  lie  says  over  against 
 A]>ple  that  the  E<>formed  tend  to  a  union  of  the  outwanl  ami  inward 
 in  the  sacraments  but  tiie  Lutherans  tend  to  a  conjunction.  TiUtlierans 
 hold  to  a  corporeal  conjunction  between  the  sign  and  tlie  thing  signified 
 existing  in  one  mass  and  at  the  same  time  and  place.  The  Reformed 
 hold  that  the  sacramental  union  is  not  corporeal  or  in  the  presence  of 
 the  sign  and  the  thing  signified  in  the  same  place,  but  it  is  relative  and 
 consists  of  two  things: 
 
 1.  In  a  likeness  or  corresi)ondence  between  tlio  sign  and  tlic  thing. 
 
 2.  In  the  joint  exhibition  of  sign  and  thing  signified. 
 
 Apple  he  says,  now  admits  what  their  opponents  iiad  claiined,— that 
 Mercersburg  theology  was  Lutheranizing.     What  had  Fisher  now  to  say.* 
 
 *Dr.  Fisher  had  always  claimed  that  Mercers])urg  theology  was  old 
 Reformed  doctrine. 
 
Endorsement  op  TTrsinus  Tiieof^ogical  Department.  517 
 
 Dr.  Apple  tlieu  tries  to  draw  in  under  cover,  for  he  says  that  Mercers- 
 burg  theology  agrees  with  the  Luth(Man,  Init  he  says  there  is  a  diflference. 
 The  Lutheran  Church  teaches  that  after  Christ's  ascension,  Christ's 
 humanity  passes  into  full  endowment  of  his  divinity  and  that  the  right 
 luind  of  (iod  to  which  he  ascended  was  everywhere.  But  Mercersburg 
 distinguishes  between  the  presence  of  Christ's  humanity  at  the  right 
 liand  of  God  and  his  presence  in  the  sacraments,  thuugli  it  maintains  tiiat 
 the  latter  was  no  less  real  than  the  former. 
 
 Section  5.    The  Perversions  to  Rome  and  to  the  Episcopal 
 Church  (1870-73). 
 
 We  have  already  seen  that  there  had  l^een  some  perversions 
 to  Rome  in  the  years  gone  l)y.  as  Snively  and  Stewart.  But 
 now  we  eonie  to  an  era  of  them  lasting  till  1873  and  later.  We 
 have  noticed  that  jnst  about  the  time  of  the  General  Synod 
 of  1869,  Rev.  Mr.  Stewart  went  over  to  Rome.  In  March, 
 1870,  Rev.  J.  H.  Wagner  went  over  to  the  Catholic  Church. 
 The  Messenger  tried  to  lessen  the  force  of  this  perversion  by 
 publishing  a  letter  of  Rev.  A.  H.  Kremcr,  our  pastor  at  Lan- 
 caster, whose  church  Wagner  had  attended.  Kremer  says 
 he  had  had  an  interview  with  AVagncr  before  he  went  over  to 
 Rome  ui'ging  him  not  to  do  so.  He  also  said  that  Wagner 
 had  had  an  interview  with  Dr.  Nevin,  who  gave  him  arguments 
 against  the  Catholic  Chin-ch.  The  Old  Reformed  party  seized 
 on  this  perversion  as  another  proof  of  the  Romanizing  char- 
 acter of  IVIercersburg  theolog}'. 
 
 Dr.  Williard  said  that  Wagner  was  one  of  the  most  thorough-1)red 
 of  the  Mercersburg  men  educated  under  Nevin,  and  had  defended  Mer- 
 cersburgism  at  the  General  Synod  of  186G.  The  Christian  World  tried 
 to  cast  discredit  on  high-churchism  by  saying  that  Wagner  was  a  faithful 
 attendant  at  Kremer 's  Church,  where  the  liturgy  was  in  full  force. 
 Wagner  may  have  talked  with  Nevin.  who  may  have  dissuaded  him, 
 but  his  previous  tendency,  begotten  from  Nevin.  was  too  strong  and  he 
 followed  it  into  the  Catholic  Church. 
 
 Stern  adds  fuel  to  the  controversy.  He  says  he  had  sent  a  Mr.  Reine- 
 man  to  Mercersburg  twenty-five  years  before.  Though  but  a  prepara- 
 tory student,  he  imbibed  views  so  that  he  soon  went  over  to  Rome. 
 While  pastor  in  Pennsylvania,  he  had  sent  a  Mr.  Kneclit  there  for  but 
 one  session  's  study  in  the  preparatory  school.  He  returned  home  telling 
 all  around  that  he  would  never  return,  because  the  rector  of  the  prepara- 
 tory department  tried  to  convince  him  of  the  propriety  of  the  worship 
 
518         History  of  Reformed  Church  ix  the  T^".  S. 
 
 of  Mary.  A  Mr.  Aaron  Christnian  who  was  sent  to  Mereersburg  to 
 study  for  the  ministry,  returned  home  (1850)  a  high-church  Episco- 
 palian. He  also  said  that  tiie  German  congregation  at  Waukon,  Iowa, 
 had  just  withdrawn  from  our  Cluircli  because  of  the  theology  of  Nevin- 
 isin,  tiio  congregation  being  composed  mainly  of  Eeformed  settlers  from 
 Ijippe  in  Gernumy. 
 
 The  Christian  Worhl'^  notes  another  perversion  to  Kunie,  Professor 
 Budd  of  the  Franklin  and  Marshall  college.  J.  W.  S.  in  Messenger  tried 
 to  defend  Budd's  case  by  saying  that  he  was  of  Quaker  blood  and  that 
 as  he  was  not  a  member  of  the  Reformed  Chiuch  the  perversion  couM 
 not  therefore  be  charged  to  Nevinism. 
 
 Dr.  Good  rejilies  that  if  it  be  true,  as  J.  W.  S.  says,  that  Budd 
 never  had  any  faith  in  Protestantism  and  did  not  like  the  Reformed 
 Ghurch,  it  is  strange  he  ever  was  elected  as  professor  in  one  of  her 
 institutions.  J.  W.  S.  .said  that  if  there  is  any  Romanizing  tendency  it 
 could  not  come  from  the  college  but  from  some  other  quarter.  Good 
 asks,  "Does  he  mean  to  deny  that  Nevin  was  so  nearly  gone  to  Rome 
 that  his  family  begged  the  interference  of  other  ministers. ' '  This  state- 
 ment is  made,  he  says,  on  the  authority  of  Prof.  M.  Kieffer.  What  does 
 he  mean  by  the  other  quarters'?  Does  he  refer  to  Mercersburgf  as  Ro- 
 manizing. 
 
 J.  W.  S.t  says  that  of  470  graduates  only  two  had  gone  to  Rome. 
 One-fourth  of  the  students  of  the  college  were  of  other  denominations. 
 
 He  replied  to  Good's  attacks  on  Snively's  early  perversion  by  calling 
 his  article  "The  Lamentations  of  Jeremiah,"  playing  on  Dr.  Good's  first 
 name. 
 
 Dr.  Good  says  "colleges  ought  to  be  careful  about  their  jirofessors,  as 
 their  going  over  to  Rome  has  a  far-reaching  influence."  His  conviction 
 of  the  Romish  tendency  of  Mereersburg  theology  is  however  based  not  so 
 much  on  the  number  of  persons  going  to  Rome  as  on  its  theological  basis. 
 
 By  October,  tlic  C'lnirch  was  startlpd  at  tlic  news  of  three 
 more  perversions  to  Rome,  Ei-mentront,  Wolff  niid  AVm. 
 Philips. 
 
 A  writer  in  tlie  Messcnr/er  expresses  surprise  that  they  should  go  to 
 Rome  now,  since  its  adoj)tion  of  the  new  dogma  of  papal  infallibility, 
 against  which  Dollinger  and  the  old  Catholics  were  protesting,  lie 
 tries  to  excuse  their  act  by  saying  that  Enuentrout  had  not  been  in  the 
 active  ministry  for  some  time  past,  and  Wolfif  not  for  a  year.  Ernien- 
 trout,  he  says,  was  one  of  tlie  young  men  infected  some  twenty  years  ago 
 with  the  first  Rimianizing  tendency,  and  he  had  done  more  by  sophistical 
 and  skeptical  quibbles  to  unsettle  and  disturb  the  minds  of  later  students 
 
 *May  18,  1871. 
 
 fThe  Theological  seminary  was  still  at  Mereersburg. 
 
 ^Messenger,  June  28. 
 
Endorsement  of  Ursinus  Theological  Department.  519 
 
 than  any  other  man  known  to  us.  Both  have  suffered  from  the  poisonous 
 inoculation  of  the  Church  some  twenty  years  ago.  And  it  can  not  be 
 Avorse  for  the  Church  for  them  to  go  where  they  belong.  Such  views 
 are  not  Reformed  and  any  one  holding  them  can  better  be  spared  than 
 retained.  Our  catechism  denounces  the  mass  as  "an  accursed  idolatry," 
 and  it  is  idolatry  or  heresy  for  any  Reformed  to  turn  Papist.  We  must, 
 however,  preserve  the  middle  course,  neither  fall  back  in  alarm  at  our 
 present  advance  of  truth  into  negative  forms  of  belief,  or  to  go  blindly 
 into  abject  bondage  to  popery;  but  to  contend  earnestly  for  the  faith 
 once  delivered  to  Mie  saints.  We  should  not  be  despondent.  The  loss  of 
 a  few  men  can  not  destroy  the  Church. 
 
 The  Old  Reformed  party  were  not  slow  in  taking  advantage 
 of  these  new  defections. 
 
 Dr.  Good  has  an  article*  on  Wolff's  defection,  saying  that  he  was 
 prominent  as  a  leader  among  the  Mercersburg  men.  At  the  Eastern 
 synod  of  1869  he  was  chairman  of  the  committee  on  the  state  of  the 
 Church  and  in  his  report  he  extols  the  Eastern  liturgy  to  the  skies  and 
 stigmatizes  his  opponents  as  of  an  infidel  spirit.  Like  Wagner,  who  had 
 preceded  him  to  Rome,  he  was  the  son  of  a  Reformed  minister,  yes  of  a 
 •professor  in  her  theological  seminary.  Dr.  Good  severely  arraigns  Dr. 
 Nevin  as  the  father  of  these  perversions,  saying  that  Nevin  for  years 
 has  been  warning  his  students  against  rationalism  and  Puritanism  but 
 never  once  against  Romanism.  Yet  the  latter  has  been  deeper  in  its 
 heresies  as  in  the  immaculate  conception  and  the  infallibility  of  the 
 pope.  Nevin  had  abandoned  the  principle  of  Protestantism,  justifica- 
 tion by  faith  on  the  basis  of  Christ's  righteousness,  and  had  substituted 
 justification  by  baptism  on  the  ground  of  the  incarnation. 
 
 The  Reformed  Church  Monthly  says  "that  the  defections  to  Rome  and 
 Episcopacy  included  some  eight  or  ten  ministers  of  our  Church,  besides 
 five  sons  of  professors  and  presidents  of  college  (two  sons  of  Nevin  and 
 two  of  Kieffer),  a  professor  at  Lancaster,  a  niece  and  nephew  of  Dr. 
 Apple  and  others,  of  whose  relationship  we  can  not  speak. ' '  The  Chris- 
 tian World  says  of  W.  Phillips  and  Brettel,  who  had  also  left  our  Church 
 for  the  Episcopal  that  they  had  been  the  most  brilliant  preachers  of  the 
 Mercersburg  party. 
 
 In  the  Church  papers.  Dr.  Bausman  explained  their  defection  as  due 
 to  a  one-sided  investigation  and  Dr.  Russell,  to  theological  dyspepsia.  Dr. 
 Ruetenik,f  in  commenting  on  the  perverts,  says  "A  high -churchman 
 went  so  far  in  a  synodical  sermon  as  to  say  that  the  Romish  Church  was 
 in  the  right  in  the  Reformation  struggle  by  defending  the  principle  of 
 Church  authority.     The  same   individual   conducted  the  examination   of 
 
 *Christian  World,  October  12. 
 ■fEvangelist,  November  2,  1871. 
 
520        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 the   candidate,   Mr.   St .      To  the   question   whether  he   received   the 
 
 Heidelberg  Catechism,  he  answered  "Yes,"  except  the  80th  ques- 
 tion; and  contrary  to  the  constitution  his  answer  was- received  as  satis- 
 factory. We  were  present,  he  says,  when  the  candidate  V.  H.  was 
 examined  and  in  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
 eliism  he  affirmed  and  admitted  that  he  himself  believed  that  Christ 
 is  also  according  to  his  human  nature  everywhere  present.  It  will  now 
 be  less  difficult  for  him  to  bow  before  the  consecrated  host  and  worship 
 it.  Another  who  belonged  to  this  class  of  students  and  was  once  on  the 
 verge  of  going  over  to  Eome,  but  afterwards  came  to  a  better  con- 
 clusion, affirmed  that  not  a  single  Mercersburger  could  preach  the  Gospel 
 with  a  clear  conscience  in  a  Protestant  communion. ' ' 
 
 The  Reformed  Church  Ttcvieiv's  attack  on  this  article  of  Dr.  Ruetenik 
 led  the  latter  to  reply*  that  he  might  tell  of  a  Mercersburg  candidate  who 
 once  disputed  with  a  Reformed  minister  in  favor  of  popery  and  so  de- 
 nounced Evangelical  religion  that  his  own  father  was  constrained  to  say, 
 "You  seem  to  be  like  one  who  calls  his  mother  a  harlot." 
 
 The  Reformed  Church  Monthly  gives  a  list  of  the  Romaniz- 
 ing books  tliflt  had  been  commended  to  tlie  theological  students 
 at  ]\Iereersburg  and  said  when  these  books  were  recommended 
 was  there  an  antidote  suggested,  as  Rnssel's  "Catholicism  and 
 Protestantism  Compared"  to  offset  Balmes'  work  or  Bacon's 
 "Two  Sides"  against  the  "Poor  Man's  Catechism." 
 
 Gans  tried  to  show  that  the  perversions  were  nut  due  to  Mercersburg 
 theology  but  to  Tiffin  theology.  It  was  so  one-sided  in  its  attacks  on 
 Mercersburg  theology  that  it  led  these  men  to  react  and  go  to  the  other 
 extreme.  He  called  Tiffin  theology  a  negative  theology.  Against  this 
 statement  the  Christian  World  protests.  It  replied  that  if  its  article 
 has  hastened  the  departure  of  Ermentrout  and  Wolff,  it  was  not  sorry. 
 It  was  better  that  they  should  be  where  their  hearts  were  (in  the  Catholic 
 Church  ratlier  than  in  the  Reformed). 
 
 Several  communications  appeared  in  the  Messenger  in  the 
 early  part  of  1872,  which  seemed  to  shift  the  blame  of  these 
 apostasies  from  Nevin  to  Schaff.  This  called  forth  a  protest 
 of  Dr.  Schaff.f  He  said  he  had  done  his  tliiuking  openly  be- 
 fore the  world  from  1844  to  1871  through  his  publications  and 
 he  had  made  no  change  in  his  principles  or  standpoint.  Thus 
 this  effort  to  make  Schaff'  the  scapegoat  instead  of  Nevin  failed. 
 
 •^February  7,  1872. 
 ■fMesseiiger,  February  21,  1872. 
 
Endorsement  op  Ursinus  Theological  Department.  521 
 
 (Dr.  Scliaff.  in  his  inaugural  address  (1871),  as  professor  at 
 Union  Theological  seminary,  New  York,  spoke  out  positively 
 for  Protestantism.  It  is  a  pity  he  had  not  spoken  out  so  holdly 
 in  his  earlier  days.  He  had  evidently  gotten  over  his  earlier 
 aberrations  and-  now  defended  the  Reformation.  He  now  de- 
 clared the  opposite  of  what  he  then  granted, — that  he  did  not 
 believe  that  Protestantism  tended  to  division  and  dissolution. 
 His  former  pessimism  about  Protestantism  in  its  present  form 
 had  now  given  way  to  optimism. — A.) 
 
 Dr.  Boniberger  takes  the  side  of  Seliaff  against  Fisher,  saying  that 
 Schaff  is  not  to  be  held  responsible  for  the  Romanizing  tendencies  in  our 
 Church.  He  was  swayed  by  influences  back  of  himself.  More  than  once, 
 as  at  the  synods  of  18(32  and  1866,  he  gave  utterance  to  sentiments  that 
 showed  that  although  a  strong  current  was  sweeping  him  along  in  its 
 course,  yet  he  was  aware  of  its  dangerous  tendency. 
 
 The  Christian-  World,  however,  says  that  Schaff  was  not  free  from 
 blame,  for  he  was  identified  with  Mercersburg  theology  and  contributed 
 to  it  by  his  influence.  But  Schaff  never  went  in  his  writings  to  the  full 
 length,  as  Nevin  did  in  ' '  Early  Christianity ' '  or  in  his  tract  on  the 
 liturgy.  Nor  has  he  ever  expressed  any  doubt  in  regard  to  Protestantism 
 as  others  have  done. 
 
 We  might  add  to  all  this,  after  a  careful  stuily  of  the  subject  for 
 years,  that  the  decidedly  Romanizing  tendency  came  from  Nevin,  al- 
 though Schaff  was  fond  of  high-church  forms  and  in  his  "Principle 
 of  Protestantism ' '  and  other  works  expressed  some  dangerous  views. 
 Also  in  his  advice  to  students  at  Mercersburg  about  reading  Catholic 
 books  he  exerted  a  very  unfortunate  influence. 
 
 Hardly  had  the  astonishment  caused  l)y  these  perversions  to 
 Rome  abated  than  the  Church  was  surprised  to  learn  that 
 another  leader  of  the  Mercersburg  i)arty,  Rev.  Mr.  Giesy,  had 
 gone"  over  to  the  Episcopal  Church. 
 
 The  Messenger*  announces  Giesy 's  departure  to  Episcopacy,  that  he 
 had  applied  to  Maryland  clasfeis  for  a  tlismissal  and  that  classis  had 
 granted  it,  although  some  of  them  knew  that  it  would  not  be  recognized 
 by  that  Church.  The  classis  did  wrong,  it  says,  in  granting  a  paper 
 that  could  not  be  recognized.  It  humiliated  our  Church.  Their  action 
 was  without  precedent.  Tiie  constitution  says  that  dismission  shall  be 
 given  to  ministers  called  elsewhere.  Giesy  had  been  without  a  field  for  a 
 year. 
 
 *February  7. 
 
522         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S;. 
 
 Maryland  classis,  in  dismissing  Giesy,  tried  to  guard  itself  by  saying 
 that  it  did  not  mean  by  its  action  to  express  any  doubt  as  to  the  validity 
 of  any  action  growing  therefrom  nor  did  it  mean  to  acknowledge  the 
 peculiar  claims  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  respect  to  its  min- 
 istry. 
 
 The  Christian  World*  speaking  of  Giesy 's  perversion,  asks  if  he  re- 
 nounces his  ministerial  character  (this  is  implied  by  the  fact  that  he  had 
 to  be  re-ordained  by  the  bishop)  as  a  Eefonned  minister,  why  does  he 
 hold  on  to  his  degree  of  D.D.?  How  could  he  be  a  D.D.  if  he  is  not 
 a  minister?  Or  where  was  his  degree  of  D.D.  during  the  time  between 
 his  dej)arture  from  our  Ohui'ch  and  his  re-ordination  in  the  Episco])al 
 Church? 
 
 The  ChristUcher  Botschafter,  the  organ  of  the  Evangelical  Association, 
 makes  merry  over  the  re-ordination  of  Giesy  by  the  Episcopalians,  be- 
 cause the  Reformed  had  once  treated  them  in  this  way  in  the  case  of  Dr. 
 Gohr,  whom  the  Reformed  had  re-ordained,  because  they  said  he  came  not 
 t'ldiii  a  church  but  from  a  sect — the  Evangelical  Association.  It  says  the 
 Ejiiscopaliau  Church  now  regards  the  Refonned  as  a  sect. 
 
 The  Christian  World,  speaking  of  Giesy 's  going  over  to  Episcopacy, 
 says  it  thinks  of  Hudson,  Geiger,  W.  Phillips  and  Hartman  who  had  also 
 gone  there.  And  to  Rome  had  gone  Snively,  Stewart,  Ermentrout  and 
 Wolflf.  Mereersburg  theology  had  driven  Berg  and  Mesick  to  the  Dutch, 
 K.  TI.  Nevin,  Vaughn  and  Samuel  Philips  to  the  Presbyterians.  The 
 Reformed  Church  Monthly  also  refers  to  "the  rapidly  thinning  front 
 rank  of  Mereersburg. ' ' 
 
 On  Easter  Sunday,  1872,  there  were  four  more  perversions, 
 as  three  young  men  of  the  senior  class  of  Franklin  and  IMar- 
 shall  college,  together  with  Mr.  Zahner,  a  theological  student, 
 were  received  into  the  Episcopal  Church,  the  latter  forsaking 
 our  Church  after  it  had  spent  $1,200  on  his  education. 
 
 Philadelphia  classis  (1872)  appointed  a  conniiittee  to  in- 
 quire into  the  recent  ])erv('rsi()ns  to  Rome.  Its  report  gives  as 
 the  causes: 
 
 1.  That  the  Church  had  disparaged  Protestantism  and  elevated  the 
 Early  Church. 
 
 2.  Some  of  the  distinctive  Reformed  doctrines  and  usages  had  been 
 assailed. 
 
 3.  Some  of  the  loading  errors  of  popery  defended. 
 
 4.  The  affirmations  of  Wolff,  etc;,  that  these  things  led  them  to  Rome. 
 
 The  vote  on  this  report  was  28  yeas  to  7  nays,  2  non-com- 
 mittal.   A  motion  was  made  to  publish  this  report  in  the  Mes- 
 
 *April  10,  1873. 
 
Endorsement  of  Ursinus  Theological  Department.  523 
 
 sengcr,  Kefornied  Church  Munthhj  and  Christian  World.  Dr. 
 Fisher  rose  and  declared  it  would  not  be  published  in  the  Mes- 
 senger, as  he  did  not  jjublish  controversial  articles.  Yet  at  the 
 same  time  he  was  publishing  Gan's  articles  on  absolution, 
 which  were  very  objectionable  to  the  Old  Reformed  party. 
 
 The  Reformed  Church  Monthly  says  two  Catholic  papers  are 
 now  edited  by  former  Reformed  ministers,  the  Catholic  Stand- 
 ard, by  G.  D.  Wolff,  and  the  United  States  Catholic  Register, 
 by  Stewart.  The  former  has  an  article  in  his  paper  on  Nevin- 
 ism,  in  which  p]rmentrout  charges  Nevinism  with  leading 
 to  Rome.    Speaking  of  Philip's  defection,  he  says: 
 
 "His  transition  was  not  the  result  of  transient  excitement  or  of  a 
 liastily  formed  resolution.  Through  a  period  of  eighteen  years,  his 
 mind  had  been  more  oil  less  exercised  on  what  used  to  be  called  the 
 Church  Question.  Through  the  dimly-lighted  bleak  regions  of  Puritan- 
 ism he  wandered  for  a  time,  but  soon  emerged  out  of  its  darkness  into 
 the  healthier,  clearer  atmosphere  of  what  is  known  as  Mercersburg 
 theology,  the  Ajax  of  which — the  well-known  Dr.  John  W.  Neviu — 
 in  his  happier  years  did  so  much  to  remove  from  the  public  mind  the 
 prejudices  against  the  Romish  Church  that  encrusted  it  and  by  his 
 suggestive  writings  to   occasion   conversions  to  her   authority. 
 
 The  author  has  also  a  private  letter  written  by  Rev.  Robert  Nevin,  son 
 
 of  Dr.  Nevin,  to  a  friend.  Rev.  K ,  who  states  that  his  conversion  to 
 
 the  Episcopal  Church  was  the  result  of  the  teaching  of  his  father's  the- 
 ology. Thus  these  perverts  all  unite  in  charging  their  perversions  to  Mer- 
 cersburg theology. 
 
 The  effect  on  our  Church  of  these  perversions  was  sobering. 
 Nevin  himself  finally  comes  out  more  decidedly  against  Ro- 
 manism than  he  had  done  for  many  years.  He  attacks*  the 
 Catholic  rule  of  faith  that 
 
 "They  put  an  infallible  Church  instead  of  an  infallible  Bible.  They 
 put  the  Church  as  an  outward  autliority  before  Christian  faith  and  its 
 supernatural  object,  which  makes  the  Church  the  middle  term  be- 
 tween Christ  and  the  true  believer.  This  can  not  be  harmonized  with  the 
 New  Testament  and  does  violence  to  the  inmost  sanctuary  of  religious 
 conscience. ' ' 
 
 But  still  he  tries  to  occupy  a  sort  of  mediating  position  be- 
 tween Protestantism  and  Catholicism,  for  he  continues: 
 
 *  Messenger,  February  21. 
 
524         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 "The  Catholic  theory  is  as  little  tenable  as  that  which  makes  the 
 Bible  to  be  the  basis.  I  can  not  put  either  the  Church  or  the  Bible  in 
 place  of  Christ.  The  Bible  does  not  give  authority  to  Christ  but  Christ 
 to  the  Bible.  Neither  does  the  Cluirch  authenticate  Clirist  but  Christ 
 authenticates  the  ChurctiT" 
 
 All  this  seems  to  be  correct,  but  there  is  confusion  and  fal- 
 lacy in  it.  The  Bible,  we  remark,  does  give  authority  to 
 Christ,  for  we  would  know  nothing  about  Christ  but  from  the 
 Bible.  Only  as  Christ  is  known  through  the  Bible  does  he  have 
 authority  to  give.  But  it  is  interesting  to  notice  that  Nevin 
 is  beginning  to  hedge  on  his  former  extreme  positions.  This 
 he  can  now  the  more  easily  do,  for  since  1855  the  Catholic 
 Church  had  taken  a  great  step  farther  from  Protestantism  by 
 proclaiming  the  pope  infallible.  It  seems  strange  that  after 
 this  additional  heresy,  ministers  like  Ermentrout  and  Wolff 
 and  others  were  not  kept  from  going  over  to  the  Catholic 
 Church.  But  the  logic  of  their  earlier  training  was  too  much 
 for  them. 
 
 Nevin,  in  Mercershurg  Review  for  1874  on  "The  Old  Cath- 
 olic Movement"  again  comes  out  against  Rome: 
 
 Arguing  against  Bishop  Coxe,  he  says,  ' '  he  does  not  hold  that  tlie 
 (!yprianic  theory  of  the  Church  should  be  of  binding  force  to  the  Chris- 
 tian world  now,  so  that  Protestantism  must  be  charged  with  error  in 
 proportion  exactly  as  it  fails  to  comport  with  this  primitive  standard  or 
 rule,  ('hristianity  as  it  stcod  in  ihc  -a^v  nf  Cvpriaii  cini  liy  no  means  be 
 taken  as  a  safe  pattern  of  wliat  Christianity  should  be  in  tiie  present 
 age  or  as  the  true  ideal  of  what  tlie  Ciiristian  world  must  roach  after  to 
 solve  in  time  to  come  the  probh'in  of  Christian  unity.''  (Ilow  different 
 all  tiiis  is  fniin   Dr.   \e\iii  in  liis  articles  on  Cyprian  in  1852. — A.) 
 
 Dr.  Bomberger  says:*  "One  can  now  see  a  gradual  change, 
 one  can  read  the  word  Evangelical  in  their  articles.  Thr 
 Reformed  Clmrch  Monlhli)  (1876)  says  Ermentrout  belonged 
 to  the  class  of  1848,  Schnebly  to  the  class  of  1850,  Albert  and 
 Christman  to  class  of  1851,  Stewart  to  class  of  1852.  Appel, 
 in  the  history  of  the  seminary,  1875.  says:  "History  was  at- 
 tended with  some  loss"  (some  loss? — ten  or  fifteen  ministers, 
 including  sons  of  professors — A.). 
 
 *  Reformed  Church  Monthly,  1875. 
 
Endorsement  of  Uksini's  Theological  Department.  525 
 
 Section  6.     The  Eastern  Synod  of  1871. 
 
 TIk^  Eastorn  synod  had  had  a  special  meeting  July  12  at  Lan- 
 caster, at  which  Dr.  Iligbee  resigned  as  professor  in  the  semi- 
 nary. Rev.  T.  G.  Apple  was  elected  professor  of  Church  his- 
 tory in  his  stead.  (Thus  Dr.  A[)ple  becomes  professor  and 
 Gans'  Tercentenary  professorship  never  materialized.)      The 
 
 Rev.  Pres.  Thomas  G.  Apple,  D.  D. 
 
 nomination  was  in  open  synod  and  not  by  a  committee,  as  in 
 the  previous  election,  which  had  caused  some  controvers}'. 
 A  communication  was  received  from  several  German  ministers 
 asking  for  a  professor  to  suit  the  wants  of  the  German  part  of 
 our  Church.  Though  only  a  communication,  the  action  of 
 synod  in  regard  to  this  was  the  opposite  of  their  treatment  of 
 the  communication  from  the  Myerstown  convention  at  the 
 Eastern  synod  of  1867  or  of  the  memorialists  at  the  General 
 Synod  of  1869.    They  received  it  respectfully. 
 
 The  regular  moeting  of  the  Eastern  synod  in  the  fall  of  1871 
 was  looked  forward  to  with  great  interest  because  it  was  ex- 
 pected that  it  would  take  some  action  on  the  pei-versions  of 
 
526         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 AVolff  and  Ermentrout  to  the  Catholic  Church.  The  synod 
 took  action  and  ordered  the  classes  to  which  they  belonged  to 
 proceed  against  them  in  discipline.  It  also  appointed  a  com- 
 mittee (T.  G.  Apple  chairman)  to  bring  in  a  paper  giving  the 
 views  of  the  synod  on  the  situation.  This  committee  reported 
 that  the  s^nod  deeply  deplored  the  perversion  of  these  men 
 from  the  faith.  The}-  could  not  rest  simply  with  an  expres- 
 sion of  sorrow;  but.  reeogxiizing  the  danger  of  the  Cluirch 
 from  rationalism  and  infidelity,  they  deemed  it  necessary  to 
 utter  a  solemn  protest  in  a  calm  and  solid  argument  against 
 Rome.  The  theology'  of  our  Church  as  taught  by  our  di^nomi- 
 nation  is  soimdly  Protestant.  Our  Church  holds  firmly  to  the 
 Heidelberg  Catechism. 
 
 The  perversion  of  these  men  .seems  to  have  sobered  the  east- 
 ern part  of  the  Church.  The  synod  is  here  more  outspoken 
 for  Protestant  truth  tlian  it  had  been  since  jMercersburg  the- 
 ology began.  The  Messenger  declared  the  report  a  masterly 
 vindication  of  Protestantism.  The  Old  Reformed,  however, 
 said  it  virtually  condemned  the  teaching  of  their  own  theo- 
 logical seminary. 
 
 Dr.  Bomberger  says  it  is  remarkalilc  as  not  containing  any  thrust  at 
 the  old  doctrines  of  the  Eeformed  Church,  which  is  quite  in  contrast 
 with  the  liturgical  report  of  1862  or  Gerhart's  attack  on  the  Evangelical 
 Alliance.  He  says  it  gave  true  importance  to  the  Reformation,  which 
 Mercersburg  had  hitherto  been  unwilling  to  do.  Mercersburg  had 
 claimed  that  the  Church  of  the  future  would  be  a  union  of  Rome  and 
 Protestantism,  but  there  was  nothing  of  this  in  the  report. 
 
 The  committee's  report  to  synod  suggested  that  a  pastoral 
 letter  be  drawn  up  by  synod  to  be  read  in  the  churches. 
 Zieber  opposed  this,  for  he  said  the  reading  of  a  pastoral  letter 
 might  lead  some  in  our  churches  to  think  there  was  something 
 wrong  in  the  Church.  Evidently  the  synod  had  had  enough 
 experience  with  the  previous  pastoral  letter  in  1807  to  be  chary 
 on  the  subject,  so  it  was  not  adopted.* 
 
 *In  the  discussion  on  these  resolutions  L.  D.  Leberman  denied  the 
 rumor  that  he  intended  going  over  to  Rome  and  also  denied  another 
 rumor  about  himself,  that  he  never  baptized  children  without  first  having 
 obtained  Catholic  holy  water. 
 
Endorsement  of  Ursini's  Theological  Departmkn  r.  527 
 
 Still  the  action  of  the  synod  was  not  a  full  answer  to  the 
 charges  that  these  perversions  had  been  due  to  the  teachings  of 
 Mercersburg  theologj^ 
 
 The  Christian  World  rejoiced  that  the  Eastern  synod  so  heartily  en- 
 dorsed the  Heidelberg  Catechism  and  Protestantism. 
 
 The  report  of  the  committee  on  minutes  of  classis  called  at- 
 tention to  North  Carolina  classis,  which  had  taken  severe  ac- 
 tion against  Nevinism.  The  committee  thought  that  their  ac- 
 tion called  for  censure  because  it  was  directed  against  our 
 synod  (they  assumed  that  Nevinism  and  the  doctrine  of  our 
 Church  was  identical — A.).  But  the  synod  declined  to  ac- 
 knowledge such  identity  by  striking  the  suggestion  of  the 
 committee  from  their  report.  This  was  quite  different  from 
 what  Nevin  had  claimed  at  Dayton  Avhen  he  said  that  the 
 Eastern  synod  had  endorsed  Nevinism  and  also  from  what 
 Apple  had  claimed  on  the  basis  of  the  action  of  the  Eastern 
 sjTiod  of  1864.  Quite  a  discussion  arose  on  the  Tercentenary 
 professorship  and  the  German  professorship,  which  revealed 
 some  interesting  facts.  At  Reading,  in  1864,  the  convention 
 had  appropriated  $16,000  for  the  Tercentenary  professorship. 
 But  since  then  this  Tercentenary  fund  had  been  added  to  the 
 funds  of  the  other  endowments  of  the  professor's  chairs  so  as 
 to  raise  their  salaries  from  $1,200  to  $1,500  annually.  It  was 
 charged  that  this  was  a  diversion  of  funds  from  their  original 
 purpose.  This,  however,  was  denied.  But  at  any  rate  the 
 action  on  a  Tercentenary  professor  was  tabled  for  a  year. 
 
 The  Germans  sent  a  petition  for  a  German  professor  in 
 place  of  Higbee,  as  the  previous  professor  of  church  history 
 and  languages  had  been  a  German  (Schaff).  They  were  dis- 
 satisfied that  there  was  no  German  professor  at  Lancaster, 
 as  large  amounts  of  money  had  been  obtained  for  the  Church 
 nominally  or  avowedly  for  that  purpose,*  so  a  German  confer- 
 ence was  arranged  for. 
 
 The  German  conference  was  held  January  23,  1872,  at 
 Philadelphia,  Dr.  Gehr  Avas  appointed  president  and  Pister, 
 
 *A  plan  was  evolved  to  have  a  German  faculty  there,  so  as  to  satisfy 
 the  Germans. 
 
528         History  of  Reformed  Chitrch  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 secretaiy.  It  passed  resolutions  gratefully  acknowledging  the 
 interest  of  the  Eastern  sjTiod  in  the  Germans  and  asked  that 
 they  would  proceed  to  elect  a  German  professor  as  soon  as 
 the  foimding  of  the  professorship  was  completed  and  that  then 
 they  would  take  steps  to  get  students  from  Germany, — then 
 they  would  try  to  found  a  second  professorship;  but  if  that 
 be  found  impracticable,  to  found  their  own  seminary, — that 
 the  funds  for  the  professorship  be  entrusted  to  a  board  of 
 trustees  chosen  by  the  German  portion  of  the  sj^nod  and  the 
 German  conference.  They  requested  permission  for  German 
 classes  to  be  formed  so  as  to  organize  a  German  sjTiod. 
 
 The  Messenger,  in  commenting  on  the  resolutions,  said  that 
 the  resolution  asking  that  the  funds  of  the  German  professor- 
 ship be  transferred  to  trustees  was  asking  what  could  not  be 
 legally  done  without  violating  its  trust  and  making  them 
 liable  to  forfeiture.  Many  of  the  Old  Reformed  party  looked 
 with  anxiety  on  this  conference  as  ^an  efifort  to  detach  the 
 Germans  from  the  low-church  party.  But  this  conference  took 
 such  action  about  the  care  of  the  funds  contributed  by  the 
 Germans  as  the  ]\rercersburg  party  would  not  agree  to  and  so 
 the  Germans  generally  remained  with  the  old  Reformed  as 
 before. 
 
 Section  7.    Union  with  the  Dutch  (1873-2). 
 
 The  Ohio  synod  had  overtured  the  General  Synod  of  i866 
 for  union  with  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church.  The  committee 
 of  that  synod  to  which  the  sul)ject  was  referred  brought  in  a 
 favorable  report,  but  it  was  amended,  postponing  the  subject 
 of  union  until  the  next  General  Synod.  The  Ohio  and  North- 
 western synods  then  overtured  the  General  Synod  of  1869  to 
 take  favorable  action  toward  union  with  the  Dutch.  But  that 
 body  did  not  see  its  way  clear  to  do  so.  Finally  the  Ohio 
 synod  became  tired  of  waiting  for  General  Synod  and  took 
 matters  into  its  own  hands  in  1870.  Rev.  Dr.  Ferris,  the  sec- 
 retary of  the  Dutch  board  of  Home  Missions,  was  present  at 
 the  Ohio  synod.  He  made  an  address  on  Foreign  IMissions  and 
 spoke  of  their  sympathy  with  the  Ohio  synod,  saying  they 
 would  be  glad  to  have  a  student  from  Tiffin  in  tliefr  foreign 
 
Endorsement  of  Ursinus  Theological  Department.  5-29 
 
 field.  The  synod  resolved  to  enter  into  correspondence  with 
 the  Dutch  and  appointed  delegates. 
 
 Dr.  Seiter  attended  the  next  General  Synod  of  the  Dutch 
 Church  (1871)  and  made  an  address.  The  Dutch  Church 
 then  took  action  to  enter  into  correspondence  with  the  Ohio 
 synod  and  with  North  Carolina  classis.  A  substitute  to  this 
 was  offered  by  a  minister,  who  had  formerly  been  in  the  Ger- 
 man Reformed  Church, — that  the  officers  of  General  Synod  be 
 appointed  to  confer  with  our  General  Synod  on  the  subject 
 instead  of  with  the  Ohio  synod.  But  his  amendment  was 
 voted  down.  Their  General  Synod  appointed  Dr.  Peltz  dele- 
 gate to  the  Ohio  synod  and  Dr.  Ganse  and  Elder  Sahefflin  to 
 North  Carolina  classis. 
 
 When  this  became  known  to  the  Mercersburg  men  in  the 
 East,  bitter  attacks  began  to  appear  in  the  Messenger. 
 
 That  paper*  says  that  the  Christian  World,  the  organ  of  the  Ohio 
 synod,  had  sold  itself  and  the  whole  Keformed  Church  to  the  Dutch. 
 The  editor  of  the  Messenger^  wrote  on  the  latest  tendency  as  the  "new 
 Dutch  Crusade."  He  opposes  union  with  the  Dutch  because  of  the  dif- 
 ferences between  the  Dutch  and  the  German  Churches, — the  diiference 
 in  their  customs  as  in  the  Lord's  Supper  and  in  their  creeds,  as  on  the 
 five  points  of  Calvinism.  The  last  General  Synod  of  the  Dutch  Churoh 
 invited  independent  congregations  to  throw  themselves  into  their  arms 
 and  had  appointed  delegates  to  visit  the  Ohio  synod  and  the  North 
 Carolina  classis  to  entice  them  away.  What  will  our  General  Synod  say 
 to  such  proceedings.  He  did  not  object  to  proper  agitation  of  such  a 
 subject  as  union,  but  he  said  that  the  effort  ought  to  come  through  the 
 upper  Church  court,  the  General  Synod. 
 
 In  the  West,  Dr.  Good  writes  favorably  to  union  with  the  Dutch,  as 
 does  Welker,  of  North  Carolina,  but  Prugh  opposes  it  as  an  insult  to  the 
 General  Synod, — calls  it  schismatic,  which  Williard  denies,  claiming  that 
 the  Ohio  synod  had  always  corresponded  with  other  bodies  as  the  Presby- 
 terian. The  Messenger  articles  continue  against  it,  saying  that  the 
 Dutch  in  1819  had  interfered  with  our  Church  to  our  hurt  and  again  in 
 1844  had  tried  to  intermeddle  and  that  the  Tjiennial  Convention  sought 
 union  with  us  so  that  their  ministers  might  get  places  in  our  Church. 
 They  call  this  act  of  the  Dutch  a  predatory  act.  On  the  other  hand  a 
 writer  in  the  Christian  World  claimed  that  the  Ohio  synod  had  the  right 
 
 *June  13th. 
 fJsly  5th. 
 
530         History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 to  maintain  correspondence  with  any  Church,  its  former  right  to  do  this 
 never  ha\^ng  been  withdrawn. 
 
 Dr.  Peltz,  who  wrote  the  resolutions  for  the  Dutch  General  Synod, 
 in  the  Messenger  of  September  27,  disclaimed  any  secret  intention  in  the 
 matter.  The  basis  of  those  resolutions  were  the  utterances  of  the  dele- 
 gate from  the  Ohio  synod.  He  denied  that  the  purpose  of  the  Dutch 
 was  predatory,  to  steal  away  from  the  German  Church.  He  was  not 
 aware  that  the  North  Carolina  classis  had  resumed  relations  with  the 
 German  Church. 
 
 Dr.  Fisher  replies  that  on  his  recent  visit  to  North  Carolina  he  found 
 much  Dutch  literature  there  and  also  states  that  that  classis  had  resumed 
 relations  to  our  synod  in  1858,  although  it  had  been  broken  by  the  Civil 
 War. 
 
 Dr.  Apple  writes  against  the  Dutch.  He  says  the  persons  who  charge 
 Mercersburg  theology  with  being  Lutheran  are  now  plotting  to  make 
 us  Dutch.  He  had  been  opposed  to  the  organization  of  the  General 
 Synod,  believing  a  free  union  of  the  East  and  the  West  to  be  better. 
 But  when  the  General  Synod  was  organized,  he  believed  in  sticking  to 
 it,  as  he  had  done  at  the  General  Synod  of  1869.  That,  however,  was 
 an  orderly  method  of  procedure,  but  this  was  disorderly  and  schismatic, 
 tearing  parts  of  our  Church  from  us. 
 
 The  Messenger  says  that  the  Christian  Intelligencer  declares  there  can 
 be  no  organic  union  with  the  German  Reformed,  but  that  a  division  of 
 the  German  Reformed  is  only  a  question  of  time.  It  is  said  that  the 
 theological  differences  in  the  German  Reformed  Church  stood  in  the 
 way  of  union.  Apple  pronounced  this  false,  as  neither  the  Eastern 
 synod  or  the  Messenger  had  said  anything  against  union  but  against  the 
 irregularity  of  the  method  by  which  it  was  projiosed  to  get  it.  It 
 charges  Dr.  Good  with  a  schismatic  tendency. 
 
 Welker  writes,*  referring  to  the  attacks  on  it  in  the  Messenger  and  by 
 the  high-churchmen,  who  charged  ' '  selling  out  to  the  Dutch, "  "  preda- 
 tory excursions,"  "stealing  churches,"  etc.  He  replies  that  if  it  had 
 been  discovered  that  these  men  were  trying  to  introduce  a  pan-philo- 
 sophical philosophy  or  Puseyite  theology,  circulating  and  recommending 
 the  devout  study  of  missals  and  breviaries  to  the  students  of  the  college, 
 would  there  be  such  indignation.  They  charge  that  the  movement  camo 
 from  an  obscure  corner  and  not  from  the  synod.  But  so  it  is  in  history. 
 Foreign  missions  in  America  began  in  a  haystack,  the  Reformation  did 
 not  begin  in  a  synod.  They  stigmatize  it  as  schismatical,  but  it  is  a 
 union  of  two  denominations.  All  their  objections,  such  as  "threats  to  <le- 
 prive  us  of  buildings,"  "swallowed  up  in  the  Dutch"  grow  out  of  a 
 want  of  argument  on  their  part. 
 
 A  minister  of  the  Dutch  Church  says,  in  the  Messenger,  that  their 
 General  Synod  committed  a  gross  breach  of  courtesy  to  our  Church  ac- 
 
 *  Christian  World,  February  29. 
 
Endorsement  op  Ursinus  Theological  Department.  531 
 
 cording  to  our  constitution,  whicii  places  the  synod  under  the  General 
 Synod.  But  he  utterly  denies  the  motive  stated  by  the  Messenger  that 
 the  Dutch  ministers  want  places.  The  Dutch  have  openings  enough  to 
 make  a  half  dozen  such  classes  as  the  North  Carolina  classis  if  there  were 
 men  to  fill  them. 
 
 The  Christian  IVorld  (March  28)  says  that  the  Christian  Intelligencer 
 had  stated  that  Mercersburg  theology  was  the  great  obstacle  in  the  way 
 of  union.  Dr.  Apple  had  denied  this  in  the  Review  and  the  Messenger, 
 but  later  accepts  it  as  a  fact,  and  not  only  accepts  it  but  rejoices  over 
 it  and  thanks  God  for  it.  The  Christian  World  of  April  says  that  all 
 the  action  that  the  Dutch  General  Synod  took  was  to  state  the  aspect 
 of  the  subject  of  union  and  its  willingness  to  receive  any  communication 
 which  our  brethren  may  choose  to  present  to  them.  The  Ohio  synod 
 did  not  violate  our  constitution.  The  Dutch  General  Synod  of  1872  had 
 delegates  from  both  of  our  synods.  Eastern  and  Ohio,  Davis  and  Wil- 
 liard. 
 
 In  the  Christian  World  of  August  29,  Dr.  Van  Ilorne  begins  an  elabor- 
 ate article  on  union.  The  differences  were  that  the  German  Eeformed 
 Church  was  more  liturgical,  the  Dutch  was  more  Calvinistic.  There  was 
 more  independence  of  synods  in  our  Church  than  in  the  Dutch.  In  calling 
 a  minister  the  desire  of  the  congregation  is  sought  privately  by  the  con- 
 sistory in  our  Church;  in  the  Dutch,  publicly,  by  vote.  In  the  Dutch 
 there  was  catechetical  preaching,  in  the  German  the  catechetical  class. 
 The  Dutch  had  no  confirmation  and  no  special  formula  for  it,  as  the 
 Germans  have.  The  Dutch  have  the  sitting  communion,  the  Germans,  the 
 standing.  He  then  speaks  of  the  benefits  of  the  union  in  jmblication  in- 
 terests, missions  and  church  beneficiaries. 
 
 Ohio  synod  mot  jMay  1.  Drs.  Livingston  and  Peltz  wore 
 prosent  from  the  ])ntoh  Church.  The  synod  roforrod  the  sub- 
 ject of  union  to  the  General  Synod  for  its  consideration,  but 
 approved  it  and  requested  General  Synod  to  adopt  such  meas- 
 ures as  would  speedily  bring  it  about. 
 
 In  connection  with  this  agitation  on  the  subject  of  union,  another 
 question  liegan  to  be  discussed  by  the  high-ciuirchmen.  The  Messenger 
 asks  the  question.  Has  our  Church  a  distinctive  mission?  This  subject 
 had  been  brought  up  by  the  discussion  on  Union;  because  if  our  Church 
 had  a  mission,  it  ought  not  to  go  into  the  union. 
 
 in  February  28,  the  Messenger  has  articles  on  the  External  Mission  of 
 our  Church,  that  is,  her  mediatory  position.  She  was  to  be  the  mediator 
 between  the  Churches. 
 
 Gans,  July  5,  1871,  writes  on  "Our  Special  Work,"  that  it  is  not  to  be 
 a  large  Church.  It  is  to  be  intensive  rather  than  extensive,  theological 
 rather  than  territorial.     Protestantism  needs  such  a  mediating  theology. 
 
532        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 No  confession  has  received  such  broad  and  hearty  endorsement  as  the 
 Heidelberg  Catechism.  No  other  is  so  truly  Christian  and  Catholic.  Our 
 object  is  to  mediate,  to  Jiarmonize.  Christ  is  the  centre,  which  was 
 very  different  from  making  the  decrees  the  center.  Our  aim  is  to  Catholi- 
 cize Protestantism. 
 
 Section  8.    The  Charge  that  Ursinus  College  Grew  Out 
 OF  Disappointed  Personal  Ambition  (1872). 
 
 Dr.  Bomberger  referred*  to  the  charge  made  by  tlie  .Afer- 
 cersbiirg  men  that  the  founding  of  Ursinus  College  was  due  to 
 his  disappointment  at  not  being  elected  professor  at  I\rercers- 
 burg  in  B.  C.  Wolff's  place,  when  liarbaugh  was  elected  in 
 1863.  He  replied  tliat  the  charge  was  not  true,  for  liis  opj^o- 
 sition  to  high-churchism  began  before  that  time, — that  it  began 
 in  1860  and  culminated  in  the  liturgical  report  to  the  synod  of 
 1862,  all  of  which  were  before  the  election.  He  is  surprised 
 that  Fislier,  who  knew  the  facts,  would  allow  this  rejiort  to  be 
 I)ublished  in  the  Messenger.  The  baselessness  of  the  charge  is 
 shown  by  the  fact  that  it  was  not  broached  until  nine  years 
 after  it  occurred. 
 
 The  Christian  WejrUl'^  has  an  article,  entitled  "A  Base 
 Slander  Refuted."  The  report  was  that  Dr.  Bomberger's  op- 
 position to  ]\lercersburg  theology  was  due  to  thwarted  auibi- 
 liou  at  not  being  elected  professor  of  theology  when  liar- 
 baugh was  elected.  The  article  places  the  followiug  facts 
 against  that  slander,  showing  that  Bomberger  had  Ix'cn  o[>- 
 posing  them  a  considerable  time  before  thai  eledion. 
 
 "1.  As  early  as  the  synod  of  18(i(),  Dr.  l-JdinluTgcM-  joined  witli  (.tlicrs 
 in  urging  that  the  Provisional  liturgy  he  referred  to  tlic  classes.  lie 
 did  it 
 
 a.  Because  it  was  evident  thai  I  he  liturgy  was  not  acceptable  on  ac- 
 count of  objectionable,  ritualistic  ;iii<l  (Inctriiial  features. 
 
 b.  Because  the  peace  of  the  Cluircdi  denianded  it. 
 
 The  leading  Nevinites  opposed  this  desire  that  the  Provisional  liturgy 
 be  sent  down  to  the  classes.  This  was  tliree  years  before  the  election 
 of  Dr.  liarbaugh. 
 
 *Beformed  Chvrch  ilonthh/.  1S72.  page  33. 
 fNovember  19.  1874. 
 
Endorsement  of  Ursinus  Theologicai.  Department.  533 
 
 2.  At  the  synod  of  1861,  Dr.  Bomberger,  with  others,  pressed  the  im- 
 mediate revision  of  the  Provisional  liturgy,  which  was  opposed  by  the 
 Nevinists.     Tiiis  was  two  years  before  the  election  of  Dr.  Harbaugh. 
 
 3.  At  the  first  meeting  of  the  liturgical  conunittee.  Dr.  Bomberger 
 moved  tliat  certain  ritualistic  features  of  the  Provisional  liturgy  be 
 stricken  out.  lie  was  violently  assailed.  The  contention  was  sharp.  The 
 majority  refused  to  proceed  with  the  revision  as  synod  had  ordered.  Here 
 he  opposed  the  Nevinites  two  years  before  Dr.  Harbaugh  's  election. 
 
 4.  At  the  Eastern  synod  of  186ii,  he  was  the  leader  of  the  minority  to 
 bring  in  a  report  against  the  high-churchmen.  This  was  one  year  before 
 Dr.  Harbaugh 's  election. 
 
 5.  During  the  winter  of  1862-.3,  he  wrote  a  series  of  articles  in  the 
 Messenger  against  the  high-church  party.  All  this  was  done  before  1863, 
 \\hen  it  was  known  a  professor  would  be  elected.  The  report  is  a  das- 
 tardly slander. " 
 
 The  effort  to  make  it  appear  that  the  controversy  in  our 
 Cliiireh  was  due  to  personalities  and  not  to  i)rinciples  must  be 
 given  up.  It  is  very  evident  (from  the  history  of  the  contro- 
 versy contained  in  this  book)  that  it  was  a  great  battle  of 
 principles  in  regard  to  doctrine,  worship  and  Church  govern- 
 ment. Mere  personalities  do  not  usually  divide  a  Church 
 unless  principles  are  beneath  them.  Besides,  if  a  controversy 
 is  one  of  personalities  only,  it  usually  dies  out  after  the  per- 
 sons have  died.  But  this  has  not  been  true  in  our  Church. 
 For  although  much  of  the  controversy  has  died  out  since  the 
 peace  movement,  yet  the  two  parties  have  remained  as  clearly 
 defined  as  ever.  This  rumor  was  an  ignominious  effort  to  cast 
 discredit  in  a  sly  way  against  TTrsinus  college  and  those  who 
 supported  the  Old  Reformed  position,  and  only  injured  those 
 who  used  it  as  a  shaft. 
 
 We  might  also  add  that  Bomberger 's  divergence  began  even 
 earlier  than  1860,  namely,  in  1859.  Rev.  N.  Strassberger, 
 when  he  reviewed  Dr.  Bomberger 's  book  on  "Infant  Baptism" 
 in  the  Mercershurg  Review,  July,  1860,  already  calls  atten- 
 tion to  Bomberger 's  divergence  from  ]\Iercersburg.  He  criti- 
 cises Bomberger's  statement  in  the  book,  that  all  infants  are 
 saved.  Of  what  use  then  was  baptism  if  all  are  saved, 
 says  Strassberger,  with  his  ]\Iercersburg  views.  The  truth 
 was  that  Bomberger  in  this  book  held  to  the  old  Reformed 
 view, — the  covenant  view, — that  the  children  of  pious  parents 
 
534        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 are  born  in  the  covenant,  whereas  Mercersburg  theolog}^  holds 
 that  they  are  not  in  the  covenant  until  baptism.  Pr.  Boin- 
 berger  tried  to  harmonize  both  views,  the  covenant  and  the 
 sacramentarian,  in  his  book.  But  this  book  was  evidently  not 
 to  the  taste  of  the  Mercersburg  theologians.  All  this,  how- 
 ever, only  shows  that  Bomberger  was  diverging  from  tluMii  as 
 early  as  1859,  which  was  four  years  before  Ilarbaugh's  elec- 
 tion. 
 
 Section  0.     The  Eastern  Synod  of  1872. 
 
 The  most  important  appeal  before  this  synod  was  the  Dunn 
 appeal  case.  A  growing  tendency  began  to  appear  on  the  part 
 of  the  high-churchmen  to  make  the  classical  apportionments 
 to  be  assessments  or  taxes  which  must  be  paid.  East  Pennsyl- 
 vania classis  in  1872  held  pastors  responsible  for  their  pay- 
 ment imder  penalty  of  being  disciplined.  So,  too,  the  classis 
 of  Mercersburg.  (A  distinguished  (high-church)  brother  of 
 the  classis  of  Lancaster  told  a  brother  of  the  other  side  that 
 he  must  not  elevate  private  conscience  above  ecclesiastical  au- 
 thority.) But  the  past  custom  of  the  Church  was  against  anv 
 such  ideas  as  these  as  in  article  51  of  the  constitution,  which 
 defines  and  limits  the  power  of  tlie  classis  but  does  not  give  it 
 this  right. 
 
 Rev.  Mr.  Dole,  the  pastor  at  Huntingdon,  declared  to  Ucr- 
 cersburg  classis  in  1870  that  he  could  not  conscientiously 
 raise  money  for  the  support  of  the  Altoona  mission  because  of 
 •ts  sympathy  with  doctrines  which  were  taught  in  opposition 
 to  those  of  the  Reformed  Church.  (He  referred  to  the  doc- 
 trines of  Mercersburg  as  preached  and  taught  there  in  the 
 Order. — A.)  Classis  therefore  declare  his  statement  heretical 
 and  disrespectful  and  warned  him  that  if  he  acted  on  this 
 principle  he  would  subject  himself  to  the  discipline  of  the 
 Church.  Dole  arose  and  declared  he  would  then  appeal  to 
 synod.  He  was  told  he  could  not  appeal,  as  it  was  not  a  case 
 of  appeal.  (But  article  20  said  he  could.— 4.)  He  then  said 
 he  would  complain,  but  that  ground  was  denied  him  because 
 the  complaint  was  taken  too  late. 
 
Endorsement  of  Ursinus  Theological  Department.  535 
 
 Such  was  the  high-handed  .dealing  by  Mereersburg  classis 
 Avith  the  Old  Reformed  adherents  by  virtually  ruling  them  out 
 of  order  on  mere  technical  grounds.  While  the  Mereersburg 
 elassis  took  this  action,  the  Mereersburg  men  in  Zion's  classis 
 were  pleading  for  the  opposite  view,  because  they  were  in  the 
 minority.  At  that  classis  Rev.  Daniel  Ziegler  offered  a  resolu- 
 tion that  each  minister  give  his  money  where  he  desired.  And 
 the  Mereersburg  men  begged  him  to  withdraw  it  as  they  al- 
 ready had  that  right  and  were  exercising  it.  Thus  they 
 claimed  one  thing  in  one  classis  and  its  opposite  in  another. 
 
 The  classis  of  Mereersburg  required  her  congregations  to 
 pay  their  beneficiary  aid  to  students  for  whom  she  had  made 
 herself  responsible.  And  she  would  not  permit  any  consistory  to 
 pay  fimds  elsewhere  until  these  obligations  of  classis  were  met. 
 The  Old  Reformed  became  suspicious  that  their  opponents' 
 plan  was  to  make  the  obligations  of  classis  so  great  that  the  con- 
 gregations would  not  be  able  to  raise  enough  money  besides 
 so  as  to  give  to  any  other  students,  as  at  Ursinus.  The  con- 
 sistory of  the  Huntingdon  Church,  June  3,  1871,  resolved  to 
 give  its  money  to  Dr.  Williard  and  to  the  Church  in  the  West. 
 The  consistory  at  McConnellstown  also  passed  the  same  action 
 June  7,  1871,  The  pastor  of  the  charge,  Rev.  Mr.  Steckel, 
 who  was  in  sympathy  with  Mereersburg,  called  attention  in 
 his  parochial  report  to  these  actions,  stating  the  amount  of 
 money  made  thus  available.  Classis  appointed  a  committee  to 
 confer  with  the  delegate-elder  to  classis  and  with  elder  Dunn, 
 who  was  delegate  secundus.  Mr.  Dunn  agi-eed  with  the  elder 
 to  get  it  reconsidered  at  both  places.  McConnellstown  took  ac- 
 tion in  the  summer  to  send  the  money  to  the  boards  of  General 
 Synod.  This  was  carried  unanimously,  the  pastor  alone  dis- 
 senting, as  he  wanted  it  to  go  to  Mereersburg.  The  next  day 
 at  the  church  service,  he  announced  the  decision  of  the  con- 
 sistory in  a  way  that  gave  offence  to  them.  The  consistory 
 took  action  April  20,  1872.  Mr.  Joseph  Isenberg  offered  the 
 resolution  that  $20.  be  appropriated  to  George  Resser,  in  Ur- 
 sinus college,  and  the  balance  to  home  missions.  Rev.  Mr. 
 Steckel  gave  notice  of  his  intention  to  complain  about  this 
 
536         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 action  to  classis.     The  classis  decided  for  Mr.   Steckel  and 
 against  Dunn.    So  it  was  carried  up  to  synod. 
 
 At  the  synod,  Eev.  Dr.  Super  was  counsel  for  Dunn  and  Prof.  Higbee 
 for  the  other  side.  Dr.  Super  took  the  ground  that  the  Church  as  a 
 denomination  had  no  authority  over  the  temporalities  of  the  congregation. 
 The  synod  can  prescribe  as  to  faith  and  morals  but  not  as  to  the  property 
 of  the  members.  Gifts  must  be  voluntary.  Such  demands,  he  said,  were 
 contrary  to  the  action  of  the  General  Synod  of  1869,  which  had  recog- 
 nized the  two  parties  in  the  Chur«h  and  allowed  each  to  act  freely.  Prof. 
 Higbee,  in  reply,  declared  that  the  Church  must  be  supported  by  its 
 members, — its  financial  contracts  and  agreements  must  be  kept.  He  based 
 his  argument  on  the  high  authority  of  the  Church  over  its  members. 
 
 The  synod  as  usual  decided  for  the  high-churchmen  and  did 
 not  sustain  the  appeal,  so  Mr.  Super  appealed  to  General 
 Synod.  The  president  at  once  decided  that  as  he  was  no  party 
 in  the  case,  he  therefore  could  not  appeal  and  so  ruled  his 
 case  out,  Mr.  Super  then  appealed  from  the  decision  of  the 
 chair,  which  had  been  unanimously  sustained.  He  was  then 
 permitted  to  appeal  to  General  S^niod  from  its  decision  as  to 
 his  right  to  appeal.  Mr.  Dunn  also  gave  notice  of  complaint 
 to  General  Synod.  So  both  an  appeal  and  a  complaint  went 
 up  to  General  Synod.  If  the  one  were  throwTi  out  by  any 
 sharp  parliamentary  tactics  of  the  high-churchmen,  the  other 
 might  stand,  and  so  the  case  be  gotten  before  General  Synod. 
 The  next  morning,  when  the  minutes  of  the  previous  day  were 
 read,  there  was  no  notice  on  the  record  of  Super's  appeal  from 
 the  president's  decision,  the  clerk  having  arbitrarily  sup- 
 pressed it.  After  repeated  demands,  the  clerk  read  as  if  he 
 supplied  the  omission. 
 
 Two  constitutional  points  are  now  coming  into  promi- 
 nence : — 
 
 1.  Which  body  decided  whether  an  appeal  can  be  taken  or 
 not,  the  higher  court  or  the  lower,  from  whom  the  appeal  is 
 taken.  The  high-churchmen  claimed  here  that  the  latter  was 
 true.  But  if  this  be  true,  then  the  lower  court  could  prevent 
 any  appeal,  by  simply  declaring  it  out  of  order  and  thus  could 
 prevent  any  case  from  getting  to  a  higher  'court.  This,  how- 
 ever, was  contrary  to  all  the  previous  customs  of  our  Church. 
 
Endorsement  op  Ursinus  Theological  Department.  537 
 
 2.  What  is  the  difference  between  an  appeal  and  a  com- 
 ])laint.  This  had  not  been  clear  in  the  previous  custom  of  the 
 Church.  Article  29  of  the  constitution  defined  an  appeal, 
 article  33  defined  a  complaint.  A  new  difference  also  began  to 
 appear  in  the  effects  of  each  of  these, — an  appeal  stayed  all 
 further  proceedings  in  the  case,  while  a  complaint  did  not. 
 
 The  committee  on  the  German  translation  of  the  Order  of 
 Worship  reported  that  it  had  been  translated  by  Rev.  Mr. 
 Bank  and  revised  by  the  committee  and  that  it  would  soon  ap- 
 pear. 
 
 The  time  had  come  to  observe  the  semi-centennial  of  the 
 Theological  seminary  at  Lancaster.  But  owing  to  the  divided 
 state  of  the  Church,  it  was  not  deemed  wise  by  synod  to  recom- 
 mend a  general  celebration  of  it ;  and  so  it  was  referred  to  the 
 faculty  and  alumni  to  commemorate  it  as  they  saw  fit.  The 
 delegate  to  the  Dutch  General  Synod  reported  that  that  body 
 had  decided  to  discontinue  interchange  of  delegates  with  par- 
 ticular synods  of  our  Church,  as  Ohio. 
 
 The  report  on  the  state  of  religion  seems  to  reveal  the  happy 
 confidence  of  the  Mercersburg  men.  It  says,  "Our  late  doc- 
 trinal conflict  is  virtually  passed  so  far  as  this  synod  is  con- 
 cerned and  we  have  settled  down  to  the  imity  of  one  faith  and 
 the  question  of  cultus  is  settled  in  principle."  Yet,  as  Dr. 
 Bomberger  said,  in  the  Reformed  Church  Monthly,  not  one- 
 sixtieth  of  tlie  ministers  of  their  party  dared  use  the  Order 
 of  Worship  i2i  full.  They  however  felt  strong  enough  to  un- 
 dertake a  more  serious  action,  namely  against  the  teaching  of 
 theology  in  Ursinus  college.  The  resolutions  on  this  were  of- 
 fered by  Rev.  Mr.  Kieffer  and  advocated  by  Rev.  S.  R.  Fisher. 
 They  were : 
 
 "Whereas  the  constitution  of  the  Eeformed  Church  makes  teachers 
 of  theology  a  distinct  office,  and  the  synod  alone  has  power  to  establisli 
 and  govern  a  theological  seminary  and  appoint  professors  or  teachers  of 
 theology,  as  no  minister  has  the  right  to  assume  that  office  unless  chosen 
 by  a  majority  of  votes  of  the  synod  and  inaugurated  by  taking  the 
 prescribed  oath  of  office  and  as  they  are  required  to  conduct  a  prescribed 
 course  and  conduct  instruction  under  the  direction  and  supervision  of 
 a  board  of  visitors,  therefore  the  synod  considers  the  conduct  of  J.  H. 
 A.  Bomberger  as  disorderly  and  enjoins  him  to  desist  from  this  disorder. 
 
538 
 
 History  of  Reformed  CpiuRcn  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 It  appointed  a  committee  of  three  to  communicate  the  oflRcial  copy  of  this 
 injunction  and  it  was  directed  to  institute  such  constitutional  proceed- 
 ings as  are  necessary  to  maintain  the  order  of  the  Church. 
 
 Dr.  Super  at  once  gave  notice  of  appeal  from  this  action  to 
 General  Synod.     TIkj  president  ruled  his  appeal  out  of  order 
 
 Rev,  Prof.  Henry  Super,  D.  D. 
 
 as  at  the  present  stage  the  action  had  not  assumed  a  judicial 
 form,  and,  besides,  he  was  not  a  party  in  the  case.  He  then 
 appealed  from  the  decision  of  the  president  to  General  Synod. 
 
 In  the  discussion  about  the  Boniberger  case,  the  Mercersburg  men 
 claimed  that  the  constitution  gave  the  synod  control  over  all  theological 
 teaching  and  as  Dr.  Bombergw  had  not  been  elected  to  that  office  by 
 synod  he  was  irregular.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  argued  by  the  low- 
 cluirchmen  that  from  the  first  formation  of  the  synod  to  the  present  day, 
 ministers  were  educated  privately,  and  that  when  the  constitution  was 
 adopted,  this  right  was  not  taken  away;  for  the  constitution  said,  not 
 ' '  must ' '  but  ' '  may ' '  establish  a  theological  seminary.  It  was  argued 
 that  if  Dr.  Bomberger's  act  was  unconstitutional,  then  so  also  was  the 
 teacliing  of  the  tutors  in  the  seminary  at  Mercersburg,  as  Kerschner 
 and  Keily,  for  although  they  had  been  appointed  witli  the  sanction  of  the 
 synod,  yet  they  had  never  been  elected  by  the  synod, — they  had  not  taken 
 
Endorsement  of  Ursinus  Toeological  Department.  539 
 
 the  oath  of  office,  yet  were  permitted  to  teach.  Why  then  should  not  Dr. 
 Bomberger  also  teach.  And,  besides,  it  was  argued  that  the  seminary 
 at  Mereersbiirg  had  among  its  professors  one  who  had  been  educated 
 jtrivately,  namely,  Prof.  T.  G.  Apple.  Again,  the  Germans  had  no  place 
 to  educate  their  students,  as  Lancaster  had  no  accommodation  for  them. 
 Where  were  they  to  go,  if  the  high-churchmen's  interpretation  of  the 
 constitution  was  right.  Also  the  constitution  nowhere  required  students 
 to  study  in  the  synod's  seminary;  it  only  prescribed  the  branches  to  be 
 studied,  not  the  place  where  they  were  to  be  studied;  also,  that  the 
 custom  of  the  classes  was  to  license  any  one  from  any  where.  Another 
 argument  was  that  the  synod  had  no  right  to  begin  a  judicial  process 
 against  Bomberger,  for  that  right  belonged  to  the  classis  to  which  he  be- 
 longed. The  synod  in  so  doing  was,  therefore,  overriding  the  rights  of 
 classis.  Again,  it  was  urged  that  this  action  was  sprung  on  the  synod  in 
 Dr.  Bomberger 's  absence,  when  he  was  unable  to  defend  himself. 
 
 The  synod  now  reaffirmed  the  action  of  the  synod  of  1820 
 that  no  minister  be  permitted  to  give  theological  instruction 
 without  the  permission  of  synod.  This  action  of  1820  had 
 been  virtually  repealed  by  the  synod  of  1821,  or  at  least  had 
 long  been  a  dead  letter.*  But  it  was  now  used  to  discounte- 
 nance the  teaching  of  theology  in  Ursinus  college  as  irregular. 
 
 Section  10.    The  General  Synod  of  1872. 
 
 This  General  Synod  met  at  Cincinnati  on  November  27. 
 The  president  and  a  large  number  of  delegates  were  detained 
 by  the  collision  of  a  train  ahead  of  their 's  near  Columbus,  so 
 that  they  did  not  arrive  until  the  end  of  the  opening  session. 
 Dr.  Klein  preached  the  opening  sermon  and  was  unanimously 
 elected  president.  This  election  gave  the  organization  of  the 
 synod  to  the  old  Reformed  party.  But  the  real  test  between 
 the  two  parties  came  on  the  two  appeal  cases  of  Super  for 
 Ursinus  college  and  of  Dimn  in  regard  to  beneficiary  money. 
 
 In  the  Super  appeal  case,  Dr.  Bomberger  acted  as  coimsel 
 for  Super,  and  Prof.  Higbee  and  Elder  Bousch  for  the  Synod. 
 Bomberger  argued  against  synod's  action: 
 
 1.  It  misconstrued  the  constitution  in  regard  to  theological  teaching, 
 for  it  nowhere  limited  the  teaching  of  theology  to  the  seminaiy  of  the 
 synod. 
 
 *It  was  also  to  be  remembered  that  this  action  of  the  synod  of  1820 
 prepared  the  way  for  the  secession  of  the  Free  synod,  which  might  serve 
 as  a  warning  of  what  might  again  happen  in  this  case. 
 
540         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 2.  The  synod  had  reached  beyond  its  ])rovince  and  put  contempt  on  a 
 lower  court,  the  classis,  by  proceeding  at  once  against  Bomberger,  and 
 thus  assuming  original  jurisdiction. 
 
 3.  It  has  fixed  censure  on  a  nieniber  in  liis  alisence  without  trial  an<l 
 without  an  oj)])ortunity  to  appeal. 
 
 Professor  Tligbee  claimed  on  the  other  side,  that  classis  had  nothing 
 to  do  with  the  matter,  because  the  constitution  left  the  theological  train- 
 ing in  the  hands  of  the  synod.  And  when  Bomberger  assumed  to  be  a 
 theological  teacher,  he  put  himself  by  that  act  under  the  direct  jurisdic- 
 tion of  synod. 
 
 Dr.  Bomberger  in  his  reply,  denied  their  argument  that  the  teacher  of 
 theology  was  a  separate  oflfice  from  that  of  the  minister.  Such  a  dis- 
 tinction was  not  Scriptural.  Besides,  the  constitution  itself  provided  for 
 the  ordination  of  ministers,  elders,  and  deacons,  but  nowhere  for  the 
 ordination  of  teachers  of  theology.  Therefore,  it  was  not  a  separate 
 office.  The  teacher  had  nothing  to  do,  but  what  the  minister  could  do, — 
 teach  sound  Gospel  and  defend  the  faith.  A  minister  could  give  his 
 people  a  course  in  theology  and  Church  history,  and  it  would  not  be  ques- 
 tioned. The  right  of  the  minister  to  teach  theology  had  been  recognized 
 in  our  Church  for  100  years  and  by  the  General  Synod  for  nine  years. 
 
 In  the  discussion  that  followed,*  the  case  of  the  German  Mission-House 
 in  Wisconsin  was  referred  to.  It  had  been  a  private  school  for  six 
 years,f  teaching  theology,  and  the  synod  had  never  interfered  with  it.  If  the 
 Germans  could  teach  theology  thus,  so  could  Bomberger.  Dr.  Grading 
 declared  that  the  action  of  the  Eastern  synod  of  1820  forbidding  min- 
 isters to  teach  theology  privately  had  been  a  dead  letter.  Elder  Zahm, 
 on  the  other  side,  claimed,  however,  that  if  anylwdy  could  teach  theology, 
 then  the  oath  and  the  articles  in  the  constitution  were  a  broad  farce, — 
 an  empty  ceremony.  Dr.  Gerhart  claimed  that  Bomberger 's  act  was  ir- 
 regular because:  (1)  he  was  not  elected  to  the  office,  (2)  there  was  no 
 board  of  visitors  over  him,  (3)  there  was  no  guarantee  of  the  soundness 
 of  the  teachings  of  the  seminary.  Dr.  Welker  replied  that  the  resolu- 
 tion of  the  Eastern  synod  of  1820  a  limit  tlieological  teaching  had  never 
 been  enforced.  It  was  significant  that  wlien  the  constitution  was  framed 
 (in  1840)  this  resolution  was  not  incorporated.  The  early  ministers  had 
 the  right  of  teaching  theology  and  classis  or  synod  had  never  taken  it 
 away.  Dr.  Bomberger  said  that  tlie  best  argument  of  the  other  side  was 
 by  Eev.  J.  S.  Kieffer,  wlio  said  that  there  was  no  trial,  but  that  the 
 synod  was  on  trial,  lie  used  an  illustration  that  a  man  has  an  estate  and 
 there  is  trespass  against  it.     He  sends  out   a  note   of  warning.     That 
 
 *See  the  Me.ssenqcr  and  Chrifiluui  ll'inhl  at  end  of  1872  and  beginning 
 of  1873. 
 
 fWe  have  before  corrected  this  statement.  The  Mission-House  had 
 always  been  under  the  care  of  Sheboygan  classis,  but  not  under  the  di- 
 rect control  of  the  synod. 
 
Endorsement  of  Uksinus  Theological  Department.   54i 
 
 is  what  synod  diil.    At  this  point  there  is  room  for  appeal  as  to  whether 
 there  is  trespassing  or  not. 
 
 "When  the  vote  was  taken  the  appeal  was  sustained  by  a  vote 
 of  100  to  78,  a  majority  of  22.  The  judgment  of  the  synod 
 in  regard  to  the  matter  was  that  the  conduct  of  Dr.  Bom- 
 berger  and  those  associated  with  him  was  not  disorderly  nor 
 contrary  to  the  constitution,  even  though  they  had  not  been 
 invested  with  the  office  of  teacher  of  theology  or  conducted 
 their  training  imder  the  direction  of  s.^Tiod.  It  also  declared 
 that  the  synod  had  acted  unconstitutionally  in  assuming 
 original  jurisdiction  in  the  case  and  not  letting  the  classis, 
 of  which  Bomberger  was  a  member,  assume  the  initiative. 
 
 Ursinus  College. 
 
 The  other  test  case  was  the  Dunn  appeal  cas<\  In  this,  Rev. 
 E.  II.  Nevin  (who  was  a  low-churchman)  was  the  coimsel  for 
 I\Ir.  Dunn  and  Prof.  Iligbee  for  the  synod. 
 
 Mr.  Nevin  argued  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  constitution  which 
 gave  the  classis  the  power  to  put  its  hands  on  the  people's  pockets.  How^ 
 can  classis  know  the  financial  ability  of  the  members F  Where  is  the  con- 
 stitutional authority  to  forbid  the  consistories  from  appropriating  funds 
 where  they  want  to  send  them? 
 
542         History  op^  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 In  the  discussion,  Revs.  Iligbee  and  Apple  both  declared  that  any 
 alienation  of  funds  would  produce  anarchy  and  disorganize  the  work  of 
 the  Church.  Rev.  Mr.  Forwick  replied  ' '  Our  Germans  would  not  submit 
 to  such  taxation  by  classis  as  the  Mercersburg  classis  claims." 
 
 The  vote  on  the  Dunn  appeal  was  90  to  85,  a  majority  of 
 five.  The  interpretation  of  the  judgment  of  synod  was : 
 
 (a)  That  no  consistory  or  other  judicatory  had  a  right  to 
 use  funds  for  the  purpose  for  which  they  were  not  contributed. 
 
 (b)  The  consistory  had  the  right  to  designate  the  direction 
 of  benevolent  funds  when  not  specially  designated  by  the 
 donor. 
 
 The  previous  question  was  moved  and:  a  was  adopted  by  !)() 
 nays,  59  being  excused;  b  was  adopted  by  82  yeas,  19  nays, 
 39  being  excused. 
 
 These  two  victories  of  the  old  Reformed  party  seemed  to 
 settle  a  number  of  other  complaints  and  appeals,  of  whicli 
 there  were  quite  a  number  brought  before  the  General  Synod. 
 Thus  the  memorial  of  Philadelphia  classis  asking  General 
 Synod  to  protect  it  in  its  rights  as  individuals  and  as  a  classis 
 against  the  Eastern  synod  was  withdrawn. 
 
 The  complaint  of  the  Ohio  board  of  iMissions  against  the 
 Eastern  synod  for  appropriating  funds  for  the  support  of 
 missionaries  located  in  its  territory  (Iowa)  and  under  its 
 control  was  finally  dismissed  as  premature. 
 
 In  regard  to  Union  with  the  Dutch,  the  General  Synod  de- 
 clared that  it  hailed  the  movement  with  pleasure  and  ordei-ed 
 each  of  the  synods  to  appoint  a  committee  of  three  to  confer 
 with  a  similar  committee  of  the  General  Synod  of  the  Dutch 
 Church. 
 
 After  the  General  Synod  was  over,  Dr.  Apple  wrote  a  mimbor  of 
 articles  in  the  Messenger,  trying  to  explain  away  its  action  mid  to  sliow 
 that  its  decisions  wore  of  little  importance.  Tliis  was  quite  natural,  for 
 the  General  Synod  had  declared  against  the  high-churclimen.  lie  said,* 
 "This  General  Synod  was  of  less  significance  than  any  of  the  preceding. 
 Neither  of  its  two  great  discussions  touch  cultus  or  theology.  Practically 
 they  were  unimportant.  As  to  the  teacher  of  theology,  the  decision  was 
 only  a  war-measure  and  will  soon  pass  away  in  time.  One  view  of  the 
 situation  is  unpleasant.     The  General  Synod  is  an  organ,  by  which  the 
 
 *Messengcr  of  December  18. 
 
Endorsement  of  Ursinus  Theological  Department.  543 
 
 West  has  come  to  support  the  minority  in  the  East.  General  Synod  .it 
 present  can  exert  only  a  demoralizing  influence  on  the  Church  and  in  that 
 view  we  would  better  be  without  it.  But  matters  may  change.  One  result 
 will  come,  however:  The  East  has  built  up  the  West,  but  hereafter  our 
 Church  will  be  very  slow  to  build  up  those  who  come  and  smite  us." 
 
 Dr.  Fisher*  says,  ' '  General  Synod  has  usurped  power  that  does  not 
 belong  to  it  and  trampled  upon  the  constitutional  rights  guaranteed  to 
 district  synods  by  its  action  on  teachers  of  theology,  as  that  belongs  to 
 synod;  He  also  tried  to  lower  the  decision  about  teachers  of  theology 
 by  saying  that  other  matters  were  paramount. ' ' 
 
 Again,  the  Messenger  says,  ' '  What  course  should  those  of  us  aggrieved 
 take?  Shall  we  rebel?  Never  for  a  moment.  Submission  is  the  only 
 alternative.  The  synod  will  give  expression  of  the  sense  of  wrong  in 
 respectful  terms,  and  proper  measures  will  be  taken  which  will  ulti- 
 mately lead  General  Synod  to  correct  itself.  Its  action  opens  the  door 
 to  lawlessness  in  teaching  theology.  Already  Illinois  college  has  pro- 
 claimed that  a  full  theological  course  will  be  added.  Our  Iowa  brethren 
 can  do  the  same." 
 
 On  the  Dunn  appeal  case,  the  Mcsscnget-j-  says,  "The  result  of  this 
 action  of  the  General  Synod  will  be  to  interfere  with  the  benevolence  of 
 the  Church. ' ' 
 
 Bomberger  says|  that  a  pastor  .in  Mercersburg  classis  had  been  told 
 that  he  had  no  right  to  oppose  his  individual  conscience  against  the  will 
 of  the  classis.  Since  the  meeting  of  the  General  Synod  a  high-church 
 brother,  a  former  member  of  Mercersburg  classis,  threatened  a  low-church 
 minister  that  if  he  would  not  help  the  benevolent  objects  of  classes,  he 
 could  leave  his  field. 
 
 Before  this  synod,  the  Mercersburg  men  had  been  saying  that  "the 
 voice  of  the  synod  was  the  voice  of  God."  The  Reformed  Church 
 Monthly  rubbed  it  into  them  after  this  General  Synod's  meeting,  re- 
 minding them  that  the  voice  of  the  synod  was  the  voice  of  God  and  the 
 voice  of  God  was  against  them  at  this  General  Synod.  After  this  Gen- 
 eral Sjmod  we  hear  less  of  their  very  high  assumption  of  the  authority 
 of  synod  and  of  their  high-handed  measures. 
 
 Dr.  Bomberger  now  speaks  of  the  "factiousness"  of  the  high-church 
 party,  using  the  term  as  they  had  formerly  used  it  against  the  low- 
 churchmen  in  the  East  as  representing  only  a  faction  in  the  synod  and  a 
 troublesome  one  at  that.  Now  he  declared  the  other  side  was  only  a 
 faction  and  guilty  of  troublesome  ' '  factiousness. ' ' 
 
 The  action  of  this  General  Synod  checked  the  extreme  men  of  the  Mer- 
 cersburg School  from  an  arbitrary  course  in  church-government.  It  also 
 probably  saved  the  Church  from  ultimate  division;  as  the  refusal  to  allow 
 
 *Messenger,  January  8,  1873. 
 
 f  January  22. 
 
 XReformed  Church  Monthly,  1873. 
 
544        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 TJrsinus  college  to  teach  theology  would  have  made  the  breach  between 
 the  parties  still  greater.* 
 
 *A  letter  from  one  of  the  oldest  and  most  reliable  ministers  in  the 
 West  gives  this  inside  view  of  the  battle  fonght  in  this  General  Sj'nod : 
 After  the  Mercersburg  men  found  that  they  had  lost.  Dr.  Davis  and 
 others  threatened  on  the  floor  of  the  General  Synod  to  dissolve  the  Gen- 
 eral Synod.  The  evening  session  closed  in  a  general  uproar.  The  Old 
 Reformed  party  held  a  private  meeting  after  it  for  consultation  in  case 
 their  opponents  should  secede.  They  came  to  the  conclusion  to  do  aothing 
 but  to  let  the  other  side  take  any  initiative.  Second  thought  seems  to 
 have  quieted  the  latter,  for  secession  would  have  perhaps  meant  for  them 
 great  loss  in  case  of  a  legal  contest.  They  recognized  this  and  the  next 
 day  proposed  to  make  General  Synod  an  advisory  body  only,  thus  strip- 
 ping it  of  all  its  authorit}'.  The  Old  Reformed  opposed  this,  taunting 
 them  with  being  contradictory  in  claiming  at  one  time  divine  authority 
 for  the  General  Synod  (as  they  had  done  when  it  was  on  their  side), 
 and  now  denying  to  her  any  authority  at  all.  (We  might  also  add  that 
 the  Church  was  near  division  at  that  time.  We  believe  that  if  a  division 
 had  occurred,  the  low-church  party  and  the  Dutch  Reformed  would  be 
 united  to-day,  as  the  obstacle  to  that  union  has  always  been  Mercersburg 
 theology.) 
 
CHAPTER  IV. 
 
 The  Liturgical  Discussion  Up  to  the  General  Synod 
 OF  1878. 
 
 Section  1.     Liturgical  Events   (1873-8). 
 
 The  beginning  of  1873  revealed  a  good  deal  of  friction  be- 
 tween the  two  parties  because  the  decision  of  the  General 
 Synod  of  1872  had  been  against  the  Mercersburg  party.  The 
 Messenger  began  a  series  of  articles,  which  said  the  appeal 
 cases  were  at  variance  with  the  constitution.  Apple  assailed 
 the  Germans  for  receiving  money  from  the  East  for  missions 
 and  then  voting  against  the  donors.  C.  W.  says  that  the 
 proper  end  to  be  aimed  at  is  the  union  of  the  three  eastern 
 synods.  Dr.  S.  R.  Fisher  says,  in  the  Messenger,  that  Heidel- 
 berg college  in  Ohio  is  not  a  Reformed  institution,  and  yet  it 
 was  pointed  out  to  him  that  he  had  named  it  in  the  Almanac  as 
 among  the  Reformed  institutions.  Wiliiard  replied  to  a^l  this 
 in  the  Christian  World  that  there  is  no  need  of  any  such 
 alarm  at  the  action  of  the  last  General  Synod  as  the  Messenger 
 declares. 
 
 The  most  important  event  early  in  the  year  was  the  special 
 meeting  of  the  Eastern  synod,  held  in  February  in  Lancaster. 
 Evidently  the  JMercersburg  party  felt  that  after  the  decision 
 of  the  General  Synod  against  them,  some  special  action  must 
 be  taken  to  safeguard  their  position.  The  synod  was  called, 
 however,  ostensibly  at  the  suggestion  of  the  committee  ap- 
 pointed by  the  previous  synod  to  devise  a  plan  of  union  for  the 
 control  and  support  of  the  theological  seminary  at  Lancaster. 
 Apple  gave  as  the  reason  for  this  that  no  provisioj^i  had  beejn 
 made  in  the  General  Synod  for  certain  interests.  It  was 
 left,  he  says,  for  the  JMercersburg  wit^g  ir^  a  legitimate  way  to 
 do  so,  according  to  the  constitution.    If  the  General  Synod  has 
 
 545  ■■■■■■ 
 
546         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 been  persuaded  to  let  the  theological  institutions  be  thrown 
 into  private  hands  without  ecclesiastical  supervision,  it  is 
 left  for  Mercersburg  to  unite  together  for  the  support  of  the 
 seminary, — and  not  only  to  unite  on  the  seminary,  but  also 
 in  mission  work.  On  these  points,  he  says,  the  General  Synod 
 is  not  the  point  of  unity. 
 
 The  sj'nod  appointed  a  committee  of  three  to  present  its 
 plan  to  the  Pittsburg  synod,  asking  it  to  join  with  them  and 
 Potomac  sjTiod  in  a  real  organic  union.  The  plan  had  to  be 
 adopted  by  two  of  the  sjmods  in  order  to  become  operative.* 
 
 Their  action  uniting  the  three  eastern  synods  caused  some 
 criticism  by  the  other  side.  A  Avriter  in  the  Christian  World 
 said  he  could  not  see  in  what  way  the  constitution  could  be  ex- 
 plained so  as  to  authorize  a  synod  to  enter  into  any  compact 
 with  another  synod.  Russell,  a  high-churcliman,  in  "Our 
 Church  Paper,"  proved  that  the  plan  of  home  missions  under 
 the  three  synods  was  in  direct  conflict  with  the  constitution. 
 Will  General  Synod,  he  says,  allow  such  infractions  of  the 
 constitution  ? 
 
 Another  event  that  occurred  at  this  s>aiod  was  the  seven- 
 tieth birthday  anniversary  of  Dr.  Nevin.  The  synod  called 
 at  Caernarvon,  his  home  near  Lancaster,  and  presented  him 
 with  a  costly  gold  watch.  Gerhart  made  the  address  for  the 
 donors,  and  Nevin  replied.  In  Gerhart 's  address,  says  Bom- 
 berger,  he  claimed  that  Nevinism  was  a  peculiar  and  distinct 
 system.  Nevin  agreed  to  this,  and  said  a  change  had  been 
 going  on  in  himself  as  well  as  in  the  Reformed  Church  in  the 
 last  thirty  years. 
 
 *Anothcr  matter  Ijrought  l)oforo  tlicin  was  the  foiuuling  of  a  niissioii- 
 liniise,  wliieh  was  negatived  as  of  doubtful  propriety.  The  startinf:f  of 
 a  Mission-House  for  Eastern  Pennsylvania  was  begun  by  East  Pennsyl- 
 vania elassis.  It  sent  a  memorial  to  the  Lebanon  and  Ooshenhoppen 
 classes  about  the  matter.  The  latter  appointed  a  committee  to  unite 
 with  the  committee  of  East  Pennsylvania  elassis  in  this  pro.iect.  But 
 Lebanon  elassis  did  not  go  into  it.  The  whole  plan  finally  came  to 
 naught,  although  several  meetings  of  the  joint  rommiltees  of  Kast  Penn- 
 sylvania and  Ooshenhoppen  classes  were  held.  There  also  arose  quite  a 
 discussion  in  the  Messnif/rr  between  Rev.  G.  T.  WolfF,  who  bitterly  at- 
 tacked the  scheme  and  Prof.  Tligbee,  who  favored  it.  Pr.  TlelfTrich,  in 
 his  Autobiography,  says  it  was  a  plan  to  circumvent  Ursinus  college  by 
 drawing  attention  fiyi&j  from  that  institution  to  it. 
 
EvTSNTS  TO  THE  Generm.  Synod  (1878).  547 
 
 As  the  high-churchiiieii  combiiipd  in  these  three  synods  for 
 missionary  work,  the  low-churchmen  also  combined  and  or- 
 ganized the  Ursinus  Union,  June  26,  1873,  to  foster  missions 
 and  beneficiary  education. 
 
 A  church  case  that  caused  a  good  deal  of  friction  was  the 
 Reformed  Church  at  Frederick,  Md.  Dr.  Zacharias,  who  had 
 been  pastor  for  many  years,  and  who  had  never  used  the 
 liturgy  in  his  Sabbath  services,  died  in  1873.  A  few  weeks 
 after  his  death  the  first  meeting  of  the  Potomac  synod  was 
 held  in  the  church,  when  a  full  liturgical  service  was  used 
 for  the  first  time.  This  gave  offence  to  many,  w^ho  had  never 
 been  accustomed  to  it.  The  majority  of  the  consistory  was 
 high-church  and  they  nominated  successively  two  high- 
 churchmen  as  pastors,  but  both  were  defeated  by  the  congre- 
 gation. A  petition  to  have  a  low-churchman  nominated  was 
 rejected  by  the  consistory.  Finally  Dr.  Eschbach  was  nomi- 
 nated by  the  high-churchmen.  At  this  meeting  they  captured 
 the  low-churchmen  by  passing  a  motion  that  the  non-liturgical 
 service  was  to  be  used  in  the  Church.  Dr.  Eschbach  was  elected 
 and  the  following  Simday  ordained  and  installed  the  Church 
 officers,  against  whose  election  the  low-churchmen  had  been 
 protesting.* 
 
 Dr.  Apple,  in  addressing  the  Dutch  synod,  1876,  said  the 
 controversy  had  largely  ceased  within  our  borders.  Though 
 the  two  tendencies,  churchly  and  unchurchly,  have  not  ceased, 
 they  are  nearer  common  ground  than  they  have  been  for  years. 
 For  the  rest  they  agree  to  disagree  and  look  for  a  complete 
 reconciliation  in  the  future. 
 
 The  Christian  Worldj  objects  to  being  thus  called  unchurchly  by  Dr. 
 Apple.      It   takes   Apple  up   for   saying   that   a   liturgy,   except   in   such 
 
 *For  a  full  statement  of  this  and  the  action  of  classis,  synod  and  civil 
 courts,  see  the  Christian  World,  July  .30,  1874,  to  February  n,  1876,  which 
 gives  the  Old  Reformed  view  of  the  case.  For  the  other  side  of  the  case, 
 see  Eschbach  's  History  of  the  Frederick  Church,  page  .'50. 
 
 An  interesting  dispute  occurred  in  the  Messenger  in  the  spring  of  1873 
 between  Gans  and  Steiner.  Gans,  with  his  very  high-church  proclivities, 
 made  an  assault  on  our  public  school  system,  saying  that  our  public 
 schools  were  infidel,  for  which  Steiner  called  him  to  account. 
 
 fJuly  6,  1876. 
 
548         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 main  features  of  \voi-shii>  as  are  fixed  liy  the  constitution  of  the  Church, 
 ought  not  to  be  attempted  to  be  enforced.  It  hopes  that  this  remark 
 will  be  heeded  by  the  high-churchmen.* 
 
 Eev.  F.  W.  Krenier  had  an  articlef  on  "  Unehurchly  German  Re- 
 formed." Unchurchly  means  a  low,  unworthy,  unscriptural  conception 
 of  the  Church  and  the  ministry  and  the  sacraments.  The  Old  Reformed 
 ought  not  to  be  charged  with  it.  They  were  probably  declared  so  be- 
 cause of  their  simple  worship.  But  theirs  was  the  Old  Reformed  worship, 
 for  the  Mercersburg  theology  confesses  that  their  worship  is  new. 
 
 The  publication  of  the  RcfoDticd  Church  Monthhj  was  dis- 
 continued, after  being  published  for  nine  years,  six  longer 
 than  had  been  prophesied  of  it.  It  was  combined  with  the 
 Christian  World  in  a  new  department,  called  "Faith  and 
 Works." 
 
 F.  W.  KremerJ  saj's  the  Order  of  Worship  is  a  failure.  Nevin  some 
 years  ago  pronounced  the  Provisional  liturgy  a  failure.  The  same  is  true 
 of  the  Order : 
 
 1.  As  to  its  limited  introduction.  Among  1,352  congregations,  not 
 more  than  2.5  use  it  in  full. 
 
 2.  Its  use  in  the  regular  Lord's  day's  services  has  been  abandoned 
 in  many  congregations,  as  Harrisburg  and  Altoona'  and  elsewhere. 
 
 3.  Even  its  limited  introduction  was  found  an  injury  to  the  Church, 
 creating  alienation  li(>tween  pastor  and  people. 
 
 4.  The  attempt  to  introduce  it  has  seriously  interfered  with  our 
 literary  and  theological  institutions  and  involved  us  in  the  expense 
 of  establishing  other  institutions. 
 
 The  Christian  World^  says  the  old  issues  are  still  jiending.  It  refers 
 to  the  baptismal  regeneration  of  Tract  No.  3  and  the  denial  of  the 
 atonement,  as  found  in  the  catechism.  These  issues  are  not  only  pend- 
 ing, but  more  than  one  have  been  claimed  to  have  the  approval  of  the 
 Church  through  the  synod.  How  long  will  this  contiiuie?  But  it  nuist  be 
 met. 
 
 *E.  M.  R.  also  takes  him  up  in  the  Kcformed  Chnrch  Monlhh/  severely 
 in  "The  Ointment  that  i;in  down  Aaron's  beard,"  which  Apple  had 
 written.  He  refers  to  the  y<'lling  down  of  Dr.  Super  at  the  synod  of 
 1872,  to  the  violent  demonstrations  at  synod  of  I(S(57,  when  the  proceed- 
 ings of  the  Myerstown  convention  came  up,  to  the  scheme  of  the  syno<l 
 of  1868  to  brand  a  minister  witli  lying  and  slander  without  permitting 
 him  self-defence. 
 
 ■^Christian  World,  September  28,  1876. 
 
 XChristian  World,  February  7,  1878. 
 
 §March  21,  1878. 
 
Events  to  the  General  Synod  (1878).  549 
 
 Section  2.     The  "Messenger"  and  the  Old  Doctrine  op 
 THE  Atonement   (3872). 
 
 The  K( fanned  Church  Moulhlij  for  October  says  that  the 
 article  "The  Doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  Atoning  Work 
 of  Christ,"  declares  that  the  catechism  does  not  teach  that  the 
 sacrifice  of  Christ  on  the  cross  is  the  only  ground  of  salva- 
 tion. But  it  does.  The  Palatinate  liturgy  directs  our  faith  at 
 the  Lord's  Supper  to  his  perfect  sacrifice  as  the  ground  and 
 foundation  of  our  salvation. 
 
 ' '  A  superficial  study  of  the  catechism, ' '  says  the  Messenger,  ' '  would 
 make  the  atonement  of  Christ  central.  Therefore,  it  is  the  principle 
 of  redemption,— the  cross  is  the  pivot.  But  this  idea  is  incompatible 
 with  the  central  position  of  the  Creed, — with  its  connection  of  the 
 gospel  as  an  order  of  grace,  standing  in  the  personal  history  of  Christ. 
 When  the  catechism  emphasizes  Christ 's  death,  it  does  not  set  it  in  oppo- 
 sition to  any  cardinal  fact  in  his  history.  The  cross  presupposes  the 
 manger.  Emphasis  put  on  the  cross  involves  opposition  in  a  different 
 direction  against  Romish  errors.  The  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  against  the 
 sacrifice  of  the  mass.  Mercersburg  emphasizes  the  birth  of  Christ. 
 The  catechism  teaches  that  the  offering  that  Christ  made  of  himself  was 
 not  the  offering  of  his  body  at  the  altar  according  to  the  Romish  theory. 
 The  Palatinate  liturgy  is  against  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  "unbloody 
 sacrifice"  in  making  Christ  the  only  ground  of  salvation.  But  it  does 
 not  stop  at  this  point.  It  makes  Christ  and  not  the  sacrament  the  source 
 of  salvation. 
 
 The  Be  formed  Church  Monthly  for  November  says  that  its  exposure 
 of  tiie  (Mercersburg)  seminary  faculty, — that  they  were  against  the 
 atonement,  has  led  them  to  come  out.  They  grant  that  the  catechism 
 seems  to  teach  it,  but  does  not  do  so  really ;  and  only  as  opposed  to 
 Romish  errors; — "seems  to  teach  iff — it  teaches  it  plainly.  (See 
 answers  16  and  17.) 
 
 The  Messenger*  says  there  is  a  two-fold  view  of  ('hrist's  atonement 
 in  the  catechism.  It  contemplates  the  death  of  Christ  mainly  from  the 
 divine  side  like  Anselm,  but  it  also  recognizes  the  relation  it  bears  to 
 Satan,  though  it  does  not  teach  redemption  to  Satan,  as  answer  37 
 ' '  everlasting  damnation, ' '  and  answer  41  '  anguish, '  etc.  Answer  34 
 also  brings  out  the  double  truth  of  redemption  to  Satan,  etc.  Thus,  while 
 the  catechism  emphasizes  the  juridical  or  forensic  aspect,  so  also  the 
 negative  aspect  or  the  necessity  of  his  death  in  relation  to  Satan  is 
 spoken  of.    According  to  the  catechism  Satan  is  a  personal,  evil  spirit,  the 
 
 ♦November  19,  1873. 
 
550         History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Son  is  not  a  mere  negative  influence.  The  Heidelberg  Catechism  does 
 not  do  as  the  Shorter  Catechism,  leave  out  the  negative  side  of  Christ's 
 relation,  namely, — to  Satan. 
 
 We  might  add  to  this  historical  survey  of  the  dis- 
 cussion that  Mercersburg  made  the  incarnation  central, 
 — Christ's  life  rather  than  his  work.  But  the  doctrine  of 
 the  atonement  is  central  in  the  Bible  and  in  the  Heidelberg 
 Catechism.  Paul  preached  "Christ  and  him  crucified." 
 Christ  left  no  sacrament  to  commemorate  his  birth  or  any 
 other  event  of  his  life,  but  he  did  leave  the  Lord's  Supper  as 
 the  undying  witness  of  his  death.  And  in  the  catechism  tliere 
 are  more  references  to  atonement,  redemption,  blood  of  Christ, 
 etc.,  than  to  any  other  doctrine. 
 
 Section  3.     Rev.  Dr.  Rupp  Charged  With  Pantheism. 
 
 A  new  development  of  Mercersburg  theology  now  begins 
 to  become  prominent.  Many  years  before,  as  far  back  as  the 
 days  of  Dr.  Berg,  attention  had  been  called  by  its  opponents 
 to  its  pantheizing  tendencies.  These  now  become  prominent 
 in  the  discussion.  Dr.  Rupp  had  an  article*  on  ' '  Regeneration 
 and  Conversion,"  in  which  he  parallels  generation  and  regen- 
 eration. 
 
 Sin  begins  in  the  substance  of  our  life.  Our  catechism  teaches  that 
 we  are  sinners  before  we  are  transgressors  and  transgressors  because  we 
 are  sinners.  At  Adam's  creation,  the  life-breath  can  not  be  regarded 
 otherwise  than  as  an  emanation  from  the  being  of  God.f  "The  life  of 
 regeneration  is  an  emanation  l)y  the  Holy  Spirit  from  Christ's  divine- 
 human  life."  And  yet  it  could  not  be  said  that  God's  being  was 
 any  less  than  it  had  been  before.  So  the  soul  of  the  child  emanates 
 from  its  parents.  Eegeneration  is  a  change  produced  by  the  Holy 
 Spirit,  not  primarily  in  the  sphere  of  consciousness  but  in  the  substan- 
 tial ground  of  the  human  soul  itself.  It  is  the  production  of  a  new  life 
 in  the  substance  of  the  old.  Eegeneration  and  the  new-birth  differ 
 just  as  generation  and  birth  differ.  Christ  stands  in  the  same  relation 
 to  us  as  Adam.  As  by  nature,  men  become  partakers  of  the  human 
 nature;  by  regeneration,  they  become  partakers  of  the  diviufe  nature. 
 2    Peter    1 :  4. J      Though    not    pantheism,    it    means    a    real   communiea- 
 
 *See  the  Beview  of  1873. 
 fPage  143. 
 $Page  150. 
 
Events  to  the  General  Synod  (1S7S).  551 
 
 tion  of  being  with  God  in  Christ.  It  does  not  mean  that  any  part 
 of  Christ's  individual  or  personal  being  is  by  regeneration  infused  into 
 his  people  in  such  a  way  that  his  own  being  is  diminished  by  the  pro- 
 cess. What  God  breathed  into  man  was  an  emanation  of  himself  and  not 
 a  creation*  just  as  the  parent's  substance  passes  over  to  the  child.  The 
 life  of  regeneration  is  the  life  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  Christ 's  divine- 
 human  life  and  yet  not  the  sensible  or  material  part  of  his  being.  Thus 
 in  giving  light  to  the  plant,  the  sun  does  not  lose  any  part  of  his  power; 
 so  there  goes  from  Christ  by  the  Holy  Spirit  a  new  principle  which  lodges 
 itself  in  the  human  soul,  imparting  a  new  character.  This  is  regenera- 
 tion. Regeneration  is  ascribed  to  the  Word,  but  the  Word  means 
 Christ  himself.  He  then  states  that  faith  j^recedes  knowledge  and  is  an 
 activity  of  the  heart.  Union  with  Christ  comes  before  the  knowledge  of 
 it,  especially  in  a  child  at  regeneration. 
 
 This  article  created  a  great  sensation  within  our  Church 
 and  outside  of  it.  The  Christiafi  World  says  it  contains  the 
 essence  of  Romanism.  The  Reformed  Church  Monthly  says 
 it  holds  to  baptism  in  the  ultra-Lutheran  or  Romish  sense. 
 The  Independent  and  Interior  also  attack  Rupp.  The  Mes- 
 senger replies  to  these  attacks  that  it  is  only  by  taking  his 
 words  out  of  their  connection  and  putting  a  new  meaning  into 
 them  that  objection  can  be  found.  Regeneration,  according 
 to  Rupp,  does  not  have  the  popular  signification  of  a  complete 
 state  of  salvation,  but  a  transplanting  from  the  world  into  the 
 Church.  It  attacks  the  jimior  editor  of  the  Christian  World, 
 who  had  never  studied  theology,  as  a  "  theologister. "  The 
 Messenger  and  the  Christian  Intelligencer  get  into  a  contro- 
 versy about  Rupp's  view  on  baptism,  the  Messenger  defend- 
 ing him. 
 
 Eev.  Mr.  Eupp  finally  replies  to  these  attacks.f  Regeneration,  he  says, 
 is  the  implantation  of  a  new  principle  in  the  center  of  the  soul, — is  de- 
 liverance from  the  sphere  of  nature  into  the  sphere  of  grace.  Baptism 
 is  a  means  of  grace  as  well  as  a  symbol.  It  does  not  work  ex  operc 
 operato,  but  it  has  objective  force  which  the  subjective  organ  (faith) 
 does  not  put  into  it.  The  phrase  "objective  medium"  is  not  found  in 
 Scripture,  but  neither  also  is  the  phrase  "sign  and  seal."  Baptism  is  a 
 sign  but  not  of  an  absent  grace  given  before  and  after.  Infants  are 
 capable  of  faith  in  its  incipient  and  germinal  state.     There  is  therefore 
 
 *Page  151, 
 ■fMessenger,  April  16. 
 
552        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  TJ.  S. 
 
 no  reason  for  making  a  difference  between  the  infant  and  the  adult  in 
 baptism  as  far  as  the  meaning  of  the  grace  of  baptism  is  concerned. 
 
 The  Messenger  replied  to  the  Christian  World  that  it  did  not  under- 
 stand Mr.  Bupp.  The  Christian  World  replied  that  Mr.  Rupp  was  not 
 <lifficult  to  understand,  for  he  taught  baptismal  regeneration.  Bombcrger 
 says  the  Old  Reformed  believe  in  baptismal  grace  but  not  in  regenera- 
 tion.    So  does  Ilelvetieus,  who  writes  in  the  Christian  World. 
 
 The  Heformcd  Church  Honthlif-  takes  Mr.  Rupp  to  task  on  tliree 
 points: 
 
 1.  What  the  doctrine  of  Mercersburg  is. 
 
 2.  That  it  is  contrary  to  Scripture. 
 
 3.  That  it  is  contrary  to  the  faith  of  the  Reformed  Church. 
 
 The  root  of  the  doctrine  is  the  false  relation  of  the  creator  to  the 
 creature — by  emanation.  This  means  that  man  sprang  from  the  very  es- 
 sence of  Godhead  and  was  literally  a  part  of  that  substance,  just  as  the 
 soul  of  the  child  is  part  of  the  substance  of  the  parent's  soul  and  is  an 
 emanation  from  them.  Regeneration  is  a  new  emanation  from  the  sub- 
 stance of  God  through  the  theanthropic  life  of  Christ.  It  is  the  implanta- 
 tion of  the  substantial  portion  of  the  divine-human  life  into  the  substan- 
 tial center  or  core  of  human  personality.  Mr.  Rupp's  qualification  on 
 this,  that  it  does  not  diminish  Christ,  does  not  alter  the  import  of  the 
 statement;  for  it  asserts  the  same  thing  except  that  it  is  done  without 
 loss.  We  must  be  careful  not  to  confuse,  he  says,  baptismal  regenera- 
 tion with  baptismal  grace  into  which  Mr.  Rupp  glides.  Redemption, 
 Rupp  says,  is  an  organic  conjunction  with  Christ.  Gerhart,  in  Tract  No. 
 3,  says  that  there  is  no  way  for  man  to  have  a  new  life  created  but  by 
 bajjtism. 
 
 Bomberger,  after  answering  Rujip's  Scrijitural  proof,  goes  on  to  say, 
 there  is  no  teaching  of  any  emanation  in  tlic  catechism  in  connection 
 with  baptism. 
 
 They  tie,  says  a  writer,  regeneration  to  baptism  and  say  if  we 
 deny  baptism,  then  there  is  no  regeneration.  They  are  blind.  The 
 difference  between  them  and  us  is  not  as  to  the  reality  o^  regeneration 
 but  as  to  the  time  of  it,  whether  it  always  takes  ])laces  at  baptism  or  not. 
 
 The  Messenger^  says  regeneration  is  not  pantheistic.  It  claims  that 
 the  Mercersburg  doctrine  is  the  same  as  Ebrard's.  What  is  pantheism? 
 Absolute  unity  and  identity  of  all  being  in  the  universe.  It  may  be 
 regarded  under  the  notion  of  force  or  of  substance,  but  in  either  case 
 the  universe  is  only  its  phenomenal  manifestation.  Pantheism  denies 
 personality  to  the  creature.  lie  addsj  there  is  no  union  between  pan- 
 theism and  regeneration.     Our  opponents  say  we  believe  tliat  regeneration 
 
 *June,  1873. 
 fOctober  29,  1873. 
 ^November  5. 
 
Events  to  the  General  Synod  (1878).  553 
 
 is  a  conveyance  by  enianatipu  of  a  portion  of  the  substance  of  God  into 
 the  center  of  man's  soul.  This  is  not  Rupp's  doctrine,  or  the  doctrine 
 taught  at  Lancaster.  This  mode  of  thought  of  the  objector  is  crass 
 and  quantitative.  Eegeneration  is  not  a  conveyance  of  a  portion  of  God's 
 substance.  Tlieir  critics  use  the  word  "substance"  in  a  crass  material- 
 istic sense  or  how  could  we  speak  of  a  portion  of  God's  substance.  Is 
 God  divisible?  The  same  materiali.stic  idea  lies  at  the  basis  of  their 
 word  euuuiation.  But  regeneration  is  not  the  conveyance  in  an  external 
 mechanical  way  of  a  life-germ  into  tlic  soul.  It  is  the  establishment  of  a 
 new  life,  a  religious  transfer  from  one  order  of  life  to  another.  Yet 
 if  regeneration  ingrafts  into  Christ,  there  must  be  a  response  on  our 
 part  in  the  life  of  the  soul  itself.  Without  it  the  subject  continues 
 a  dead  branch.  Regeneration  is  the  possibility,  not  the  necessity,  the 
 reality  of  the  conveyance  of  the  new  divine  life  from  Christ  to  the  soul. 
 
 The  Messenger*  has  an  article  on  ' '  Mystical  Union  and  Pantheism. ' ' 
 It  asks,  is  there  anything  in  Mercersburg  doctrines  to  occasion  the  charge 
 of  pantheism?  What  our  opponents  regard  as  pantheism  is  the  doctrine 
 of  the  mystical  union  established  at  regeneration.  It  belongs  to  the 
 original  constitution  of  man  to  be  the  recipient  of  divine  life.  To  deny 
 this  is  to  affirm  an  eternal  dualism  between  God  and  the  world.  Man's 
 creation  (Gen.  2:7)  teaches  that  there  is  in  man  a  divine  element, 
 which  comes  by  inspiration  and  which  constitutes  a  real  substratum  of 
 his  human  existence.  That  text  sounds  ahnost  as  if  a  i)ortion  of  God 
 had  been  conveyed  by  emanation  to  man.  Still  it  is  in  the  Bible.  Paul 
 says  ' '  we  are  the  offspring  of  God. ' '  How  can  we  be  the  offspring,  if 
 we  do  not  share  the  life  of  our  Heavenly  Father.  The  original  inspira- 
 tion in  the  case  of  Adam  is  not  an  act  once  for  all,  but  one  continued 
 in  history  and  repeated  in  each  individual  in  the  race.  Again,  if  man 
 is  to  become  immortal,  he  must  partake  of  the  life  of  God.  The  fountain 
 of  immortality  we  have  in  the  Son  of  God.  In  him  incarnate  humanity, 
 which  had  original  capacity  for  God,  received  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead 
 into  itself.  Peter  says,  "we  are  partakers  of  the  divine  nature."  Paul 
 prays  the  saints  ought  to  be  filled  with  all  the  fullness  of  God. 
 
 The  Messenger-f  has  an  article,  "The  Charge  of ■  Pantheism  Ground- 
 less." Why  is  union  with  God  called  jiantheism.  Because  it  is  thought 
 to  involve  a  loss  of  life  on  his  part.  God  is  conceived  as  a  full  vessel 
 pouring  out  its  contents  into  an  empty  one.  But  in  real  birth  there  is 
 comnuinication  of  life  to  the  child,  but  the  mother  does  not  lose  portion 
 after  portion  of  her  life  with  each  child.  Here  we  see  how  life  begets 
 life.  So  God's  life  comes  to  us  without  enumatior.  or  loss  of  one  portion 
 or  loss  to  himself. 
 
 ^November  12,  1873. 
 fNovember  19,  1873. 
 
55-4        History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 The  Messenger*  contains  an  answer  to  the  Pantheism  in  Rupp's  article 
 which  is  quoted.  "The  life  breath  which  God  breathed  into  Adam 
 when  he  became  a  living  soul  can  not  be  regarded  otherwise  than  as  an 
 emanation  from  the  being  of  God"  and  "The  life  of  regeneration  is 
 an  emanation  by  the  Holy  Spirit  from  Christ's  divine-human  life."  He 
 regrets  that  Rupp  used  the  word  emanation,  for  it  does  not  mean  what 
 he  intends  to  say.  It  is  a  physical  term  denoting  the  flowing  forth  of 
 fluids  and  therefore  inapplicable  to  God's  communication  of  life  to 
 his  creatures.  Rupp  himself  answers  it,  for  in  the  next  clause,  in  the 
 first  sentence,  he  says,  "and  yet  it  could  not  be  a  part  of  God  in  such 
 sense  that  God's  being  should  now  be  so  much  the  less  than  it  was 
 before."  Rupp  also  says  that  the  phrase  "partakers  of  the  divine 
 nature ' '  does  not  mean  simply  moral  resemblance  but  a  real  com- 
 munication. It  does  not  mean  that  any  part  of  Christ's  individual  or 
 personal  being  is  by  regeneration  infused  into  his  people  at  the  loss 
 of  Ms  own  being.  But  he  adds  God  did  not  breathe  a  part  of  himself 
 into  man 's  nostrils,  though  what  he  did  breathe  into  him  was  an 
 emanation  and  not  a  created  element. 
 
 The  Be  formed  Church  Monthly  for  December  says,  What  is  it?  They 
 deny  pantheism.  Dorner  charged  them  with  pantheism.  So  did  Hodge. 
 Their  claim  not  to  be  pantheistic  does  not  prove  it.  Both  Pelagius  and 
 Arius  claimed  to  be  Evangelical,  yet  were  heretics.  Gans'  definition  of 
 pantheism  in  Herzog  's  Encyclopa?dia  exactly  covers  the  Mercersburg 
 theory, — "Any  theory  that  teaches  that  man  is  an  emanation  from  the 
 life  of  the  creator  or  the  result  of  an  organic  conjunction  of  God  and 
 man  or  that  God  begets  creatures  out  of  his. substance  is  pantheism." 
 
 The  Christian  World-f  has  an  article  on  Rupp,  claiming  that  he  did  not 
 teach  pantheism.  He  did  not  mean  pantheism  by  emanation.  He  used  it, 
 not  in  the  ancient  sense  of  the  Gnostic  but  in  the  modern  sense  as  light 
 emanates  from  the  sun,  as  power  of  government  emanates  from  the 
 people.  He  did  not  mean  that  a  portion  of  the  sun  is  in  its  rays,  or  a 
 part  of  the  people  is  in  this  power  of  the  government.  He  meant  simply 
 that  the  sun  was  the  source  of  light  and  the  people  the  source  of  power. 
 So  God  is  the  source  of  life  and  this  is  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 The  Mercersburg  adherents  try  to  parry  the  charge  of  pantheism  by 
 quoting  from  Bomberger's  book  on  "Infant  Baptism,"  where  he  speaks 
 of  a  living  union  with  Christ, — that  the  germ  of  the  new  life  is  im- 
 planted in  the  heart.  Thus,  pages  89-90  prove  baptismal  grace  which 
 Bomberger  never  denied,  but  he  did  not  place  the  baptismal  grace  in  the 
 mere  outward  form  as  they  did. 
 
 *November  26. 
 fDecember  4,  1873. 
 
Events  to  the  General  Synod  (1878).  555 
 
 Section  4.    Another  Perversion  to  Rome. 
 
 On  July  6,  1873,  Rev.  Mr.  Forney,  pastor  at  Norristown, 
 which  was  one  of  the  first  congregations  to  use  the  liturgy  in 
 full,  notified  his  congregation  that  he  had  renounced  Protest- 
 antism and  gone  to  Rome.  He  was  the  third  pastor  of  that 
 Church  to  go  over,  Wolff  and  Ermentrout  being  the  others, 
 to  be  followed  about  1878  by  a  fourth,  who  had  been  previ- 
 ously pastor  there,  Gans.  Ten  days  before  his  perversion, 
 Forney  had  been  elected  by  the  alumni  of  Franklin  and  IMar- 
 shall  college  at  their  annual  meeting  to  deliver  the  alumni 
 oration  at  their  next  annual  meeting,  an  honor  unusual  for 
 one  so  young. 
 
 Dr.  Fisher,  in  the  Messenger,  says  his  perversion  was  due  to  the  read- 
 ing of  Catholic  books  and  openly  blames  Dr.  Schaff  for  this.  The  Jte- 
 formed  Church  Monthly  replies  this  is  shameful  in  its  attempt  to  screen 
 guilty  parties.  Dr.  Boniberger  said  he  did  not  know  whether  Schaff 
 recommended  such  books,  but  he  knew  they  had  been  recommended  since 
 Schaff  left.  Gerhart's  logic  on  the  priestly  character  of  the  minister, 
 Apple  on  Fritsehel  and  Gans  on  Absolution  were  enough  to  make  a 
 papist  of  the  muddiest  water.  The  Messenger  pities  Forney  for  throw- 
 ing himself  away  and  hopes  his  case  will  be  a  warning  to  others. 
 
 The  Catholic  Standard*  has  an  editorial  by  Wolff,  in  which  he  con- 
 gratulates !^orney  that  his  doubts  are  over  and  that  he  has  found  rest 
 in  the  embrace  of  our  holy  mother  Church.  He  calls  the  teachers  of 
 Mercersburg  and  Lancaster  theological  schools  * '  guideposts ' '  pointing  to 
 Rome,  but  never  moving  one  step  themselves.  They  were  used  by  Provi- 
 dence to  prepare  others  for  Romish  blessings.  "May  God  grant  them 
 grace  to  follow  those  whom  it  ought  to  have  been  supposed  would  have 
 preceded  them  into  the  Church."  Wolff  declares  that  the  seeds  of  what 
 have  been  such  bitter  fruits  for  the  Reformed  Church  were  planted  by 
 Neviu,  Harbaugh,  Gerhart,  Higbee  and  Apple. 
 
 Pennsylvania,!  in  speaking  of  Forney's  defection,  says  that  the  Mer- 
 cersburg students  twenty  years  before  were  urged  to  read  Catholic 
 books.  Just  the  other  day  a  Reformed  minister  in  good  standing  told 
 one  of  his  members  who  was  going  west  that  if  she  could  not  find  a 
 Refonned  Church  she  should  not  join  the  sects,  but  rather  to  go  to  the 
 Catholic  Church. 
 
 The  Reformed  Church  Monthly,  for  August  referring  to  "guideposts 
 to  Rome,"  says,  of  our  ministers  some  preach  truths  that  can  find  their 
 fulfillment  only  in  the  Catholic  Church.     Yet  their  position  as  Protest- 
 
 *July  12. 
 
 •[Christian  World,  July  17. 
 
556        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 ant  ministers   gives  the  lie  to  their   teaching.     They  have   no   faith   in 
 Protestantism. 
 
 Common  Sense  tries  to  reply*  to  Wolff  in  the  Catholic  Standard  by 
 saying  that  of  every  one  hundred  students  in  seminary  only  one  goes  to 
 Rome.  He  confesses  that  twenty-five  years  ago  Mercersburg  was 
 stirred  by  such  exciting  questions  as,  is  Christianity  law  or  doctrine  or 
 morality;  no,  it  is  life.  Is  the  Bible  to  be  interpreted  by  private  judg- 
 ment or  under  the  Church,  which  is  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy 
 Spirit.  Students  have  gone  farther  than  their  teachers.  That  was  long 
 ago,  but  matters  have  subsided  tliere  now. 
 
 Dr.  Fisher  repliesf  to  the  Catliolic  Standard  and  its  charges  against 
 the  Mercersburg  professors.  He  says,  ' '  No  man  can  go  from  Mercers- 
 burg to  Rome  without  pulling  up  some  of  the  foundation-stones  of  its 
 structure.  It  is  strange  these  conversions  should  occur  just  when  the 
 papacy  is  trembling.  He  attacks  the  papal  doctrine  of  infallibility. 
 If  the  ministers  of  the  Reformed  Church  are  so  easily  staggered  that 
 they  dare  not  study  Catholic  books  without  coming  under  the  ban,  then 
 their  faith  is  not  well  grounded.  The  Catholic  Church  fears  Mercersburg 
 school  more  than  any  other.  In  closing,  he  says  that  if  there  are  any 
 other  faint-hearts  in  the  Reformed  Church  the  sooner  they  go  the  better. 
 
 The  Christia7i  World  replies  to  the  Messenger's  article  against  Wolff, 
 which  had  said  that  his  judgment  was  not  safe  and  sound.  It  says  that 
 before  his  jterversion  his  judgment  was  considered  very  safe  and  sound, 
 as  at  the  Eastern  synod  (1869).  It  names  the  perverts  to  Rome  and  the 
 Episcopal  Church:  Stewart,  Coblentz,  W.  Philips,  Snively,  Wagner,  Er- 
 mentrout,  Budd,  Forney,  Nevin,  Nevin,  Kieffer,  Giesy,  Hartman, 
 Schwartz  and  Zahner. 
 
 The  Beformed  Church  Monthly  has  the  remark  that  in  the  long  history 
 of  the  Reformed  Church  for  a  hundred  years  before  Mercersburg  we  do 
 not  remember  a  Reformed  minister  going  over  to  Rome. 
 
 The  Messenger  tried|  to  defend  Mercersburg  thus  by  asking  wliere  is 
 the  best  defence  against  Rome.  Is  it  not  in  Nevin 's  answer  to  Brownson 
 and  in  the  articles  of  the  Mercersburg  men.  Where  have  Drs.  Bomberger 
 and  Krenier  (the  leaders  of  the  low-churchmen)  given  such  articles.  But 
 the  best  defense  of  Protestantism  lies  in  Mercersburg 's  position.  There 
 are  those  in  Protestantism  who  think  that  the  strongest  position  against 
 Rome  is  being  farthest  from  it.  This  is  wrong.  Its  fallacy  is  that  the 
 Romish  Church  is  not  entirely  in  enor,  whereas  it  mingles  truth  and  error. 
 That  he  had  made  the  best  defense  of  Protestantism,  Brownson  conceded 
 in  regard  to  Nevin. 
 
 In  the  Messenger  of  September  3  there  is  also  an  article  answering 
 the  Catholic  Standard  and  attacking  the  Catholic  Church. 
 
 *Messenger,  August  6. 
 ■[Messenger,  August  6. 
 ^September  3,  1873. 
 
Events  to  the  General  Synod  (1878).  557 
 
 1.  Its  great  error  is  its  identifying  the  Clunvh  and  Christianity  so  as 
 to  make  the  Church  a  fixed  expression  of  the  meaning  of  Christianity. 
 This  is  wrong,  like  ultra-Protestantism,  which  seeks  for  the  finished 
 model  of  the  Church.     But  Christianity  is  a  life,  moving  on,  developing. 
 
 2.  The  Standard  confuses  personal  salvation  with  the  uncertainty  of 
 the  future  state  of  the  Church.  It  is  just  this  certainty  that  Rome  could 
 not  give, — that  Luther  found  in  Protestantism.  Nevin  does  not  believe 
 that  the  pope  settles  everything. 
 
 The  Christian  World*  says,  suddenly  Mercersburg  theology  is  waking 
 up  to  oppose  Rome.  But  we  decline  to  stand  with  them  in  their  fault- 
 finding of  Protestantism.  We  do  not  believe  in  a  nearer  approach  to 
 Rome  in  order  to  be  more  firmly  Protestant.  We  do  not  believe  that  the 
 nearer  we  get  to  Rome  the  better  Protestants  we  shall  be. 
 
 The  Messengerf  says  there  is  a  difference  between  Catholicism  and 
 Mercersburg  theology.  The  latter  believed  in  historical  development 
 while  the  Catholic  Church  regarded  everything  as  fixed.  The  Christian 
 World  replies  that  the  historical  development  that  Mercersburg  theology 
 believes  in  is  developing  men  into  the  Catholic  Church. 
 
 The  Messengert  answers  the  Catholic  Standard, — Romanism  is  pre- 
 sented by  the  Standard  on  three  points: 
 
 1.  Its  certitude — it  offers  certitude  because  infallible. 
 
 2.  The  life  of  Christ  is  confined  to  the  Romish  Church. 
 
 3.  The  Romish  Church  alone  has  the  true  apostolic  succession  and  there- 
 fore alone  has  the  true  ministry. 
 
 He  answers  these  arguments.  As  to  the  first  the  certitude  of  faith 
 must  come  from  the  self-authentication  of  the  object  of  faith.  No  au- 
 thentication greater  or  better  than  himself  could  come  from  beyond  him- 
 self. Against  the  Catholic  view.  Christ  should  authenticate  the  Church 
 instead  of  the  Church  authenticating  Christ.  When  Christ  Avas  on  earth, 
 did  the  Jews  have  to  find  some  infallible  medium  like  the  pope  before 
 they  could  receive  him  as  the  Son  of  God.  The  weakness  of  the  Catholic 
 theory  is  that  you  must  first  believe  in  the  infallibility  of  the  pope  before 
 you  can  believe  savingly  in  Christ.  Certitude  in  nature  depends  on  truth 
 itself,  not  on  something  outside  of  the  truth.  The  Romish  Church  can 
 not  give  certitude,  because  it  can  not  give  assurance.  The  Catholic 
 idea  of  faith  is  different  from  the  Protestant.  With  him,  it  is  assent; 
 with  the  Protestant,  spiritual  apprehension. 
 
 Ireneus  answers§  the  charge  that  Nevin  was  the  cause  of  the  de- 
 fections. All  the  reasons  given  for  it  thus  far,  he  says,  are  untenable. 
 In  October  1  he  gives  two  remote  reasons  for  these  perversions: 
 
 *September  18. 
 f  September  17. 
 ^September  24. 
 §September  24  and  later  in  the  Messenger. 
 
558        History  of  Refor:med  Chitrch  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 1.  The  promulgation  of  a  general  theology,  that  is,  one  that  is  not 
 peculiarly  denominational.  It  was  a  peculiarity  of  the  Eeformed 
 Church  that  she  is  irenic.  In  this  broadening  process  Catholic  authors 
 were  read. 
 
 2.  The  subordination  of  the  symbolism  of  the  Eeformed  Church.  The 
 immediate  occasion  was  her  virtual  schism.  He  had  never  considered  the 
 cry  of  her  Romanizing  tendencies  wholly  groundless.  But  the  opponents 
 of  Nevinism  were  also  responsible  for  the  defections  by  dividing  the 
 Church.  He  tries  to  answer  Wolff 's  figure  of  the  ' '  fingerboards  to 
 Rome"  by  saying  that  fingerboards  usually  lie  horizontally  and  indicate 
 opposite  directions, — that  is,  indicate  merely,  but  let  the  traveler  to  his 
 own  choice.  They  warn  as  well  as  show.  (It  seems  pretty  hard  for  them 
 to  get  over  Wolff's  figure. — A.) 
 
 The  Messenger*  says  that  the  Christian  World  is  hard  to  please.  Its 
 first  charge  was,  why  don't  the  Nevinists  defend  themselves?  Now  it 
 is  that  their  defense  is  a  feint.  We  don 't  need  any  defense,  say  they, 
 for  everybody  knows  that  we  are  Protestants.  Before  the  Eastern 
 synod  of  1871  it  was  said,  "Let  the  synod  come  out  and  assert  itself." 
 The  synod  asserted  itself.  Then  the  Christian  World  found  fault  that  it 
 was  humiliating  that  a  synod  had  to  do  such  a  thing. 
 
 The  Nevinist  party  finally  charged  Wolff  with  furnishing  articles  for 
 their  opponents  in  the  Reformed  Church,  thus  trying  to  leave  the  im- 
 pression that  Bomberger  was  in  some  sort  of  league  with  Wolff  and  thus 
 trying  to  cast  discredit  on  Mercersburg. 
 
 The  Eeformed  Church  Monthly  of  October,  1873,f  gives  the  total  list  of 
 perverts  to  Rome,  14,  and  to  the  Episcopalian  Church,  10. 
 
 The  Christian  World^  had  a  letter  from  J.  H.  Good  on  "Tiffin  The- 
 ology and  Historical  Development."  He  vindicated  Tiffin  theology, 
 which  had  been  attacked  by  the  Nevinists. 
 
 It  was  true  to  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.  It  had  no  new  theories. 
 It  used  Ursinus  on  the  Catechism  as  a  text-book.  It  vindicated  Protest- 
 antism against  Romanism,  the  Order  of  Worship,  etc.  It  did  not  believe 
 in  historical  development,  which  some  think  a  wonderful  modern  discov- 
 ery. This  is  a  mere  theory  of  which  there  have  been  many.  Newman 
 had  one,  Nevin  another,  Wolff  did  not  exactly  agree  with  Fisher  and 
 Fisher  with  Klieforth  or  Corner.  Thirty  years  ago  Newman  was  warmly 
 greeted  by  Nevin,  yet  his  views  led  him  to  Rome.  So,  the  theory  of 
 Wolff,  Ermentrout  and  Wagner  have  done.  We  do  not  exalt  a  mere 
 theory  like  this,  for  the  world  is  never  conquered  by  a  mere  theory. 
 
 The  aiitlior  roiiionibors  the  p:reat  uneasiness  that  came  over 
 the  Church  after  the  perversion  of  AVolff  and  Ermentrout 
 
 *  October  1. 
 fPage  540. 
 ijrOctober  30. 
 
Events  to  the  General  Synod  (1878).  550 
 
 and  which  was  accentuated  by  Forney 's  perversion, — the  sense 
 of  suspicion  of  the  Church  and  fear  about  the  ministry.  The 
 Church  was  disgraced  before  the  world  by  so  great  a  number 
 of  perversions. 
 
 An  interesting  question  comes  up  here  in  connection  with 
 these  perversions, — why  did  so  many  of  them  go  over  at  that 
 time  and  not  before?  In  some  respects  it  is  to  be  wondered 
 at  that  they  occurred.  For  since  Mercersburg  theology  had 
 been  first  taught,  the  Catholic  Church  had  added  to  its  doc- 
 trines that  of  the  papal  infallibility  of  the  pope.  It  would 
 have  been  easier  for  Dr.  Nevin  to  have  gone  over  in  1853  than 
 for  these  later  perversions  in  1871-3,  because  then  the  infalli- 
 bility of  the  pope  had  not  yet  been  adopted.  But  we  may 
 suggest  one  or  two  possible  reasons  for  these  perversions  at 
 this  time : 
 
 1.  It  became  increasingly  evident  that  Mercersburg  theology 
 could  not  gain  the  control  of  our  entire  Church.  The  opposi- 
 tion to  the  liturgical  party  w^as  becoming  strong,  united  and 
 aggressive.  So,  as  some  Mercersburg  ministers  gave  up  hope 
 of  carrying  the  Reformed  Church,  they  left  it. 
 
 2.  Their  perversion  was  the  natural  result  of  their  early 
 high-church  views.  Man  not  merely  thinks  logically  but  lives 
 logically.  As  time  goes  on,  he  follows  the  logic  of  his  views. 
 And  these  men  in  later  years  were  simply  reaping  what  had 
 been  so'wtq  in  their  minds  in  earlier  life.  High-church  views 
 always  point  Romeward  and  many  a  Protestant  high-church- 
 man has  not  stopped  until  he  has  landed  in  Rome. 
 
 Section  5.     The  Synod  of  1873. 
 
 The  Eastern  synod  appointed  a  committee  on  the  Super 
 appeal  case,  to  report  at  the  next  annual  meeting  of  the 
 synod.  Th^  Mercersburg  party  evidently  still  had  hopes  of  up- 
 setting the  decision  of  the  General  Synod  of  1872  in  the  case 
 of  Ursinus  college  teaching  theology.  In  reference  to  the 
 General  Synod's  action  on  the  Dunn  appeal  case,  it  declared 
 that  inasmuch  as  the  principle  involved  in  the  case  had  been 
 decided  by  synod  in  its  action  in  regard  to  Mercersburg  classis 
 no  further  action  was  necessary.    Thus  the  action  of  the  synod 
 
560        History  of  Reformed  Citurcii  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 was  set  over  against  tliat  of  the  General  Synod.  Mereersbiirg 
 classis,  however,  overtured  synod  to  overture  General  Synod 
 to  revise  the  aetion  on  the  Dunn  appeal  ease  on  the  ground 
 that  the  vote  sustaining  tho  appeal  did  not  represent  the  mind 
 of  the  Church.  This  the  Eastern  synod  refused,  declaring  the 
 aetion  of  the  General  synod  as  final.  lis  action  also  involved 
 a  rebuke  to  Lancaster  classis  for  resolutions  for  assessments 
 for  benevolent  purposes.  The  synod  declared  that  the  actions 
 of  the  General  Synod  are  and  ought  to  be  considered  final,  that 
 is,  open  to  reconsideration  by  itself  before  adjournment,  but 
 not  subject  to  the  revision  or  reconsideration  by  a  subsequent 
 General  Synod. 
 
 The  report  of  the  committee  on  the  Theological  seminary 
 contained  a  clause  declaring  the  teaching  of  the  seminary  to 
 be  in  accord  with  the  views  of  the  Reformed  Church.  Ob- 
 jection was  raised  that  synod  could  not  certainly  know  what 
 was  affirmed  and  should  not  connnit  itself.  The  vote  was  23 
 affirmative  to  6  negative,  a  majority  not  voting.  The  board  of 
 visitors  made  assessments  for  the  indebtedness  of  the  board. 
 The  tri-synodic  board  of  Home  ]\Iissions  decided  to  labor  on 
 the  Pacific  coast,  thus  allowing  the  Ohio  synod  the  intervening 
 territory. 
 
 The  German  Philadelphia  classis  took  action  on  the  German 
 translation  of  the  Oi'dei"  of  Worship,  pronouncing  it  defective 
 in  several  particulars.  The  synod  referred  it  back  to  the 
 classis  with  instruction  to  report  its  defects  to  the  next  synod. 
 Thus  the  Order  dragged  its  weary  way  along  for  a  number  of 
 3''ears  without  being  pul)lishe(l  in  TJei'man  until  1S78. 
 
 The  Potomac  synod  did  not  accept  the  plan  of  union  of  the 
 three  eastern  synods  as  drawn  up  by  the  previous  Eastern 
 synod.  So  the  Eastern  synod  accepted  the  ])lan  of  the  Po- 
 tomac synod.     The  Pittsbiu'g  synod  also  acceptc^d  this  plan. 
 
 As  Clarion  classis  had  directed  the  trustees  of  Clarion  Col- 
 legiate Institute  to  consider  the  expediency  of  establishing  a 
 theological  department,  the  synod  declared  the  constitution 
 was  against  it.  And  as  the  decision  of  the  last  General  Synod 
 was  contrary  to  this  decision,  it  passed  resolutions  unani- 
 mously overturing  the  General  Synod  to  reconsider  so  much  of 
 
Events  to  the  General  Synod  (1878).  561 
 
 its  action  as  may  give  sanction  to  irregular  teaching  of  the- 
 ology against  which  the  organic  law  of  the  Reformed  Church 
 so  carefully  guards.  It  thus  tried  to  re-open  the  Ursinus  col- 
 lege case  at  the  next  General  Synod. 
 
 The  Chrifitian   World*  defends  the  General  Synod  against  this  action. 
 The  Mereersburg  men  had  said,  ' '  If  any  man  hear  not  the  Church,  let 
 him  be  to  thee  as  a  publican.     The  Church  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of 
 truth."     It   looked   as   if  they  believed  in  this  as  long  as  the  Church 
 agreed  with  them.     But  when  it  goes  against  them,  they  forget  all  their 
 sermons  about  obedience  and  not  only  fail  to  preach  it,  but  take  measures 
 to  get  up  a  quasi-rebellion  against  it,  as  the  Pittsburg  synod  has  done. 
 The  latter  looks  upon   General   Synod's  action  as  if  it  had  sanctioned 
 an  irregularity,  which  it  considers  a  violation  of  the  organic  law  of  the 
 Church.     What  a  commotion  would  be  caused  if  lawyers  in  civil  courts 
 would  request  the  judges  of  the  supreme  courts  to  reverse  their  decisions 
 and  make  them  conform  to  the  opinion  of  the  district  court.     Pittsburg 
 synod  says,  "We  know   a   little  more  than  you   do,   General   Synod!" 
 But   the   General   Synod   is   the   final   arbiter.      Again,   Pittsburg   synod 
 charges  the  General  Synod  with  an  irregularity.     An  irregularity  is  an 
 act   without    synodieal   authority.      But   the   General    Synod   gave   it   its 
 authority,  where,  then,  is  the  irregularity?    If  General  Synod  has  violated 
 the  organic  law,  who  is  the  judge,  General  Synod  or  a  district  synod  like 
 the  Pittsburg"?     Evidently  the  former.     As  to  the  charge  that  no  human 
 enactment  can  annul  a  divine  right  such  as  teaching  theology,  it  replied, 
 but  the  teacher  of  theology  is  not  a  Biblical  office,  only  an  eccesiastical 
 arrangement.     The  General  Synod  simply  confirmed  a  right  always  exist- 
 ing in  the  Eefonned  Church  of  the  minister  to  teach  theology. 
 
 Section  6.    Rev.  Dr.  Schneck's  Book  on  Mercersburg 
 Theology. 
 
 This  book  appeared  in  1874  and  made  a  great  sensation. f 
 Coming  as  it  did  from  one  of  the  oldest  ministers  of  the 
 Reformed  Church  and  one  who  in  the  previous  generation 
 had  been  among  the  most  prominent, — the  man  who  called 
 Schaff  to  this  country  and  opened  the  way  for  Nevin  to  enter 
 our  Church,  it  was  noteworthy.  The  Reformed  Church 
 Month]})  says  of  him:  "His  age.  experience,  thorough  hearty 
 knowledge  of  our  principles,  long  fidelity  to  the  faith  and 
 services  for  the  Chui-ch  fitted  him  for  the  task." 
 
 *Deceniber  1 1. 
 
 fThere  are  still  some  co|)ies  of  this  book  for  sale  at  a  low  ])rice  at  tlie 
 bookstore  of  the  heirs  of  Mr.  Snider,  Chandjcrsburg. 
 
562        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Dr.  Sclmeck's  book,  entitled  ' '  Mereersburg  Theology  Incon- 
 sistent Avitli  Protestant  and  Reformed  Doctrine, ' '  was  intended 
 to  reveal  and  refute  the  Mercersburg  theology. 
 
 He  first  gives  a  description  of  the  teaching  of  Mercersburg  theology 
 and  says  the  catechism  teaches  differently.  He  then  takes  up  the  doc- 
 trines of  the  atonement,  justification  by  faith,  and  the  priesthood  of 
 the  ministry,  and  showed  that  the  Mercersburg  doctrine  was  different 
 from  that  of  the  Eeformed.  He  takes  up  the  statement,  made  in  the 
 Messenger  of  September  17,  3  873,  that  "only  a  superficial  study  of  the 
 Heidelberg  Catechism  makes  Christ's  sacrifice  on  the  cross  fundamental. 
 That  this  doctrinal  system  underlies  and  animates  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
 chism we  can  not  believe, " — that  the  atonement  is  central  is  incompatible 
 with  the  central  position  of  the  Creed.  Schneck  replied  that  the  Creed 
 was  virtually  placed  above  the  written  gospel  (page  3).  Mercersburg 
 holds,  he  says,  that  we  are  saved  not  by  Christ's  passion  and  death  ap- 
 propriated by  faith,  but  by  participating  in  the  theanthropic  or  divine- 
 human  nature  of  Christ, — the  incarnation,  not  the  atonement,  is  the  cen- 
 tral doctrine.  He  takes  up  also  the  philosophical  views  which  were  at  the 
 bottom  of  their  theology,  namely,  that  Christ  took  on  himself  generic 
 humanity.  This  is,  he  says,*  a  mere  assumption  without  a  particle  of 
 proof  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  generic  humanity.  It  is  furthermore 
 a  pure  assumption  without  a  particle  of  proof  that  Christ's  assumed 
 generic  humanity.  It  is  in  the  third  place  a  pure  supposition  without 
 any  proof  at  all  that  Christ's  assumption  of  generic  humanity  was  the 
 redemption  of  the  world.  The  Scriptures  point  rather  to  the  cross  for 
 redemption  than  to  the  incarnation. 
 
 On  justification,  he  showed  that  their  theory  of  justification  made  it 
 depend  on  »ur  union  with  Christ  through  his  theanthropic  life  instead  of 
 the  Old  Reformed  view  which  made  justification  to  be  forensic,  dependent 
 on  the  merits  of  Christ.  On  the  priesthood,  he  showed  that  the  priest- 
 hood of  the  ministry  was  contrary  to  the  priesthood  of  all  believers, 
 which  is  the  Protestant  doctrine. 
 
 He  also  takes  up  confession  and  absolution  and  the  altar,  showing  that 
 they,  like  the  doctrines  just  mentioned,  were  contrary  to  the  Eeformed 
 views  and  customs.  He  then  considers  the  sacraments,  showing  that  the 
 Mercersburg  views  were  not  the  old  Reformed  doctrine. 
 
 Appelf  says  that  Schneck 's  book  fell  still-born  from  the 
 press, — Nevin  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  notice  it.  But  on 
 the  other  hand  this  book  was  received  Avith  great  joy  by  the 
 Old  Reformed  because  of  its  author's  known  ability  and  also 
 
 *Page  42. 
 
 fLife  of  Nevin,  page  540. 
 
Events  to  the  General  Synod  (1878).  563 
 
 because  it  was  the  first  book  written  directly  against  Nevinism. 
 Dr.  Good,  in  the  Christian  World,  calls  it  "a  book  for  the 
 times."  The  Reformed  Church  Monthly  highly  endorses  the 
 book.  No  reply  was  ever  made  by  the  Mercersburg  party  to 
 this  book,  although  at  one  time  in  1873  Dr.  Good  says  there 
 was  a  rumor  that  some  one  was  preparing  a  reply. 
 
 An  attempt,  however,  was  made  not  to  answer  it,  but  to 
 throw  discredit  on  its  truthfulness  by  impugning  a  quotation 
 made  by  Dr.  Schneck  from  Gerhart's  Tract  No.  III.  It  was 
 claimed  that  the  quotation  was  invented.  Dr.  Gerhart  says 
 he  wrote  to  Schneck  and  received  a  reply  from  him  in  which 
 he  confessed  that  he  took  it  from  the  Reformed  Church 
 Monthly  instead  of  directl.y  from  Gerhart,  because  he  was  in 
 a  hurry  to  send  material  to  the  publishers  of  his  book, — that 
 he  confessed  and  regretted  the  mistake.  Gerhart  said  the 
 spurious  passage  was  the  opposite  of  what  Mercersburg  taught. 
 The  sentence  quoted  from  Gerhart  was : 
 
 ' '  All  the  benefits  of  Christ  are  received  not  by  faith,  not  throujih 
 previous  knowledge  of  our  misery,  not  in  the  way  of  repentance,  but 
 through  baptism  and  through  baptism  exclusively. ' ' 
 
 Gerhart  declared  that  he  would  say  the  opposite,  all  of 
 faith  and  not  by  baptism, — the  objective  virtue  of  baptism 
 does  not  supersede  the  necessity  of  personal  faith  and  the 
 saving  power  of  faith  does  not  nullify  the  virtue  of  baptism. 
 
 Heidelberg,  in  the  Christian  World*  puts  Gerhart's  words 
 in  his  Tract  No.  Ill  and  his  words  in  his  card  against  Schneck 
 side  by  side,  thus : 
 
 Tract  No.  3.  Card. 
 
 "  In  holy  baptism  grace  is  this  same  "All   the   benefits    of   Christ 
 
 divine  life  of  Christ  given  by  the  new  are   received,   that   is   appropri- 
 
 ereating  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  ated,  by  us  and  thus  made  our 
 
 those  who  are  by  nature  dead  in  sin,  own  not  by  baptism,  not  in  the 
 
 in  that  by  baptism  they  are  engrafted  way  of  any  sacramental  trans- 
 
 into    Christ    and    thereby    made    par-  action   and   by   the   exercise   of 
 
 takers  of  Christ  and  all  his  benefits.  .personal  faith  exclusively." 
 There    is    no    external    washing    with 
 water    without    the   internal    washing 
 with  the  Spirit." 
 
 *May  21,  1874. 
 
564        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 These  statements,  says  the  (lirkiian  World,  can  not  be 
 reconciled.    Both  sentiments  can  not  be  true. 
 
 Dr.  Schneck's  error  was  merely  in  the  putting  of  a  quota- 
 tion mark.  "What  he  said  was  the  substance  of  the  teaching  of 
 ^li'rcersburg.  But  Dr.  Gerhart  saw  his  opportunity  and  by 
 going  back  on  his  previous  statements  he  made  Schneck  con- 
 tradict himself.  But  a  mere  error  in  a  quotation  mark  is  not 
 sufficient  to  throw  out  the  contents  of  the  whole  book.  Still  it 
 diverted  the  minds  of  many  from  the  real  issue  and  in  that 
 way  seemed  to  gain  the  object  desired  by  the  opponents  of  the 
 liook. 
 
 Dr.  Bomberger  finally  replies*  that  Schneck's  quotation  was  taken,  quo- 
 tation marks  and  all,  from  the  Beformcd  Church  Monthly  of  1873  (page 
 299),  and  it  was  quoted  from  a  review  in  1871  of  Gerhart 's  tract.  It 
 was  a  mere  technical  error.  Gerhart  trie<l  to  make  it  out  that  the  quo- 
 tation was  a  fabrication  and  an  invention,  which  was  false.  He  then 
 quoted  from  Gerhart 's  tract  to  prove  it  was  true.  Gerhart,  at  the  end  of 
 that  tract  says,  ' '  It  needs  no  repentance  to  become  a  child  of  God.  Do 
 not  tell  them  they  must  repent,"  etc.     Dr.  Gerhart  now  repudiates  that. 
 
 Dr.  Bomberger  goes  farther.  lie  accuses  Dr.  Gerhart  of  not  pulilish- 
 ing  the  whole  of  Schneck's  letter  to  him.  For  a  copy  of  the  letter  had 
 been  found  in  Dr.  Schneck's  house,  in  which  Schneck  also  says,  "I  am 
 full  of  the  belief  that  the  sentence  expresses  in  brief  what  you  express 
 in  various  sentences  in  Tract  No.  3.  To  my  mind  n  much  stronger  case 
 can  be  presented  than  the  lines  in  the  book  in  wliidi  you  object."  So 
 Dr.  Schneck  did  not  take  back  anything  by  his  letter. 
 
 Heidelbergf  also  replies  to  Dr.  Gerhart.  He  says  the  matter  of  tlic 
 quotation  is  important.  But  if  this  epitome  by  the  Monflil;/  of  Mercers- 
 burg  theology  were  correct,  why  during  the  three  years  before  was  it 
 never  complained  of.  It  was  apparently  permitted  to  pass  at  first  as  a 
 correct  statement  of  Gerhart 's  views.  Dr.  Gerhart,  in  the  article  falls 
 into  a  mistake  fully  as  culpable  as  Schneck.  He  says  the  Heidelberg 
 catechism  says  "we  are  washed  from  our  sins  by  the  blood  and  spirit  of 
 Christ  as  certainly  as  we  are  washed  eternally  by  water."  It  does  not 
 say  so,  according  to  answer  (59,  for  it  also  says  "we  arc  admonished  and 
 assured,"  and  "adding  thereunto  this  promise."  He  compares  Dr. 
 Gerhart 's  statements  and  says  they  are  contradictory.  In  Gerhart 's  tract 
 there  is  not  the  faintest  trace  of  the  later  view  given  in  his  card.  This 
 card  is  the  opposite  of  Mr.  Rupp's  statements  about  baptism  (he  taught 
 baptismal  regeneration).     Dr.  (ierliiirt 's  statement  is  the  ojjposite  of  the 
 
 *Chri.stian  World,  June  4,  1874. 
 ■f Christian  IVorld  of  June  11. 
 
Events  to  the  General  Synod  (187S).  565 
 
 Order  of  Worship  where  baptism  is  the  actual  comniunicatiou  of  the 
 benefits  of  Christ.  Dr.  G-erhart  ought  to  learn  English.  Three  years 
 ago  Dr.  Gerhart  taught  that  baptism  makes  us  partakers  of  Christ.  Par- 
 take means  to  take  part.  Either  Dr.  Gerhart  had  changed  or  the  English 
 language. 
 
 Dr.  Nevin,  in  the  Mercershurg  Beview,  calls  Schneck's  book  a  misera- 
 ble travesty  of  Mercersburg  Theology,  garbled  quotations  and  all. 
 
 The  Christian  Wurld  denies  that  it  is  a  caricature  and  declared  that 
 Dr.  Nevin  had  no  right  thus  to  attack  a  dead  man.  Schneck's  letter  was 
 frank,  Christian,  honorable.  Not  so  Gerhart 's  treatment  of  it.  The 
 letter  said,  "In  speaking  of  parents  of  baptized  children  you  (Gerhart) 
 use  the  following  language,  '  It  needs  no  repentance  in  order  to  be- 
 come a  child  of  God,'  aud  a  little  farther  on  you  say,  'Do  not  tell  them 
 that  they  must  repent  of  sin  and  obey  God  in  order  that  God  may  love 
 them,  God  loves  them,  etc'  To  my  mind,  a  much  stronger  case  could  be 
 presented  than  the  four  lines  of  the  book  to  which  you  object.  And  I 
 hereby  declare  that  I  will  take  the  first  opportunity  to  displace  those 
 four  lines  and  put  in  place  two  or  three  times  as  many  lines  of  direct 
 quotations,"  etc.  Now,  why  did  Gerhart  keep  this  part  of  the  letter 
 back? 
 
 The  Messenger*  replies  that  the  theme  of  Tract  No.  3  was  not  the  na- 
 ture aud  necessity  of  personal  faith  and  therefore  not  much  was  said 
 about  faith.  Our  critics  might  as  well  find  fault  with  James  for  ignoring 
 faith  when  that  was  not  his  subject.  Nor  is  its  theme  the  necessity  of 
 repentance.  But  it  affirms  the  virtue  of  baptism  so  as  to  imply  the  duty 
 represented  on  the  part  of  the  baptized.  He  denies  that  the  sentence 
 ' '  Do  not  tell  them  to  rejjent "  is  in  the  Tract  No.  3,  for  the  tract  adds 
 ' '  they  ought  to  be  truly  sorry  for  sin,  hate  all  evil, ' '  etc.  The  sentence, 
 "the  baptized  need  no  repentance"  is  a  negative  sentence  and  is  followed 
 by  a  positive  one.     The  ehiUl  needs  repentance  to  live  in  Christ. 
 
 Heidelbergf  says  that  Dr.  Gerhart 
 
 (1)  Having  been  convicted  by  previous  proofs  that  he  taught  that  we 
 are  ingrafted  by  baptism,  (whereas  the  catechism  says  we  are  ingrafted 
 by  faith,)  takes  refuge  at  last  in  half-truths  which  only  make  the  matter 
 worse.  As  late  as  June  24,  he  says  we  are  ingrafted  by  baptism.  He 
 himself  called  baptism  and  faith  the  contradictory  opposites  of  each 
 other.  If  these  are  half-truths,  then  the  catechism  teaches  only  half- 
 truths  instead  of  whole  truths;  for  it  ascribes  all  these  benefits  to  faith. 
 Then  for  three  centuries  our  Church  rested  on  half-truths  and  now  only 
 at  last  has  gotten  to  the  whole  truth. 
 
 (2)  Gerhart  then,  when  he  published  the  tract,  was  guilty  of  half- 
 truths  according  to  his  own  theory. 
 
 *July  8. 
 •    ^Christian   World,  July  23. 
 
566        History  of  Reformed  Ciiukoh  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 (3)  Then  the  whole  of  the  Mercersburg  doctrine  of  baptism  is  half- 
 truths.    What  a  confession!     In  such  contradictions  has  it  involved  itself. 
 
 But  perhaps  philosophy  will  come  to  his  relief  in  the  distinction  be- 
 tween subject  and  object,  that  baptism  expresses  the  objective  and  faith 
 the  subjective.  These  are  good  words  where  properly  used.  But  it  is 
 not  a  clear  distinction.  It  is  unscriptural,  for  the  Bible  says  faith  is  a 
 divine  work.  The  statement  is  the  opposite  of  the  catechism,  which  says 
 (answer  65)  that  the  Holy  Ghost  works  faith  by  the  preaching  of  the 
 gospel  and  confirms  it  by  theuse  of  the  sacraments.  The  objective  side 
 of  redemption  is  in  the  person  and  work  of  Christ  and  not  in  baptism. 
 
 The  Messenger*  says  the  object  of  the  sentence  "Do  not  tell  them," 
 etc.,  in  Tract  No.  3,  was  to  show  that  repentance  and  obedience  are  not 
 the  producing  causes  of  God 's  love.  God  's  love  is  toward  them  as  sin- 
 ners. If  our  opponents  refuse  this  doctrine  they  must  hold  the  opposite, 
 which  is  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  works. 
 
 The  Reformed  Church  Monthly  of  September  (page  484) 
 refers  to  the  rumor  about  Dr.  Schneck,  that  before  his  death 
 he  had  stated  that  he  regretted  that  he  had  written  and  pub- 
 lished the  book, — and  shortly  before  his  death  said  if  he  had  to 
 write  it  again,  he  would  make  important  changes  in  it. 
 
 The  Reformed  Church  Monthly  denied  this  and  said  Dr.  Schneck  al- 
 ways declared  the  opposite  of  this.  His  heart  and  conscience  seemed  to 
 be  relieved  of  a  heavy  burden  when  his  book  was  published.  Even  in  the 
 letter  to  Gerhart,  he  tells  him  that  the  book  has  set  forth  the  truth  and 
 that  if  another  edition  were  published,  this  would  be  abundantly  proven. 
 
 Helflfrichf  publishes  a  letter  of  Dr.  Schneck,  written  during  the  last 
 week  of  his  life,  in  which  he  urges  Dr.  Helffrich  to  promote  the  sale  of 
 his  book.  This  does  not  look  as  if  he  were  sorry  that  he  had  published 
 it  or  that  he  desired  to  retract  anything. 
 
 We  have  also  had  a  letter  from  and  later  a  conversation  with,  Mr. 
 Wicke,  an  elder  of  Dr.  Schneck 's  Church  at  Chambersburg,  and  who  was 
 with  him  when  he  died.  He  utterly  denies  that  Dr.  Schneck  ever  said  that 
 he  retracted  anything  he  had  published  or  was  sorry  for  it.  So  that  the 
 rumor  was  ba.seless. 
 
 The  Reformed  Church  Monthly  says  Gerhart 's  attack  on  Schneck  has 
 unearthed  the  author  of  Tract  No.  3,:j:  which  had  been  published  anony- 
 mously. 
 
 ^September  2. 
 
 f Autobiography,  page  486. 
 
 JThese  tracts  were  intended  to  be  like  the  Tracts  of  the  Puseyites. 
 Puseyism  began  in  July,  1833,  at  a  conference  at  Harleigh,  England.  In 
 two  years  it  issued  seventy  tracts,  of  which  No.  90  showed  the  relations 
 of  Puseyism  to  Rome. 
 
Events  to  the  General  Synod  (1878).  567 
 
 Bomberger,  in  the  Hcfoi'med  Clmrcli  Monthly,  says  they  dared  not 
 openly  and  fairly  meet  Schneck's  book,  but  only  re[)lied  that  it  was  a  tis- 
 sue of  misquotations  and  misrepresentations.  The  Reformed  Church 
 Monthly  later  says,  Two  years  have  passed  away  since  Schneck's  book 
 has  been  published  and  yet  no  answer.  It  appeared  in  English  and 
 German  in  two  editions.  The  English  edition  was  nearly  exhausted 
 within  a  few  months  of  its  publication.  With  but  one  or  two  incidental 
 exceptions  Mercersburg  had  not  noticed  it. 
 
 Section  7.     The  Synod  op  1874. 
 
 This  synod  took  up  the  Super  appeal  case  about  the  teaching 
 of  theology  in  Ursinus  college  but  decided  that  as  the  Eastern 
 sj^nod  of  1873  had  decided  that  the  acts  of  the  General  Synod 
 were  final  and  not  subject  to  revision  or  to  be  considered  by 
 subsequent  synods,  it  was  not  advisable  to  take  any  further 
 action. 
 
 A  prominent  subject  before  the  sjmod  was  the  fiftieth  anni- 
 versary of  the  founding  of  the  Theological  seminary  at  Car- 
 lisle in  1825.  This  matter  had  been  before  it  at  several  ses- 
 sions and  it  now  took  final  action  that  the  next  meeting  of  the 
 synod  should  be  held  at  Lancaster,  where  the  seminary  now 
 was  located.  It  ordered  that  a  register  of  the  institution  be 
 published.  It  recommended  that  all  pastors  preach  on  the 
 subject  on  IMay  7  or  14  and  submit  to  the  consistory  whether 
 a  collection  should  be  taken  for  the  institution,  and  if  they 
 decided  in  the  affirmative  to  arrange  for  that  purpose.  It 
 ordered  that  a  circular  be  sent  to  all  pastors  and  appointed  an 
 executive  committee  of  five  to  superintend  the  semi-centen- 
 nial celebration.  This  action  it  ordered  to  be  transmitted  to 
 the  Pittsburg  and  Potomac  synods. 
 
 Another  prominent  subject  before  the  synod  was  its  publi- 
 cation interests.  Its  periodicals,  on  accoimt  of  the  controvers}^ 
 and  the  financial  panic  of  1873,  had  decreased  in  circulation 
 all,  with  one  exception.  All  efforts  to  rally  the  Church  to 
 their  maintenance  had  been  unsuccessful.  So  synod  ordered 
 the  board  to  make  changes  to  suit  the  circumstances.  It 
 transferred  the  Kirchenzcitung  to  the  Philadelphia  (German) 
 classis.  This  paper  never  had  been  successful,  as  almost  all 
 of  the  Germans  were  with  the  Old  Reformed  party.     It  also 
 
568        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 took  action  ordering  the  Board  to  prepare  a  series  of  Sunday 
 school  lesson  papers  according  to  the  church-year,  or  as  it 
 said,  "according  to  the  distinctive  doctrines  and  usages  of  the 
 Reformed  Church."  The  Board,  when  it  afterward  met, 
 decided  to  annex  this  Sunday  school  lesson  help  to  the 
 Guardian.  The  synod  also  ordered  that  the  Mrrccrsburg  Re- 
 view should  no  longer  be  published  by  the  Board  but  be  made 
 a  private  enterprise. 
 
 The  Reformed  Church  Monthly  approved  of  this  act  because 
 it  said  the  Mercersburg  Review  was  a  partisan  organ  of  the 
 Mercersburg  School  and  yet  asked  the  whole  eastern  Church 
 to  l)ecome  its  financial  endorser.* 
 
 As  a  result  in  the  Messenger  of  November  18,  1874,  there  ap- 
 peared a  great  change.  There  was  a  change  in  form,  price  and 
 general  character  to  a  folio,  half  as  large  as  when  an  eight  page 
 paper.    The  price  was  made  two  dollars. 
 
 The  Potomac  synod  refused  to  sustain  the  complaint  from 
 Frederick  against  ^laryland  classis  for  confirming  the  call  to 
 Dr.  Eschbach.    It  was  then  appealed  to  General  Synod. 
 
 The  Potomac  synod  also  took  up  the  subject  of  the  Sunday 
 School  lessons.  Rev.  Mr.  Ault  championed  tlie  Tntcrnational 
 Sunday  School  Lessons.  Drs.  IIigl)ee  and  Gans  advocated  the 
 Sunday  School  lessons  according  to  the  chui-cli-ycnr.  An  ol)- 
 jection  to  the  latter  was  offered  that  if  there  was  such  a  desire 
 (as  was  reported)  to  study  the  liible  according  to  the  church- 
 year,  why  were  Gans'  books,  arranged  according  to  flic  cliurcli- 
 year,  used  in  so  few  of  our  Sunday  Scliools.  The  Synod,  how- 
 ever, approved  of  the  church-year  coui'se  of  Suiulay  School 
 lessons. 
 
 *Tlie  Mrsscngcr  (Dpoembor  23)  says  of  the  Mrrcrrshurp  Ticvieic  that 
 while  the  Messenger  ami  the  (Imirdinn  were  lnoiight  boforo  the  synod, 
 the  Eeview  was  left  out  in  the  cold.  Had  it  nut  done  an  important  work? 
 The  reeei])ts  of  the  h'evieic  revealed  a  deficit  eacdi  year,  not  large,  Init  this 
 now  readied  a  considerable  dimension,  whi(di,  in  the  straitened  circum- 
 stances of  the  Board,  it  was  unable  to  continue.  The  editor  is  pecuni- 
 arily responsible.  But  no  j)rovision  was  made  for  the  Guardian  by  the 
 synixl  except  provisionally  for  the  Sunday  School  deiiartment.  The  Jie- 
 view  was  continued  on  the  i)ecuiiiary  resjionsibility  of  an  imlividna!  wlieii 
 the  Board  transferred  to  him  its  subscription  list. 
 
Events  to  the  General  Synod  (1878).  569 
 
 Section  8.    The  Semi-Centennial  of  the  Theological 
 Seminary   (1875). 
 
 In  the  Messenger  of  January  20,  1875,  the  eonnnittee  of 
 the  Eastern  s.ynod  sent  out  a  eircuhir  asking  tlie  observance 
 of  the  semi-centennial  of  the  seminary  on  May  7  or  1-1  (these 
 being  tlie  dates  nearest  the  date  of  the  opening  of  the  semi- 
 nary on  May  11,  1825).  It  also  asked  them  to  submit  to  their 
 consistories  the  taking  up  of  a  collection  for  the  seminary. 
 
 The  Reformed  CJiureh  M()nt1ily,  in  writing  on  the  circular 
 and  the  appeal  for  the  semi-centennial  of  the  seminary,  asks, 
 Why  have  tliere  been  so  many  defections  in  the  ranks  of  its 
 graduates?  The  seminary  was  started  by  men  who  believed 
 in  new-measures.*  How  different  in  this  regard  the  doctrines 
 and  customs  of  the  seminary  now  from  those  of  its  founders? 
 In  connection  with  the  semi-centennial,  two  articles  ap- 
 peared in  the  Mercershurg  Review  of  1876, — "The  External 
 History  of  the  Theological  Seminary,"  by  Rev.  C.  Z.  Weiser, 
 D.D.  Half  of  the  article  is  taken  up  with  the  early  Reformed 
 Church  before  the  days  of  the  founding  of  the  seminary. 
 Then  he  describes  the  early  difficulties  in  getting  it  started, — - 
 Dr.  Milledoler's  final  declination  and  the  election  of  Dr. 
 Mayer  as  professor.  He  then  gave  a  brief  history  of  the  semi- 
 nary, from  1825  to  1875.  This  was  followed  by  an  article  by 
 Prof.  T.  G.  Apple  on  "The  Internal  History  of  the  Semi- 
 nary." He  described  the  type  of  theology  taught  in  it. 
 Sjieaking  of  Prof.  Mayer,  he  reverts,  as  the  Mercershurg  men 
 always  did,  to  Prof.  Mayer's  divergences  from  orthodoxy,  say- 
 ing, however,  that  they  were  not  so  much  divergences  from 
 the  usual  definitions  of  the  dogmas  of  the  Church  as  in  the 
 manner  of  their  explanation. 
 
 Dr.  Apple,  however,  grants  that  ]\Iayer's  system  of  theology 
 was  theistic,  and  not  like  Nevin's,  Christological.  He  mainly 
 describes  the  theological  thought  of  the  seminary  as  revealed 
 first  in  Nevin's  Anxious  Pencil,  then  in  the  later  development 
 of  Mercershurg  tlieology.  He  reviews  its  ]i()sition  on  the  sac- 
 raments   ami    the    ]M'rson    of   Cbi-ist    and    then    tui-ns    to    its 
 
 *See  page  148. 
 
570        History  op  Eeformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 philosophy,  devoting  some  time  to  a  panygyric  of  Prof.  Ranch, 
 claiming  that  he  laid  the  basis  of  their  system  philosophically, 
 especially  in  his  realism  and  liis  view  of  the  organic.  He  then 
 spoke  of  Dr.  Wolff's  teaching  and  Higbee's  and  Harbaugh's, 
 and  claimed  that  the  seminary  had  produced  certain  good  re- 
 sults in  our  Church. 
 
 1.  It  had  emphasized  catechization  and  the  use  of  the  cate- 
 chism. 
 
 2.  It  had  rehabilitated  the  Church  festivals. 
 
 3.  It  had  infused  new  life  into  the  ordinary  forms  of  Church 
 service  and  government. 
 
 We  might  remark  that  there  was  not  the  life  and  enthusiasm 
 produced  by  this  semi-Centennial  as  came  out  of  the  Centen- 
 ary movement  of  1841  or  as  came  out  of  the  revival  period 
 previous  to  it,  out  of  which  came  the  college  and  seminary  and 
 the  church-papers.  ]\Iercersburg  theology  had  divided  the 
 Church  and  thus  chilled  its  activities. 
 
 Section  9.     The  Generai.  Synod  op  1875. 
 
 The  General  Synod  met  at  Fort  Waj'ue,  Ind.  The  election 
 of  the  president  revealed  that  the  Mercersburg  men  were  in 
 control,  Dr.  Zieber  being  elected  president.  But  like  its  presi- 
 dent, this  General  Synod  was  conservatively  high-church  and 
 not  partisan.  Perhaps  the  defeat  of  1872  made  the  extreme 
 high-churchmen  more  careful.  The  most  important  question 
 that  the  General  SjTiod  had  before  it  was  whether  the  case  of 
 Ursinus  college  should  be  reopened.  The  Eastern  sjTiod  had 
 taken  the  position  that  the  acts  of  one  General  Synod  could 
 not  be  reviewed  by  any  later  General  Synod,  as  its  judgments 
 were  final.  But  the  Pittsburg  synod  had  taken  a  different 
 position,  and  sought  to  have  the  case  reopened.  With  which 
 one  of  these  would  the  General  Synod  decide?  Pittsburg 
 synod  sent  up  an  overture  asking  General  Synod  to  re- 
 consider so  much  of  its  action  of  the  last  General  Synod 
 as  had  reference  to  teachers  of  tlieologj%  so  that  the  district 
 sjTiods  might  be  protected  in  their  absolute  constitutional 
 right  of  jurisdiction  and  control  over  the  theological  teaching 
 
Events  to  the  General  Synod  (187S).  571 
 
 in  its  bounds.  The  General  Synod  decided  that  the  action  of 
 the  previous  General  Synod  had  regard  to  a  specific  case  and 
 gave  no  utterance  as  to  the  meaning  or  intent  of  the  consti- 
 tution. However,  to  protect  the  district  synod,  it  passed  a 
 resolution  that  according  to  the  clear  provision  of  the  con- 
 stitution, all  public  theological  teaching  within  the  bound 
 of  any  particular  synod  be  placed  imder  the  conti-ol  of  that 
 synod.  But  it  also  declared  that  nothing  in  this  resolution 
 vi^as  to  be  construed  as  reversing  or  affirming  the  action  of 
 the  General  Synod  of  1872  about  Ursinus  college. 
 
 The  Pittsburg  synod  had  also  brought  up  another  case  on 
 this  subject.  As  if  relying  on  the  action  of  the  previous  Gen- 
 eral Synod,  Clarion  classis  inaugurated  a  movement  looking 
 toward  the  opening  of  a  theological  department  in  connection 
 with  the  Clarion  Institute.  The  matter  came  before  the  Pitts- 
 burg synod  and  was  severely  rebuked  there.  So  an  overture 
 was  taken  up  to  the  General  Synod.  We  do  not  find  an  action 
 of  the  General  Synod  on  this  particular  case  unless  action  on 
 it  was  intended  to  be  included  in  its  previous  action  as  given 
 before.  Dr.  Bomberger  said  that  this  case  of  the  Pittsburg 
 synod  was  intended  to  furnish  a  new  case  if  necessary  to  come 
 before  the  General  Synod  so  that  General  Synod  might  reverse 
 its  previous  decision  in  regard  to  Ursinus  Tlieological  depart- 
 ment. 
 
 This  General  Synod  was  actuated  by  a  spirit  of  comparative 
 fairness,  as  the  Christian  ^Vo}•ld  grants,  even  though  it  was 
 under  the  control  of  the  IMercersburg  party.  A  spirit  of 
 mutual  forbearance  was  beginning  to  appear  more  and  more 
 in  the  Church. 
 
 The  synod  took  an  important  action  permitting  the  division 
 of  classes  on  the  basis  of  language  into  English  and  German 
 classes.  The  Home  Missionary  report  revealed  that  the  Gen- 
 eral S^Tiod's  board  had  done  nothing,  as  the  work  was  in  the 
 hands  of  the  district  synods'  boards.  The  Foreign  INIission 
 board  reported  that  it  had  four  thousand  dollars  in  hand. 
 The  General  Synod  refused  to  join  the  Alliance  of  the  Presby- 
 terian Churches  throughout  the  Wqi-''^.  because  its  creed  was 
 
572        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  while  their 's  was  the  Westminster, 
 although  it  contemplated  that  movement  with  satisfaction. 
 
 After  this  General  Synod  was  over,  quite  a  discussion  arose  in  the 
 Church  papers  as  to  the  meaning  of  its  action  in  rejily  to  the  overture 
 of  the  Pittsburg  synod  on  the  status  of  theological  teaching.  J.  H.  D.* 
 criticised  the  Christian  World  for  its  report  of  the  synod  where  it  says 
 that  according  to  the  action  of  the  last  two  General  Synods,  the  theo- 
 logical department  of  Ursinus  college  had  the  full  and  unequivocal 
 sanction  of  the  Church  and  is  a  recognized  school  of  tlie  Church.  The 
 action  of  the  General  Synod  of  1872,  he  said,  was  only  a  negative  action, 
 saying  that  Bomberger  was  not  disorderly.  But  there  was  no  affirmative 
 sanction  or  recognition  of  the  institution.  Even  if  the  negative  form 
 implies  an  affirmative,  it  only  means  that  the  conduct  of  Bomberger 
 and  his  associates  was  orderly  and  nothing  more.  It  implies  no  sanction 
 or  recognition  of  Ursinus.  The  latter  part  of  the  action  ' '  although  not 
 invested,"  etc.,  was  not  in  the  original  draft,  but  was  added  by  T.  G. 
 Apple.     This  clause  was  added 
 
 1.  To  make  General  Synod  stultify  its  own  action. 
 
 2.  It  was  a  virtual  refusal  of  sanction  because  it  hinted  that  Dr.  Bom- 
 berger was  not  invested  with  the  office,  etc. 
 
 3.  Dr.  Apple,  the  mover,  then  and  there  and  ever  since  has  firmly 
 opposed  the  sanction. 
 
 So  there  is  no  sanction  by  General  Synod  of  Ursinus  college.  The 
 very  opposite  is  confessed  in  the  latter  part  of  the  definition  itself,  as 
 Apple  intended. 
 
 As  to  the  action  of  the  General  Synod  of  1875,  the  resolution,  which 
 did  not  propose  to  take  up  the  action  of  the  previous  General  Synod, 
 was  no  recognition  of  Ursinus.  It  puts  the  action  out  of  any  sanction. 
 Dr.  Bomberger  offered  a  resolution  that  tlie  action  now  to  be  taken  was 
 not  designed  to  reflect  on  the  constitutional  legitimacy  of  the  theological 
 department  of  the  insitution  named  or  to  imply  that  the  several 
 departments  of  said  institution  are  not  worthy  of  ecclesiastical  regard. 
 Here  he  tried  to  gain  sanction.  Over  this  was  one  of  the  chief  contests 
 of  the  synod.  The  advocates  of  tlie  committee's  report  declared  that 
 their  report  should  not  be  made  operative  in  regard  to  the  Suj)er  ajipeal 
 case.  The  opposition  was  so  great  that  part  of  Bomberger 's  resolution 
 was  stricken  out  and  only  the  first  part  remained.  This  neither  reverses 
 or  affirms  the  decision  of  the  General  Synod  of  1872.  There  was  just  as 
 great  a  determination  on  the  one  side  to  guard  the  action  of  the  General 
 Synod  of  1875  as  there  was  on  the  other  to  guard  it  from  reversing  or 
 repudiating  the  action  of  the  General  Synod  of  1872.  Even  in  its  present 
 form  it  is  distastefid  to  many  in  the  synod.  So  Dr.  Apple  offered  the 
 following,  "that  nothing  be  construed  as  reversing  or  affirming  the  Super 
 
 *C1iristian  Workl,  August  19. 
 
Events  to  the  General  Synod  (1878).  573 
 
 appeal  case."  This  was  finally  accepted  by  Bonibergcr  and  his  fricmls. 
 The  action,  says  Derr,  of  the  two  synods  completely  denies  sanction  or 
 recognition  of  Ursinus.     Bomberger's  effort  to  gain  it  was  rejected. 
 
 The  Christian  World  replies  (July  22)  that  General  Synod  meant  what 
 it  said, 
 
 (1)  That  Ursinus  was  or<lerly  in  offering  theological  instruction  and 
 that  such  instruction  was  sanctioned. 
 
 (2)  That  if  the  action  was  not  thus  in  effect  as  understood  by  the 
 majority  but  designed  by  T.  G.  Apple  to  be  different,  then  he  and  those 
 agreeing  with  him  are  in  an  unenviable  position  by  reason  of  their  secret 
 design  and  their  continued  silence  respecting  it.  Later  the  Christian 
 World  says  it  is  not  its  purpose  to  notice  the  article  or  to  attempt  to 
 answer  it.  The  spirit  of  the  article  was  simply  due  to  hatred  of 
 Ursinus. 
 
 Dr.  Super  replied,*  saying  that  the  General  Synod  of  1872  gave  recog- 
 nition to  the  theological  dejiartment  of  Ursinus  college.  Its  action  meant 
 that  Dr.  Bomberger  and  his  associates  were  orderly  and  that  students 
 prepared  there  had  the  right  to  go  to  any  classis  on  equal  footing  with 
 any  other  licentiate.  This,  he  said,  had  been  recognized  by  the  classes. 
 The  Eastern  synod,  in  reviewing  the  proceedings  of  the  different  classes 
 that  did  this,  had  pronounced  their  reception  of  young  men  from  Ursinus 
 to  be  perfectly  in  order  and  it  had  enrolled  them  as  ministers.  If  this 
 was  not  recognition  of  Ursinus,  what  more  can  we  desire  except  the  mere 
 technical  title  of  "teacher  of  theology."  He  continued, — the  objector 
 says  ' '  Anybody  can  teach  theology. ' '  This  is  based  on  the  absurd 
 position  that  there  are  two  kinds  of  theology,  one  for  the  pulpit  and  one 
 for  the  theological  seminary.  It  is  objected  that  ministers  will  be  poured 
 into  the  Church  from  every  quarter.  Let  them  come,  Super  replied ;  we 
 need  them.  But  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  objected  that  the  teacher  of 
 theology  may  be  an  Arian.  He  replies  that  the  synod's  decision  saves 
 us  from  that.  He  says  J.  H.  D.  several  times  says  the  General  Synod 
 .  of  1872  stultified  itself  by  its  action.  But  there  was  no  stultification, 
 and  it  is  strange  that  he  should  delight  so  much  in  this,  for  his  former 
 position  was  to  dwell  on  the  authority  of  the  Church  as  the  voice  of 
 God.  If  Apple  did  what  D.  says  he  intended  to  do  at  the  General  Synod 
 of  1875,  it  is  unworthy  of  a  doctor  of  divinity  and  a  teacher  of  theology. 
 But  whether  true  or  not,  it  failed  of  its  purpose.  At  any  rate  the  de- 
 cision of  the  General  Synod  of  1872  is  irreversible.  For  there  can  not 
 be  two  decisions  (one  in  1872  and  another  in  1875)  on  the  same  case  and 
 the  decision  of  the  supreme  court  is  final.  There  would  be  no  security  in 
 anything  if  it  were  not.  Why  did  Pittsburg  synod  make  its  request  if 
 nothing  had  been  granted  by  the  General  Synod  of  1872  according  to 
 J.  H.  D.     The  reason  why  there  was  so  much  restlessness  was  because 
 
 *Christi<in  World,  July  22. 
 
574        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 something  had  been  granted.  The  General  Synod  of  1875,  instead  of 
 granting  the  request  of  Pittsburg  synod  expressly  denied  it  and  said  that 
 nothing  in  it  reversed  or  affirmed  the  decision  of  1872.  As  to  the  nega- 
 tive form  of  the  action  of  the  synod  of  1872,  it  -svas  in  that  form  be- 
 cause it  was  a  reversal  of  a  positive  act  of  the  Eastern  synod.  Nothing 
 would  do  that  but  a  flat  denial.  Apple,  it  seems,  published  a  card  agree- 
 ing with  J.  H.  D.  His  aim  in  the  second  part  of  what  he  proposed  at 
 the  General  Synod  was  to  make  the  first  part  judicially  void.  But  he 
 failed.     Jesuitry  was  caught  in  its  own  trap,  as  Super  has  proved. 
 
 In  the  Christian  World*  E.  M.  R.  says  Apple  admits  virtually  that  it 
 was  an  attempt  to  lead  General  Synod  to  stultify  itself  unwittingly  and 
 J.  H.  D.  was  privy  to  it.  He  says,  Was  it  right  for  a  minister  of  Jesus 
 Christ  to  descend  to  such  a  trick, — to  a  professor  of  a  theological  semi- 
 nary to  place  such  an  example  before  his  students, — was  it  respectful  as 
 a  member  of  synod  to  his  brethren, — was  it  the  conduct  of  a  Christian 
 gentleman  to  lead  General  Synod  unconsciously  to  stultify  or  make  a  fool 
 of  itself.  Such  an  act  has  ne\er  marked  the  bitterest  controversy  of  the 
 modern  Church.  If  this  be  the  etliics  at  Lancaster,  the  society  of  Jesus 
 need  ask  no  more.  He  had  the  right  to  hold  that  synod's  act  was  con- 
 trary to  the  constitution  but  not  to  make  the  synod  a  fool  of  itself. 
 
 Apple  has  a  cardf  in  which  he  said  his  object  in  his  amendment  at  the 
 General  Synod  of  187.5  was  to  bring  into  clearer  light  the  contradiction 
 of  the  decision  in  the  Super  appeal  case.  There  was  no  concealment.  It 
 was  not  Jesuitism,  for  both  parties  saw  what  they  were  doing.  The  Gen- 
 eral Synod  of  1875  decided  that  the  right  to  teach  theology  belonged  to 
 the  synod  and  not  to  the  classis.  He  repelled  the. charges  made  against 
 him. 
 
 Bomberger  says,  All  this  is  a  new  attemjit  to  add  the  stigma  of 
 illegitimacy  and  unconstitutionality  to  Ursinus  college.  If  so,  then  tlie 
 Messenger  and  the  Reformed  Era  are  unconstitutional,  for  whore  in 
 the  constitution  is  there  authority  for  thoni.  The  constitution,  he  says, 
 does  not  provide  for  a  Society  for  the  Relief  of  Ministers  and  Orphans, 
 is  that  an  unconstitutional  or  illegitimate  society? — or  of  Orphans' 
 As3dums,  are  they  unconstitutional.  The  constitution  provides  for  synod 
 to  publish  books,  but  does  not  niake  it  unlawful  for  any  party  to  engage 
 in  the  publishing  business. 
 
 Section  10.    The  Synods  of  1875-8. 
 
 The  Pliiladolpliia  classis  spiil  up  an  ovorturo  to  the  synod 
 of  1875  on  the  tendency  in  certain  sections  oi  tlie  Church  on 
 the  part  of  higher  judicatories  to  interfere  with  the  rights  of 
 vacant  congregations.     Synod  refused  to  entertain  it  in  the 
 
 •October  7. 
 
 ^Christian  World,  October  7. 
 
Events  to  the  General  Synod  (1878).  575 
 
 form  presented  because  it  failed  to  specify  any  case  of  alleged 
 interference.  This  decision  was,  therefore,  against  the  Old 
 Reformed. 
 
 The  publication  interests  of  the  East  received  considerable 
 attention  from  this  synod.  The  Lammerhirte  was  ordered  to 
 be  transferred  to  the  German  publishing  house  at  Cleveland, 
 btit  synod  ordered  the  publication  house  again  to  publish  the 
 Reformed  Review.  It  appointed  a  committee  to  meet  the  other 
 two  synods  about  having  only  one  church-paper.  So  Dr.  Rus- 
 sell was  left  out  of  any  editorial  relation  and  his  Reformed 
 Era  was  discontinued. 
 
 The  synod  of  1875  was  criticised  for  not  having  had  a  single 
 free  prayer  oifered  during  its  session.  The  reply  was  made 
 that  it  was  the  custom  of  St.  Luke's  congregation,  Lancaster, 
 where  it  met,  always  to  use  the  liturgy.  Criticism  was  also 
 made  on  the  altar  and  the  cross  there,  so  that  the  writer  said 
 he  felt  he  had  gotten  into  the  wrong  place  when  he  went  into 
 the  synod.  Rev.  Mr.  Graeff  tries  to  explain  away  this  criti- 
 cism. 
 
 The  question  of  synodical  and  classical  assessments  now  be- 
 came prominent.  Those  who  supported  Ursinus  college  re- 
 fused to  pay  assessments  laid  on  them  for  the  college  and  semi- 
 nary at  Lancaster.  For  this  they  were  severely  criticised  at 
 classes  and  sometimes  drastic  action  was  taken  against  them 
 because  delinquents.  Personal  threats  were  sometimes  made 
 against  them  of  censure  and  even  of  deprivation  of  office. 
 All  this  was  done  notwithstanding  the  action  of  the  General 
 Synod  of  1872  in  the  Dunn  appeal  case,  which  declared  that 
 congregations  had  the  right  to  send  their  benevolences  where 
 they  wanted.  The  matter  finally  came  to  a  serious  issue  at  the 
 Eastern  synod  of  1877.  It  was  brought  before  the  synod  by 
 East  Pennsylvania  classis,  which  asked  for  a  deliverance  on 
 the  following  points : 
 
 a.  Are  pastoral  charges  in  duty  bound  to  make  proper 
 efforts  to  meet  classical  assessments  for  the  benevolent  objects 
 of  the  Church? 
 
 b.  What  is  the  remedy  of  a  classis  in  case  of  non-fulfillment 
 on  the  part  of  a  pastor  and  charge  ? 
 
576         History  op  Reformed  CiirRcii  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 P]ast  Pennsylvania  cla.ssis  evidently  wanted  to  get  the  au- 
 thority of  synod  in  its  support  so  as  to  compel  delinquents  to 
 pay  their  assessments.    The  synod  declared 
 
 1.  That  the  pastoral  charges  were  in  duty  bound  to  meet 
 classical  assessments  for  the  benevolent  objects  of  the  Church. 
 
 2.  That  inasmuch  as  the  obligation  to  give  benevolent 
 moneys  is  moral  and  spiritual  and  not  legal,  therefore  the 
 various  classes  should  affectionately  urge  all  their  pastors  and 
 charges  to  make  free-Avill  offerings  for  such  benevolent  ob- 
 jects. But  in  case  of  non-compliance,  the  classt's  should  not 
 use  the  rigor  of  ecclesiastical  discipline. 
 
 The  action  of  the  synod  thus  declared  that  congregations  and 
 pa.stors  ought  to  pay  their  assessments,  but  that  classis  could 
 not  legally  collect  it,  thus  making  it  morally  binding.  This  de- 
 cision of  the  synod  was  further  complicated  by  an  act  of  synod, 
 when  it  voted  moneys  out  of  the  contingent  fund  of  synod  to 
 the  use  of  the  publication-house  in  Philadelphia.  This  pul)lica- 
 tion-house  of  our  Church,  partly  on  account  of  the  controversy 
 and  partly  on  account  of  the  hard  times  which  b(>gan  in  ^Sl:] 
 was  in  straits  financially.  An  effort  was  nirulo  to  relieve  it  in 
 this  way.  But  this  action  gave  great  offense  to  the  Old  Re- 
 formed party.  They  declared  that  this  was  a  pei'version  of 
 funds,  as  the  money  was  raised  by  them  for  contingent  ex- 
 penses and  not  for  the  ])ublieation  interests  which  continually 
 opposed  them  because  it  entirely  favored  the  high-church 
 party.  They  declared  that  if  synod  thus  perverted  money, 
 they  would  not  raise  their  apportituiments. 
 
 Unfortunately  at  this  synod,  personalities  entered  into  tlu; 
 bitter  debate  that  took  place.  The  president  of  synod  was 
 charged  by  the  Old  Reformed  with  ruling  arbitrarily  against 
 them.  The  feeling  became  so  strong  among  them  that  their 
 rights  w(^re  not  carc^d  for  by  synod  and  that  they  were  alwa.xs 
 mistreated  there  that  they  started  a  movement  to  organ- 
 ize a  separate  synod  on  the  ground  of  cull  us.  just  as  liie 
 German  part  of  our  Church  had  already  done  on  llie  basis  of 
 language.  A  conference  was  held  hy  flieiii  one  evening  ol" 
 synod.  It  appointed  a  commiHee  to  confer  about  holding  a 
 convention  to  prepare  a  memorial  to  the  General  Synod,  ask- 
 
Events  to  the  General  Synod  (1878).  577 
 
 ing  that  such  a  separate  synod  be  formed.  This  committee 
 met  at  Collegeville,  November  13,  1877.  It  decided  that  the 
 calling  of  a  convention  for  that  purpose  was  not  advisable,  but 
 appointed  a  committee  to  prepare  an  amendment  to  the  consti- 
 tution in  the  way  of  a  memorial  to  the  General  Synod  and  de- 
 cided that  such  an  amendment  should  be  su])mitted  to  a  future 
 conference.    This  memorial  was  prepared  and  is  as  follows: 
 
 "Whereas,  Diversities  of  belief  in  regard  to  rloctrine  are  known 
 and  acknowledged  to  exist  in  our  Church,  especially  in  the  eastern  portion 
 of  it,  and  these  have  been  and  are  still  the  occasion  of  unpleasant  differ- 
 ences of  feeling;  and 
 
 "Whereas,  The  experience  of  many  years  past  testifies  that  this 
 state  of  affairs  mars  the  fellowship  of  the  disagreeing  parties  brought 
 togetker  in  synodical  and  other  meetings,  and  that  it  seriously  hinders 
 fraternal  co-operation  in  the  various  activities  of  the  Church;  and 
 
 ' '  Whereas,  It  is  believed  that  to  remedy  these  evils,  to  prevent 
 further  harm  from  these  causes  and  to  promote  a  greater  measure  of 
 peace,  an  amicable  division  of  those  entertaining  the  diverse  views  re- 
 ferred to,  into  distinct  synods  is  desirable  and  should  be  effected. 
 
 ' '  Therefore,  with  a  view  of  gaining  permission  of  General  Synod  and 
 thus  of  the  synods  and  classes  directly  interested,  for  the  formation  of  a 
 new  district  synod  within  the  limits  of  the  synod  of  the  United  States  and 
 of  the  synod  of  the  Potomac,  upon  the  principle  already  established  in 
 the  case  of  the  new  German  classes  and  synods,  the  following  petition 
 is  respectfully  presented: 
 
 "  Eesolved,  That  the  General  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  the 
 United  States  to  convene  at  Lancaster,  Pa.,  in  May,  1878,  be  and  hereby 
 is  respectfully  requested  to  submit  to  the  several  classes  an  additional 
 amendment  to  article  46  of  the  constitution  in  form  and  substance  as 
 follows:  'Provided  further,  that  in  the  bounds  of  classes  which  are  pre- 
 vailingly in  favor  of  the  doctrinal  views  represented  in  the  Order  of 
 Worship  (Eastern  liturgy)  of  1866,  other  classes  may  be  organized,  com- 
 posed of  those  ministers  and  pastoral  charges  in  favor  of  the  doctrinal 
 views  represented  in  the  liturgy  or  Order  of  Worship  (Western)  of  1869; 
 and  so  also  conversely  in  the  case  of  classes  prevailingly  in  favor  of  the 
 doctrinal  views  represented  in  the  liturgy  or  Order  of  Worship  other 
 classes  may  be  organized  in  the  same  way. '  ' ' 
 
 This  amendment  followed  almost  literally  the  request  of 
 the  Germans  for  separate  organization.  They  hoped  therefore 
 it  would  be  more  easily  adopted.  It  was  proposed  that  this 
 memorial  be  adopted  by   Philadelphia  and  North  Carolina 
 
578        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 classes  at  special  meetings  to  be  held  i)revi()us  to  the  meetings 
 of  the  General  Synod.  We  do  not  find  anywhere  any  such 
 action  coming  up  to  the  General  Synod  of  1878  from  these 
 classes.  The  measure  was  evidently  for  some  reason  held  in 
 abeyance,  perhaps  because  the  next  General  Synod  was  to  be 
 held  in  the  East,  where  the  high-churchmen  might  be  in  con- 
 trol. 
 
 A  complaint  was  made  that  the  devotional  services  of  the  Po- 
 tomac synod  (1876)  were  all  liturgical.  All  special  devotional 
 services  were  omitted,  such  as  had  been  customary  years  ago. 
 It  was  the  custom  in  our  Church  not  many  years  before  to 
 have  several  hours  of  one  or  two  sessions  set  apart  for  singing, 
 prayer  and  addresses.  AVe  remember,  says  the  writer,  the  deep 
 and  happy  impressions  of  such  services.  But  this  synod  knew 
 no  such  thing  as  a  prayer-meeting.  Scarcely  a  prayer  is  offered 
 except  the  strict  form  in  the  liturgy  for  the  opening  of  synod. 
 
 Section  11.     The  General  Synod  of  1878. 
 
 This  Synod  met  at  Lancaster.  The  election  of  the  president 
 revealed  the  strength  of  the  two  parties.  On  the  first  l^allot 
 there  was  a  tie,  but  on  the  second  Dr.  Van  Home  had  one 
 majority  over  Dr.  Bausman.  This  thrcAV  the  organization  of 
 the  synod  into  the  Old  Reformed  party.  The  defeat  was  felt 
 all  the  more  keenly  because  it  took  place  at  Lancaster,  the  seat 
 and  center  of  the  high -church  party. 
 
 The  Christian  World*  says  that  all  hands  are  tired  of  the 
 controversy,  that  there  is  a  general  feeling  that  the  inner  dis- 
 sensions were  bringing  ruin  on  the  Church  unless  a  reuKxly  be 
 speedily  applied.  This  feeling  culminated  in  the  propositions 
 offered  by  Rev.  Dr.  C.  Z.  Weiser  on  jMonday  evening.  IMay  20. 
 He  suggested  that  a  commission  be  created  which  should  decide 
 the  differences.  (This  was  modeled  after  the  famous  commis- 
 sion to  settle  the  political  controversy  about  the  presidency 
 of  our  country  between  Hayes  and  Tilden  in  ]87fi-7.)  This 
 commission  was  to  prepare  a  basis  upon  which  all  parts  of 
 the  Church  could  meet.     This  proposition  met  with  favor  at 
 
 *May  30. 
 
Events  TO  THE  General  Synod  (1878).  579 
 
 once.  A  nunibor  of  delegates  regardless  of  party  lines  advo- 
 cated the  adoption  of  the  resolution.  After  a  long  discussion 
 the  plan  was  adopted,  and  a  committee  was  appointed  to  con- 
 sider it.  They  approved  it  and  the  General  S^^nod  authorized 
 the  creation  of  such  a  commission,  the  different  synods  to  elect 
 their  delegates,  due  regard  being  paid  to  minorities  in  the 
 synods.    The  General  Synod  also  adopted  the  following  action  : 
 
 Whereas,  Under  the  guidance  of  tlie  great  Head  of  tlic  Church  this 
 General  Synod  with  cordial  unanimity  has  inaugurated  measures  to 
 restore  harmony  and  peace  within  its  bounds;  therefore, 
 
 Besolved,  That  the  ministers  and  members  represented  in  tliis  Syiind 
 be  admonished  to  use  their  official  and  personal  influence  for  the  cultiva- 
 tion of  mutual  confidence  and  peace. 
 
 Besolved,  That  the  editors  of  our  Church  periodicals  be  requested,  as 
 far  as  possible,  to  infuse  a  spirit  of  conciliation  and  concord  into  their 
 publications. 
 
 Resolved,  That  the  professors  of  our  classical,  collegiate  and  theo- 
 logical institutions  be  requested  to  cultivate  such  a  spirit  of  charitable- 
 ness and  peace  in  the  minds  of  their  students  as  are  contemplated  in  the 
 aforesaid  conciliatory  measures  adopted  by  this  synod. 
 
 Besolved,  That  this  General  Synod  most  earnestly  requests  the  mendiers 
 of  all  the  ecclesiastical  bodies  under  its  supervision  in  the  deliberations 
 and  decisions  of  their  regular  and  special  meetings  to  have  a  due  and 
 charitable  regard  for  each  other's  conscientious  convictions  and  as  far 
 as  possible  to  conduct  their  business  so  as  to  cultivate  and  advance  the 
 cause  of  peace  and  good  will  among  the  congregations  and  people  of  our 
 Eeformed  Zion. 
 
 As  to  the  basis  of  rei)resentation  in  the  Commission,  it  took  action,  tluit 
 General  Synod  earnestly  recommends  to  the  district  synods  that  in  the 
 appointment  of  their  respective  delegations  to  this  Commission,  they  pay 
 due  regard  to  a  minority  tendency  where  such  exists. 
 
 Several  events  at  the  synod  were  significant.  Immediately 
 after  the  election  of  Dr.  Van  Home  as  president,  the  large 
 cross  which  had  stood  on  the  altar  of  the  church  was  removed 
 and  kept  out  of  sight  during  the  entire  session  of  the  General 
 Synod.  The  new  tide  of  feeling  also  showed  itself  in  a  prayer- 
 meeting  by  the  Germans, — the  first  prayer-meeting  at  a  Gen- 
 eral Synod. 
 
 At  first  there  was  some  doul>t  as  to  whether  the  pi^ace  move- 
 ment was  a  hearty  one  and  would  receive  the  endorsement  by 
 
580        History  of^  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 the  Church  at  large.    The  Mcrcershurg  licvicw  for  July  came 
 out  in  its  favor  expressing  full  confidence  in  it. 
 
 All  agreed,  it  said,  on  the  desirableness  of  peace,  Imt  not  all  were 
 agreed  on  full  faith  in  it.  Some  were  inclined  to  wait  and  see  what  the 
 commission  would  do  before  they  embraced  this  faith.  The  restoration 
 Avill  come  from  the  practical  side  rather  than  the  theoretical,  the  first 
 thing  needed  is  confidence,  the  second  we  must  show  confidence.  Tt  urged 
 all  to  unite  on  the  Mcrccrsburg  Eeview. 
 
 The  action  of  the  p]astern  Synod  of  1878  did  much  to  aid 
 this  feeling  of  confidence.  It  met  in  convention  at  P^aston  and 
 elected  Dr.  Bomborger  president.  It  endorsed  heartily  the  ac- 
 tion of  the  General  Synod  on  the  peace  movement.  It  recalled 
 the  action  of  tlie  synod  of  1868  against  Bomberger.  This  act 
 did  more  to  restore  confidence  than  anything  else.  It  com- 
 mended Ursinus  college,  as  did  the  Potomac  synod. 
 
PART  III. 
 
 Events  After  the  Liturgical  Controversy  (1878-19  lo.) 
 
 CHAPTER  I. 
 
 Important  Events. 
 
 Section  1.    The  Peace  Movement. 
 
 The  General  Synod  of  1878  requested  the  different  synods 
 to  elect  the  members  of  the  Peace  Commission,  giving  due  pro- 
 portion to  minorities  within  them.  The  different  synods 
 then  elected  their  delegates  as  follows  if 
 
 Eastern  synod. — Revs.  Drs.  Weiser,*  T.  G.  Apple,*  F.  W. 
 Kremer  and  Elders  D.  W.  Gross,*  Seibert*  and  Kelker. 
 
 Ohio  synod. — Revs.  Drs.  J.  H.  Good  and  Kefauver*  and 
 elders  Bauglnnan  and  Kuhns. 
 
 Northwest  synod.^ — Revs.  Drs.  IT.  J.  Ruetenik  and  Gredina: 
 and  elders  Scheele  and  Tons. 
 
 Pittsburg  synod. — Revs.  Titzel*  and  J.  IT.  Apple,*  and  elders 
 Bousch*  and  Craig.* 
 
 Potomac  synod. — Revs.  Drs.  Callender*  and  Welker  and 
 elders  Wirt*  and  Steiner.* 
 
 German  Eastern  sjaiod. — Rev.  Dr.  Knelling  and  elder  W. 
 G.  Gross. 
 
 By  a  fortunate  Providence  this  conniiission  was  equally 
 divided  between  the  liturgical  and  anti-liturgical  parties. 
 They  met  December  3,  1879,  and  drinv  up  a  Pea(;e  Compact  on 
 three  points,  doctrine,  cultus  and  government.  It  declared 
 that, — 
 
 In  doctrine,  the  Reformed  Church  in  the  United  States  unites  in  the 
 confession  of  her  adherence  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  as 
 set  forth  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  taking  the  same  in  its  historical 
 
 f Those  marked  *  are  liturgical,  the  rest  anti  liturgical. 
 
 581 
 
582        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 (^or  original)  sense:  and  dec-lares  that  any  departure  from  the  same 
 is  unauthorized  by  the  Church:  and  renewedly  directs  all  her  ministers, 
 editors  and  teachers  of  theology  ' '  faithfully  to  preach  and  defend  the 
 same. ' ' 
 
 This  act  is  not  to  be  so  construed  as  to  forbid  or  interfere  with  that 
 degree  of  freedom  in  Scriptural  and  theological  investigation  which 
 has  always  been  enjoyed  in  the  Reformed  Church.* 
 
 In  presenting  tlie  above  as  a  basis  for  peace  in  the  Church,  we  are 
 not  unmindful  of  the  fact  that  more  than  this  might  be  expected. 
 We  believe  that  the  theological  contest  that  has  gone  forward  in  our 
 Church  for  over  a  quarter  of  a  century,  with  earnestness  and  zeal,  has 
 resulted,  (now  that  it  has  substantially  come  to  a  close,  as  we  hope), 
 in  bringing  the  Church  to  a  deeper  apprehension  of  the  truth.  It  would 
 seem  proper,  therefore,  that  an  attempt  should  be  made  to  summarize 
 in  some  general  \\ay  this  result.  We  therefore  submit  the  following, 
 as  embodying  certain*  points  on  which  this  commission  is  able  to  har- 
 monize, and  thus  contribute  towards  that  substantial  agreement  through- 
 out the  whole  Church  in  the  peace  period  upon  which  we  are  now  enter- 
 ing: 
 
 I.  We  recognize  in  Jesus  Clirist  and  Ids  sacrifice  for  fallen  man,  the 
 foundation  and  source  of  our  whole  salvation. 
 
 II.  We  hold  that  the  Christian  life  is  begotten  in  us  by  the  Word  of 
 God,  which  is  ever  living  and  carries  in  itself  the  power  to  quicken 
 faith  and  love  in  the  heart  through  the  Holy  Ghost. 
 
 III.  We  do  not  regard  the  visible  Church  as  commensurate  and  iden- 
 tical witli  the  iM\isil)lt'  Clnircli  (according  to  the  Roman  theory),  nor 
 do  wo  tliink  that  in  this  world  the  invisible  Church  can  be  separated 
 from  tilt-  visible  (according  to  the  theory  of  Pietism  and  false  spiritual- 
 ism) ;  but  while  we  ilo  not  i<lontify  them,  we  do  not  in  our  views  SPi)a- 
 rate  them. 
 
 IV.  We  hold  that  in  the  use  of  the  holy  sacraments  the  grace  signified 
 by  tlie  outward  signs  is  ini])arted  to  those  who  truly  believe,  but  that 
 those  who  cinnc  to  these  \\n\y  sacraments  witlimit  faitli,  receive  only 
 the  outward  elements  unto  condemnation. 
 
 V.  We  have  come  to  a  clearer  appiclicnsion  of  the  fact  that  the 
 Christian  life  is  something  l)roader  ;ind  (Icc|i<t  than  its  manifestations  in 
 conscious  exi)erience. 
 
 VI.  We  hold  the  doctrine  of  justification  through  true  faith  in  Jesus 
 Christ,  according  to  which  only  the  satisfaction,  holiness  and  righteous- 
 ness of  Christ  is  our  righteousness  before  Co.l,  and  that  we  can  not  re- 
 ceive and  apply  the  same  to  ourselves  in  any  (dher  way  than  by  faith 
 only. 
 
 *The  first  of  these  paragraphs  favore.l  the  Old  Reformed,  the  second, 
 the  Mercersburg  party. 
 
Important  Events.  583 
 
 VTT.  We  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  ministerial  office,  according  to  which 
 the  ministers  of  the  Church  are  not  lords  of  faith  but  servants,  mes- 
 sengers, heralds,  watchmen  of  Christ,  co-workers  with  God,  preachers 
 of  the  Word  and  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God. 
 
 VITI.  We  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  universal  priesthood  of  believers 
 over  against  all  Romanizing  tendencies  to  priestly  power,  while  we  also 
 assert  the  proper  recognition  of  the  ministerial  office  in  the  Church  of 
 Christ. 
 
 IX.  We  affirm  our  confidence  in  the  truth  of  Protestantism  over 
 against  the  errors  of  Rome  on  the  one  hand  and  against  the  errors  of  ra- 
 tionalism and  infidelity  on  the  other. 
 
 X.  All  philosophical  and  theological  speculations  (in  the  Church) 
 sliould  be  held  in  humble  submission  to  the  Word  of  God,  which,  with 
 its  heavenly  light,  should  illumine  and  guide  the  operations  and  re- 
 searches of  reason.* 
 
 In  eultus,  it  recommended  to  the  General  Synod  tlio  ap- 
 pointment of  a  Liturgical  Commission,  representing,  like  the 
 Peace  Commission,  the  various  parties  in  the  Church  propor- 
 tionately so  that  it  might  in  an  unpartisan  way  prepare  a 
 liturgy  suited  to  all  parties  in  the  Church  and  report  it  to 
 the  General  Synod.  In  the  meantime  the  different  liturgies 
 were  to  be  allowed  in  use  provided,  however,  that  hereafter 
 the  liturgy  is  not  to  be  introduced  without  the  consent  of  the 
 congregation  and  consistory.  (This  latter  point  the  Old  Re- 
 formed party  had  always  demanded. — A.) 
 
 On  church  government,  it  requested  the  judicatories  of  the 
 Church  to  consider  fitness  in  their  appointments  (which  ta- 
 citly meant  that  appointments  were  not  to  be  made  in  a  par- 
 tisan way  by  either  party. — A.)  and  that  General  Synod  take 
 steps  for  a  proper  revision  of  the  constitution,  rules.  l)y-]aws 
 and  court  of  appeal.  It  cont^iins  one  provision  which  has 
 never  been  carried  out,  as  follows  : 
 
 "To  provide  for  a  supervision  by  the  General  Synod  over  all  the 
 theological  institutions  of  the  Church,  by  the  appointment  of  a  duly 
 authorized  committee  or  board  of  visitors  empowered  at  any  time  when 
 deemed  necessary  to  examine  into  the  doctrine,  eultus  and  management 
 of  said  institutions,  and  to  report  to  each  session  of  the  General  Synod : 
 
 *0f  these,  I  and  IT  are  general.  III,  V  and  IX  echoed  Mercersburg; 
 IV,  VIII,  IX  and  X,  the  Old  Ref.)rmed,  VI  and  VII  were  compromises. 
 
r)iS4         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 suiil  ))oard  of  visitors  however  not  to  interfere  with  any  arrangement 
 or  authority  of  the  resjjective  district  synods  or  their  boards  or  com- 
 mittees. ' '  * 
 
 The  General  Synod  of  1881,  having  received  this  report, 
 appointed  the  Peace  Commission  to  be  the  Liturgical  Commis- 
 sion, ordering  it  to  report  at  the  next  General  Synod.  Tin- 
 Liturgical  Commission  appointed  a  sub-connuittee  which  met 
 five  times  from  May  27,  1881,  to  November  20,  1883.  Then 
 the  whole  Liturgical  Committee  met  November  23,  1883,  and 
 after  a  four  days '  session  unanimously  adopted  the  report  of 
 the  sub-committee  and  recommended  the  Directory  of  Worship 
 to  the  General  Synod.  Their  session  closed  with  a  commmiion 
 service,  exceedingly  impressive.  Mr.  Kelker  declared  it  was  like 
 the  day  of  Pentecost.  The  next  General  Synod  (1884)  adopted 
 it's  liturgy  and  sent  it  down  to  the  classes.  It  also  appointed 
 a  committee  of  five  to  publish  it,  with  Kelker  as  chairman. 
 At  the  next  General  Synod  (1887)  it  was  found  that  3!) 
 classes  had  approved  this  liturgy  (Directory  of  Worship)  four 
 more  than  the  required  two-thirds.  General  Synod  then 
 officially  announced  the  Directory  of  Worship  to  be  adopted. 
 It  therefore  is  the  official  liturgy  of  the  Cliurch.  While  the 
 other  liturgies  are  allowed  to  be  used,  the  Mayer  liturgy  and 
 the  Directory  of  Worship  are  the  only  official  liturgies  of 
 the  Church  because  adopted  by  the  classes  as  well  as  the 
 synod. 
 
 This  liturgy  is  a  compromise  between  the  two  parties.  Two 
 kinds  of  service  are  given  in  it  for  the  Lord's  day  worsliip,  a 
 free  and  a  liturgical.  The  word  ''altar"  is  eliminated  except 
 in  the  form  for  ordination,  where  it  is  unimportant,  but 
 fiord's  table  is  used  elsewhere.  And  the  phrases  in  tlic  Pro- 
 visional liturgy  and  Order  of  Worsliip  objcclional)Ic  to  Ihc 
 low-churchmen  were  largely  omitted. 
 
 The  last  of  the  three  differences  in  our  Church  between  Ihe 
 Mercersburg  theology  and  the  Old  Reformed  was  on  the  con- 
 
 *This  was  a  compromise,  first  part  favoring  Ohl  Kefurmeil,  the  last 
 part,  Mercersburg. 
 
Important  Events.  585 
 
 stitution.  We  have  already  noted  the  difference  between  them, 
 the  Mercersburg  theologians  holding  to  aristocratic  Presby- 
 terianism,  the  Old  Reformed  to  democratic;  the  former  em- 
 pliasizing  the  authority  of  the  upper  courts  as  the  synods  and 
 classes,  the  latter  of  the  lower  courts  as  the  congregation  and 
 consistory.  The  former  was  leased  on  the  idea  that  church  au- 
 thority descended  from  above,  from  the  higher  court  down  to 
 the  congregation ;  the  latter  that  it  came  up  from  below,  from 
 the  congregation  up  to  the  higher  courts.  The  former  held  that 
 the  lower  courts  had  only  such  authority  as  was  mentioned  in 
 the  constitution,  the  upper  court  retaining  the  rights  unmen- 
 tioned.  The  latter  held  that  the  iipper  court  had  only  the 
 rights  mentioned  in  the  constitution,  the  lower  court  retaining 
 what  was  not  mentioned.  In  one  respect,  however,  the  consti- 
 tutionalists of  the  ]Mercersburg  school  are  contradictory.  They 
 give  great  authority  to  the  synod,  but  less  authority  to  the 
 General  Synod  than  the  Old  Reformed.  This  was  due  to  the 
 fact  that  they  insisted  that  the  synod  should  retain  control  of 
 theological  institutions.  Whereas  the  Old  Reformed  have  been 
 consistent  in  being  willing  to  place  everything,  even  theological 
 institutions  under  the  control  of  the  General  Synod,  even  if  it 
 be  only  by  veto  power  in  the  case  of  the  election  of  professors 
 of  theology. 
 
 As  these  fundamental  differences  run  out  in  manj-  direc- 
 tions it  was  evident  that  the  formation  of  a  constitution  would 
 be  a  difficult  task. 
 
 The  General  Synod  of  1878  appointed  a  committee  on  the 
 subject:  Rev.  S.  R.  Fisher,  D.D.,  chairman.  This  committee 
 reported  a  draft  of  a  constitution  to  the  next  General  Synod 
 (1881).  Dr.  Fisher  became  sick  (died  soon  after)  and  Rev. 
 J.  11.  Good,  D.D.,  the  second  member  of  the  committee,  re- 
 ported Dr.  Fisher's  draft  of  the  constitution,  but  called  the 
 attention  of  the  General  Synod  to  three  important  changes 
 in  our  Chui'ch  government  that  it  proposed : 
 
 1.  Annual  sessions  of  the  General  Synod. 
 
 2.  Election  of  delegates  by  synods  instead  of  by  classes. 
 
586         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 3.  Concentration  of  Church  work  under  boards  of  the  Gen- 
 eral Synod. 
 
 This  General  Synod  sent  it  to  the  classes  and  synods  for 
 examination  on  these  points. 
 
 The  next  General  Synod  (1884)  appointed  a  connnittee  of 
 seven,  one  from  each  synod,  to  draft  a  constitution,  referring 
 to  it  the  constitution  reported  in  1881  and  the  deliverances 
 of  the  classes  and  synods  upon  it.  This  committee  proposed  a 
 new  constitution  to  the  General  Synod  of  1887,  hy  whom  it 
 was  approved  and  sent  down  to  the  classes  for  adoption  oi- 
 rejection.  The  General  Synod  of  1890  found  that  it  had  not 
 received  the  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  classes  (27  out  of  55 
 classes).  Eleven  classes  did  not  report.  So  tlie  General 
 Synod  was  unable  to  decide  and  referred  the  constitution  to  a 
 new  committee  for  revision,  this  committee  to  take  into  con- 
 sideration all  recommendations  and  objections  of  classes  and 
 synods.  To  the  General  Synod  of  1893  the  committee  re- 
 ported a  new  constitution.  This  was  adopted  and  sent  down 
 to  the  classes  for  adoption  and  rejection.  At  the  next  General 
 Synod  (1896),  as  there  appeared  a  difference  of  oi)ini(m  as 
 1o  whether  it  had  received  the  necessary  vote  of  two-thirds 
 of  the  classes,  it  was  again  submitted  to  them.  To  the  General 
 Synod  of  1899  it  was  reported  that  26  classes  approved;  27 
 disapproved  and  two  were  unaV)h^  to  come  to  a  decision.  It 
 was,  therefore  not  adopted.  The  General  Synod  (1902)  ap- 
 ]»oiii1('d  a  new  eoimuittce  to  draft  a  constitution.  They  were 
 to  sul)mit  the  draft  to  the  chisses  for  criticisms  and  suarges- 
 lions.  From  these  th(y^  were  to  give  it  final  form  and  rei)()rt 
 to  tlie  next  General  Synod.  Tlie  General  Synod  of  1905 
 adoi)t(^d  the  constitution  that  tluy  reported  and  sent  it  down 
 to  the  classes  for  their  vote  And  the  General  Synod  of  1908 
 found  it  had  been  approved  by  more  tlian  the  recpiired  nuiiil)er 
 of  classes  and  so  declared  it  the  organic  law  of  the  Church. 
 
 Thus  was  closed  officially  the  controversy  with  IMercersbui'g 
 theology.  On  doctrine  and  liturgy  freedom  was  allowed  to 
 either  party,  and  on  the  constitution  an  agi-eement  was  reached 
 by  way  of  a  compromise. 
 
Important  Events.  587 
 
 Section  2.  Summary  of  the  Liturgical  Controversy  and 
 Contrast  op  the  Two  Theologies  (Mercersburg  and 
 Old  Reformed.) 
 
 In  reviewing'  the  litnrgieal  eontroversy,  it  is  very  evident 
 that  it  was  not  a  (|nestion  oi"  personalities  only,  but  one  of 
 great  principles.  Each  party  was  fighting  for  certain  funda- 
 mental views,  doctrinal,  liturgical  and  constitutional.  The 
 charge  that  it  was  merely  a  personal  quarrel  should  be  dis- 
 missed by  this  time.  If  it  had  been  merely  personal  it  would 
 liave  died  when  the  persons  died  or  left  the  Church.  But  it 
 did  not  do  so,  for  behind  the  persons  were  great  principles  at 
 st^ke.  It  was  a  battle-royal,  finely  fought;  yet  with  the  result 
 usual  in  battle, — a  great  deal  of  muiecessary  slaughter  for 
 which  there  was  no  conunensurate  return. 
 
 We  now  proceed  to  summarize  the  controversy  in  a  con- 
 trast between  the  two  parties  in  the  shape  of  a  parallel,  as 
 follows  :* 
 
 IMercersburg.  Old  Reformed. 
 
 Origin. 
 
 1  was  a  (k'velojmient  of  the  Me-  1  held  to  the  confessional  sys- 
 (liating  theology  of  Germany  but  tenis  of  the  Reformed  Church  of 
 not  of  the  Reformed  theologj'  of  Germany  as  found  especially  in 
 that  land.  It  emphasized  pro-  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.  It  em- 
 gress  ill  theological  thought.  phasized  conservatism  in  theolog- 
 ical thought. 
 
 2  viewed  truth  from  the  philo-  2  viewed  truth  from  the  Bib- 
 sophical  standpoint  either  of  Hegel  lical  or  doctrinal  standpoint. 
 
 or  Schelling. 
 
 A.  Doctrine. 
 
 The  Bible. 
 
 1    lowered    the   authority   of   the  1    nia<lp    the    Bible    the   rule    of 
 
 Bil)le    and    elevated    the    authority  faith     and     practice    and    rejected 
 
 of   the    Church    and    gave    a    place  the   authority   of   tradition   as   R«- 
 
 for  the  authority  of  tradition.  manizing. 
 
 *For  a  briefer  outline  of  this  kind  by  Dr.  Bomlierger,  see  Eeformed 
 Church  Monthly,  1871,  pages  3G(3-7. 
 
588 
 
 History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Mercersburg. 
 
 2  makes  the  Apostles'  Creed  of 
 equal,  yes  even  higher  authority 
 than   the  Bible.* 
 
 3.  The  Bible  contains  the  word 
 of  God.  The  Bible  does  not  give 
 authority  to  Christ,  but  Christ  to 
 the   Bible. 
 
 Old  Reformed. 
 
 2  makes  all  Creeds,  the  Apos- 
 tles' incduded,  subordinate  to  the 
 Bible. 
 
 3  The  Bible  is  the  Word  of 
 (iod.  Christ  can  have  authority 
 only  as  he  gets  it  from  the  Bible. 
 If  the  Bible  errs  about  him,  he 
 can  not  be  sufficiently  divine  to  be 
 authoritative. 
 
 The  Incarnation. 
 
 1    is  tlu*   organic   conjunction    of 
 the    Godlieail    with    man. 
 
 2  Christ  united  himself  with 
 generic  humanity,  that  is,  with  the 
 whole  human  race  rather  than  with 
 any  individual. 
 
 3  The  divine  and  human  nature 
 of  Christ  form  a  theanthropic 
 person  wlmsf  divine-human  nature 
 comes  down  to  us.  M.  empha- 
 sizes the  unity  of  Christ's  person 
 rather  than  the  duality  of  his  na- 
 tures. It  tends  to  merge  them 
 into  one  (Eutychianizing)  rather 
 than   to   keep  them   distinct. 
 
 1  is  the  union  of  the  Sou  of  God 
 with  humanity.  It  is  not  organic, 
 for  organic  puts  all  under  law.f 
 But  Christ  is  not  under  law.  The 
 incarnation  is  not  according  to 
 law.  The  incarnation  was  a  unique 
 thing — the  great  exception  to  laAv. 
 Tt  was  not  according  to  the  natural, 
 but  according  to  the  supernatural. 
 Tt  is  not  a  natural  process  but  a 
 gift  of  God  to  reveal  his  mercy.J 
 
 2  Christ  united  himself  with  in- 
 ilividual  humanity  as  found  in 
 Mary,— "  seed  of  Mary"— "of 
 A  braham  ' ' — ' '  of   David. ' ' 
 
 3  Christ's  two  natures  are  dis- 
 tinct in  one  person.  Tt  avoids  the 
 l>aiitli('izing  tendency  of  M.,  which 
 blends  the  natures  so  closely  that 
 the  proper  distinction  Tjetween  God 
 and   humauitv  is  minimized. 
 
 *"  The  divine  tradition  which  starts  from  the  original  substance  of 
 Christ  only  itself  as  it  underlies  the  Bible  meets  us  under  its  most 
 authoritative  character  in  the  Apostles'  Creed"  (Merccrsburr/  h'crinv, 
 18-19,  page  339). 
 
 f  An  organism  is  governed  by  the  laws  of  its  being. 
 
 JTIere  the  rationalizing  tendency  of  Mercersburg  tlieulogy  apju'ars,  al- 
 though it  seemed  to  emphasize  the  su|iernatural.  The  great  contro- 
 versy of  the  past  century  was  Ms  Christianity  under  law  (organic)  or 
 above  law   (supernatural)?" 
 
Important  Events. 
 
 589 
 
 Mercersbukg. 
 
 4  The  incariuition  was  the  nec- 
 essary development  of  the  God- 
 head and  would  have  taken  place 
 even  if  man  had  not  fallen  and 
 needed  redemption. 
 
 The  Application 
 
 1  Eedemption  is  (Christ's  thean- 
 thropic  or  divine-human  life  com- 
 ing down  to  us  organically  through 
 the  Church  and  the  sacraments. 
 
 2  .Just  as  the  sin  of  the  first 
 Adam  comes  to  us,  so  the  redemp- 
 tion of  the  second  Adam  comes 
 organically  to  us-  by  infusing  the 
 substance  of  his  theanthropic  life 
 into  us.  It  touches  the  centre  of 
 our   soul  at   regeneration. 
 
 3  The  incarnation  is  the  central 
 doctrine.  '  *  Only  a  superficial 
 study  of  Christ  makes  it  funda- 
 mental. '  '*  The  central  position  of 
 the  atonement  is  incompatible  with 
 the  central  position  of  the  Creed. 
 
 Old  Reformed. 
 
 4  Tlie  incarnation  took  ylace  be- 
 cause of  sin  and  because  of  the 
 need  of  redemption  for  sin.  The 
 Bible  gives  no  other  reason  for  it. 
 
 of  Eedemption. 
 
 1  Redemption  is  not  organic  or 
 by  law,  it  is  above  law — a  free 
 act  of  grace  or  unmerited  favor 
 of  (jod  to  us,  unworthy  sinners. 
 
 2  Eedemption  does  not  come  to 
 us  exactly  as  sin  came  to  us,  for 
 sin  is  inherited,  whereas  salvation 
 nuist  be  chosen  by  a  free,  con- 
 scious act  of  the  will.  Anything 
 less  than  this  would  make  it 
 ethically  unworthy  of  salvation. 
 Eegeneration  is  not  organic  but 
 the  free  act  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
 who  works  when,  where  and  how 
 he  pleaseth. 
 
 3  The  atonement  is  the  central 
 Christian  doctrine.  It  is  "incar- 
 nation in  order  to  atonement. ' ' 
 Christ  made  it  central.  He  left 
 no  sacrament  of  the  incarnation 
 as  he  did   of  his   death. 
 
 4  Eedemption  is  a  life  rather 
 than  penal  (that  is  a  satisfaction 
 for  sin  to  a  law).  The  old  view 
 of  the  atonement  makes  us  to  be 
 saved  by  a  dead  Christ,  but  re- 
 demption  is  living  not  dead. 
 
 5  Justification    is    by    virtue    of 
 our    organic   conjunction   with   the 
 
 *"  Christ  involves  in  his  person 
 
 4  Redemption  is  a  life,  but  a  life 
 Ijy  the  Holy  Spirit  who  apjilies  the 
 atonement  to  us.  We  are  saved  by 
 a  ' '  dead  Christ ' '  only  because  he 
 was  living  before  his  atonement 
 and  after  it  in  glory.  The  atone- 
 ment as  redemption  included  the 
 incarnation  and  also  the  resurrec- 
 tion and  the  ascension,  but  the 
 atonement  is  the  centre  of  them 
 all. 
 
 5  .Justification  is  a  forensic  act 
 of   God   charging   over   to   our   ac- 
 
 the  reconciliation." 
 
590 
 
 History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 I\Iercersburg. 
 
 inuaruation  through  the  thean- 
 thropic  life  of  Christ.  It  is  by 
 participation  in  Christ's  life.  It 
 is  not  forensic  as  the  Old  E«fn rul- 
 ed held  (that  is,  the  merits  of 
 Christ  are  charged  over  to  us  by 
 God.)  Justification  is  internal, 
 subjective,  within  the  Christian. 
 
 6  Regeneration  is  the  implanta- 
 tion of  a  substantial  portion  of 
 the  theanthropic  life  into  the  core 
 or  centre  of  human  personality. 
 This  is  done  at  baptism.  The  out- 
 ward or  sacramental  is  emphasized 
 even  at  the  expense  of  the  internal 
 religious  experience.  Hence  Ger- 
 hart  was  charged  with  denying 
 the  necessity  of  faith.  At  least 
 faith  as  a  definite  act  was  mini- 
 mized. Conversion  conies  by  edu- 
 cation, not  by  a  sudden  change  of 
 heart. 
 
 Old  Reformed. 
 
 count  the  merits  of  Christ,  (Hei- 
 delberg Catechism,  Ans.  60).  Sal- 
 vation is  therefore  a  gift  (Ro- 
 mans 6:  23).  Justification  must  not 
 l)e  confused  with  sanctification,  ])ut 
 it  leads  to  sanctification  and  is 
 therefore  not  merely  calling  a  sin- 
 ner righteous  but  making  him  so. 
 Justification  is  external  to  tlie 
 Christian,  at  the  cross  of  Christ. 
 
 6  Regeneration  is  an  act  of  the 
 Holy  Spirit.  The  visible  evidences 
 of  this  are  a  conscious  change  of 
 heart,  feeling  and  life.  The  in- 
 ward or  experimental  is  empha- 
 sized. There  nuist  be  a  personal 
 experience  of  divine  forgiveness. 
 (Heidelberg  Catechism,  Ans.  1 
 and  21.) 
 
 The  Cliurrh. 
 
 1  The  Church  is  tiie  organ  for 
 the  transmission  of  this  thean- 
 thropic life  to  men  for  their  re- 
 demption. "Christianity  is  only 
 another  name  for  the  divine-hu- 
 man life  of  Christ." 
 
 2  It  views  the  Church  as  col- 
 lective  rather   than    as   individual. 
 
 3  The  visible  Church  is  emj)lia- 
 sized  as  the  medium  through  which 
 the  life  of  Christ  comes  and  the 
 invisible   Church   is   minimized. 
 
 1  The  Cluirch  is  made  uj)  of  all 
 in  all  ages  gathered,  defended  and 
 preserved  by  Christ  through  his 
 Spirit  out  of  tiio  whole  human 
 race  (Ans.  .')4)  and  who  agree  in 
 essentials  of  the  true  faith. 
 
 2  Ft  \  icws  the  Church  rather 
 from  the  individual  staii(i|M)iiit 
 ("made  up  of  all")  though  it 
 does  not  ignore  the  importance  of 
 tlie  visible  Clnirch. 
 
 3  The  invisible  Church  has  been 
 the  external  medium  through 
 which  salvation  has  historically 
 come  down  to  us.  But  the  Holy 
 Ghost  is  emphasized  as  the  me- 
 dium rather  than  any  thought  of 
 the  Church. 
 
iMroRTANT  Events. 
 
 55)1 
 
 ]\Iercersburg.  Old  Reformed. 
 
 The  Sacraments. 
 
 1  The  sacraments  are  potential 
 in  themselves, — grace  is  present 
 wlicre  not  excluded  by  unbelief. 
 The  sacraments  are  saving  ordi- 
 nances. 
 
 2  The  sacraments  convey  the 
 theanthropic  life  to  man  from  the 
 Ohurch.  They  not  merely  bear  the 
 benefits  of  redemption,  but  are 
 themselves  redemption,  for  by 
 them  the  very  substance  of 
 Christ's  life  passes  over  to  man. 
 The  sacraments  have  objective  force 
 which  the  subjective  does  not  put 
 into  it.  They  are  saving  ordi- 
 nances because  they  bear  regen- 
 eration and  grace. 
 
 3  The  objective  is   emphasized. 
 
 1  The  sacraments  are  potential 
 only  when  faith  is  present.  The 
 sacraments  arc  not  saving  but  seal- 
 ing ordinances.      (Answer  (i5.) 
 
 2  Tlie  sacraments  are  signs  and 
 seals  of  redemption  to  the  believer. 
 They  are  not  in  themselves  re- 
 demptive, but  they  bring  to  us 
 the  benefits  of  redemption.  Christ 
 was  the  redemption  and  they  are 
 the  channel  confirmatory  of  it 
 (Ans.  6.5).  They  are  not  sav- 
 ing ordinances  but  sealing  ordi- 
 nances. The  sacraments  and  the 
 Word  go  together,  alike  in  their 
 effects. 
 
 3  The  subjective  is  emphasized, 
 — faith  is  always  necessary  in  or- 
 der that  the  grace  in  the  sacra- 
 ment may  be  effective.  Without 
 faith  there  is  no  benefit. 
 
 Baptism. 
 
 1  Baptism  conveys  the  very 
 substance  of  the  theanthropic  life 
 of  Christ  to  us, — it  translates  us 
 from  the  kingdom  of  Satan  into  the 
 kingdom  of  God.  Tt  produced  de- 
 liverance from  the  power  of  the 
 devil,  forgiveness  of  sins  and  the 
 gift  of  the  new  life"  (Order  of 
 Worship). 
 
 2  It  implants  a  germ  of  new 
 life  within  us. 
 
 1  Baptism  is  the  sign  and  seal 
 of  regeneration,  of  the  covenant 
 in  which  the  child  is  born  of  Chris- 
 tian parents.  It  is  not  regenera- 
 tion, but  must  be  followed  by 
 conversion  at  the  proper  age,  to 
 which  it  looks  forward. 
 
 2  Tt  does  not  implant  a  germ, 
 for  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  under 
 the  law  of  the  organic  and  grace 
 does  not  grow  like  a  germ  in  na- 
 ture,— the  Holy  Spirit  is  free  to 
 act  as  he  wills.  But  he  is  spe- 
 cially present  to  those  in  the  cov- 
 enant, of  which  baptism  is  the 
 seal. 
 
592 
 
 PIiSTORY  OF  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 ]\Iercersburg. 
 
 3  Jt  makes  infants  Christians. 
 (.See  Gerhart's  Catecliism.)  Faith 
 is  not  necessary.  When  the  name 
 of  the  trinity  is  used  over  the 
 chihl,  there  is  grace.  The  objec- 
 tive rules. 
 
 Old  Reformed. 
 
 .'!  It  does  not  make  infants 
 Christians  but  is  only  the  seal  of 
 the  covenant  by  which  they  will 
 become  Christians  if  true  to  the 
 covenant.  Grace  is  present  in  pro- 
 portion as  there  is  faith,  but  bap- 
 tism  is  not   regenerative. 
 
 The  Lord's  Supper. 
 
 1  The  Lord 's  Supper  conveys 
 the  theanthropic  life  of  Christ  to 
 us  so  as  to  nourish  our  souls. 
 
 2  The  humanity  of  Christ  is 
 present  in  the  theanthropic  life, 
 but  spiritually. 
 
 3  The  memorial  aspect  is  mini- 
 mized and  the  idea  of  the  com- 
 munication of  life  is  most  promi- 
 nent. The  phrases  "broken  bread" 
 and  "poured  out  wine"  are  left 
 out. 
 
 4  It  is  also  especially  viewed  as 
 under  the  aspect  of  an  offering  up 
 of  a  sacrifice  to  God. 
 
 1  The  Lord  's  Supper  is  the  sign 
 and  seal  of  the  spiritual  nourish- 
 ment of  believers  by  the  Holy 
 Spirit. 
 
 2  The  humanity  of  Christ  is  not 
 jiresent,  as  it  is  in  heaven,  though 
 mediated  to  us  by  the  omnipres- 
 ent divinity  of  Christ  (the  Holy 
 Spirit,  "which  is  in  Christ  and  in 
 us,"  Ans.  76).  The  communicant 
 is  told  by  the  liturgies  to  lift  his 
 mind  from  the  elements  up  to 
 Christ  in  heaven. 
 
 3  The  most  prominent  aspect  of 
 the  Lord's  Supper  is  as  a  me- 
 morial of  Christ's  suffering  on  the 
 cross — his  broken  body  and  shed 
 blood  symbolized  by  the  bread  and 
 wine.  The  vivifying  aspect  is  also 
 brought  forward,  but  it  is  not  by 
 the  sacrament  but  by  the  Holy 
 Spirit  at  the  sa*rament. 
 
 4  It  is  a  renewal  of  our  vows 
 of  confirmation. 
 
 h 
 
 ;;.,.^..-./. 
 
 '1 
 
 The   Minisiry. 
 
 '^J   /AXv" 
 
 H 
 
 1  The  office  of  the  ministry 
 flows  directly  from  Christ  as  the 
 fruit  of  his  resurrection  and  as- 
 cension,— it  invests  him  with  the 
 power  of  the  office — for  "the  com- 
 munication of  such  great  force." 
 He  is  the  organ  through  whom 
 God  communicates  the  grace  of 
 regeneration   and    salvation. 
 
 1  The  ministry  is  of  divine  ori- 
 gin. (But  it  emphasizes  the  min- 
 istry as  an  office  and  not  the  power 
 of  the  office).  There  is  power  with 
 the  office  only  wherever  the  Holy 
 Giiost  and  faith  were  present  but 
 not  otherwise. 
 
Important  Events. 
 
 593 
 
 Mercersburg. 
 
 2  It  sets  the  ministers  apart 
 from  the  congregation  as  an  order 
 by   themselves— priests. 
 
 3  Emphasizes  the  priestly  office 
 of  the  ministry. 
 
 4  No  one  can  be  sure  his  sins 
 are  pardoned  unless  it  is  officially 
 declared  to  him  by  the  minister  as 
 the  representative  of  God. 
 
 Old  Reformed. 
 
 2  The  ministry  is  an  office  of 
 the  Church,  but  not  a  separate  or- 
 der from  the  congregation. 
 
 3  Emphasizes  the  prophetical  of- 
 fice of  the  ministry. 
 
 4  No  man  can  forgive  sin,  only 
 ('hrist,  and  no  man  is  allowed  as  a 
 priest  to  come  between  the  be- 
 liever and  his  Saviour. 
 
 The  Future  Life. 
 
 1  Mercersburg  held  to  a  Middle 
 State  (the  echo  of  Schaff's  early 
 aberration  at  synod  of  1846).  It 
 is  variously  described  and  we  are 
 uncertain  as  to  exactly  what  they 
 mean  by  it. 
 
 1  It  held  that  the  believer  at 
 death  goes  immediately  to  heaven 
 (Ans.  57).  And  those  who  die  un- 
 saved (if  heathen)  are  left  to  the 
 mercy  of  God  and  (if  in  Christian 
 lands)  to  his  justice. 
 
 B.  Worship. 
 
 Worship — The    Sabbath    Services. 
 
 1  demanded  a  fixed  or  read  litur- 
 gical form  of  worship. 
 
 2  The  worship  centered  in  the 
 Apostles'  Creed.  No  service  was 
 complete  witiiout   it. 
 
 3  ileiiian<led    an     altar    and    an 
 
 altar-liturgy. 
 
 4  used   frequent   responses. 
 
 5  Used  confession  and  absolu- 
 tion. 
 
 6  Used  the  litany. 
 
 7  Used  the  Sera{)hic  Hymn,  the 
 Benedictus,  Magnificat,  Gloria,  Te 
 Deum,  etc. 
 
 8  Repeated    audibly    the    Lord's 
 Praver. 
 
 1  used  a  free  service.  Only  at 
 sacraments,  marriages  and  ordina- 
 tions was  a  liturgical  form  used. 
 
 2  The  Apostles '  Creed  was  some- 
 times used,  but  the  Mayer  liturgy, 
 officially  adopted  by  the  synod, 
 did  not  have  it. 
 
 3  had  no  altar  but  had  instead 
 a  communion  table.  It  used  a 
 pulpit-liturgy. 
 
 4  had  no  responses. 
 
 .5  Used  no  confession  and  abso- 
 lution. 
 
 6  Did   not  use  the  litany. 
 
 7  Did  not  use  the  Seraphic 
 Hymn,  Benedictus.  Magnificat, 
 Gloria,  Te  Deum,  etc.,  although 
 since  the  controversy  some  of  them, 
 as  the  Gloria,  are  often  used. 
 
 8  Did  not  repeat  audibly  the 
 Lord's  Prayer,  although  now  it  is 
 commonly  done. 
 
594 
 
 History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Mercersburg. 
 
 Old  Reformed. 
 
 The  Special  or  Extra  Services. 
 
 1  At  the  Lord's  Supper  the 
 service  was  long  and  ornate,  with 
 litany,  etc. 
 
 2  Confirmation  was  semi-sacra- 
 mental. 
 
 The  vow  was  made  to  the  Creed. 
 They  were  charged  with  omitting 
 the  reference  to  the  Bible  as  in  the 
 old  form. 
 
 3  Ordination  is  made  a  semi- 
 sacrament. 
 
 1  At  the  Lord's  Supper  the 
 worship  was  simple,  Biblical  and 
 after  the  old  custom  of  the  Re- 
 formed. 
 
 2  Confirmation  was  not  a  sacra- 
 ment. 
 
 The  vow  was  made  to  the  Bible 
 and  the  Heidelberg  Catechism. 
 
 3  Ordination  is  not  sacramental 
 but  an  investiture  of  office  not  of 
 the  power  of  the  office  (as  Mer- 
 cersburg held)  unless  faith  present. 
 
 C.    Government. 
 
 1  Is  aristocratic  Presbyterian, — 
 power  in  the  upper  Church  courts. 
 
 2  The  character  and  direction  of 
 the  worsliip  is  in  the  hands  of  the 
 minister  because  of  his  priestly  of- 
 fice and  authority. 
 
 3  Classical  assessments  were 
 morally  binding  on  congregations 
 and  must  be  paid  before  money  is 
 given  to  other  ol)jocts  of  the 
 Church. 
 
 4  The  theological  seminary  was 
 umlcr  tlie  control  of  the  synod. 
 The  teachers  of  theology  were  a 
 se[)arate  office  from  the  ministry 
 jiiid  they  were  elected  by  the  synod. 
 
 1  Is  democratic  Presbyterian, — 
 power  in  the  lower  courts  except 
 what  was  delegated  to  upper. 
 
 2  The  minister  alone  could  ni)t 
 decide  the  character  of  the  worship 
 — but  any  changes  must  be  order- 
 ed by  the  consistory  and  congrega- 
 tion. 
 
 3  Classical  assessments  were  not 
 taxes;  the  congregation  was  at 
 liberty  to  give  where  it  pleased. 
 Assessments  should  be  met  when 
 constitutionally  and  Scripturally 
 ordered. 
 
 4  The  theological  seminary  lias 
 the  General  Synod  as  the  ultiiii;ite 
 court  of  appeal  in  cases  of  consti- 
 tutional controversy.  The  profes- 
 sor of  tlieolog}'  is  not  a  separate 
 oflico  from  the  ministry.  Ordi- 
 narily the  professors  of  theology 
 should  be  elected  by  the  synod,  yet 
 the  authority  for  each  minister  to 
 teach  theology  had  never  been  re- 
 pealed. 
 
Important  Events.  595 
 
 Section  3.    Worship. 
 
 The  worship  of  the  Church  has  been  so  fully  considered  in 
 tlie  liturgical  discussions  that  nothing  remains  to  be  stated 
 except  one  minor  peculiarity  of  worship,  which  did  not  come 
 up  prominently  in  the  discussions.  This  was  the  publication 
 of  the  hymn-books. 
 
 In  1859  Dr.  Schaft'  published  his  excellent  German  hymn- 
 book,  which  is  still  in  use.  Of  English  hymn-books  the  Mcr- 
 cersburg  party  published  in  1874  "Hymns  for  the  Reformed 
 Church,"  (arranged  entirely  according  to  the  Church  year). 
 This  led  the  Old  Reformed  to  publish  their  hymn-book,  "The 
 Reformed  Church  Hymnal,"  in  1878.  Both  were  superseded 
 by  "The  Hymnal  of  the  Reformed  Church,"  published  in 
 1890  b}'  a  connnittee  of  the  General  Synod  and  ap[)roved  by  it. 
 
 Of  Sunday  school  hymn-books,  Harbaugh  published  a  high- 
 church  one  in  1861,  "Hymns  and  Chants  for  Sunday 
 Schools."  Bomberger,  in  reply  to  it,  published  his  "Prayers 
 and  Hymns  for  Sunday  Schools,"  1867.  Later  Van  Home 
 published  "Companion  of  Praise,"  1873.  The  German  synods 
 published  a  "German  Sunday  School  Hymn-book."  1876. 
 Strassberger  published  "Sunday  School  Hymnal,"  1878. 
 Alice  Nevin  published  "Hymns  and  Carols,"  1879.  Lichliter 
 published  "Service  Book  and  Hymnal,"  1886.  The  last  two 
 were  high-church.  Finally  came  the  last  and  best,  "The  Sun- 
 day School  Hymnal,"  published  1899,  by  the  Simday  School 
 Board. 
 
 Section  4.     Church  Government.* 
 
 The  first  constitution  of  our  Church  was  that  adopted  a1  the 
 coetus  of  1748  and  was  Boehm's  constitution  for  a  single  con- 
 gregation (1725)  with  additions.  When  the  coetus  became  a 
 -synod  (1793)  it  adopted  a  set  of  regulations  (not  a  constitu- 
 tion), which  legislated  only  for  the  synod.  It  had  no  refer- 
 ence to  the  classis  or  the  congregation  and  was  simply  a  set 
 of  rules  by  which  the  synod  was  to  govern  itself.    At  the  next 
 
 *We  have  forgotten  in  the  first  part  of  this  book,  on  the  Early 
 Church,  to  give  the  early  history  of  our  Church  government,  so  we  place 
 it  here  in  connection  witli  the  litter  history  of  that  topic. 
 
596        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  tite  IJ.  S. 
 
 synod  (1794)  several  additions  sooni  to  linvo  been  made  in 
 order  to  prevent  disorder  and  sehisni  as  excludinj^  any  unor- 
 dained  minister  forever  from  the  synod  who  had  i)revi<)us  to 
 ordination  administered  the  sacraments,*  also  forbidding  any 
 individnal  member  from  ordaininjsr  another  nnless  ordered  to 
 do  so  by  proper  anthorities.  Another  artich-  was  proposed 
 at  that  time,  reqniring  all  who  enter  the  ministry  to  have  a 
 requisite  knowledge  of  the  languages,  theology  and  moral 
 philosophy ;  but  evidently  there  was  opposition  to  it,  for  it 
 was  postponed  till  the  next  synod  and  there  dropped.  This 
 constitution  was  published  and  has  the  following  peculiari- 
 ties : 
 
 1.  It  does  not  give  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  as  the  confes- 
 sion of  the  Church.  This  may  be  explained  by  the  fact  that 
 this  was  not  a  constitution  but  simply  a  set  of  rules,  and  it 
 was,  of  course,  taken  for  granted  that  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
 chism was  the  Creed  of  the  Church  especially  as  so  adopted  at 
 the  coetus  of  1748. 
 
 2.  It  ordered  a  separate  session  of  the  ministers  without  the 
 elders,  where  the  individual  characters  of  the  ministers  were 
 inquired  into  and  where  investigation  was  made  if  charges 
 were  brought  against  any  of  them. 
 
 3.  Yet  although  it  was  not  intended  as  a  constitution  for 
 classes,  it  allowed  room  for  their  organization,  a  provision 
 which  was  not  however  carried  into  effect  until  1S20. 
 
 This  set  of  rules  continued  in  foi'ce  until  1819.  Then  Ihe 
 decision  of  the  synod  to  divide  the  Church  into  classes  com- 
 pelled new  regulations.  These  were  dividinl  into:  1.  The 
 classes;  2.  the  synod.  In  1820,  when  the  synod  decided  1o  es- 
 tablish a  theological  seminary,  the  constitution  was  again 
 found  to  l)e  inadequate.  In  1821  an  overture  came  from 
 West  Pennsylvania  classis  asking  for  a  const  it  ut  ion  better 
 adapted  to  the  wants  of  the  Chui-ch.  Synod  apj)()inted  a  com- 
 mittee. But  it  reported  that  instead  of  framing  a  new  con- 
 stitution it  would  be  better  to  abide  by  the  old  with  such  altera- 
 tions as  would  adapt   them   to   the  existing  state   of  things. 
 
 *Yet  this  (lid  not  hold  forever,  for  Aurandt,  as  wc  have  seen,  was 
 ordained   although   he   had   baptized   before   ordination. 
 
Important  Events.  597 
 
 Synod  was  not  satisfied  and  appointed  another  committee. 
 This  committee  reported  to  the  synod  of  1825  a  constitution. 
 Their  report  was  referred  to  a  special  committee  with  instruc- 
 tions lliat  if  they  ai)prove  of  the  proposed  constitution  they 
 sliouhl  have  it  printed  and  distributed  among  the  ministers 
 for  their  revision.  This  committee  did  not  report  until  the 
 synod  of  1827,  when  tliey  asiced  that  it  l)e  i-ecommittetl  so  that 
 some  amendments  might  be  added.  In  1828  this  constituti(m 
 was  adopted  by  synod. 
 
 In  1838  the  classis  of  Philadelphia  overtured  synod  for  a 
 revision  of  the  constitution  and  synod  appointed  a  committee 
 consisting  of  J.  C.  Becker,  Iloffeditz  and  B.  C.  Wolff.  In 
 1839  this  committee  reported,  giving  a  history  of  the  previous 
 efforts  to  prepare  a  constitutitm.*  They  suggest  instead  of  a 
 constitution  the  preparation  of  a  digest.  In  1840  the  com- 
 mittee reported  and  synod  enlarged  the  committee.  In  1841 
 it  reported  that  it  had  gathered  considerable  material.  In 
 1842  it  again  reported  progress.  In  1843,  as  the  committee 
 was  not  ready  with  a  constitution,  the  synod  took  it  out  of 
 their  hands  and  appointed  another  committee,  consisting  of 
 B.  C.  Wolff,  A.  Ileltt'enstein  and  S.  R.  Fisher.  In  1844,  the 
 committee  reported  and  was  continued,  with  orders  to  publish 
 in  the  Messenger  any  additions  for  the  information  of  the 
 Church.  In.  1845  they  reported  a  constitution,  which  was 
 adopted  by  the  synod  and  sent  down  to  the  classes.  In  1846, 
 synod,  finding  that  it  had  been  adopted  by  the  classes,  de- 
 clared it  adopted.  It  was  also  reported  at  that  synod  that 
 the  Ohio  sjaiod  had  adopted  the  constitution. 
 
 This  was  a  complete  constitution,  with  regulations  for 
 everything  connected  with  the  Church.  It  declared  the  Hei- 
 delberg Catechism  to  be  our  official  Creed.  It  was  divided 
 nito  the  following  parts: 
 
 *But  according  to  article  21  of  section  2  of  part  2,  as  Iloffeditz  says 
 in  his  report  to  the  synod  of  18H9,  it  was  not  the  intention  of  the  synod 
 that  this  eoustitution  should  exclude  the  old  constitution  of  1793.  Aceord- 
 iug  to  his  view  the  regulations  of  1819  and  1828  were  rather  amend- 
 ments to  the  original  constitution  which  had  never  been  repealed.  We 
 do  not  know  whether  his  j)osition  is  correct  or  not. 
 
598        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 1.  The  offices  of  the  Church,  ministers,  teachers  of  theology, 
 elders  and  deacons. 
 
 2.  The  ecclesiastical  judicatories,  consistory,  classes  and 
 synod.  (It  is  to  be  noticed  tluil  tlicir  order  betfins  with  the 
 lower  cliurch  court  and  goes  up  ;iiul  not  from  the  highest  court 
 down,  as  chiiined  by  the  Alercerslnirg  theology.) 
 
 3.  Discipline. 
 
 4.  Customs  and  usages. 
 
 "When  the  General  S.ynod  was  formed  certain  amendments 
 were  made  to  it  to  provide  for  such  a  body.  It  was  under  this 
 constitution  of  18-16  that  the  decisions  of  the  liturgical  con- 
 troversy were  made.  The  later  historj^  of  the  constitution  is 
 given  in  a  previous  section,  entitled  the  Peace  Movement.* 
 
 Section  5.     Recent  Theological  Developments. 
 
 The  first  development  would  not  deserve  mention  were  it 
 
 not  for  the  prominence  of  the  individual — ^the  leader  of  the 
 
 Mercersburg  theology,  Rev.  J.  W.  Nevin,  D.D.,  who  died  at 
 
 Lancaster  in  June,  1886,  aged  84.     Gradually  he  more  and 
 
 morti  neared  Swedenborgianism.     He  was  naturally  mystical. 
 
 He   had   been    mystical   on    the   sacraments.      This   love   for 
 
 mysticism  he  now  transferred  to  the  Bible  as  he  accepted 
 
 ►Swedenborgian  views.     He  heldf  to  an  internal  and  external 
 
 sense  of  the  Bible.     "This  is  so  because  the  mind  of  God  is 
 
 really  and  truly  in  the  l)ible  as  a  present  inspiration  and  not 
 
 merely  as  a  past  iuspiraticm.     In  1882,  he  havs:  "Tlie  living 
 
 AVord  of  God  is  at  once  both  this  Word  and  its  own  vision  in 
 
 our  souls  from  the  Lord  himself."    For  saying  this,  Dr.  Bom- 
 
 berger  charged  him  in  the  Hfformed  CJivrcJi   Monthly  with 
 
 Swedenborgianism.     One  of  the  most  interesting  analyses  of 
 
 Dr.  Nevin  and  his  theological  views  was  written  by  his  pupil 
 
 and  follower,  Rev.  Prof.  William  M.  Reily  in  his  review  of  the 
 
 Life  of  Dr.   Nevin,   by   Rev.   T.   Appel.     He  traces   with   a 
 
 masterful  hand  the  German,  then  the  Anglican  and  finally 
 
 the    Swedenborgian,    infiuences    on    Dr.    Nevin.      He    says.J 
 
 "Much  that  must  be  called   Swedenborgianism  shows  itself 
 
 *See  pages  585-6. 
 
 ■f Reformed  Church  Review,  1879. 
 
 jSee  Magazine  of  Chrintian  Literature,  September,  1890. 
 
Important  Events.  599 
 
 in  liis  later  writings.  He  found  in  the  writings  of  Sweden- 
 borg  a  system  of  thought  and  religious  belief  far  more  com- 
 prehensive, more  fully  rounded  out  and  complete  than  that  of 
 Rothe"  (by  whom  he  had  been  influenced  before. — A.) 
 
 The  truth  was  that  Dr.  Nevin,  having  once  departed  from 
 the  firm  foundations  of  the  Old  Reformed  faith  when  he  went 
 into  Mercersburg  theology,  lost  his  moorings  and  was  swept 
 from  one  system  to  another.  He  was  a  profound  thinker  but 
 vacillating  in  judgment,  inclined  to  be  speculative,  and  easily 
 impressed  by  new  systems  of  thought.  He  was,  like  his  own 
 method  in  the  Mercersburg  theology,  a  ''historical  develop- 
 ment," first  from  Calvinism  to  Nevinism  and  finally  to  Swe- 
 denborgianism.  But  one  thing  he  climg  to  in  it  all,  and  that 
 was  the  supernatural,  both  in  the  Bible  and  in  the  sacra- 
 ments. He  would  look  with  surprise,  yes,  with  horror,  on 
 some  of  his  pupils  and  his  successors,  who  in  their  broad- 
 churchism  and  rationalizing  minimize  the  supernatural  in 
 Christ  and  the  Bible.  He  was  a  speculative  mystic  at  first,  but 
 later  his  mysticism  overcame  his  speculativeness  and  he  rested 
 in  simple  faith  in  God's  Word.  We  shall  hereafter  quote 
 some  of  his  words  defending  the  supernatural  against  some 
 of  his  successors  of  to-day. 
 
 Another  development  in  theology  was  the  appearance  of  a 
 broad-church  party,  holding  to  what  is  called  the  new  the- 
 ology. In  1884,  Rev.  W.  Rupp  sounded  the  first  distinct  note 
 in  an  article  in  the  Reformed  Church  Review,  entitled  "Free- 
 dom of  Theological  Thought,"  in  which  he  claimed  that  tlicre 
 should  be  liberty  to  reconstruct  old  dogmatic  systems.  This 
 was  demanded  by  the  spirit  of  Protestantism,  which  he  claimed 
 was  a  spirit  of  progress.  Two  years  later  the  editor  of  the 
 Revieiv,  Prof.  T.  G.  Apple,  D.D.,*  felt  called  upon  to  sound 
 a  note  of  alarm  as,  in  publishing  Rupp's  article  on  "Proba- 
 tion after  death,"  he  added  to  it  a  note,  saying  that  it  was  to 
 
 *Prof.  T.  G.  Apple  was  the  clearest  of  all  the  theologiaus  of  the  Mer- 
 cersburg School  in  his  statements  of  their  views,  and  in  the  peace  and 
 liturgical  coniniis.sions  he  was  the  fairest  and  broadest-minded  of  the 
 Mercersburg  leaders.  lie  represented  the  later  Mercersburg  rather  thau 
 the  earlier  Mercersburg  of  Nevin,  fJans,  etc. 
 
600         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 be  remembered  that  the  Review  was  not  responsible  for  the 
 views  of  its  individual  writers.  This  note  reveals  a  divergence 
 of  views  between  them.  It  is  all  the  more  remarkable  that 
 Dr.  Apple  should  do  so  in  connection  with  an  article  on  "Pro- 
 bation after  Death,"  for  it  was  generally  understood  that 
 ]^Iercersburg  held  to  the  ]\Iiddle  State,  Dr.  Schaff  having  in- 
 troduced that  view,  for  which  he  was  brought  before  the 
 synod  of  1846. 
 
 Dr.  Rupp's  influence  became  more  prominent  as  he  be- 
 came professor  in  the  theological  seminary  at  Lancaster.  His 
 election  was  looked  upon  by  some  as  a  comiter-influenee  to 
 the  high-church  tendencies  in  that  seminary.  Ilis  inaugural 
 address  on  ' '  The  Church  Question ' '  indicated  his  more  liberal 
 position.  His  appointment  as  editor  of  the  Eefonned  Review 
 increased  his  influence.  In  it  he  continued  his  articles  on  the 
 new  theology.  He  was  also  joined  by  other  writers.  In  1890, 
 Rev.  J.  C.  Bowman,  now  the  president  of  the  theological 
 seminary  at  Lancaster,  came  out  in  his  adherence  to  the  new 
 theology  in  an  article  on  "The  Wane  of  the  Doctrinal  Con- 
 fessions." Others  wrote  in  favor  of  it,  as  Weber.  Prof.  G. 
 W.  Richards,  in  his  review  of  Lobstein's  "Virgin's  Birth." 
 also  revealed  his  sympathy  with  these  views.  No  one  who 
 holds  to  the  old  orthodox  view  could  have  written  as  colorless 
 a  review  of  the  book  as  he  did.  A  true  Evangelical  could  not 
 help  severely  condenming  Lobstein's  denial  of  the  Virgin- 
 birth.  Still  such  views  were  in  harmony  with  the  newly-rising 
 Ritsehlian  School  of  theologj'  in  Germany.  In  1891,  Bowman 
 claimed  that  tliese  liberal  views  were  Ji'apidly  increasing 
 among  the  ministry  and  laity.  The  new  lines  of  divergence, 
 as  revealed  in  their  writings,  were  mainly  along  the  following 
 lines, — 
 
 1.  The  ]iroad  Church  position,  which  in  Church  hi.story  al- 
 ways has  tended  to  be  confess  ion  less  (that  is  without  a  creed) 
 and  so  demanded  a  lowered  authority  of  the  creeds  of  the 
 Church.     Bowman   (1891),*  claims  that  denominations  have 
 
 *These  references  are  to  the  years  of  the  Reformed  I'liiircli  Review. 
 
Important  Events.  GOl 
 
 outgrown  confessions.  Weber  (1895)  says  tlie  old  doctrinal 
 standards  must  give  way  to  new  and  fuller  forms  of  state- 
 ment as  the  expanding  life  of  truth  demands  fuller  expres- 
 s-ion. 
 
 "1.  The  Evolutionary  position  that  evolution  applied  not  only 
 to  natural  science  but  to  all  truth, — was  the  solution  of  all 
 problems.  Rupp  (1888)  endorsed  evolution.  In  1891,  Bow- 
 man claimed  that  evolution  found  its  true  interpretation  in  the 
 Christologieal  principle. 
 
 3.  The  Critical  position,  which  declared  itself  for  the  higher 
 criticism  of  the  Bible.  Rupp,  in  1888,  had  an  article  on  it,  in 
 which  he  virtually  denies  Christ 's  omniscience  and  declared  for 
 its  views  aboulf  Jonah.  In  1897,  Prof.  Gast,  of  the  Theological 
 seminary  at  Lancaster,  stated  and  taught  its  principles,  in 
 which  he  is  followed  by  his  successor.  Prof.  De  Long.  Rev.  C. 
 Z.  Gerhard,  D.D.,  applied  its  principles  dogmatically  to  the 
 resurrection  in  his  book.  "Death  and  Resurrection."  Of 
 course,  with  these  views  of  higher  criticism  came  lower  views 
 of  inspiration.* 
 
 But  while  this  new  school  of  theology  was  appearing,  there 
 were  not  wanting  among  the  Mercersburg  party  those  who 
 attacked  these  newer  views.  Professor  Rupp's  article  on 
 "Probation  after  Death"  was  severely  arraigned  by  Strass- 
 burger  (1887),  who  charged  him  with  being  a  Pelagian  and 
 with  holding  to  universalist  ideas.  Evolution  also  was  at- 
 tacked by  Beam,  Brendle,  Cort  and  Titzel.  the  latter  being 
 especially  severe  on  Gerhard's  book  "Death  and  Resurrec- 
 tion." Leader  defended  the  old  view  of  Inspiration  (Higher 
 Criticism,  1899),  as  did  A.  H.  Kremer  in  1879.  And  finally, 
 Prof.  E.  V.  Gerhart  came  out  in  a  severe  attack  on  the  philo- 
 sophical principles  of  the  newer  view  of  science  as  revealed 
 bv  l*rof.  Schiedt  in  his  article  on  "Limitations  of  the  Scien- 
 
 *We  have  not  referred  to  iittac-ks  on  the  ohl  Anselniic  doctrine  of  the 
 atonement  as  stated  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  by  T.  (!.  Apple,  Ger- 
 hart, Gerhard  and  repeatedly  by  Rup],).  Nor  have  we  referred  to  the 
 <loctrine  of  the  Middle  State,  for  both  have  been  virtually  accepted  by 
 the  Mercersburg  theology. 
 
602         History  op  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 tific  Method."  The  new  theology-  had  by  1900  the  majority  of 
 the  professors  in  the  theological  seminary  at  Lancaster.* 
 
 Thus  the  Mercersburg  men  split  into  two  parties,  the  old 
 jMereersbiirg  and  the  newer  Ritschlianizing.  Mercersburg  the- 
 ology had  had  its  origin  in  the  ]\Iediating  theology  of  Ger- 
 many, founded  by  Schleiermacher.  Schaff  brought  it  over  here 
 and  it  was  accepted  at  that  time  as  good  Reformed  doctrine 
 by  many  of  our  imsuspicious  fathers  in  the  Church.  But  it 
 was  not  Reformed,  for  Schleiermacher  aimed  to  mediate  be- 
 tween pantheism  and  orthodoxy  and  between  Lutheran  ism 
 and  Reformed.  In  so  doing  he  had  to  make  concessions  which 
 led  him  away  from  the  Old  Reformed  doctrines.  But  the  j\Ier- 
 eersburg  theology  was  an  outgrowth  of  the  rigljt  wing  of  tlie 
 Mediating  theology,  that  is,  the  party  that  inclined  toward 
 orthodoxy. t  But  the  new  theology  of  our  day  is  descended 
 from  the  Mediating  theology  of  the  left  wing,  that  is,  inclined 
 toward  rationalism  with  elements  of  Ritschlianism  in  it. 
 "Whether  in  its  aberrations  from  old  Reformed  orthodoxy  it 
 will  continue  to  follow  German  theology  any  farther  as  into 
 the  new  historico-critical  school,  which  is  at  present  the  baldest 
 naturalism  and  rationalism,  remains  to  be  seen.  It  is  a  serious 
 thing  when  any  tendency  in  a  Church  or  any  individual  min- 
 ister cuts  loose  from  the  old  position  of  the  Church.  They 
 never  know  whore  they  will  ultimately  end.  Only  by  stick- 
 ing to  the  Old  Reformed  doctrines  or  coming  back  to  them 
 will  these  speculative  minds  again  find  a  firm  foundation  in 
 God's  Word. 
 
 The  relations  of  this  new  theology  to  the  Mercersburg  the- 
 ology, which  preceded  it,  ought  to  be  noted  before  we  leave 
 this  subject.  Historically  it  was  a  development  out  of  Mer- 
 cersburg theology.  Its  adherents  were  trained  in  that  school 
 and  they  were  but  carrying  out  the  principles  of  its  method. 
 Mercersburg  theology  was  founded  on  the  idea  of  historical 
 development.  Now,  however,  it  developed  beyond  itself  and  be- 
 
 *We  have  not  referred  to  the  two  other  theological  seminaries,  the 
 Central,  at  Dayton,  O.,  and  the  Mission-house  in  "Wisconsin,  which  have 
 remained  true  in  their  type  of  theology  to  the  positions  of  the  Old  Re- 
 formed theology. 
 
 ■j-Whose  leaders  were  Ulhnan,  Lange  and  Doriior. 
 
Important  Events.  603 
 
 yond  the  ideas  of  its  founders.    Thus  the  new  theology  was  a 
 development  out  of  Mercersburg  theology, 
 
 1.  In  its  emphasis  on  evolution,  it  was  but  developing  the 
 idea  of  the  organic  in  M^retn-sburg  theology.  Indeed,  (me  of 
 its  writers  claimed  that  Ranch  had  antedated  Darwin  in  his 
 doctrine  of  evolution. 
 
 2.  In  its  views  on  the  higher  criticism  and  inspiration,  Mer- 
 cersburg theology  had  claimed  a  departure  from  the  tradi. 
 tional  views  of  the  Church  on  inspiration.  Prof.  T.  G.  Apple 
 had  repeatedly  declared  that  "the  Bible  contained  the  Word 
 of  God"  instead  of  was  the  Word  of  God.  He  declared  that 
 "the  Bible  was  life  rather  than  letter."  This  view  proved  to 
 be  the  dictum  of  the  new  theology  although  it  went  far  beyond 
 what  Dr.  Apple  intended. 
 
 3.  Dr.  Nevin  and  others  made  the  atonement  a  life  rather 
 than  an  act.  This  prepared  the  way  for  the  modern  ethical 
 view  of  the  atonement  which  sets  aside  the  substitutionary 
 character  of  Christ's  death. 
 
 Thus  Mercersburg  theology  has  developed  beyond  itself  and 
 in  this  was  consistent,  for  it  held  to  historical  development ; 
 only  in  this  the  new  theology  has  gone  beyond  it.  In  course  of 
 time  (if  the  present  drift  of  theological  thought  away  from  it 
 continues)  it  will  be  known  only  by  its  publications  in  the 
 Review  and  Messenger,  by  "The  Theological  Institutes"  of 
 Prof.  E.  V.  Gerhart  and  by  Harbaugh's  famous  hymn,  "Jesus. 
 I  live  to  Thee."*  Dr.  Nevin,  when  he  so  severely  attacked 
 the  old  traditional  theology  of  our  Church,  set  in  motion 
 a  movement  of  whose  theological  results  he  never  dreamt 
 and  whose  end  no  one  can  foretell. 
 
 And  yet,  while  this  new  theology  is  an  outgrowth  and  de- 
 velopment of  certain  views  in  Mercersburg  theology,  it  is  also  " 
 a  reaction  against  much  of  it.    Thus  it  is  a  a  reaction  against 
 the  narrovniess  of  Mercersburg  theology  in  its  views  of  the 
 Church  and  the  sacraments.    Riipp's  pamphlet,  "The  Church 
 
 *Whose  original  reference  by  Ilarbaugh  was  to  the  special  doctrine  of 
 Mercersburg— the  theanthropic  life  of  Christ.  But  those  of  us  who  hold 
 the  old  theology  can  also  sing  tliis  beautiful  hvmn,  putting  into  it  our 
 views  of  the  life  of  Christ  in  us  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
 
004        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Question,"  shows  its  departure  fi-oin  their  okler  views.  The 
 truth  was  that  many  of  the  adherents  of  the  IMercersburg  the- 
 o\ogy  reacted,  liaving  been  hekl  so  strictly  to  the  narrow  tenets 
 of  its  school  for  so  long  a  time ;  and  when  the  reaction  finally 
 came  for  larger  liberty  and  sympathy,  some  of  them  jumped 
 the  traces  clear  over  to  the  other  extreme.  At  the  same 
 time  the  increasing  intiuence  of  higher  criticism  and  Ritsch- 
 lian  theology  came  in  to  help  on  this  tendency.  As  a  result 
 on  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  the  sacraments  and  the  super- 
 natural, they  have  left  behind  them  the  views  of  old  Mer- 
 cersburg.  Compare,  as  an  illustration,  their  recent  utter- 
 ances on  inspiration  and  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures* 
 with  what  Dr.  Nevin  wrote  in  1882  and  the  vast  difference  is 
 seen.  Nevin  thus  says,  "The  Spirit  of  the  Word  is  none  other 
 than  Christ  himself.  He  is  the  universal  sense  of  the  Creed, 
 its  inward  life  and  soul."  This  is  very  different  from  the 
 later  views  of  his  successors,  who  hold  according  to  the  higher 
 criticism  that  the  Bible  is  literature  and  must  be  treated  like 
 any  other  book.  Nevin  himselff  is  strongly  against  the  higher 
 criticism  and  its  imfortunate  results  on  the  Bible.  We  are 
 doubtful  whether  Drs.  Nevin  and  Schaff,  with  their  high  value 
 of  the  supernatural  in  the  Bible  and  the  Church,  would  feel 
 at  home  in  the  camp  of  the  new  theology.  We  are  inclined 
 to  think  they  would  feel  more  at  home  in  the  camp  of  their 
 former  enemies,  the  Old  Reformed  y)arty.  who  have  always 
 held  to  the  Old  Reformed  views  of  the  Bible  and  the  sui)er- 
 natui'al.ij:  This  can  be  the  more  easily  done,  as  the  contro- 
 versy about  the  liturgy  is  now  well  out  of  the  way. 
 
 In  1906  a  controversy  in  the  opposite  direction  began  to 
 appear  among  the  Germans  in  the  West, — a  tendency  nol 
 toward  rationalism,  as  the  new  theology  noted  above,  but 
 a  tendency  to  a  form  of  extreme  (Uilviiiism,  called  in  Germany 
 Kohlbi'iiggianism.  Rev.  Herman  P.  Kohlbriigge  was  born  in 
 Holland  in  1803.    After  entering  the  ministry  of  the  T;utheran 
 
 *h'ffonH(d  Bevieiv,  1890,  page  14.3. 
 ■\Iieformed  Church  Ecvieiv,  1883,  pages  23-5  and  29-30. 
 *Tlie  author  has  frequently  in  recent  discussions  lined  up  with  his  old 
 oppuuentB  the  high-churchnieu  in  the  defense  of  the  supernatural. 
 
Important  Events.  605 
 
 Church  he  was  converted  and  then  joined  the  Reformed 
 Church,  hecoming  later  pastor  of  the  Free  Reformed  Clmrch 
 at  Elberfeld,  1848.  His  works  began  to  appear  in  tliis  country 
 about  thirty  years  ago,  being  recommended  by  th(>  Evangelist, 
 our  Western  Church-paper.  They  found  more  favor  among 
 the  German  Presbyterians  than  among  tlie  Reformed.  But 
 among  the  Reformed  some  of  the  Russian  innnigrants  in  Da- 
 kota had  become  disciples  of  Kohlljriigge  before  they  came  to 
 this  country.  His  Presbyterian  and  the  Reformed  adherents 
 founded  a  church-paper  (Wlichfcr)  in  1894  at  Dubuque, 
 Iowa,  as  their  organ. 
 
 In  October.  1905,  and  January.  190(>,  -Rev.  H.  A.  ]\leier, 
 D.D.,  professor  in  our  ]\Iission-House  at  Franklin.  Wis.,  at- 
 tacked Kohlbriiggianism  in  the  Thfolofjical  Zfifschrlff^  the 
 organ  of  that  institution.  The  Waclitcr  replied  vigorously  to 
 him.  beginning  December  ].  1905.  charging  him  with  being 
 a  liigher  critic  on  the  Bible,  Arminian,  yes  Pelagian  and  Mani- 
 clueau  on  Anthropology,  and  Eutychian  on  Christology.  The 
 South  Dakota  classis  in  1906,  at  the  request  of  the  Eureka 
 congregation,  entered  complaint  before  the  synod  of  the 
 Northwest  against  Professor  Meier  for  holding  and  teaching 
 such  views.  This  synod  referred  the  complaint  to  the  board 
 of  directors  of  the  ilission-House.  They  reported  to  the 
 Xorthwestern  synod  (1907)  that  the  complaint  was  irregular 
 because  Professor  I\Ieier  had  not  been  notified  of  it  officially 
 l)y  either  the  Eureka  congregation  or  the  South  Dakota  classis. 
 They  denied  that  he  taught  the  errors  charged  against  him 
 and  asked  the  synod  to  support  the  Mission-House. 
 
 Kohlbriiggianism  has  been  described  as  "personification  of 
 the  Word  of  God  and  identification  with  Christ."  To  this 
 might  be  added  an  emphasis  on  justification  as  almost  to  mini- 
 mize sanctification.  The  peculiar  doctrines  of  the  Kohlbriig- 
 gians  as  revealed  in  this  controversy  seem  to  be : 
 
 1.  On  the  Word  of  God— that  the  Word  of  God  liad  iidier- 
 ently  in  it  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  while  the  Reformed 
 held  that  the  written  Word  was  a  medium  in  the  hands  of  the 
 Holy  Spirit.  In  this  Kohlbriigge  reveals  the  infiuenee  of  his 
 previous    Lutheranism.    which    magnified    the    power    of    the 
 
606        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Word  especially  in  connection  with  the  sacrament.  They 
 claimed  that  the  words  of  the  Bible  were  inspired  whereas 
 they  said  that  Dr.  ^Meier  held  that  onl^-  the  thoughts  were 
 inspired.* 
 
 2.  On  original  sin. — According  to  Kohlbriigge.  man  was  not 
 created  entirely  in  the  image  of  God,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  must 
 be  added  to  his  natural  gift  in  order  to  make  him  such.  The  Old 
 Reformed  theology  held  that  man  was  created  in  the  imago 
 of  God.  This  view  the  Kohlbriiggians  called  heathenism  and 
 said  it  has  come  from  the  Catholic  Church.  They  claimed  that 
 the  fall  caused  man  to  lose  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
 man  therefore  was  imperfect  as  at  present. 
 
 3.  On  the  incarnation  they  held  that  Christ  took  upon  him- 
 self not  our  humanity  as  it  was  before  the  fall,  (this  was  the 
 view  of  the  Reformed,)  but  our  humanity  as  fallen.  They 
 deny,  however,  that  there  was  any  moral  taint  in  Jesus.  Pie 
 was  sin — not  sinful. 
 
 4.  On  justification, — they  identify  sanctification  with  this 
 doctrine.  They  so  magnify  justification  in  Christ  that  sancti- 
 fication in  the  believer  is  lost  sight  of.  Hence  they  are 
 charged  by  their  enemies  with  antinomianisiii. — with  holding 
 to  only  the  two  first  parts  of  our  Catechism  but  virtually  re- 
 jecting the  third. 
 
 Section  6.    Revivals. 
 
 This  period  of  our  history  (1844-1878)  has  been  charactor- 
 ized  by  an  absence  of  revivals  in  the  eastern  part  of  our 
 Church  and  by  their  continuance  in  the  AVest  (except  among 
 the  Gormans),  and  in  North  Carolina.  Ohio  synod  in  1840 
 took  action  on  New  Measures: 
 
 1.  That  pravor-meetiiifjs  arc  not  to  be  stigmatized  as  new.  but  as  in 
 accordance  with  the  "Word  of  Ood  and  the  standards  of  the  German 
 Reformed  Chnrch. 
 
 2.  It  exhorted  ministers  and  congroj^ations  that  liavc  imt  oiicouragod 
 prayer-meetings  to  introduce  them.  But  it  discountenanced  a\\  disorder, 
 noise   and  confusion    in    puldic   worship   such   as  more   than   one   praying 
 
 *We  do  not  know  wlictiicr  tlic  hitter  would  accept  tliis  statement  cf 
 his  views. 
 
Important  Events.  607 
 
 at  one  time,  shouting  during  public  preaching,  etc.,  all  rant  and  wild- 
 fire as  not  in  accordance  with  the  Bible  and  the  Church.  It  desired 
 ministers  to  avoid  formalism  on  the  one  hand  and  fanaticism  on  the 
 other. 
 
 In  the  East,  notwithstanding  the  influence  of  the  publica- 
 tion of  Dr.  Nevin's  "Anxious  Bench"  in  1843,  revivals  were 
 occasionally  mentioned.  Lebanon  classis  (1843)  urged  j^as- 
 tors  to  introduce  prayer-meetings  and  in  1844  it  called  the 
 roll  of  its  ministers  to  find  out  if  the  monthly  concert  of 
 prayer  had  been  held.  It  also  rejoiced  (1844)  that  the  cry 
 against  protracted  meeetings  and  prayer-meetings,  though 
 still  heard,  yet  no  longer  produced  the  impression  it  had. 
 Hut  the  trend  against  revivals  due  to  the  influence  of  Mer- 
 cersburg  theology  became  so  strong  in  the  East  that  gradu- 
 ally they  were  almost  unknown.  Even  Dr.  Bomberger  wrote 
 down  the  revival  system  in  his  "Liturgical  Movement"  in 
 1862.  Long's  tent  at  Lancaster,  where  he  held  evangelistic 
 services,  produced  some  controversy  in  the  Messenger.  He 
 was  attacked  by  the  Mercersburg  men,  but  was  defended 
 strongly  by  some  of  the  Reformed  in  Lancaster.  In  1866 
 a  revival  is  reported  at  Klopp's  Church  and  one  in  Bedford 
 County.  In  1872,  West  Susquehanna  classis  took  action 
 against  the  new-measure  system.  Rupp  wrote  articles  on 
 "Conversion"  in  the  Mercershurg  Review  of  1873,  in  which 
 he  made  it  all  a  process  and  not  a  sudden  transition.  It  was 
 all  educational,  not  revival.  A  revival  is  noted  at  Heidel- 
 berg Church  in  Philadelphia  in  1873. 
 
 Quite  a  crisis  on  the  subject  arose  when  the  Moody  and 
 Sankey  meetings  began  to  create  widespread  interest  in  1876. 
 The  boast  of  the  Nevinites  had  been  as  late  as  1877  that  there 
 were  no  revivals  in  the  East.  The  Mercersburg  men  opposed 
 the  movement  of  ]\Io()dy  wherever  they  could,  if  not  openly 
 they  did  it  quietly.  It  did  not  accord  with  their  theory  of 
 educational  religion.  Thus  Higbee  says  "the  fact  that  the 
 city  of  Washington  wants  Moody  and  Sankey  is  a  humiliating 
 confession  of  weakness  on  the  part  of  the  Church  there." 
 The  Messenger  did  not  openly  condemn  Moody  and  Sankey. 
 but   it  published   articles   from   other   papers   against  them. 
 
608        History  of  Keformed  Church  in  the  IT.  S. 
 
 In  1875  and  1877,  it  however  came  out  against  Moody.  Others, 
 as  Callender,  wrote  against  revivals  as  being  unscriptni-al 
 and  pernicious,  the  result  of  false  emotionalism. 
 
 In  addition  to  their  doctrinal  opposition  to  revivals,  what 
 was  especially  offensive  to  them  was  the  fact  that  Moody 
 preached  without  ordination,  which  was  entirely  contrary  to 
 their  high-church  ideas  of  the  ministerial  office.  Another 
 point  of  attack  was  the  new  idea  of  singing  religion,  as  re- 
 vealed by  Sankey  iu  his  Gospel  Ilyiuns  and  in  his  singing  of 
 sacred  solos  so  as  to  lead  to  conversion.  It  was  claimed  that 
 the  Bible  nowhere  said  the  Gospel  could  be  sung  as  an  appeal, 
 but  that  it  was  always  to  be  spoken.  On  the  other  hand, 
 the  Christian  World  wishes  for  10,000  ]\Ioodys,  although  Rev. 
 F.  W.  Kremer.  in  the  East,  opposed  revivals  in  his  articles 
 on  "Unsound  Revivals"  in  1876.  but  was  answered  by  S.  A 
 new  defender  of  Moody  and  Sankey  appeared  in  the  Christian 
 World  in  1876,  writing  a  series  of  articles,  entitled  "M.y  good 
 Lord.  Moses,  forbid  them."  He  applied  this  scene  in  Moses' 
 life  to  Moody's  work.  The  articles  were  an  exceedingly 
 strong  defense  of  INIoody's  work  and  created  a  sensation.  It 
 was  not  knovMi  who  was  writing  them  until  some  years  later 
 it  was  found  that  their  author  was  Rev.  Dr.  Welker, 
 of  North  Carolina.  By  1877,  almost  no  revivals  were  held 
 in  the  East,  except  by  a  few  ministers,  as  Knipe,  Klopp, 
 Shcnkle,  Lindaman  and  J.  I.  Good.  The  rest  were  opposed, 
 indifferent  or  afraid  to  do  what  was  then  derided  as  Metliod- 
 ism.  Gradually,  however,  a  more  liberal  spirit  began  to 
 appear  in  the  East.  Although  the  educational  system  of 
 catechization  has  b(M'n  cmi)hasized,  yet  i)i'otracted  services 
 have  become  common  enough  in  our  clnirches,  especially  be- 
 fore communion  seasons.  Prayer-m<'etings,  too.  are  no  longer 
 stigmatized  as  un-Heformed  and  Methodistic.  as  they  once 
 were  by  the  extreme  men  of  the  Mercersburg  wing,  allliougli 
 as  late  as  1886  the  author  of  this  work  had  a  controversy  with 
 the  high-churchm(Mi  in  defense  of  revivals  wIkmi  he  gave  them 
 the  history  of  Pietism  in  the  Reformed  Church  of  Germany.* 
 
 *Sce  his  History  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Gennany,  jtagos  307-411. 
 
Important  Events.  609 
 
 His   historical    arguments    for    pietism    and    revivals   in    our 
 Church  have  never  been  answered  by  the  high-churchmen. 
 
 An  interesting  fact  to  be  noted  in  connection  with  revivals  is 
 that  our  Church  was  a  factor  in  leading  to  a  revival  far  away. 
 Rev.  C.  Bonekemper,  a  graduate  of  the  Theological  seminary  at 
 Mercersburg,  went  back  (1855)  to  Russia  to  take  charge  of  his 
 father's  Reformed  congregation  at  Rorschach,  near  Odessa. 
 He  remained  there  teji  years.  During  that  time  there  was  a 
 revival  in  his  congregation.  During  this  revival  several  Rus- 
 sian peasants  attended  the  services  and  were  converted.  Out 
 of  their  efforts  sprang  the  Stundist  movement  of  Russia, 
 which  lias  brought  so  many  to  Christ  and  which  grew  in 
 twenty-five  years  to  several  hmidred  thousand,  though  later 
 greatly  persecuted  and  scattered  by  the  Russian  government. 
 
CHAPTER  II. 
 
 Union  and  Disunion. 
 
 A.  Union. 
 
 Section  1.    Union  Between  the  Eastern  and  Ohio  Synods. 
 
 We  have  already  noticed  that  the  Ohio  synod  was  repre- 
 sented at  the  two  Triennial  Conventions  with  the  Dutch  in 
 1844  and  1847.  Although  the  Dutch  retired  from  that  ar- 
 rangement, yet  the  Ohio  and  Eastern  s>Tiods  kept  it  up.  The 
 third  Triennial  Convention  met  at  Chambersburg  August  14, 
 1850.  There  were  present  from  the  Eastern  synod  Revs. 
 Wolff,  Rebaugh,  A.  Nevin.  J.  W.  Nevin,  Mesick  and  Fisher 
 and  Elders  Bucher,  Be.sore  and  Heyser;  from  Ohio  synod, 
 Revs.  Conrad  and'  Ernst.  Dr.  Conrad  was  chosen  president 
 and  Fisher,  secretary.  A  committee  was  appointed  to  formu- 
 late a  statement  of  principles,  l)y  which  the  union  could  be 
 continued  after  the  Dutch  had  gone  out.  It  ordered  a  trien- 
 nial meeting,  six  delegates  (one-third  being  elders)  of  the  two 
 synods  to  compose  a  (|uorum.  It  was  to  liave  no  judicial 
 authority,  but  must  submit  its  proceedings  to  the  two  synods. 
 Reports  were  heard  of  the  state  of  the  Church,  east  and 
 west.  It  commended  the  new  Theological  seminary  at  Tiffin 
 and  also  the  Theological  seminaiy  at  ]\Iercersburg  and  urged 
 the  cause  of  beneficiary  education. 
 
 The  fourth  Triennial  convention  Avas  held  at  Columbus,  0. 
 There  were  present  from  Ohio,  Rev.  D.  Winters,  of  Miami 
 classis;  Rev.  Williard  and  Elder  Blaine,  of  Lancaster  classis; 
 Rev.  Hoffmeier  and  Elder  Zimmerman,  of  Westmoreland 
 classis;  Rev.  Dr.  Gerhart,  of  Tiffin  classis,  and  Rev.  Stump, 
 of  Sandusky  classis.  From  the  Eastern  synod  there  were: 
 Revs.  Schory,  of  East  Pennsylvania  classis;  M.  Kieffer,  of 
 Lebanon  classis;  Feete  and  Elder  Roller  of  Virginia  classis, 
 and  Rev.  Mesick,  of  Lancaster  classis.  At  first  there  was  a  de- 
 ficiency of  elders,  but  Rev.  Salters,  of  St.  Joseph's  classis,  and 
 
 610 
 
Union  and  Disunion.  611 
 
 Elder  Kroh,  of  Tiffin,  appeared  and  an  organization  was 
 effected  by  the  election  of  Gerhart  as  president  and  Williard 
 as  secretary.  A  committee  was  appointed  to  report  on  the 
 condition  of  each  of  the  synods ;  also  a  committee  on  missions. 
 Rev.  E.  Kieffer  and  Elder  Pontius  of  Susquehanna  classis; 
 Revs.  Gutelius  and  Wiest,  of  Zion's  classis;  Rebough  of  Mer- 
 eersburg  classis,  and  Elder  Leonard  of  Lancaster,  0.,  then 
 appeared.  A  committee  was  appointed  on  church  extension. 
 Their  reports  urged  progress  on  missions,  church  extension, 
 correspondence  with  Germany,  etc. 
 
 The  last  Triennial  Convention  met  at  AVinchester,  Va.,  Oc- 
 tober 3,  1856.  There  was  no  quorum  present.  There  were 
 present :  from  Zion  's  classis,  Rev.  Miller ;  from  Susquehanna, 
 Rev.  Dole ;  from  IMaryland,  Rev.  Shuford ;  from  Virginia,  Rev. 
 Martin  and  Elder  Souder;  from  iMercersburg,  Dr.  Schaff; 
 from  Miami,  Rev.  Prugh  and  Elder  Baughman ;  from  West- 
 moreland, Rev.  Russell,  and  from  Sandusky  classis,  Excell. 
 As  there  was  no  quorum  (there  were  not  enough  delegated 
 elders  present,  one-third  being  necessary),  they  resolved  them- 
 selves into  a  free  conference,  with  Martin  as  president  and 
 Russell  as  secretary.  Committees  were  appointed  on  the  con- 
 dition of  the  Church,  on  missions,  education  and  miscellaneous 
 business.  It  suggested  a  triennial  general  synod,  the  change 
 of  the  name  of  the  synod  of  the  U.  S.  to  Eastern  synod  and  of 
 Ohio  synod  to  Western  synod,  and  the  appointment  of  a  finan- 
 cial agent  to  create  a  fund  for  disabled  ministers.  Revs.  Ger- 
 hart and  Kieffer  were  appointed  a  committee  to  go  to  North 
 Carolina  classis  and  get  them  back  into  our  synod.  It  ap- 
 pointed Pittsburg,  October,  1859,  as  the  time  and  place  of  the 
 next  meeting. 
 
 But  in  1858,  the  Triennial  Convention  was  dispensed  with 
 by  the  Eastern  synod.  That  synod  sent  down  to  the  classes, 
 amendments  to  the  constitution  so  as  to  form  a  General  Synod. 
 At  the  sjTiod  of  1859  it  was  reported  that  it  was  not  adopted 
 by  a  constituticmal  majority  of  the  classes.  But  as  there  was 
 a  general  desire  for  some  measure  to  be  adopted,  it  was  re- 
 ferred to  a  commttee,  who  submitted  to  the  synod  of  1860, 
 certain  amendments  to  the  constitution,  which  were  sent  down 
 
612         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 to  the  classes.  At  the  Eastern  synod  of  1862,  it  Avas  reported 
 that  eleven  classes  approved  of  them.  A  committee  was  ap- 
 pointed to  confer  with  a  similar  committee  of  the  Ohio  synod 
 about  arrangements  for  the  holding  of  the  first  meeting.  It 
 reported  to  synod  of  1863  that  it  was  arranged  that  the  Gen- 
 eral Synod  meet  at  Pittsburg  on  the  third  Wednesday  in  No- 
 vember, 1863.  Thus  the  Ohio  and  Eastern  synods  were  united 
 in  a  General  Synod.* 
 
 Section  2.    Union  with  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church. 
 
 The  correspondence  with  the  Dutch  Church  ceased  from 
 1853  to  1863,  when  it  was  renewed  in  that  Tercentenary  year. 
 Finally,  in  1870,  the  Ohio  and  Northwestern  synods,  as  we 
 have  seen,  made  overtures  for  a  closer  union  which  finally  led 
 the  General  Synod  of  1872  to  appoint  a  committee  of  three 
 from  each  of  the  five  synods  to  confer  with  a  similar  com- 
 mittee of  the  Dutch  Church  on  union.  These  conunittees  met 
 at  the  Race  Street  Church,  Philadelphia,  on  November  17, 
 1874.  The  following  delegates  were  present  from  the  Eastern 
 s.ynod :  Drs.  Gerhart,  Bomberger  and  Elder  Fluck ;  from  the 
 Ohio  synod,  Revs.  Reiter,  Mease  and  Williard ;  from  the 
 Northwestern  synod,  Revs.  Ruetenik  and  Kessler;  from  the 
 Pittsburg  synod,  Revs.  Russell,  Svvander  and  Levan ;  from  the 
 Potomac  synod.  Revs.  IMiller,  Eschbach  and  Elder  I.  Loucks. 
 From  the  Dutch  Reformed,  Rev.  Drs.  Ganse,  Van  Zandt,  Cor- 
 win,  Gordon,  Taylor,  Peltz,  Van  Clcef  and  Elders  Pryn  and 
 Sturgis.  The  chairmen  of  the  two  committees,  Gerhart  and 
 Ganso,  presided  conjointly.  The  morning  and  afternoon  were 
 spent  in  discussing  the  points  of  agreement  and  of  difference. 
 All  could  unite  on  the  Heidelberg  Catechism,  although  there 
 were  differences  in  customs. 
 
 At  the  close  of  the  afternoon  session,  a  committee  consisting 
 of  Drs.  Gerhart,  Miller  and  Bom])erger,  with  Drs.  Ganse, 
 Van  Zandt  and  Taylor,  was  appointed  to  draft  a  paper  ex- 
 pressive of  the  sentiments  on  organic  union.  It  brought  in  a 
 report  which  declared  that  there  were  likenesses  sufficient  to 
 warrant  the  hope  of  an  ultimate  union, — that  some  differences 
 as  confirmation,  and  the  use  of  festival  days  were  being  mini- 
 
 *See  pages  418-420. 
 
Union  and  Disunion,  613 
 
 mized  but  there  were  differences  less  easily  adjustible,  as  in 
 the  doctrinal  standards;  and  that  the  differences  in  doctrinal 
 views  between  many  parts  of  the  two  churches  would  make 
 an  organic  union  unacceptable.  It  declared,  however,  that 
 this  conference  had  been  a  real  advance  toward  union  in  its 
 brotherly  acquaintance;  but  union  must  be  left  for  the  work- 
 ings of  providence  in  the  future. 
 
 The  Messenger  acciuiesced  in  the  decision,  referring  espe- 
 cially to  the  barrier  of  the  confessions  but  was  hurt  by  the 
 remarks  made  by  church-papers  of  other  denominations  in 
 attributing  the  failure  of  imion  to  Mercersburg  theology. 
 Some  one  said  the  Dutch  were  not  willing  on  account  of  IMer- 
 cersburg;  another,  that  Mercersburg  was  not  willing  on  ac- 
 count of  the  Dutch.  Dr.  Fisher  says  the  writers  of  such  state- 
 ments, were  wise  above  what  was  written.  The  Christian 
 World  says  the  Union  movement  failed,  not  only  because  of  the 
 confessions  but  also  because  of  Mercersburg  theology  and  that 
 the  only  persons  who  did  not  regret  the  failure  were  the  Mer- 
 cersburg men,  who  would  have  been  largely  in  the  minority 
 if  it  had  happened. 
 
 Another  effort  toward  union  was  begun  by  our  General 
 Synod  in  1887.  Five  classes  overtured  the  General  Synod 
 (Philadelphia,  Northern  Illinois,  Iowa,  Eastern  Ohio  and  Mer- 
 cersburg) in  behalf  of  closer  union  with  other  Reformed 
 Churches  of  the  presbyterial  government.  It  appointed  the 
 following  committee  to  meet  a  similar  committee  of  the  Dutch 
 Church.  Revs.  Drs.  T.  G.  Apple,  J.  I.  Good,  G.  W.  Williard, 
 n.  J.  Ruetenik  and  J.  S.  Kieffer.  The  Dutch  Church  also 
 took  action  favorable  to  imion.  Two  of  its  classes  (Philadel- 
 phia and  Monmouth)  overtured  its  General  Synod,  which  ap- 
 pointed a  connnittee  of  four  ministers  and  three  elders.  The 
 former  were  Revs.  Drs.  W.  J.  R.  Taylor  (chairman),  De  Baim, 
 Elmendorf  and  Scott.  The  joint  committee  arranged  for  a 
 conference  at  Philadelphia,  April  3,  1888.*  In  1890,  the 
 two  committees  reported  to  both  General  Synods  that  it  fa- 
 
 *See  published  proceedings  of  this  Conference. 
 
614        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 vored  a  Federal  synod. f  Both  sjoiods  appointed  a  commission 
 of  sixteen  members.  These  two  commissions  met  at  Catskill, 
 September  2,  1890,  and  June  2,  1891,  and  a  plan  of  federal 
 union  was  drawTi  up.  Our  General  Synod  held  a  special  meet- 
 ing at  Philadelphia,  June  4,  1891,  which  adopted  the  plan  and 
 sent  it  down  to  the  classes,  who  adopted  it  by  a  vote  of  53-2. 
 The  Dutch  General  Synod  also  adopted  it  and  sent  it  doAvn 
 to  the  classes.  But  their  General  Synod  of  1893  foimd  that  the 
 majority  of  the  classes  disapproved  of  the  imion. 
 
 Thus  the  third  attempt  at  union  between  the  churches,  orig- 
 inally- under  the  same  mother  Church,  the  Reformed  Church 
 of  the  Netherlands,  and  so  alike  in  name,  doctrine  and  gov- 
 ernment, failed.  Correspondence,  however,  has  been  con- 
 tinued between  them  with  the  greatest  cordiality.  We  might 
 add  a  historic  fact  that  caused  the  Dutch  Church  finally  to 
 hedge  in  1891.  After  the  plan  for  imion  had  been  provided 
 and  approved,  Rev.  Prof.  E.  V.  Gerhart's  ''Institutes  of  The- 
 ology" appeared.  These  were  at  once  seized  upon  by  the  ex- 
 treme Calvinists  of  the  Dutch  Church — the  Hollanders  of 
 Michigan  and  the  "West,  who  charged  Dr.  Gerhart  with  not 
 being  a  Calvinist  but  an  Arminian.  They  threatened  seces- 
 sion if  the  union  were  consummated,  and  the  Dutch  General 
 Synod,  to  prevent  that,  finally  voted  against  union.  Thus 
 IMercersburg  theology  was  again  the  reason  assign^^d  for  keep- 
 ing apart  the  two  churches  as  in  1847.  But  for  IMereersburg 
 theology  we  believe  the  two  churches,  Dutch  and  German, 
 would  be  one  to-day. 
 
 Section  3.     Correspondence  and  Union  with  the 
 Presbyterians. 
 
 At  the  beginning  of  this  period  (1844)  both  of  the  General 
 Assemblies  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  were  interchanging 
 delegates  with  both  the  Eastern  and  Ohio  synods.  This  con- 
 tinued until  1854,  when  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Old- 
 School  Assembly  broke  off  relations  with  the  Eastern  sjmod 
 because  of  the   Romanizing  tendencies  of  IMereersburg  the- 
 
 fThe  original  plan  for  this  was  drawn  up  by  Dr.  De  Baun  and  modi- 
 fied by  the  committee. 
 
Union  and  Disunion.  615 
 
 ology.  When  the  Reformed  Church  of  Germantown  went 
 over  to  the  New-School  Presbytery,  it  was  expected  there 
 might  be  a  dissolution  of  relations  witli  them.  But  although 
 there  was  a  strong  party  in  that  General  Assembly  that 
 favored  dissolution  for  the  same  reason  as  in  the  Old-School, 
 yet  it  continued  interchanging  delegates  with  the  Eastern 
 synod.  The  Ohio  synod  continued  in  fraternal  relations  with 
 the  Presbyterians  without  any  such  break.  In  1863,  at  the 
 union  of  the  Eastern  and  Ohio  synods  to  form  our  General 
 Synod,  exchange  of  delegates  was  continued  with  the  New- 
 School  General  Assembly.  The  reunion  of  the  two  Presbyterian 
 Churches,  Old-  and  New-School,  was  effected  in  1869,  and  cor- 
 respondence with  the  General  Assembly  of  the  United  Church 
 began  in  1881  and  has  been  unbroken  since  that  year.  In 
 addition,  we  might  add  that  our  Ohio  synod  in  1847  received 
 an  overture  from  the  Presbyterian  General  Assembly  for 
 closer  union  and  it  appointed  a  committee  to  meet  with  the 
 Presbyterians,  but  nothing  came  out  of  it. 
 
 In  recent  years  the  conviction  has  been  growing  that  all  the 
 churches  of  the  Reformed  and  Presbyterian  family  should 
 come  into  closer  relations  and  more  complete  co-operation  in 
 all  their  work.  Several  conferences  between  committees  ap- 
 pointed for  this  purpose  had  been  held,  beginning  with  1902. 
 At  a  conference  held  in  Pittsburg,  Pa.,  in  1905,  three  mem- 
 bers of  the  Reformed  Church  in  the  United  States  were  pres- 
 ent, upon  invitation,  as  advisory  members.  In  IMarch,  1906, 
 a  further  conference  of  these  committees  was  had  at  Charlotte, 
 N.  C,  in  which  a  committee  of  the  General  Synod  of  the 
 Reformed  Church,  appointed  in  1905,  took  part. 
 
 The  committees  of  the  Reformed  Church  and  of  the  Presby- 
 terian Church  in  the  United  States,  met  jointly  after  the 
 conference  at  Charlotte,  N.  C,  March,  1906,  and  while  the 
 committee  of  the  Reformed  Church  had  no  authority  to  enter 
 upon  negotiations  with  the  Presbyterian  Committee,  it  was 
 thought  to  be  expedient  to  adopt  a  joint  resolution,  asking  the 
 highest  courts  of  both  bodies  to  appoint  a  committee  to  con- 
 sider the  subject  of  closer  relations,  whether  federal  or  or- 
 ganic, between  the  Churches.     Our  General  Synod  at  its  next 
 
616         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 meeting  in  1908  approved  of  this  overture  from  its  committee 
 and  appointed  a  committee  to  meet  with  the  Presbyterians 
 on  the  subject  of  organic  union.  The  committee  appointed 
 was  Rev.  Drs.  J.  S.  Kieffer,  J.  I.  Good,  G.  AV.  Richards  and 
 A.  E.  Dahlman  and  Elder  Albert  Ankeny.  The  committees 
 of  the  two  Churches  are  now  in  conference. 
 
 Section  4.     Correspondence  with  the  Lutheran  Church. 
 
 Correspondence  was  regularly  kept  up  by  the  Eastern  synod 
 with  the  General  Synod  of  the  Lutheran  Church  and  also  with 
 the  Pennsylvania  synod,  and  when  the  Lutheran  Ministerium, 
 or  General  Council,  was  formed  about  1860,  it  kept  up  cor- 
 respondence with  that  body.  After  the  Galesburg  rule  had 
 been  adopted  by  the  General  Council  (1872  and  1875) — that 
 Lutheran  pulpits  were  for  Lutheran  ministers  and  Lutheran 
 altars  for  Lutheran  comnumieants,  there  was  considerable 
 discussion  about  discontinuing  correspondence  with  them  at 
 the  Eastern  Synod  of  1876.  It  was,  however,  continued  until 
 1880,  when  that  branch  of  the  Lutheran  Church  by  its  owti 
 action  discontinued  it.  When  the  General  Synod  of  our 
 Church  was  formed  in  1863  it  did  not  open  correspondence 
 with  the  General  Council  and  Ministerium  of  the  Lutheran 
 Church.  But  it  continued  regular  correspondence  with  the 
 General  Synod  of  the  Lutheran  Church  by  delegates. 
 
 The  first  General  Synod  (1863)  decided  to  have  correspond- 
 ence also  with  the  Moravian  Church  and  with  the  Synod  of 
 the  Evangelical  (United)  Church  (the  German  body  in  our 
 coimtry  corresponding  with  the  United  Church  of  Germany, 
 which  is  composed  of  both  Lutherans  and  Reformed.)  With 
 the  former  Church  there  has  been  occasional  correspondence 
 by  delegates;  with  the  latter  Church,  quite  regularly. 
 
 Section  5.     Alliance  of  the  Reformed  and  Presbyterian 
 
 Churches. 
 
 In  1875  an  overture  was  sent  to  our  General  Synod  asking 
 our  Church  to  join  this  Alliance.  It  declared  our  satisfaction 
 with  such  movements  but  as  it  supposed  that  only  thosfe 
 Churches  as  held  to  the  Westminster  Confessions  could  enter 
 
Union  and  Disunion.  617 
 
 the  Alliance,  it  did  not  feel  like  appointing  delegates  to  it. 
 Bnt  it  declared  it  would  be  glad  to  join  with  a  broader 
 movement  looking  toward  a  nnion  of  all  branches  of  the  Re- 
 formed Church.  At  the  General  Synod  of  1878,  Dr.  Schaff 
 was  present  and  explained  more  fully  the  object  of  this  move- 
 ment, correcting  the  error  that  only  Churches  holding  the 
 Westminster  standards  could  belong  to  it.  So  our  General 
 Synod  decided  to  enter  it  and  appointed  delegates  to  its 
 next  meeting  at  Philadelphia  in  1880.  Since  then  to  the 
 various  councils  of  that  Alliance,  at  Belfast,  1884,  London 
 1888,  Toronto  1893,  Glasgow  1896,  Washington  1899,  Liver- 
 pool 1904,  New  York  1909,  our  General  Synod  has  regularly 
 sent  delegates  and  some  of  its  members  have  taken  part  in 
 the  program  of  those  councils.  It  has  also  been  continually  rep- 
 resented in  the  Western  section  of  that  Alliance. 
 
 Section  6.    Correspondence  with  Foreign  Bodies. 
 
 The  Eastern  synod  of  1845  appointed  a  committee  of  cor- 
 respondence with  Germany,  so  as  to  import  ministerial  stu- 
 dents from  German}^  for  our  churches.  They  corresponded 
 with  the  Mission-Houses  at  Langenberg,  Germany,  and  Basle, 
 Switzerland,  and  several  yoimg  men  came  over  into  our  min- 
 istry. By  the  synod  of  1853,  Prof.  Schaff  was  given  a  com- 
 mission to  bear  fraternal  greetings  to  the  sister  Churches  of 
 Germany  and  Switzerland.  lie  did  so  to  the  German  Diet 
 at  Frankfort  in  1854  and  to  the  Pastoral  Aid  Society  of 
 Ba.sle.  Prof.  Schaff  was  criticised  by  some  of  the  Germans 
 in  the  Ohio  synod  for  his  actions  at  that  diet, — that  he  fra- 
 ternized with  the  ministers  of  the  United  or  Evangelical 
 Church  rather  than  with  the  Reformed  ministers  of  Germany. 
 He  replied  tliat  he  had  attended  the  conference  of  tlie  Re- 
 formed ministers  held  at  Frankford  at  that  time,  ])ut  had 
 taken  no  part  in  their  business  as  they  were  concerned  with 
 matters  of  a  local  nature,  as  the  inroads  of  the  Lutherans 
 into  the  Reformed  Cluirch  of  Hesse.  They  also  criticised  him 
 for  getting  an  endowment  for  an  Evangelical  seminary  in 
 Missouri  and  not  for  the  Reformed  Church.  He  replied  that 
 he   was   not    responsible    for   that    endowment-action    of   the 
 
618        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 diet,  but  that  he  had  had  a  society  organized  at  Basle  to  aid 
 a  professorship  at  IIeidell)erg  college.  The  Eastern  synod  de- 
 cided to  open  correspondence  with  the  German  Church-diet 
 and  it  had  representatives  at  the  diet  at  Lubeck  in  1856  and  at 
 Hamburg  in  1859. 
 
 The  Ohio  sjTiod  of  1855  also  appointed  a  committee  on  cor- 
 respondence. It  reported  to  its  next  meeting  that  it  had  not 
 been  able  to  do  anything  and  it  somewhat  criticised  the  East- 
 ern synod  for  going  ahead  in  its  ctorrespondence  with  Germany 
 alone.  It  declared  that  if  the  Eastern  synod  wished  to  satisfy 
 the  feelings  of  the  Reformed  in  America,  it  must  keep  clear  of 
 all  uniouistic  efforts  in  America.  This  reveals  the  difference 
 between  the  Eastern  and  the  Ohio  synod,  the  former  led  by 
 Dr.  Schaff,  inclined  to  fraternize  with  the  United  Church  of 
 German}',  the  latter,  with  the  Reformed  of  Germany. 
 
 The  German  Church-diet  suggested  to  the  Eastern  synod  of 
 1857  the  formation  of  a  German  Church-diet  in  America,  but 
 the  synod  replied  that  it  was  not  able  to  carry  out  this  idea. 
 The  .Eastern  synod  also  decided  to  open  correspondence  with 
 the  Reformed  conference  at  Elberfeld  and  the  Pastoral  Confer- 
 ence of  Switzerland.  It,  in  1858,  accepted  the  offer  of  a  tutor- 
 ship from  Germany;  by  which  Dr.  Bethman  von  Hollweg 
 supported  a  student  of  our  Church  while  studying  in  Ger-. 
 many.  To  the  synod  of  1860  was  reported  the  tutorship  fund 
 of  $6,500.,  of  which  the  basis  was  the  $2,000.  given  by  that 
 gentleman.  The  Swiss  Evangelical  diet  had  quite  a  discus- 
 sion when  correspondence  with  us  was  broached,— as  to 
 whether  they  as  a  voluntary  body  had  the  right  to  correspond 
 with  a  Church  and  the  matter  was  referred  to  the  Basle  con- 
 sistory. The  synod  of  1865  appointed  a  committee  to  cor- 
 respond with  the  Reformed  ministers  of  the  Wupperthal,  the 
 Basle  Mission-House,  St.  Chrischona  and  the  Pastoral  Confer- 
 ence of  Switzerland  so  as  to  obtain  young  men  for  our  min- 
 istry. The  Ohio  synod  appointed  Dr.  Ruetenik  to  convey  its 
 greetings  to  the  Reformed  bodies  abroad.  He  reported  to  the 
 next  synod  the  organization  in  different  places,  as  Elberfeld, 
 Lippe,  Bremen,  Emden  and  otiier  places,  of  societies  tf  aid 
 pious  young  men  for  the  ministry  in  our  country.    The  East- 
 
Union  and  Disunion.  619 
 
 ern  synod  in  1867  received  a  commnnieation  from  the  German 
 Church-diet  and  api)ointed  a  committee  to  send  a  fraternal 
 letter  to  that  l)od.v.  The  Eastern  synod  of  1869  appointed  a 
 connnittee  to  open  correspondence  with  tlie  Swiss  and  with 
 Lippe-Detmold.  The  Northwestern  synod  in  1868  appointed 
 a  committee  to  correspond  with  Germany  for  more  ministers. 
 Dr.  Rnetenik  was  ordered  to  correspond  with  societies  at  El- 
 berfeld,  Detmold  and  Bremen.  The  synod  of  1874  ordered 
 correspondence  with  Germany  about  a  school  at  Miihlheim. 
 
 AVhen  the  General  Synod  was  organized,  it  appointed  a  com- 
 mittee to  open  regular  correspondence  with  the  Reformed  Pas- 
 toral Conference  of  Switzerland  and  the  Reformed  Conference 
 of  Germany.  The  next  General  Synod  (1866)  appointed  an- 
 other committee  to  correspond  with  them.  This  was  again 
 done  in  1869  and  1872,  but  there  was  no  report  from  the  com- 
 mittee. In  1875  it  discontinued  the  committee.  In  1887  the 
 correspondence  was  renewed  and  fraternal  greetings  sent  to 
 the  Reformed  Alliance  of  Germany  and  also  a  delegate.  The 
 General  Synod  of  1890  appointed  a  committee  to  correspond 
 with  the  Reformed  Alliance  of  Gerrnany  and  the  Swiss  P^van- 
 gelical  Union.  Since  then  our  Church  has  had  delegates  at 
 the  meetings  of  those  bodies  and  this  committee  has  regularly 
 reported  to  the  General  Synod.  In  1902  the  connnittee  re- 
 ported correspondence  also  with  the  classis  of  Amsterdam  in 
 Holland  and  with  the  Reformed  Church  of  Geneva,  in  1905 
 also  with  the  Reformed  Church  of  Hungary.  At  times  small 
 grants  of  money  were  made  by  the  General  Synod  as  to  the 
 Swiss  Evangelical  Union,  which  was  used  at  Bellinzona  and 
 to  the  Reformed  Cliurch  of  Pressburg,  Hungary. 
 
 Section  7.     The  Evangelical  Alliance. 
 
 When  this  organization  was  first  formed  (1846)  it  was  de- 
 rided by  Dr.  Nevin,  who  declared  its  idea  of  imion  to  be  a 
 false  one  because  not  organic.  He  prophesied  that  therefore 
 it  would  be  ineffective.  Later,  in  1869,  Dr.  E.  V.  Gerhart 
 began  a  series  of  articles  against  the  Week  of  Prayer  (the 
 first  week  of  the  new  j^ear),  which  had  been  approved  by 
 
620        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 the  Evangelical  Alliance.  He  said  that  this  Week  of  Prayer 
 was  merely  the  invention  of  man,  because  it  does  not  recog- 
 nize the  supernatural — the  church-year.  It  is  arbitrary  and 
 incongruous  because  it  occurs  just  at  the  season  of  Christmas. 
 Circumcision  and  Epiphany, — "what  a  mockery,"  he  says, 
 "to  call  on  God's  people  to  fast  as  such  a  joyous  season," — 
 it  was  an  effort  to  supplant  Passion  Week.  He  then  criticised 
 the  topics  of  the  Week  of  Prayer— that  the  name  of  Christ  oc- 
 curred only  once  in  their  program — that  it  had  no  recognition 
 of  the  facts  of  Christ's  life — Pelagius,  Socinus  and  Channing 
 could  have  voted  for  its  Christless  topics.  He  then  attacked 
 the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  their  program  because  it  in- 
 timated that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  absent  and  must  be  prayed 
 for,  whereas  he  held  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  always  present 
 —believers  do  not  pray  for  the  Holy  Spirit  but  in  him.  (In 
 this  Dr.  Gerhart  approaches  the  heresy  of  the  Plymouth 
 Brethren. — A.)  He  said  that  the  treatment  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
 in  the  program  of  the  Week  of  Prayer  is  a  denial  of  Pente- 
 cost. He  was  replied  to  in  the  Reformed  Church  Monthly 
 that  the  Order  of  Worship  in  its  Christmas  service  had  con- 
 fession and  humiliation  even  at  that  joyous  season  and  that 
 the  Order  of  Worship  had  in  it  prayer  for  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
 come. 
 
 Dr.  T.  G.  Apple,  in  1870,  also  attacks  the  Evangelical  Al- 
 liance because  it  is  a  miion  merely  of  individuals  in  the 
 churches  (independent  Christianity)  and  not  of  synods  (or- 
 ganic Christianity),  and  because  it  had  adopted  the  doctrine 
 of  the  right  of  private  judgment,  leaving  out  tradition.  How- 
 ever, after  Dr.  Schaff  became  connected  with  the  Evnngelical 
 Alliance  as  one  of  its  officers  (even  though  he  at  first  had 
 agreed  with  Nevin  against  it),  the  opposition  of  the  Mercers- 
 burg  men  weakened  somewhat.  They  were  still  further  pla- 
 cated when  Dr.  Nevin  was  asked  to  take  part  in  the  Evan- 
 gelical Alliance  meeting  at  New  York  in  1873,  where  he  read 
 a  paper  on  "Christianity  and  Humanity."  He  hiter  defended 
 that  meeting  against  Episcopalian  attacks,  although  there  was 
 some  criticism  of  it  in  the  Messenger  by  other  INIercersburg 
 men. 
 
Union  and  Disunion.  621 
 
 B.  Disunion. 
 
 Section  8.     The  Independent  Synod  of  Ohio. 
 
 The  Ohio  synod,  having  broken  off  from  the  old  or  Eastern 
 synod  was  destined  to  have  a  part  break  off  from  it.  If  the 
 Eastern  synod  had  its  free  synod,  the  Ohio  sj^nod  had  its 
 Independent  synod,  only  later  (1846-52).  The  cause  of  it 
 was  the  difference  between  the  conservatives  and  the  pro- 
 gressives. On  June  3,  1846,  Columbiana  classis,  by  a  ma- 
 jority vote,  declared  itself  independent.  Sonnendecker, 
 Hamm,  Herbruck,  Ruhl,  Zwisler  and  Weber  voting  for  inde- 
 pendence. Keller,  A.  Stump,  F.  Stump  and  Paltzgraff  voted 
 against  it  and  remained  with  the  Ohio  synod.  The  latter 
 met  and  reorganized  the  classis.  The  independents  formed 
 themselves  into  a  synod  and  drew  up  a  long  statement,  which 
 declared  that  they  became  independent  because  of  innova- 
 tions that  had  entered  the  Ohio  synod,  that  doctrines  con- 
 trary to  the  Pleidelberg  Catechism  were  taught,  such  as  sin- 
 less perfection,  that  customs  like  the  anxious  bench  and  noisy 
 prayer-meetings  were  permitted.  Schlosser  says  that  their 
 declaration  was  more  sweeping  than  their  assertions  at  the 
 classis  which  were  only  against  the  anxious  bench. 
 
 When  the  matter  came  before  the  Ohio  synod  in  1846,  it 
 lamented  the  course  of  the  independents  as  contrary  to  the 
 dictates  of  conscience  and  to  the  constitution  of  the  Church, 
 — that  if  such  facts  were  true,  the  orderly  way  would  have 
 been  to  have  brought  charges  against  the  guilty.  At  the  same 
 time  it  granted  that  some  irregularities  had  occurred  and 
 revoked  its  own  action  of  1844,  Avhen  it  granted  permission 
 to  organize  English  congregations  within  the  bounds  of  Ger- 
 man charges  and  vice  versa.  It  appointed  a  committee  of 
 three  to  meet  the  brethren  of  the  independent  sjTiod  in  con- 
 ference. Because  the  Ohio  synod  acknowledged  its  error  by 
 rescinding  its  former  action,  Sonnendecker  and  Zwisler  went 
 back  to  the  old  synod,  leaving  only  Hamm,  Herbruck,  Ruhl 
 and  Weber  in  it.  This  independent  synod  sought  to  unite 
 with  the  synod  of  Pennsylvania  or  the   Eastern   synod   of 
 
622         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 our  Church,  but  was  refused  by  that  body  and  recommended 
 to  return  to  the  Ohio  synod.  It  continued  in  existence  until 
 1852,  when,  by  invitation  of  the  Ohio  synod,  it  again  united 
 with  it  as  the  North  German  classis.  The  independent  synod 
 was  active  in  home  missionary  work  and  started  to  publish 
 a  church-paper  called  the  Evangelist,  with  Kabus  as  editor. 
 But  its  first  number  proved  to  be  its  last.  Ilerbruck  did  con- 
 siderable work  in  educating  young  men  for  the  ministry 
 imder  that  synod.  He  taught  G.  Ziegler,  John  and  George 
 Rettig,  Philip  Becker  and  Ruhl. 
 
 But  even  after  its  reunion  with  the  old  synod,  trouble 
 ensued  and  the  ministers  of  the  North  German  classis  threat- 
 ened in  1853  to  again  secede  if  Columbiana  classis  were  not 
 dissolved.  Synod  then  ordered  it  to  be  dissolved  and  a  new 
 classis  created.  But  when  Columbiana  classis  refused.  No- 
 vember 30,  1853,  to  allow  itself  to  be  dissolved  by  a  vote  of 
 6  to  1,  Mahnenschmidt  refused  to  join  the  North  German 
 classis.  The  friction  continued.  The  North  German  classis 
 wanted  all  to  be  German,  but  all  the  congregations  of  the 
 Columbiana  classis  except  one  understood  English.  So  the 
 synod  of  1854  dissolved  both  classes.  They  then  met  and 
 together  formed  two  new  classes,  St.  John's  and  East  Ohio. 
 
 That  there  was  some  truth  in  the  charge  of  heresy  by  the 
 independent  synod  is  evident.  A  peculiar  controversy  arose 
 within  the  part  of  Columbiana  classis  which  had  remained 
 with  the  Ohio  synod.  At  the  session  of  1850  several  members 
 diM'lared  that  they  would  not  subscribe  to  the  ir('i(l('l])erg 
 Catechism  because  they  could  not  agree  to  original  sin  in  the 
 tenth  answt'r  and  because  such  sul)S('ription  was  at  the  bottom 
 ecclesiastical  tyranny.  After  a  discussion  of  from  5  to  6 
 hours,  the  motion  to  subscribe  to  the  Heidelberg  Catechism 
 was  passed  l)y  a  vote  of  10  to  3.  A.  Stoner  and  Paltzgraff 
 appealed  to  the  synod  against  this.  The  former  tried  to  get 
 back  to  the  Lutheran  Church  but  was  refused.  He  tlien 
 published  a  j)amphl('t,  entitled  "A  brief  survey  of  the  Govern- 
 ment of  the  Church  of  Christ,"  in  which  he  attacked  all 
 Church  authority. 
 
Union  and  Disunion.  623 
 
 Section  9.    The  Stiely  Synod  op  Pennsylvania. 
 
 This  movement  began  in  the  northwestern  part  of  Sehuyl- 
 kill  County,  Pa.  In  1841,  Rev.  Isaac  Stiely,  of  Mahantongo. 
 declared  himself  independent  and  invited  other  ministers  and 
 congregations  to  join  with  him  to  form  a  Free  Synod. 
 In  1842,  Susquehanna  classis  deposed  him  for  false  doc- 
 trine disorder  and  falsehood.  In  1842,  Rev.  Frederick 
 Herman  joined  himself  with  him.  They  together  ordained 
 Philip  Stiely,  a  cousin  of  Isaac  Stiely 's  in  a  private  house 
 (Mr.  Clouser's)  near  Llewellyn,  Schuylkill  County.  These 
 three  ministers  held  their  first  meeting  at  Artz's  school-house 
 in  Hubley's  township  of  that  county,  where  they  received  a 
 Mr.  Schmeckenbecher  who  after  preaching  a  short  time  in 
 Tioga  Coimty,  disappeared.  They  next  ordained  a  worthless, 
 half-witted  German  named  Friehe,  who  also  soon  passes  out  of 
 sight.  Rev.  Mr.  Hassenger  also  joined  them  and  Rev.  Andrew 
 Hoffman,  a  deposed  Reformed  minister,  pastor  at  Falkner 
 Swamp;  Rev.  Horatio  Daniel  and  Rev.  William  B.  Sandoe 
 Avere  for  some  time  connected  with  this  synod,  but  later  joined 
 the  regular  sjaiod. 
 
 The  synod  continued  for  a  time,  but  in  1860,  Rev.  Isaac 
 Stiely  was  received  back  into  Susquehanna  classis,  ''repentant 
 and  with  tears,"  says  Harbaugh.  The  other  Stiely  served  a 
 number  of  congregations  on  the  North  Branch  of  the  Susque- 
 hanna, but  was  a  bad  man  and  his  congregations  went  to 
 pieces,  so  that  East  Susquehanna  classis  sent  a  missionary 
 there  to  recover  the  ground. 
 
 A  few  other  individuals  declared  themselves  independent, 
 but  do  not  seem  to  have  either  joined  this  synod  or  formed 
 a  synod,  as  Rev.  William  Pauli,  of  Reading,  about  1844 
 (joined  also  by  his  brother,  Rev.  Augustus  Pauli),  Rev.  Wil- 
 liam Seibert,  1852,  Rev.  S.  K.  Gross,  1860,  both  of  Goshen- 
 hoppen  classis,  and  Rev.  Isaac  jMiese,  of  Bern  Church,  Berks 
 County,  1862.  After  th(^  lattc^r  had  seceded,  Lebanon  classis 
 asked  Prof.  Harbaugh  to  prepare  a  pamphlet  on  the  evils  of 
 schism,  which,  according  to  their  high-church  views,  was 
 a  heinous  sin.     Harbaugh  did  so  and  published  "Schism  and 
 
624         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Independency,"  in  which  in  scathing  terms  he  wrote  do\vn  all 
 the  independent  synods  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  this 
 country,  but  by  this,  doing  often  great  injustice  to  the  Free 
 synod  (1822-37).  Rev.  J.  E.  Hiester  published  the  book  in  a 
 German  translation. 
 
CHAPTER  III. 
 
 The  Activities  of  the  Church. 
 
 Section  1.    The  Society  for  the  Relief  of  ]\Iinisters. 
 
 This  was  the  oldest  benevolent  organization  of  the  Church. 
 As  early  as  1755.  Mr.  Schlatter  suggested  a  Widow's  Fund. 
 The  coetal  letter  of  1773  called  the  attention  of  the  Holland 
 fathers  to  the  subject,  and  they  sent  $100.  The  society  seems 
 to  have  been  formally  organized  in  1775.  After  the  organiza- 
 tion of  our  synod  this  society  seems  to  have  lapsed  some- 
 what, for  in  1802  it  had  in  its  treasury  only  $1.35.  It  was 
 chartered  in  1810,  when  ministers  of  Pennsylvania  were  made 
 its  beneficiaries.  By  1832  its  membership  had  fallen  to  three 
 and  they  requested  the  synod  to  appoint  a  committee  to  look 
 into  the  affairs  of  the  society.  The  synod  of  1834  decided 
 to  perpetuate  the  society  and  appointed  a  committee  to  make 
 such  changes  in  the  charter  as  were  needed.  In  1835  new  life 
 Avas  infused  into  it,  many  becoming  life  or  contributing  mem- 
 bers. In  1865  an  appendix  was  added  to  the  charter,  and  its 
 invested  fimds  in  1864  were  $5,000.  In  1894  it  had  $30,000. 
 and  had  received  the  previous  year  about  $14,000.  Its  report 
 to  General  Synod  of  1908  was:  receipts  (1905-8),  $24,091., 
 and  it  had  aided  34  ministers  and  52  widows  during  the 
 period.    It  had  invested  funds  amounting  to  $73,000. 
 
 In  1902  the  General  Synod  appointed  a  committee  to  draw 
 up  a  plan  for  a  ministerial  society  for  the  whole  Church. 
 This  committee  reported  to  the  next  synod  (1905)  a  plan 
 which  it  accepted  and  it  elected  a  board  of  JMinisterial  Relief, 
 whose  report  to  the  General  Synod  in  1908  is  as  follows: 
 $2,649.  had  been  received  1905-8.  seven  ministers  and  four 
 widows  had  been  aided. 
 
 Two  of  the  German  synods,  the  Northwestern  and  Central 
 s.ynods,  also  inaugurated  work  along  this  line,  each  forming 
 
 625 
 
626        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 a  society.     The  latter,  however,  has  merged  itself  into  the 
 General  Synod's  Board. 
 
 Section  2.     The  Home  Missions  of  the  Church.* 
 
 We  have  already  traced  the  history  of  Home  Missions  np 
 to  1844.  Before  1845  there  had  been  but  one  board  of  Home 
 Missions,  the  board  of  the  Eastern  synod.  In  1845  the  Ohio 
 synod  elected  a  board,  so  that  there  were  now  two  boards. 
 But  the  board  of  the  Eastern  synod  had  not  been  prospering. 
 In  1845  it  had  no  missionary.  The  classes  supervised  all 
 missions  and  left  notliing  for  the  board  to  do,  either  in  money 
 or  work.  In  1842  the  Eastern  and  Ohio  synods  came  into 
 correspondence  through  interchange  of  delegates.  This 
 brought  their  home  missionary  work  closer  together.  In  1848 
 the  delegates  from  the  Eastern  s.>Tiod  to  the  Ohio  synod  came 
 back  from  the  West  with  new  missionary  zeal.  As  a  result, 
 both  boards  united  in  sending  out  an  exploring  agent.  Rev. 
 Samuel  Miller,  who  traveled  through  southern  Indiana, 
 southern  Illinois,  northern  Kentucky  and  Missouri.  But  he 
 resigned  at  the  end  of  nine  months.  About  the  same  time 
 some  of  the  stronger  congregations  in  the  East  began  espe- 
 cially to  aid  particular  mission  congregations  in  the  West, 
 as  Easton  aided  Cincinnati.  Tiffin  also  was  aided  thus.  In 
 1857  the  Eastern  synod  with,  however,  the  hearty  approval 
 of  the  Western  synod,  appointed  Rev.  W.  K.  Zieber  superin- 
 tendent of  missions  in  the  West.  He  traveled,  often  amid 
 many  privations,  through  Indiana,  Illinois  and  Iowa,  remain- 
 ing in  office  two  years.  He  opened  five  new  fields  in  Iowa  and 
 to  the  east  of  it.  For  forty  years  the  Church  raised  an  av- 
 erage of  $900.  a  year.  In  1859,  $4,000.  was  raised,  an  average 
 of  about  6  cents  a  member. 
 
 When  the  General  Synod  was  organized  in  1863  a  board 
 of  Home  Missions  was  created  and  the  boards  of  the  East 
 and  West  were  to  be  dissolved.  It  ordered  the  election  of  a 
 superintendent  and  a  traveling  secretary.  The  two  boards 
 were  consolidated  in  1865  at  Philadelphia,  the  Eastern  board 
 
 *See  Whitnier  "One  niin<1ro(l  and  Fifty  Years  of  Home  Missionary 
 Activity. ' ' 
 
The  Activities  op  the  Church.  627 
 
 transferring  52  missions  and  the  western,  15.  The  General 
 Synod  board  dropped  ten  of  them  and  added  fourteen  new 
 ones,  so  that  there  were  71,  30  of  whom  were  German.  Rev. 
 L.  D.  Leberman  was  elected  secretary.  But  though  this  united 
 effort  promised  large  things,  gradually  the  debt  of  the  board 
 increased  to  $4r,000.  and  in  1868  Leberman  resigned.  By  1869 
 the  debt  of  the  board  was  $5,000.  and  there  was  a  lack  of 
 unity  and  confidence  in  the  Church.  Some  of  the  classes 
 took  charge  of  the  missions  within  their  own  bounds.  The 
 liturgical  controversy  was  dividing  the  Church.  The  two 
 parties  began  quarreling  about  home  missions.  Apple  wrote 
 in  the  Messenger  charging  Bomberger,  the  president  of  the 
 board,  with  being  unwilling  to  appoint  Mercersburg  men  to 
 western  missions.  This  the  latter  indignantly  denied.  The 
 quarrel  between  the  two  parties  about  Iowa  missions  deepened 
 the  feeling.  Some  of  the  liturgical  men  were  sore  at  the  West 
 for  opposing  them  and  refused  to  support  western  missions. 
 When  the  General  Synod  of  1869  did  not  re-elect  Bomberger 
 a  member  of  the  board,  his  friends  of  the  low-churchmen 
 reacted  against  the  board.  The  Northwestern  synod  then 
 asked  Ohio  synod  to  join  them  in  electing  a  missionary  super- 
 intendent. Ohio  synod  in  1870  elected  its  own  board  of 
 Missions  auxiliary  to  the  General  Synod's  board.  The  East- 
 ern synod  in  1871  created  its  owti  board  too.  The  German 
 board  had  in  1870  appointed  Rev.  Max  Stern  superintendent 
 of  missions,  but  at  the  end  of  a  year  he  resigned  on  accoimt 
 of  failing  health.  By  1872  the  management  of  Home  Mis- 
 sions was  in  the  hands  of  the  district  synods'  boards.  The 
 three  eastern  synods  united  (1873)  to  form  a  Tri-synodic 
 board  and  elected  Rev.  F.  K.  Levan  as  superintendent. 
 (Pittsburg  synod  in  1870  had  had  him  as  its  own  superintend- 
 ent of  missions.  In  1871  it  elected  Rev.  G.  li.  Johnson  but  the 
 next  year  Mr.  Levan  again.)  The  Tri-synodic  board  simply 
 continued  him  in  office.  This  Tri-synodic  board  labored 
 within  the  territory  of  the  p]astern  synod  and  then  leaping  over 
 the  Ohio  synod  began  work  on  the  Pacific  coast  in  California 
 and  Oregon  and  in  1882  in  Kansas,  Nebraska  and  Iowa.  In 
 1877,  Mr.  Levan 's  term  expired  and  Rev.  Theodore  Appel  was 
 
628        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 made  superintendent,  1878,  followod  by  Rev.  A.  C.  Whitmer 
 in  1886.  In  1886  it  adopted  the  plan  of  Chureh^biiilding 
 Funds  for  the  erection  of  mission  churches. 
 
 IMeanwhile  the  Ohio  and  Northwestern  synods  were  pushing 
 their  work  against  many  discouragements.  In  1876,  Rev.  J. 
 I\I.  Ken  dig  was  elected  superintendent  of  IMissions.  but  re- 
 signed 1879.  In  1880,  Rev.  S.  P.  IMyers  was  elected  but 
 resigned  in  1882.  But  the  classes  did  much  of  the  work  and 
 it  was  difficult  to  get  ministers  to  open  their  charges  to  the 
 superintendent.  Nevertheless  the  work  went  on.  In  1868 
 the  synod  of  the  Northwest  organized  its  own  board  of  ]\Iis- 
 sions  and  in  1882  the  Central  synod  joined  with  it  to  form 
 a  bi-synodic  board  of  Missions.  In  1875  the  board  of  Home 
 Missions  of  the  Eastern  German  synod  was  organized,  and  in 
 1887  the  board  of  the  synod  of  the  Interior  was  organized. 
 In  1873  the  Ursinus  Union  was  organized  by  the  low-church- 
 men in  the  East  who  did  not  want  to  aid  work  under  the 
 Tri-synodic  board.  The  movement  for  unification  under  the 
 General  Synod  began  in  1884,  when  it  appointed  a  commit- 
 tee to  submit  a  plan  for  carrying  on  the  Avork  under  the  Gen- 
 eral Synod. 
 
 In  1887.  when  tlu^  peace  compact  was  completed  by  the 
 adoption  of  a  liturgy  and  it  was  hoped  peace  would  come, 
 the  tendency  toward  unification  under  the  General's  Synod's 
 hoard  strongly  increased.  Ohio  synod  transferred  its  mis- 
 sions to  the  General  board  in  1889.  The  same  year,  the 
 Pittsburg  synod  withdrew  from  the  Tri-synodic  board  and 
 transferred  its  missions  to  the  General  Synod's  board.  TTrsinus 
 T^nion  did  so  too  in  1800.  Finally,  in  1891,  the  East(>rn  and 
 Potomac  synods  transferred  their  missions  to  go  into  effect 
 April  1,  1892.  But  it  continued  its  existence  as  a  bi-synodic 
 board  as  advisory  in  regard  to  missions  within  its  own  bounds 
 and  also  so  as  to  nominate  a  superintendent  for  the  eastern  dis- 
 trict to  be  elected  by  General  Synod's  board.  It  thus  continued 
 its  existence  though  the  other  synods  gave  their 's  up  outright. 
 The  supposition  by  the  low-churchmen  was  that  their  oppo- 
 nents in  this  way  hoped  to  get  control  of  the  Home  Missions 
 
The  Activities  of  the  Churctt.  629 
 
 of  the  Chnreli.  It  would  have  been  better  if  tlie  bi-synodie 
 board,  like  the  boards  of  the  other  synods  had  been  dis- 
 solved, as  it  wonld  have  prevented  undue  prejudice,  avoided 
 much  exi)ense  and  made  the  management  of  our  Home  ]\Iis- 
 sions  simpler.  Thus  all  the  p]nglish  synods  were  unified 
 under  the  board  of  the  General  Synod.  The  German  synods, 
 however,  have  continued  their  work  independently  of  that 
 board,  although  reporting  through  that  hoard  to  the  General 
 Synod  the  statistics  of  their  work. 
 
 The  General  Synod's  board,  in  addition  to  its  work  among 
 the  English  and  the  Germans,  has  ;idded  two  additional  fields 
 of  labor.  In  188-1,  Rev.  C.  H.  Ebert  was  appointed  harbor 
 missionary  at  the  port  of  New  York  to  labor  among  the  immi- 
 grants arriving  at  our  shores,  especially  the  Germans.  This 
 work  since  1887  was  directly  overseen  by  the  German  synod 
 of  the  East,  though  the  General  Synod  board  paid  the  salary 
 of  the  harbor  missionary,  but  later  it  was  turned  over  to  the 
 General  Synod's  board.  In  1890,  Rev.  "Sir.  Ebert  was  suc- 
 ceeded by  Elder  (now  Rev.)  Paul  Sommerlatte  who  in  turn 
 was  succeeded  by  Rev.  Dr.  Paul  H.  Land  in  1905. 
 
 The  Home  ]\Iission  board  has  also  found  another  field  among 
 the  Hungarians  and  Bohemians  of  this  country,  especially 
 the  former.  The  work  among  the  Hungarians,  begun  in  1890, 
 was  at  first  quite  successful,  as  they  responded  quite  eagerly 
 and  gratefully  to  the  efforts  of  our  Church.  But  later  the 
 Reformed  Church  of  Hungary  began  organizing  a  branch  of 
 itself  in  this  country  and  drew  away  quite  a  number  of  our 
 Hungarian  ministers  and  congregations,  although  some  still 
 remain  with  us.  A  Hungarian  classis  has  also  been  organ- 
 ized. The  Bohemian  work  has  not  been  so  successful  be- 
 cause of  peculiar  difficulties. 
 
 The  statistics  of  our  Home  ]\Iission  board,  as  given  to  the 
 last  General  Synod  (1910)  are  182  missions,  of  which  112  are 
 in  English  synods,  and  57  in  the  German  synods,  to  which 
 must  be  added  9  Hungarian,  3  Bohemian,  1  Japanese  and  the 
 harbor  mission  in  New  York  City.  Total  receipts,  (1908-11), 
 $234,000. 
 
630        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 Western  Pennsylvania. 
 
 In  western  Pennsylvania  the  Reformed  a  half-eentury  ago 
 were  pushing  missionary  work  in  the  northwestern  part  of  the 
 state  and  around  Pittsburg.  A  great  loss  to  our  Church  occur- 
 red in  Pittsburg  in  1849.  Three  rationalists  were  elected  into 
 the  Church  board  of  that  congregation.  Rev.  ]\Ir.  Koehler 
 refused  to  install  them  and  resigned  the  following  Sunday, 
 preaching  his  farewell  sermon  on  April  29.  He,  however, 
 recalled  his  resignation  and  when  he  was  about  to  ordain 
 the  other  three  Avho  had  been  elected,  the  three  rationalists 
 came  forward  also.  He  ordained  only  the  first  three  and  the 
 others  left  the  Church.  On  the  following  Sunday,  May  20, 
 as  he  was  about  giving  out  the  second  hymn,  one  of  the  ration- 
 alists took  his  station  at  the  chancel  rail  and  denounced  him 
 as  a  tyrant  and  as  a  Robespierre.  He  jumped  over  the  rail- 
 ing and  proceeded  to  lay  hold  of  the  minister.  The  man 
 was  stopped  amid  much  confusion  and  the  pastor  was  con- 
 ducted in  safet}'  to  his  house.  The  rationalists  thus  drove  out 
 Mr.  Koehler  and  the  Cluireh  has  ever  since  been  independent, 
 although  it  was  previously  reported  in  the  roll  of  our  classis, 
 and  its  delegates  were  full  members  tliereof.  It  is  now  served 
 by  a  minister  who  is  virtually  a  Unitarian.  But  an  English 
 Reformed  Church  (Grace)  was  later  organized  at  Pittsburg 
 and  has  proved  a  centre  from  which  many  congi*egations  have 
 been  organized.  Indeed,  the  whole  of  what  is  now  Allegheny 
 and  St.  Paul's  classes  was  once  missionary  ground. 
 
 Several  special  home  missionary  movements  need  special 
 attention.  The  first  was  the  settlement  of  the  Reformed 
 from  the  County  of  Lippe  in  Germany  in  Wisconsin. 
 
 In  1847,  there  came  to  Sheboygan,  Wis.,  and  to  northern 
 Illinois,  colonies  of  Reformed  settlers  from  the  County  of 
 Lippe  in  Germany.  That  district  had  jast  passed  through 
 severe  persecution  by  the  rationalists,  who  had  gotten  control 
 of  the  state-Church.  The  Heidelberg  Catechism  was  sup- 
 planted by  a  rationalistic  book  of  instruction.  Seven  hun- 
 dred heads  of  families  protested  as  did  five  ministers,  one  of 
 whom  was  removed  from  office.     Many  of  them  therefore  de- 
 
The  Activities  of  the  Church.  631 
 
 cided  to  go  to  America.  A  colony  left  Bremen  May  4,  1847, 
 and  landed  at  Quebec.  Fourteen  families  kept  together  and 
 became  the  nucleus  of  our  Church  at  Franklin,  Wis.  They 
 were  not  at  first  aware  that  there  was  a  Reformed  Church  in 
 America.  Their  first  minister  was  Rev.  Mr.  Pliiss.  Dr.  Bos- 
 sard  came  to  them  in  1854,  and  Sheboygan  classis  organized 
 them  as  a  congregation  with  him  as  their  pastor.  Rev.  Mr. 
 "Winter  labored  among  these  colonists  and  organized  thirteen 
 congregations.  He  conceived  the  idea  of  a  Mission-house  in 
 order  to  train  young  men  for  the  ministry  and  it  was  founded 
 in  1860.  Bossard  became  professor  of  Church  history  and 
 Muehlmeier  professor  of  dogmatics  and  also  the  house-father. 
 It  was  received  under  the  care  of  the  Northwestern  sniod  in 
 1867,  having  been  previously  under  Sheboygan  classis. 
 
 Another  important  colony  was  the  Russian  in  Dakota.  In 
 1870  the  Russian  government  recalled  the  privileges  granted 
 to  the  colonists  from  Germany  who  had  settled  along  the 
 Volga.  ]\Iany  of  them  were  devoted  members  of  the  Reformed 
 Church.  Some  of  them  had  been  Lutherans  from  south  Ger- 
 many, where  the  forms  of  worship  were,  like  the  Reformed, 
 very  simple,  and  as  they  did  not  feel  at  home  in  the  ritualistic 
 service  of  the  Russian  Lutheran  Church,  many  of  them  there- 
 fore became  Reformed.  Their  emigration  to  this  country  be- 
 gan in  1873  and  continued  till  1890.     Two  colonies  came  in 
 
 1874,  one  going  to  Clay  County,  Nebraska,  and  the  other  to 
 Yankton,  Dakota.     Rev.  Mr.  Kuss  was  sent  to  the  latter  in 
 
 1875.  These  colonies  are  now  foimd  in  Kansas,  Nebraska, 
 Northern  and  Southern  Dakota,  where  they  now  form  several 
 of  our  classes.  Among  them  has  labored  Rev.  C.  Bonekemper, 
 the  founder  of  the  Stundist  movement  in  Russia.* 
 
 An  effort  was  made  to  plant  missions  on  the  Pacific  coast, 
 in  California,  by  Rev.  Mr.  Fundeling  and  in  Oregon  by 
 Rev.  ]\Ir.  Gantenbein  in  1876.  The  former  soon  failed,  but 
 from  the  latter  work  the  Oregon  classis  has  been  formed.  A 
 Japanese  Reformed  Church  has  recently  been  founded  in 
 San  F'rancisco  imder  Rev.  Mr.  ]\Iori. 
 
 *See  Reformed  Church  Magazine,  Sei)tember  1893,  for  Bonekemper 's 
 work. 
 
632        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  Lr.  S. 
 
 The  Mission  in  Canada  was  begun  in  1892.  An  earnest 
 elder,  Mr.  Doern,  of  Gretna,  ^Manitoba,  wrote  to  his  former 
 pastor  in  Galatia  in  Europe,  stating  the  great  need  of  min- 
 isters and  asking  for  a  Reformed  minister.  The  latter  for- 
 warded his  letter  to  our  harbor  missionary,  Rev.  Mr.  Sommer- 
 latte,  and  in  189-4  Rev.  Mr.  Steineeker  went  to  Canada,  preach- 
 ing especially  at  Saskatchewan  and  Winnipeg.  In  1896  he  was 
 joined  by  Rev.  I\Ir.  Zenk  and  Rev.  W.  W.  Hansen,  and  now  a 
 classis  has  been  formed. 
 
 Section  3.    The  Foreign  ^Missions  of  the  Church. 
 
 The  first  impulse  toward  our  foreign  missionarj^  work 
 seems  to  have  come  from  a  visit  of  Rhenius,  the  prominent  mis- 
 sionary from  India,  in  1837  to  America. 
 
 Rev.  Dr.  Heiner,  in  the  report  to  the  synod  of  1837,  said  that 
 Rhenius  and  his  associates  on  the  distant  shores  of  India  as  well  as 
 other  Churches  are  ex})ecting'  ua  to  co-operate  in  missions. 
 
 Our  Home  IMissionary  Society  asked  the  Eastern  synod 
 that  year  to  found  a  foreign  mission,*  but  the  synod  did  not 
 join  with  the  Lutheran  Church  in  founding  an  Evangelical 
 or  United  Church  mission  in  India,  as  was  suggested  by 
 Rhenius.  It,  however,  appointed  a  committee  of  five  min- 
 isters to  prepare  a  plan  for  a  missionary  society  of  our  own 
 Church  and  asked  all  who  desired  to  do  so  to  contribute  to 
 the  American  Board  so  as  to  support  Rhenius  at  Tinnevally 
 in  India.  The  synod  of  1838  selected  the  first  foreign  mis- 
 sionary board,  auxiliary  to  the  American  Board  of  P^orcign 
 ]\Iissions.f  The  sum  of  $945,  was  contributed  or  ])ledged  at 
 tliat  meeting,  Ileiner,  Berg,  Zach;irias.  Woltt'  and  D.  Zicgler 
 each  agreeing  to  raise  $120.  Up  to  the  synod  of  1839  the 
 receipts  were  $811.  It  was  decided  in  1840  that  Rev.  Dr. 
 J.  W.  Nevin  be  our  representative  on  the  American  Board, 
 which  position  he  held  until  1865,  when  he  resigned. 
 
 It  was  soon  felt  that  we  would  be  able  to  raise  more  money 
 if  we  had  our  own  missionary  in  connection  with  the  American 
 
 *See  Buettner's  History  of  our  Church,  page  53. 
 f  For  agreement,  see  Buettner,  page  55. 
 
The  Activities  op  the  Church.  633 
 
 Board  and  Rev.  Benjamin  Schneider,  of  Broosa,  Turkey,  was 
 appointed  our  representative.  Dr.  Schneider  was  originally 
 from  our  Cluu\-h  and  was  at  that  time  a  member  of  the  New- 
 castle Presbytery.  He,  then  came  into  our  Church,  .joining 
 the  Maryland  classis,  in  which  he  continued  till  he  died. 
 
 He  was  born  at  Falkner  Swamp,  Montgomery  County, 
 January  18,  1807.*  He  labored  at  Broosa,  in  Asia  Minor,  up 
 to  1849.  It  was  a  difficult  field,  but  in  that  year  he  was  ap- 
 pointed missionary  to  Aintab,  in  southern  Turkey,  where  he 
 labored  with  remarkable  success,  his  audiences  rising  from 
 100  at  tirst  to  1,500.  In  1856-8  he  was  in  America  visiting 
 many  of  our  Churches  and  ecclesiastical  bodies.  He  returned 
 to  Aintab  in  1858,  where  he  labored  until  1868.  He  then  re- 
 turned to  America  in  feeble  health,  but  in  1874  returned  to 
 Turkey  to  be  professor  of  theology  in  the  Theological  semi- 
 nary at  Marsovan.  His  health,  however,  failed  the  next  year, 
 and  he  returned  to  America,  where  he  died  September  14, 
 1877.  He  was  a  fine  linguist,  a  most  godly  man,  full  of 
 prayer  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 
 
 He  was  the  missionary  of  our  Church  until  1865-6.  In 
 1859  our  Eastern  synod  instructed  our  board  to  open  cor- 
 respondence with  the  American  Board  about  transferring 
 Aintab  to  our  Church  as  its  own  mission,  but  the  mission  at 
 Aintab  was  not  willing  to  leave  the  American  Board  and 
 our  Church  was  not  at  that  time  raising  sufficient  funds  to 
 support  it.  Besides,  Dr.  Schneider's  sympathies  were  known 
 to  be  decidedly  anti-liturgical  and  anti-Mercersburg,  which 
 made  many  of  that  party  somewhat  lukewarm  in  his  support. 
 Laboring,  as  he  did, 'among  the  Armenians  in  the  East,  he 
 could  not  but  be  opposed  to  high-churchism,  for  that  Church 
 had  had  its  life  killed  by  its  forms.  Besides  the  doctrine  of 
 the  middle  state  or  "hades"  of  the  Mercersburg  theology 
 seemed  to  him  too  much  like  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  of 
 those  eastern  Churches,  against  which  he  had  to  continually 
 protest.  So,  finally,  our  board  withdrew  from  the  American 
 Board  with  the  approval  of  our  synod.     There  had  also  some 
 
 *See  Life  of  Eev.  B.  Schneider,  D.D.,  published  in  1907  by  our  Foreign 
 Board. 
 
634        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 criticism  appeared  in  the  Messenger.  "Seldom,"  with  his 
 high-church  views,  criticised  the  methods  of  the  mission  at 
 Aintab.  He  criticised  Dr.  Sclmeider's  right  to  teach  theology 
 at  Marsovan  without  being  elected  to  that  position  hy  a  synod 
 and  also  his  right  to  ordain  evangelists  when  there  was  no 
 classis  as  yet.  He  declared  these  acts  of  Dr.  Schneider  to  be 
 irregular  and  disorderly.  This  shows  the  feeling  against  Dr. 
 Schneider  on  the  part  of  man}'  of  the  IMercersburg  men. 
 It  was  evident  that  a  breach  was  opening  between  them  and 
 Dr.  Schneider's  mission.  So  our  Church  withdrew  from  the 
 American  Board.  For  about  fifteen  years  our  Church  did 
 nothing  officially  for  foreign  missions,  though  some  money  was 
 still  raised  for  the  American  Board  in  a  private  way. 
 
 The  subject  of  foreign  missions  was,  however,  brought  up 
 before  the  Eastern  s.^Tiod  in  1869  by  an  appeal  of  the  German 
 Evangelical  Mission  Society  of  New  York.  The  committee 
 to  whom  it  was  referred  brought  in  an  adverse  report,  that 
 as  our  home  missionary  work  was  crippled,  they  did  not  see 
 the  way  clear  for  foreign  work.  But  Rev.  Dr.  Busche,  of 
 New  York,  pled  so  hard  for  the  society,  saying  that  for  four 
 years  our  Church  had  done  nothing  for  the  heathen,  that 
 synod  finally  connnended  its  work  to  our  congregations.  Rev. 
 Oscar  Lohr,  a  member  of  our  New  York  classis,  was  sent  out 
 to  India  and  also  Rev.  J.  Ilauser,  who  later  returned  to 
 America.     The  field  of  labor  in  India  was  at  Bisrampore. 
 
 About  this  time,  while  our  Church  was  doing  nothing  for 
 the  heathen  in  foreign  lands,  Sheboygan  cla.ssis,  October  11, 
 1876,  decid(;d  to  open  missionary  work  among  the  Indians. 
 By  1878,  $239.  had  been  raised  for  the  mission  and  Rev. 
 J.  Hauser,  who  had  rctuniod  from  India,  was  elected  mission- 
 ary. He  visited  the  different  tribes  of  Indians  and  in  1878 
 the  classis  decided  to  begin  work  among  the  Winnebagoes,  in 
 Jackson  County,  "Wisconsin,  near  Black  River  Falls.  As  the 
 Indians  were  very  poor,  they  needed  considerable  charitable 
 help.  On  December  30,  1878,  a  school  of  ten  scholars  was 
 opened  with  John  Stacy  as  helper.  The  missionary  lived  at 
 first  in  Black  River  Falls.  On  January  5,  1879,  Rev.  Mr. 
 Hauser  preached  his  first  sermon.    He  also  did  pastoral  woik 
 
The  Activities  of  the  Church.  635 
 
 but  laid  the  greatest  stress  on  teaching.  He  moved  into  a 
 house  at  the  mission  station,  June  30,  1880.  A  chapel  was 
 erected  instead  of  the  school-house.  In  1883,  Mr.  Hauser  was 
 seconded  by  Stucki,  who  was  made  helper  in  1895.  In  1897, 
 the  first  Indian  was  baptized.  Stacy  was  baptized  in  1898. 
 In  1900  a  medicine-man,  George  Low,  was  baptized  with  his 
 whole  family.  The  mission  has  had  a  slow  but  sure  growth 
 under  the  efforts  of  the  Sheboygan  classis.  Rev.  Mr.  Stucki 
 is  now  the  missionary,  and  there  are  fifteen  members. 
 
 During  the  liturgical  controversy  the  attention  of  the 
 Church  was  diverted  from  foreign  missions.  Gradually,  how- 
 ever, about  $5,000.  accumulated  in  the  hands  of  the  treasurer 
 of  our  foreign  board,  Mr.  R.  F.  Kelker,  "When  the  peace  move- 
 ment was  inaugurated  at  the  General  Synod  of  1878,  it  gave 
 new  impulse  to  work  among  the  heathen.  The  board  had 
 before  that  time  decided  upon  Japan  as  its  field.  It  sent  out 
 in  1879  the  first  missionary,  Rev.  A.  D.  Gring,  who  located 
 at  Yokohoma.*  In  1883,  Rev.  J.  P.  Moore  was  sent  out. 
 Both  Mr.  Gring  and  Mr.  ]\Ioore  opened  chapels  in  Tokio.  In 
 1885,  Rev.  W.  E.  Hoy  was  sent  out,  who  located  at  Sendai,  in 
 northern  Japan,  where  a  considerable  congregation  under 
 Rev.  Mr.  Oshikawa  came  into  our  Churcii.  At  the  same  time 
 our  Church  in  Japan  joined  the  United  Church  of  Japan, 
 composed  of  the  missions  of  the  Dutch  Reformed,  Northern 
 and  Southern  Presbyterians.  There  is  now  at  Sendai,  the 
 North  Japan  College,  a  Theological  seminary  and  the  Girls' 
 School,  together  with  the  Industrial  Home.  Our  field  in 
 Japan  is  divided  into  four  fields :  Sendai,  which  is  the  largest, 
 Fukushima,  Yamagata  with  Akita  and  also  Tokio. 
 
 Our  Churcli  was  later  moved  to  open  another  mission  in 
 China.  The  General  Synod  of  1899  directed  the  board  to  do 
 so,  but  owing  to  the  Boxer  rebellion  our  mission  did  not  get 
 started  tliere  till  1901,'"when  Rev.  W.  E.  Hoy  was  transferred 
 from  Japan  to  China  and  opened  a  mission  at  Yochow  city, 
 in  the  province  of  Ilunan,  in  central  China.  In  1904,  the  mis- 
 sion station  at  Chenchow,  in  the  province  of  Ilunan,  in  charge 
 
 *He  later (  about  1891)  went  into  the  Episcopalian  Church. 
 
636        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 of  Rev.  William  Kelly,  was  received  under  the  care  of  our 
 board.  So  there  are  now  two  stations  in  China,  on'e  at  Yo- 
 chow,  the  other  at  Chen  chow,  each  have  a  hospital,  boys' 
 school  and  girls'  school. 
 
 The  statistics  of  the  Foreign  board  in  their  report  of  1911  are : 
 19  ordained  missionaries,  3  unordained,  15  ladies,  3  physicians; 
 total,  including  wives  of  missionaries,  62.  There  are  15  or- 
 dained natives,  total  native  helpers,  67.  There  are  65  stations 
 and  outstations,  2,308  communicants,  10,000  adherents;  also  6 
 schools,  with  663  students.  The  income  during  1910  has  been: 
 from  the  home  church,  $103,000. ;  in  the  field,  $2,000.* 
 
 Section  4.    The  Educational  Institutions  of  the  Church. 
 
 The  Reformed  Church  in  the  United  States,  like  her  mother 
 Church  in  Germany,  has  always  emphasized  education.  We 
 regret  that  owing  to  the  fact  that  our  book  has  already  grown 
 to  such  a  size,  we  have  only  space  to  name  the  various  edu- 
 cational institutions  of  our  Church. 
 
 The  Theological  Seminary  of  the  Reformed  Church,  Lan- 
 caster, Pa.  We  have  before  given  the  history  of  the  fomiding 
 of  this  seminary.**  It  was  located  fii-st  at  Carlisle  (1825-9), 
 at  York  (3829-37),  at  Mereersburg  (1837-71),  and  now  at 
 Lancaster.! 
 
 Franklin  and  INIarshall  College,  Lancaster,  Pa.  The  early 
 history  of  IMarshall  College  and  its  union  with  Franklin  Col- 
 lege we  have  previously  referred  to.$ 
 
 Heidelberg  I^niversity,  Tiffin,  0.  The  founding  of  Heidel- 
 berg College  has  already  been  given.§  It  was  changed  from  a 
 college  into  a  luiiversity  in  1890.|| 
 
 *See  Hand-book  of  Foreign  Missions  of  the  Reformed  Church  iu  the 
 U.  S. 
 
 **See  pages  21-117. 
 
 fSee  Appel,  "The  Beginnings  of  the  Theological  Seminary." 
 
 JSee  pages  76-7  and  295-298.  For  additional  data,  see  Dubbs'  "His- 
 tory of  Franklin  and  ^larshall  College. ' ' 
 
 §See  page  173. 
 
 ||See  "History  of  Heidelberg  College,"  by  Williard;  also,  "The  Life 
 of  Henry  Leonard." 
 
The  Activities  of  the  Church.  637 
 
 Heidelberg  Theological  Seminary,  Tiffin,  0.  The  account 
 of  its  origin  has  also  been  given.*  In  1907  it  was  united  with 
 ITrsiniis  School  of  Theology  and  the  united  seminary  was 
 called  the  Central  Theological  Seminary.  It  Avas  at  Tiffin, 
 1907,  and  removed  to  Dayton,  0..  1908. 
 
 The  Mission-House,  Franklin,  Wis.,  founded  by  Sheboygan 
 elassis,  1860.  It  was  transferred  to  the  Northwestern  synod 
 in  1867.t 
 
 Catawba  College,  Newton,  N.  C.  We  have  already  referred 
 to  its  foimding.l  It  lost  a  large  part  of  its  resources  by  the 
 Civil  War  and  after  the  war  was  opened  as  Catawba  High 
 and  Normal  School,  but  was  later  raised  to  the  grade  of  a  college 
 again. 
 
 Ursinus  College,  CoUegeville,  Pa.  We  have  already  re- 
 ferred to  its  founding  and  the  controversy  about  the  opening 
 of  its  theological  department. §  Its  theological  department 
 was  removed  to  Philadelphia,  1898,  and  in  1907  united  with 
 Heidelberg  Theological  Seminary  to  form  the  Central  Theo- 
 logical Seminary  now  at  Dayton,  0. 
 
 IMercersburg  College,  Mercersburg,  Pa.  This  was  founded 
 1865,  and  continued  till  1880.  When  the  Theological  semi- 
 nary was  removed  from  Mercersburg  to  Lancaster,  1871,  a 
 theological  department  was  started  in  it,  1873-80.  It  is  now 
 a  flourishing  preparatory  school,  luider  the  presidency  of 
 W.  M.  Irvine,  Ph.D. 
 
 Palatinate  College,  Myerstown.  Pa.  This  was  really  a  pre- 
 paratory school.  It  flourished  for  a  number  of  years  from 
 1864  but  was  finally  sold,  1896.  Calvin  College,  Cleveland, 
 O.,  was  started  1863  as  a  school  to  train  ministers  to  preach 
 in  both  the  German  and  English  languages,  but  given  up 
 about  1900.  College  of  Northern  Illinois,  Dakotah,  111.,  was 
 started  as  a  college,  1882,  and  changed,  1902,  into  the  present 
 Interior  Academy.  Wichita  University,   Wichita,  Kan.,  was 
 
 *See  pages  ]  17-122. 
 fSee  "Geschichte  des  Missionshauses. 
 
 tSee  pages  298-303.  See  also  "Historic  Sketch  of  North  Carolina," 
 page  86. 
 
 §See  pages  456,  510  and  537-544. 
 
688        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 started  before  1887,  when  it  was  received  under  the  care  of  the 
 synod  of  the  Interior,  but  ceased  to  exist  in  1895. 
 
 Several  collegiate  institutes  might  also  be  mentioned,  as 
 Clarion  Collegiate  Institute,  Rimersburg,  Pa.,  opened  1859; 
 Juniata  Collegiate  Institute,  Martinsbnrg,  Pa.,  1867-1892; 
 Henry  Seminary,  Illinois;  Blairstown  Academy,  Iowa;  Inter- 
 national Academy,  Portland,  Ore.;  Masanutten  Academy, 
 Woodstock,  Va.,  opened  1899. 
 
 There  have  also  been  several  female  colleges,  as  Mt.  Wash- 
 ington Female  College,  near  Baltimore.  We  have  already  re- 
 ferred to  the  controversy  between  Staley,  its  head,  and  Dr. 
 Heiner,  about  the  use  of  the  liturgy.*  (But  between  the 
 Church  controversy  and  the  political  troubles  of  the  war  it 
 lost  its  prestige  and  passed  out  from  our  control  about  1864.) 
 Greensburg  Female  Seminary,  1875-1888.  Allentown  Female 
 College,  founded  1866,  chartered  1867,  and  is  prospering. 
 Claremont  Female  College,  Hickory,  N.  C,  which  was  opened 
 1880,  was  undenominational  until  1907,  when  it  came  under 
 the  care  of  North  Carolina  classis.  Woman's  College  of 
 Frederick,  opened  1845,  leased  by  the  Potomac  synod  1893 
 and  chartered  1897. 
 
 Section  5.    The  Publication  Work  of  the  Church.! 
 
 The  beginning  of  the  publication  Avork  of  our  Church  was 
 when  the  board  of  Home  JMissions  began  publishing,  in  1827. 
 at  York,  the  Magazine  of  the  German  Reformed  Church  in 
 English,  with  Dr.  Mayer  as  editor.  In  1828  it  was  removed 
 to  Carlisle,  and  in  1829  to  York.  In  1832  its  name  was 
 changed  into  the  Messenger  of  the  Reformed  Church.  It  was 
 published  as  a  monthly  until  July,  1834,  then  as  a  semi- 
 monthly till  July,  1835,  when  it  became  a  weekly.  During 
 all  this  time,  except  for  a  brief  period,  when  edited  by  Rev. 
 Daniel  Young,  its  editor  was  Prof.  Lewis  Mayer,  D.D.  In 
 1835  it  was  removed  to  Chambersburg. 
 
 Rev.    S.    HelfFenstein,    D.D.,    published    Die    Evangelische 
 
 *Spe  pages  3.56-7. 
 
 fSee  Fisher's  "Plistory  of  Publication  Efforts  of  the  Reformed 
 Church." 
 
The  Activities  op  the  Church.  639 
 
 KirchenzeUung  at  Philadelphia,  1829-30.  R(w.  Mr.  Dreyer, 
 of  Baltimore  began  Die  Evangelische  Zeitung  for  both  Lu- 
 therans and  Reformed  in  1831,  but  it  fell  into  other  hands, 
 became  disorderly  and  was  disowned  by  the  synod  in  1833. 
 In  1834,  Rev.  Mr.  Zacharias  published  Dcr  Herold  at  Harris- 
 burg  but  soon  discontinued  it.  Finally,  two  German  papers 
 started  which  were  destined  to  continue.  Rev.  B.  S.  Schneck, 
 at  Gettysburg,  began  Der  Christliche  Herold,  1835,  and  Rev. 
 J.  C.  Guldin,  in  Chester  Coimty,  Pa.,  began  Die  Chrisliche 
 Zeitschrift  in  1837.  In  1837  these  papers  thus  privately 
 started  were  transferred  to  the  board  of  Missions  and  called 
 Die  Christliche  Zeitschrift,  of  which  Rev.  S.  Gutelius  was 
 editor.  It  was  published  at  Gettysburg.  In  1837,  Rev.  L. 
 Hinsch  published  the  first  church  paper  of  the  Ohio  synod, 
 called  Die  Christliche  Zeitschrift,  at  Piqua.  0.  It  continued 
 for  several  years. 
 
 In  1840  the  first  printing  establishment  of  our  Church  was 
 started  at  Chambersburg,  Pa.  Die  Christliche  Zeitschrift 
 was  transferred  from  Gettysburg  to  Chambersburg  and  Dr. 
 Schneck  was  editor,  1840-64,  with  Dr.  Gehr  as  assistant,  1849- 
 52.  The  publication  establishment  at  once  began  the  publica- 
 tion of  English  and  German  catechisms,  and  in  1842  of  a 
 German  hymn-book.  Up  to  1844  the  printing  establishment 
 at  Chambersburg,  begun  1840,  was  under  the  board  of  ]\Iis- 
 sions,  but  then  a  board  of  Publication  was  created  by  the 
 Eastern  synod.  It  was  not  financially  successful  and  in  1848 
 three  ministers  came  forward  and  offered  to  manage  the  pub- 
 lications of  our  Church  at  their  ovm  risks,  paying  also  a 
 bonus  to  the  synod  for  the  privilege.  Their  names  ought  to 
 be  remembered,  for  they  saved  the  Church  in  a  critical  time 
 from  a  bankruptcy  of  $16,000.  They  were  Rev.  M.  Kieffer, 
 D.  D.,  S.  R.  Fisher,  D.D.,  and  B.  S.  Schneck,  D.D.,  They 
 formed  the  printing  establishment  of  ''M.  Kieffer  &  Co." 
 This  firm  was  to  have  charge  of  the  publications  for  five  years 
 and  pay  synod  annually  $300.  The  title  of  the  Messenger 
 was  changed  to  Reformed  Church  Messenger  in  1848,  and  of 
 the  Christliche  Zeitschrift  to  Reformirte  Kirch cnzeitung. 
 Rev.  S.  R.  Fisher  was  editor  of  the  former  and  had  associ- 
 
640         History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 ated  with  him  from  1848  to  1852  Rev.  B.  S.  Sehneek,  1852- 
 57  Rev.  Samuel  :\liller,  1858-1861  Rev.  B.  Bailsman.  The 
 Kirchenzeitung  was  edited  by  Rev.  B.  S.  Sehneek  1848-1852, 
 by  Rev.  S.  Miller  1853-1859.  and  again  by  Sehneek  1857-63, 
 then  by  Rev.  N.  Gehr,  1864-73.  In  1874  the  German  Phila- 
 delphia classis  took  the  Kirchenzeitung,  which  had  not  pros- 
 pered because  most  of  the  Germans  were  not  in  sympathy 
 with  the  publication  house  on  account  of  its  strong  ]\Ier- 
 cersburg  views.  In  1876.  Dr.  Knelling  became  its  editor. 
 In  1875,  it  was  removed  to  Cleveland,  where  Ruetenik  and 
 Gehr  were  the  editors.  Praikschatis  was  editor  1881-1896, 
 and  since  then  Rev.  Mr.  Dolch.  In  1848.  Dr.  Schaff  founded 
 the  Kirclienfreund,  a  union  church-paper  for  both  Lutherans 
 and  Reformed.     It  continued  till  1853. 
 
 Returning  to  the  Publication  board,  the  contract  with  M. 
 Kieffer  ended  1853.  but  was  renewed  by  synod.  The  firm 
 agreed  to  give  the  synod  an  equal  interest  in  the  property 
 and  earnings,  provided  synod  gave  all  its  printing  to  it  and 
 would  use  all  proper  means  to  secure  the  co-operation  of  the 
 Church  for  it.  This  was  to  continue  for  ten  years  from 
 January  1,  1854.  In  1857.  the  publication  house  had  an  es- 
 trangement from  the  liturgical  committee,  which  published 
 the  Provisional  liturgy  through  another  house.  The  German 
 hymn-book  was  also  published  in  1857  by  another  house. 
 This  produced  a  controversy  1857-9  at  the  s.^Tiods.  It  seems 
 that  synod  ordered  the  German  hymn-book  to  be  published 
 bj'  the  publication  house.  This  was  resisted  by  Dr.  Schaff, 
 the  chairman  of  that  committee,  unless  they  agreed  to  pay 
 copy-money  to  sATiod.  This  Kieffi'r  &  Co.  resisted,  as  they 
 were  already  paying  half  the  profits  to  the  synod.  The 
 synod  of  1858  was  imable  to  decide  and  gave  over  the  whole 
 matter  to  a  committee  to  report  at  the  next  synod.  So  Prof. 
 Schaff  asked  permission  to  withdraw  the  hymn-book  and  later 
 published  it  as  his  o\va  private  property.  In  this  condition 
 it  was  sent  to  the  synod  of  1859.  The  matter  was  finally  com- 
 promised by  the  firm  of  Kieffer  &  Co.  surrendering  their  right 
 to  publish  it.  But  .synod  paid  them  $1,000  for  this  privi- 
 lege as  over  against  their  share  of  the  profits,  this  sum  to  be 
 
The  Activities  of  the  Church.  641 
 
 paid  at  the  time  when  the  contract  with  them  expired.  In 
 1864,  at  the  expiration  of  the  contract,  synod  took  the  publi- 
 cation establishment  from  them,  paying  them  $5,000.,  adding 
 to  it  between  $4,000.  and  $5,000.  more.  The  synod's  board 
 then  started  out  to  enlarge  the  plant,  but  just  then  the  rebels 
 came  to  Chambersburg  and  on  July  30,  1864,  laid  it  in  ashes, 
 and  with  it  the  printing  establishment.  The  loss,  as  after- 
 wards counted  up,  footed  up  $43,000.  At  the  time  of  the  fire 
 the  printing  establishment  was  in  debt  $25,000.  The  synod  of 
 1864  resolved  to  try  and  raise  $60,000.  for  publication  pur- 
 poses. Of  this  over  $20,000.  were  secured.  This,  with  the 
 sale  of  the  lot  at  Chambersburg  and  some  money  of  the 
 $500,000.  appropriated  by  the  legislature  of  Pennsylvania 
 for  those  who  had  suffered  at  Chambersburg,  was  sufficient  to 
 relieve  it  of  its  liabilities  and  start  a  small  beginning  of  a 
 book  establishment. 
 
 As  there  was  no  place  to  publish  it  at  Chambersburg  after 
 the  fire,  it  was  transferred  to  Philadelphia  in  1864,  where,  in 
 1866,  it  opened  a  book-store  at  907  Arch  street.  In  1863, 
 it  assumed  the  publication  of  the  Guardian,  which  from  1850 
 had  been  published  by  Rev.  H.  Harbaugh,  first  at  Lewisburg, 
 then  at  Lancaster.  Dr.  Bausman  then  became  its  editor,  fol- 
 lowed by  J.  H.  Dubbs  and  H.  Kieffer. 
 
 In  1865  the  board  began  publishing  the  Sunday  school 
 papers,  the  Child's  Treasury  as  successor  of  The  Pastor's 
 Helper,  which  had  been  published  by  Rev.  G.  B.  Russell,  at 
 Pittsburg.  Since  1859  Dr.  Harbaugh  w^as  the  editor  of  this 
 paper.  In  1866  it  adopted  the  publication  of  the  Lammer- 
 hirte  (which  before  had  been  published  by  the  Orphans' 
 Home  at  Bridesburg),  as  its  German  Sunday  school  paper, 
 Rev.  J.  C.  Beinhauer  being  its  editor.  Dr.  Russell  became 
 co-editor  with  S.  R.  Fisher  of  the  Messenger  in  1867  and 
 resigned  at  the  end  of  1871.  Dr.  Fisher  was  editor  till 
 1875,  when  Rev.  P.  S.  Davis,  D.D.,  became  editor  till  1888 ; 
 Rev.  C.  G.  Fisher,  D.D.,  1888-96,  and  Rev.  C.  J.  Musser,  D.D., 
 1896. 
 
 The  Mercershnrg  Feview  was  begun  1849  and  continued  till 
 1861.    It  was  revived  in  1867  with  Harbaugh  as  editor,  then 
 
642        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 Rev.  T.  G.  Apple,  D.D.,  later  Rev.  William  Rupp,  D.D.,  now 
 Rev.  George  W.  Richards.  D.D. 
 
 The  Ohio  synod  in  1848  established  a  board  of  publication 
 and  issued  the  Western  Missionary  at  Lancaster,  Rev.  J.  H. 
 Good,  editor.  In  1850  its  place  of  publication  was  changed 
 to  Tiffin,  where  the  editor  had  become  professor.  In  1855, 
 Rev.  G.  W.  "Williard  was  elected  editor  and  its  place  of  pub- 
 lication was  changed  to  Columbus,  0.  In  1867,  Rev.  T.  P. 
 Bucher  became  editor  and  Daj^ton  became  its  place  of  publi- 
 cation. The  name  of  the  paper  was  changed  to  Christian 
 World  in  1868.  In  1868  its  publication  was  changed  to  Cin- 
 cinnati. In  1870,  Rev.  S.  Mease  became  its  editor.  In  1878 
 Dayton  again  became  the  place  of  its  publication.  In  1882, 
 Revs.  E.  Herbruck  and  M.  Loucks  were  elected  editors.  In 
 1894,  Herbruck  retired,  leaving  i\I.  Loucks  editor  till  1897. 
 In  1898,  Rev.  C.  E.  Miller  became  editor;  in  1899,  Rev.  D. 
 Burghalter.  In  1905,  it  was  removed  to  Cleveland  and  pub- 
 lished by  the  Central  Publishing  House,  and  Rev.  J.  H.  Bom- 
 berger,  D.D.,  became  its  editor.  The  Ohio  sjTiod's  board  of 
 publication  also  for  a  number  of  years  published  lesson  leaves 
 and  also  a  child's  paper,  The  Leaves  of  Light  (1873-1901). 
 
 The  Hausfreund  was  started  at  Reading,  Pa.,  by  Rev.  Dr. 
 Bailsman  in  1867,  as  a  church  paper  for  the  Pennsylvania 
 Germans.  The  s;^Tiod  of  1865  had  given  permission  for  its 
 publication,  although  the  Reformed  Publication  board  had 
 protested  against  it,  fearing  it  would  interfere  with  the  cir- 
 culation of  the  Kirchenzeitung.  It  was  merged  with  the 
 Kirchenzeitung  in  1906.  Dr.  Bausman  was  its  editor  during 
 its   entire   period,   assisted   \>y   its   publisher,   Daniel    IMiller. 
 
 The  Reformed  Church  Record,  Reading,  Pa.,  was  started 
 1888.  At  first  there  was  some  opposition  in  the  synod,  because 
 it  used  the  name  "Reformed  Church"  in  its  title,  though  not 
 approved  by  the  Eastern  sj'nod.  But  it  has  continued  in  suc- 
 cessful circulation  up  to  the  present  time.  Daniel  IMiller  was 
 editor  up  to  the  end  of  1907,  and  was  succeeded  by  Rev. 
 I.  M.  Beaver. 
 
 The  Evangelist,  the  German  Church-paper  of  Ohio,  was 
 published  1856  by  Rev.  Dr.  Ruetenik.     In  1859  it  was  re- 
 
The  Activities  of  the  Church.  643 
 
 moved  to  Cleveland.  In  1875,  it  was  united  with  the  Kirchen- 
 zeitung,  the  German  paper  of  our  eastern  Church,  and  is  still 
 published  at  Cleveland,  O. 
 
 On  August  27,  1858,  the  German  Book  Society  was  organ- 
 ized at  Galion,  0.,  by  the  first  conference  of  our  Western 
 German  ministers.  Ruetenik  was  elected  the  first  agent  of  this 
 society.  In  1860  it  was  removed  to  Cleveland,  where  it  erected 
 a  publication  building  and  is  still  prospering.  The  Re- 
 formed Wdchter  was  begun  by  Book  Society  of  th^  Germans 
 of  our  Church  in  the  West.  Dr.  Ruetenik  was  editor  (1865- 
 85),  succeeded  by  Rev.  Mr.  Nan  up  to  1890,  when  its  publi- 
 cation was  discontinued. 
 
 The  Reformed  Church  Monthly,  Collegeville  (1868-76),  Dr. 
 Bomberger,  editor,  has  already  been  referred  to.  It  was 
 merged  into  the  Christian  World.  The  Reformed  Church 
 Herald,  Rev.  I.  K.  Loos,  editor,  was  published  at  Allentown, 
 1872-76.  Rev.  Mr.  Brendel  was  also  editor.  The  New  Era, 
 Pittsburg,  1873,  was  begim  by  Rev.  G.  B.  Russell.  In  1876  it 
 was  merged  into  the  Messenger.  The  Reformed  Missionary 
 was  published  by  Rev.  Mr.  Cort  1870-6.  The  Reformed  Church 
 Magazine  was  published  by  Rev.  J.  I.  Good,  D.D.,  editor,  Read- 
 ing, 1893-6.  The  Reformed  Church  Herald,  the  organ  of  the 
 synod  of  the  Interior,  was  begun  1895  and  had  continued 
 under  various  editors  the  organ  of  our  Western  Church.  The 
 Reformed  Church  Standard,  Newton,  N.  C,  the  organ  of  our 
 Southern  Church,  was  begim  1892.  Its  present  editors  are 
 Revs.  Messrs.  Rowe  and  Lyerly. 
 
 The  Korrespondent,  1894-1900,  was  published  by  the  Alumni 
 of  the  Mission-House.  The  Theologische  Zeitschrift,  1904- 
 1911  has  been  published  by  the  theological  faculty  of  the 
 Mission-House. 
 
 Section  6.    The  Orphans'  Homes  of  the  Church. 
 
 The  first  orphans'  home  opened  was  on  September  21,  1863, 
 by  Rev.  ]\Ir.  Boehringer,  at  702  Morris  street,  Southwark. 
 Philadelphia.*  Bj'  1864  it  had  twelve  inmates  and  soon 
 thirty-one.     A  property  was  purchased  at  Bridesburg,  Phila- 
 
 *See  "History  of  Bethany  Orphans'  Home,"  by  Yundt. 
 
644        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 delphia,  1864.  Rev.  Mr.  Boehringer  died  that  year  and  Rev. 
 J.  Gantenbein  was  elected  superintendent.  By  January, 
 1867,  there  were  95  orphans  and  $12,000.  a  year  were  re- 
 quired for  the  running  expenses.  Rev.  D.  Y.  Heisler  was 
 elected  superintendent  in  ]866.  In  1867  the  Home  was  re- 
 moved to  Womelsdorf,  Pa.  In  1868,  Rev.  D.  B.  Albright  was 
 elected  superintendent  and  remained  in  that  position  for  more 
 than  seventeen  years.  In  1881  the  main  building  was  de- 
 stroyed by  fire  but  rebuilt  on  a  larger  scale.  In  1886.  Rev. 
 T.  M.  Yundt  Avas  elected  superintendent.  Other  buildings 
 were  added  and  the  plant  enlarged.  Rev.  W.  F.  ]\Ioore  was 
 elected  superintendent  in  1904.  It  reported  to  the  General 
 SjTiod  of  1908  149  inmates  and  $124,000.  raised  in  1907. 
 
 St.  Paul's  Orphans'  Home  was  established  by  St.  Paul's 
 classis  in  1867  and  chartered  in  1888.  It  was  located  at 
 Butler,  Pa.,  but  is  now  at  Greenville.  It  has  had  as  its  super- 
 intendents C.  A.  Limberg,  1867-71 ;  J.  B.  Thompson,  1871-78 ; 
 T.  F.  Stauffer,  1878-82;  P.  C.  Prugh,  1882-1903,  and  D.  H. 
 Leader,  1903.  Its  report  for  1908  was  as  follows:  75  inmates 
 and  receipts  for  three  years,  $30,000. 
 
 The  Orphans'  Home  at  Fort  Wayne,  Ind.,  was  started  by 
 the  Germans  in  1883.  Its  superintendents  have  been  R^v. 
 John  Rettig,  1883-99,  and  Rev.  B.  Ruf,  1899.  In  1908  it 
 had  property  worth  $85,000.  and  had  93  orphans.  During  its 
 history  375  have  found  shelter. 
 
 Another  Orphans'  Home  was  started  at  Crescent,  N.  C,  in 
 1906.  Its  report  (1910)  is  that  it  has  22  orphans  and  a 
 house  on  a  fine  farm  of  115  acres. 
 
 Still  another  Orphans'  Home  was  foimded  1909,  called  the 
 Hoffman  Industrial  Orphanage.  It  is  located  five  miles  from 
 Littlestown,  Pa. 
 
 Section  7.    The  Sunday  School  Work  of  the  Church. 
 
 The  earliest  Sunday  school  in  our  Church  seems  to  have 
 been  organized  in  the  First  Reformed  Church,  Philadelphia, 
 April  14,  1806,  with  40  scholars.  In  1825,  Zion's  at  Allen- 
 town,  in  1828  Lebanon,  in  1830  Chambersburg  are  among  the 
 
The  Activities  op  the  Church.  645 
 
 earliest  schools.  About  this  period  other  schools  were  or- 
 ganized, as  in  Baltimore,  Hagerstown,  Lancaster,  etc.  In 
 some  places,  as  at  Reading,  union  schools  were  first  organized, 
 from  which  the  Reformed  later  separated.  There  was  con- 
 siderable opposition  at  first  in  many  congregations,  especially 
 in  the  country,  to  Sunday  schools,  many  preferring  the  old 
 parochial  school.  Often  at  first  Sunday  schools  were  not  al- 
 lowed in  the  church,  or  if  in  the  church  sometimes  in  the 
 basement,  (at  Reading  it  met  at  first  in  what  was  almost  the 
 cellar,)  but  the  Sunday  schools  won  their  way  in  spite  of 
 an  action  of  East  Pennsylvania  classis  (1829)  against  them, 
 and  in  1835  the  synod  formed  a  Sunday  School  Society.  In 
 1841,  the  Eastern  synod  appointed  a  committee  to  choose  and 
 prepare  books  in  German  and  English  for  use  in  the  Sunday 
 schools,  each  book,  however  had  to  obtain  the  unanimous  vote 
 of  the  committee.  Up  to  1848  eight  books  had  thus  been 
 published. 
 
 The  General  Synod  of  1863  created  a  Sunday  School  board, 
 but  nothing  was  done  by  it. 
 
 In  1875,  the  Reformed  Church  Publication  board  of  the 
 three  eastern  synods  began  the  issue  of  Sunday  school  litera- 
 ture and  at  about  the  same  time,  English  Simday  school  les- 
 son helps  and  papers  were  issued  under  the  direction  of  the 
 Ohio  synod.  The  Central  Publishing  House,  Cleveland,  Ohio, 
 representing  the  three  German  synods,  began  to  publish  and 
 still  continues  the  publication  of  German  lesson  helps. 
 
 The  General  Synod  in  1887  re-established  the  Sunday 
 School  board.  Under  the  direction  of  this  board,  the  Heidel- 
 berg Teacher,  published  at  Dayton,  Ohio,  as  early  as  1873, 
 took  the  place  of  the  Guardian,  and  began  its  enlarged  sphere 
 of  usefulness  January,  1888. 
 
 At  the  suggestion  of  the  board,  the  General  Synod  of  1893 
 created  the  office  of  General  Secretary  of  Sunday  School 
 Work,  and  Rev.  Rufus  "W.  Miller,  D.D.,  was  elected  to  the 
 position.  He  entered  upon  his  duties  January  1,  1894,  being 
 publicly  inducted  into  office  February  1st  of  that  year  in  the 
 historic  First  Reformed   Church,   Philadelphia.     Dr.   Miller 
 
646        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 still  continues  in  the  office  of  General  Secretary,  as  well  as 
 editor  of  the  Sunday  school  periodicals. 
 
 The  board  is  supported  in  its  educational  and  missionary 
 work  by  freewill  offerings,  the  General  Synod  and  all  the 
 synods  recommending  an  annual  offering  on  Children's  Day. 
 
 The  board  began  the  systematic  gathering  of  Sunday  school 
 statistics,  organized  the  general  work  through  the  district 
 synods  and  the  classes  and  aids  in  all  forward  movements, 
 such  as  the  establishment  of  the  Home  Department  and  Cradle 
 Roll,  Teacher  Training  Classes,  Rally  Day,  etc. 
 
 The  work  of  Sunday  school  missions  became  a  distinct  de- 
 partment. By  the  employment  of  Sunday  school  mission- 
 aries, by  grants  of  literature  and  by  co-operation  with  the 
 board  of  Home  Missions,  new  Sunday  schools  are  started  and 
 weak  and  destitute  schools  are  aided.  Since  1894  the  board 
 has  organized  a  total  of  some  forty  new  schools,  reorganized 
 six,  out  of  which  thirty  congregations  have  been  established 
 and  hundreds  of  schools  have  been  aided  with  grants  of  lit- 
 erature. The  offerings  for  this  work  have  average  $11,000. 
 for  each  triennium.  Rev.  J.  C.  Horning  was  the  first  Sunday 
 school  missionary.  After  the  General  Synod  of  1896,  this 
 board  acquired  from  the  board  of  Publication  of  the  three 
 eastern  synods  and  the  Reformed  Publication  Co.,  Dayton,  0., 
 the  publication  of  Simday  school  literature  and  Sunday 
 school  supplies.  It  has  had  large  success  in  the  great  improve- 
 ment and  increase  of  Sunday  school  periodicals.  During  the 
 period  from  1896-1910  it  created  a  capital  by  its  earnings  of 
 $34,000.,  and  out  of  its  earnings  during  this  time,  appropri- 
 ated more  than  $8,000.  to  Sunday  school  missionary  work  and 
 to  the  erection  of  the  Reformed  Church  building  some  $30,000. 
 and,  in  addition,  paid  as  royalty  to  the  Reformed  Church 
 Publication  board  some  $12,000. 
 
 The  board  became  incorporated  in  1897.  Rev.  J.  S.  Stahr, 
 D.D.,  was  selected  in  1896  as  the  representative  of  the  Re- 
 formed Church  for  the  International  Lesson  Committee.  He 
 served  until  1908.  At  the  present  time  Rev.  C.  Clever,  D.D., 
 president  of  the  Sunday  School  board,  is  a  member  of  this 
 
The  Activities  of  the  Church.  647 
 
 International  Committee  of  the  International  Sunday  School 
 Association. 
 
 In  1908  the  Sunday  School  board  erected  the  Reformed 
 Church  building  in  Philadelphia,  a  seven-story  office  building, 
 at  a  cost  of  $150,000.  and  in  1910  additional  groimd  adjoin- 
 ing the  building  was  purchased.  The  Sunday  school  member- 
 ship has  practically  doubled  since  1894.  The  statistics  of  1910 
 report:  Number  of  schools,  1,736;  officers  and  teachers,  27,- 
 969 ;  scholars,  265,113. 
 
APPENDIX  I. 
 The  Revival  at  York.* 
 
 Bear  Brother:  In  your  last  letter  you  intimate  a  wish  to  learn  some- 
 thing respecting  our  late  protracted  meeting,  and  having  a  few  leisure 
 moments,  I  know  not  why  I  should  not  give  you  the  brief  narrative. 
 You  well  know  from  statements  made  privately  as  well  as  publicly 
 in  my  report  to  classis,  that  though  among  a  kind-hearted  people  I 
 have  been  much  discouraged  by  the  coldness  and  indifference  which  has 
 prevailed  for  years  in  this  place  on  the  subject  of  vital  godliness. 
 Satisfied  finally  in  my  own  mind  that  nothing  but  a  special  effort  in 
 dependence  on  God  could  bring  about  a  better  state  of  things,  I  resolved 
 to  hold  a  protracted  meeting  at  my  fall  communion  season.  And  fully 
 convinced  that  even  a  special  effort  can  succeed  only  through  the  divine 
 blessing,  a  prayer-meeting  on  Sunday  mornings  was  commenced  some- 
 time in  the  summer,  the  special  object  of  which  was  to  supplicate  the 
 outpouring  of  God's  Spirit  upon  the  congregation.  At  the  same  time 
 the  necessity  and  means  of  promoting  a  revival  was  publicly  discussed 
 in  the  pulpit.  The  time  for  holding  the  meeting  having  been  fixed  upon, 
 a  number  of  brethren  were  invited;  but  to  my  regret  the  answers  of 
 all  excepting  one  (and  this  came  to  hand  too  late)  were  such  as  left  it 
 exceedingly  uncertain  whether  they  could  attend,  so  that  I  was  afraid 
 to  inform  the  congregation  of  my  intention  lest  they  should  be  dis- 
 appointed, the  injurious  effects  of  which  you  well  know.  The  appoint- 
 ment was  therefore  made  for  the  communion  as  usual,  services  to  com- 
 mence on  the  Friday  previous.  The  day  arrived  and  but  one  of  the 
 brethren  came.  It  was  our  dear  brother  from  Chester  County  (Guldin). 
 But  though  he  came  alone  his  heart  was  encouraged,  for  it  soon  be- 
 came evident  that  he  had  come  in  the  fullness  of  the  gospel. 
 
 He  commenced  preaching  at  the  appointed  time,  viz,  on  Friday  even- 
 ing and  on  Saturday  and  Sunday  preached  three  times  a  day,  during 
 which  days  our  faith  was  severely  tried.  For  though  the  word  was 
 preached  with  the  utmost  pungency  and  much  of  the  time  intervening 
 was  spent  in  wrestling  with  God  in  prayer,  it  seemed  as  far  as  we 
 could  then  see,  to  produce  but  little  effect ;  so  that  on  Sunday  after 
 the  sermon,  we  debated  the  matter  sometime  in  the  pulpit,  before  we 
 ventured  to  make  another  appointment  for  the  following  day, — when 
 we  came  to  the  conclusion  at  length  to  make  another  appointment  for 
 the  morning  in  the  lecture-room,  which  was  done,  and  a  blessed  season 
 
 *From  Messenger,  February  9,  1837. 
 
 648 
 
Appendix  I.  649 
 
 it  proved.  It  was  on  this  morning  during  the  preaching  of  our  brother 
 that  God  came  down  in  his  power.  The  congregation  was  melted  down. 
 And  our  invitation  being  given  to  the  anxious  to  come  forward  (though 
 the  audience  was  by  no  means  large),  twenty  or  thirty  immediately  pre- 
 sented themselves  kneeling  about  the  rostrum,  some  weeping  aloud  and 
 all  in  tears  desiring  an  interest  in  our  prayers.  O,  it  was  a  glorious 
 sight  and  one  which  shall  never,  I  trust,  be  effaced  from  my  mind.  I 
 have  seen  the  Spirit  of  God  poured  out  before,  but  never  under  cir- 
 cumstances so  calculated  to  make  a  deep  and  lasting  impression  upon 
 my  own  mind.  I  was  among  the  people  for  whose  spiritual  welfare 
 I  had  felt  special  concern  and  in  the  place  where  my  prayers  had  so 
 often  ascended  for  such  a  manifestation  of  God's  power. 
 
 After  this  the  preaching  was  of  course  continued  and  we  had  the 
 regular  service  three  times  a  day,  besides  a  prayer-meeting  in  the 
 morning,  throughout  the  week  and  on  the  Lord's  day  following, — the 
 brother  doing  (with  a  few  exceptions)  all  the  preaching,  being  sustained 
 under  the  labors  in  a  truly  remarkable  manner.  And  at  the  close  of  al- 
 most every  successive  sermon,  new  subjects  appeared  among  the  anxious, 
 so  that  on  the  last  evening  when  an  invitation  was  given  to  as  many  as 
 had  during  the  meetings  given  themselves  up,  or  might  be  disposed  to  do 
 so,  to  meet  us  in  the  lecture  room,  the  room  was  literally  filled.  Of 
 course,  some  of  them  were  Christians,  who  had  anew  dedicated  them- 
 selves to  the  Lord,  and  others  may  have  been  brought  in  by  curiosity, 
 yet  the  greater  number  we  had  reason  to  believe  had  been  truly  wrought 
 upon  and  were  more  or  less  concerned  for  the  salvation  of  their  souls. 
 How  many  of  these  have  been  really  brought  into  the  kingdom  I  will 
 not  venture  to  say, — would  indulge  the  hope,  however,  of  a  considerable 
 number,  some  of  whom  at  least  have  so  far  given  all  the  evidence  of 
 a  real  change  that  could  be  reasonably  looked  for.  I  could  detail  to  you 
 several  cases  peculiarly  interesting,  did  time  and  space  permit. 
 
 But  the  number  of  conversions,  in  which  the  meeting  may  have  im- 
 mediately resulted,  is  not  the  only  thing  to  be  looked  at  in  estimating 
 the  good  which  it  has  been,  I  trust,  instrumental  in  effecting.  It  has 
 been  the  means  of  increasing  the  number  of  teachers  in  our  Sunday- 
 school,  for  want  of  which  we  heretofore  suffered  much.  Our  prayer- 
 meetings  during  the  week  are  much  better  attended  and,  of  course,  are 
 more  solemn  and  interesting.  Besides,  two  private  prayer-meetings  have 
 been  commenced — one  composed  entirely  of  females  and  the  other  of 
 males.  The  female  prayer-meeting  numbers  already  twenty,  all  of 
 whom  are  pledged  to  take  part  in  the  exercises.  The  male  prayer-meet- 
 ing is  as  yet  small,  but  though  a  little  band  I  look  to  it  with  great 
 expectation.  Thus  has  the  Lord  remembered  us,  for  which  his  name 
 be  praised. 
 
 But  while  we  have  this  to  encourage  us,  wc  have  also  still  much  more 
 over   which   to   mourn.      While   some   pressed   into   the   kingdom,    others 
 
650        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 stood  entirely  aloof, — came  not  within  the  reach  of  the  truth  or  else 
 steeled  their  hearts  against  it,  so  that  they  are  now  harder,  it  is  to  be 
 feared,  than  they  were  before.  O  that  the  Lord  would  continue  to  mani- 
 fest his  divine  power  in  our  midst  until  every  proud  sinner  shall  be 
 humbled  at  the  foot  of  the  cross.    Brethren,  pray  for  us. 
 
 Yours,  &c., 
 
 J.  Cares. 
 YorTc,  January  .30,  1837. 
 
APPENDIX  II. 
 
 Letter  of  Rev.   Samuel  Helffenstein  About 
 THE  Liturgy.* 
 
 GwTNEDD,  December   14,  1857. 
 
 Bear  Brother:  In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  7th  instant,  I  will  ob- 
 serve : 
 
 1.  You  inquired  how  the  religious  services  were  conducted  in  our 
 Church  by  myself  and  the  other  ministers  of  our  Church  as  far  back 
 as  my  knowledge  extends  and  whether  the  service  proposed  in  the  new 
 liturgy  for  the  regular  worship  of  the  Sabbath  is  that  which  obtained 
 in  the  early  part  of  our  Church  in  this  country.  I  answer  that  the  re- 
 ligious services  were  always  conducted  as  they  are  now  conducted  by 
 our  ministers  generally  and  as  they  were  conducted  at  the  meeting  of 
 synod  at  Allentown.  Again,  you  wish  to  know  my  opinion  in  relation 
 to  the  introduction  of  the  new  liturgy  in  our  Churches.  I  would  reply 
 the  new  liturgy,  containing  a  litany  similar  to  the  litany  of  the  Episco- 
 pal Churches  to  be  used  in  our  churches,  does  not  meet  with  ray  approval. 
 The  Episcopal  Church  with  its  liturgy  is  no  rule  for  our  Church  and  is  in 
 some  respects  very  objectionable.  The  liturgy  and  other  forms  to  which 
 you  allude  would  be  something  new  in  our  Church.  I  know  of  no 
 responses,  repeating  of  the  Creed  by  the  congregation  or  kneeling  at  the 
 regular  services  of  the  Church,  together  with  confession  and  absolution, 
 as  proposed  in  the  new  liturgy.  I  have  in  my  possession  the  Agenda 
 or  the  liturgy  of  the  Swiss  Reformed  Church,  published  at  Basle,  in  the 
 year  1701,  but  it  has  no  litany.  This  liturgy  is  similar  to  the  Pala- 
 tinate and  its  form  of  preparatory  service  is  verbatim  the  same. 
 
 I  would  observe  here  that  the  word  litany  is  derived  from  the  Greek 
 litaneia  supplication,  litaneo  -to  beseech.  Litanies  were  not  used  at  stated 
 times  were  but  only  employed  as  emergencies  required.  They  were 
 at  first  employed  to  avert  the  judgments  of  God.  In  about  the  year 
 400  they  were  used  in  processions,  people  walking  barefooted,  and  re- 
 peating them  with  great  devotion  for  the  purpose  of  delivering  them 
 from  great  calamities.  Then  they  were  used  every  month  throughout 
 the  year.  By  degrees  they  came  to  be  used  on  Wednesdays  and  Fridays 
 and  finally  used  in  the  Episcopal  Church  every  Sunday. 
 
 *From  the  Messenger,  March  17,  1858.  (We  could  duplicate  this  letter 
 by  many  more  found  in  the  Messenger  and  elsewhere.) 
 
 651 
 
652        History  of  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S. 
 
 The  use  of  the  liturgy  in  our  Church,  as  observed  before,  would  be 
 something  new.  Its  use  would  lead  to  formality,  would  take  up  the  time 
 which  would  be  employed  for  other  purposes,  and  would  create  dissatis- 
 faction and  divide  the  Church.  It  would  be  especially  objectionable  to 
 our  German  congregations  and  consequently  answer  no  good  purpose. 
 
 A  suitable  liturgy  nevertheless  is  desirable  and  would  be  much  in 
 use  in  families  and  for  ministers,  especially  for  young  ministers,  to  be 
 used  as  a  guide  in  the  administration  of  the  sacraments  and  other 
 ministerial  duties. 
 
 From  what  I  have  now  said  you  will  see  that  I  am  not  in  favor  of 
 the  use  of  a  liturgy  nor  of  the  new  forms  to  which  you  refer,  but  prefer 
 the  good  old  way  of  conducting  our  church  ser^-ices. 
 
 Yours  respectfully, 
 
 Samuel  Helffenstein. 
 
 P.  S. — The  new  liturgy  is  now  in  my  possession  and  I  have  commenced 
 examining  it.  I  saw  Rev.  Schlatter  once  only.  But  he  always,  when  he 
 ministered  in  Philadelphia,  conducted  the  services  as  we  do.  At  least  I 
 know  nothing  to  the  contrary.  S.   H. 
 
APPENDIX  III. 
 The   Reformed  and  the  Evangelical  Association. 
 
 An  additional  fact  in  regard  to  the  influence  of  our  Re- 
 formed Church  for  Pietism  and  revivals  has  been  forgot- 
 ten in  the  earlier  part  of  this  book  and  needs  to  be  men- 
 tioned. For  it  we  are  indebted  to  Rev.  A.  Stapleton,  D.D., 
 the  historian  of  the  United  Evangelical  Church.  It  is  that 
 not  only  did  the  Pietism  of  our  Church  lead  to  the  starting 
 of  the  United  Brethren  Church,  but  also  to  the  founding  of 
 the  Church  of  the  Evangelical  Association.  We  had  hitherto 
 supposed  that  Albright,  the  foimder  of  that  Church,  had  come 
 out  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  but  Dr.  Stapleton  gives  the  fol- 
 lowing facts:  That  Albright,  though  ancestrally  Lutheran, 
 was  not  a  member  of  Church  and  was  not  converted,  until  the 
 death  of  a  number  of  his  children  in  close  succession  solemnized 
 him  and  placed  in  him  the  desire  to  prepare  for  eternity.  It 
 was  under  the  preaching  and  spiritual  guidance  of  Rev. 
 Anthony  Hautz  of  our  Church,  who  later  went  to  New  York 
 State,  that  Albright  was  converted.  This  occurred  about 
 1790.  Albright  afterwards  founded  the  Church  of  the  Evan- 
 gelical Association,  now  the  Evangelical  Church,  which  divid- 
 ed about  twenty  years  ago  into  Evangelical  and  United  Evan- 
 gelical. 
 
 Thus  the  pietism  of  the  Reformed  Church  led  to  the  found- 
 ing of  both  the  United  Brethren  and  the  Evangelical 
 Churches.  If  our  Church  had  been  wise  enough  to  have  con- 
 trolled these  movements  and  retained  them  within  herself, 
 she  would  be  more  than  twice  as  strong  as  she  is,  judging  by 
 the  number  of  members  now  belonging  to  these  Churches. 
 
 653 
 
INDEX. 
 
 A. 
 
 Abbottstown,   133. 
 
 Albany   Church,  35,  37. 
 
 Albert,   300,    524. 
 
 Albright,    189,    644. 
 
 Allardt,    118. 
 
 Allentown,  644. 
 
 Alliance  of  Reformed  Churches 
 holding  the  Presbyterian  sys- 
 tem, 616. 
 
 Allegheny,  34,  41. 
 
 Alsace,   34,   41. 
 
 Alsentz,  12. 
 
 Anna,  111,  194. 
 
 Apostles'    Creed,    267,    268. 
 
 Appel,  J.  H.,  581. 
 
 Appel,  Theodore,  73,  84,  85,  104, 
 116,  138,  228,  239,  263,  285, 
 323,  378,  384,  404,  407,  408, 
 415,  452,  457,  524,  562,  627. 
 
 Apple,  T.  G.,  84,  107,  378,  416, 
 420,  421-2,  424,  429,  451,456, 
 457,  463,  478,  488,  489,  496, 
 500,  505,  516,  517,  525,  526, 
 530,  531,  541,  545,  547,  569, 
 572-4,  581,  599,  603,  613,  620, 
 627,  642. 
 
 Attica,   Ind.,   132. 
 
 Ault,  568. 
 
 Aurandt,  127,  131,  133,  193,  289, 
 308. 
 
 Bakersville,  132. 
 
 Baltimore,   10,  84,   132,   133,  308. 
 
 Bassler,  20,   199. 
 
 Bauman,  490-1. 
 
 Bausman,  404,  409,  412,  420,  484, 
 
 519,  640-2. 
 Beam,  601. 
 Beayer.   642. 
 Beck,  310,  420. 
 Becker,    C.    J.,    10,    11,    13-5,    126, 
 
 160,   176,   189,  353,   622. 
 Becker,   J.   C,   14,   20,   24,   32,   54, 
 
 79,  98,  160-2,  166-7,  170,  597. 
 Bedford,  607. 
 
 Beecher,  68,  151,  176,  199. 
 
 Begeman,   118. 
 
 Bennet,  199,  200. 
 
 Benselem,   34. 
 
 Berentz,   47. 
 
 Berkey,  48. 
 
 Berkenmeyer,    41-6. 
 
 Berg,  54,  77,  115,  132-3,  138,  148, 
 156-9,  172,  176,  181,  219,  221, 
 223,   227-9. 
 
 Bern,  35,  198,  248,  251,  256,  262, 
 275,  279,  280,  284,  286-91, 
 306,  317-20,   325-6,  328,  522. 
 
 Bethlehem,    133-4,    194. 
 
 Bibighaus,  19,  37,  54,  227. 
 
 Biehl,  294. 
 
 Bindaman,  20. 
 
 Blatgen,   294. 
 
 Bloomsburg,    134. 
 
 Blumer,  2,  6,  164. 
 
 Boalsburg,    132,    151. 
 
 Boehm,  6.  80. 
 
 Boehm's  Church,  80,  132-134,  150. 
 
 Boehringer,  643. 
 
 Boger,   190,   197,   198,  402. 
 
 Bokum,   99. 
 
 Bomberger,  78,  133,  290,  309,  324-6, 
 332,  347,  349,  378,  380-2,  394, 
 409,  424-426,  432-5,  438,  456, 
 461,  476,  484-6,  488,  507,  510, 
 521,  524-6,  532-4,  537-40,  543, 
 552,  564,  567,  580,  607,  612, 
 629,  642,  643. 
 
 Bonekemper,  290,  467-8,  496,   631. 
 
 Bossard,  420,  467-8,  496,  631. 
 
 Bousch,  539. 
 
 Bowman,  600. 
 
 Boyer,   41. 
 
 Bremen,   13-4. 
 
 Brendle,  601,  643. 
 
 Brettell,   226. 
 
 Brick   Church,   N.   C,   131. 
 
 Brobst,  184. 
 
 Brodhead,  8. 
 
 Brown,   163,   196-7. 
 
 Brownbacks,   131-2. 
 
 Brownson,  269-70. 
 
 Bruecker,   294. 
 
 Brunner,  19,  176,  186. 
 
 655 
 
656 
 
 Index. 
 
 Buchanan,  295,  296,  298. 
 
 Bucher,  58,  68,  133,  134,  139,  172, 
 
 181,   186,  262,  470,  501,  642. 
 Budd,  73,  76,  80,  518. 
 Buettner,  117-121,  168,  182. 
 Buffalo  Valley,   171. 
 Burghalter,   642. 
 Busehe,    634. 
 Buser,  690. 
 Butler,  301. 
 
 C. 
 
 Cabarras,   199. 
 
 Callender.   485,   581. 
 
 Calvin,  239,  257,  422. 
 
 Canfield,    194. 
 
 Canton,   194. 
 
 Cares,  131,  134,  171,  172,  648-50. 
 
 Carlisle,  61-71,  74,  89. 
 
 Carrollton,  449. 
 
 Catawba  College,  298-300,  637. 
 
 Catechisms,   161-8. 
 
 Cathcart,  61,  71,  74,  89. 
 
 Catholics,  229. 
 
 Catholicism,    Perversions    to,    517- 
 
 27. 
 Centre,   34,  41,   133. 
 Centre  Co.,  132. 
 Centenary,  80,   115. 
 Chambersburg,   11,   23,   75-77,   131, 
 
 134,  644. 
 Chapman,   134. 
 Cherry  Valley,   134,   150-1. 
 Chitai-a,    13.  ' 
 Christman,   194,   198,  524. 
 Church   of   God,   60. 
 Church  ITnion.   179-88,  610,  624. 
 Cincinnati,  155. 
 Clever,  646. 
 Colobrookdale,    734. 
 CollitloAver,    133,   289,   407. 
 Columbus,  122. 
 Conrad,  610. 
 
 Constitution,  3,  178,  585-595. 
 •     Cortner,    797-8. 
 
 Corpus  Evangelicorum,  200. 
 
 Cort,  488-91,  601. 
 
 Corwin,    179. 
 
 Coventry,   34. 
 
 Crawford,  63,   131-2,  298. 
 
 Crooks,  132,  199. 
 
 D. 
 
 Daub,   94-5,    105. 
 
 Daubert,  118. 
 
 Dauphin  Co..  133. 
 
 Davis,  131,  356,  485,  544,  641. 
 
 Davidson,   131,   199. 
 
 Dayton,    133,    137. 
 
 Dechant.    13,   20,   26-44,    171,    189, 
 
 191,  194,  195. 
 De  Long,  601. 
 Dellicker,  2,  6. 
 DesCombes,  20,  178. 
 Denues,  14. 
 
 Derr.    292,    356,   404,   468-9,   475. 
 De  Witt,  408. 
 
 Diefenbach,   14,  35,   190,   193,   198. 
 Dickijison  College,  61,  63,  71. 
 Dober,  73. 
 Dole,  534,  611. 
 Dolch,  640. 
 Dorner,  471-5. 
 Douglass,   193,  325. 
 Drever,  155,  184,  639. 
 Dubbs,  16,  17,  35,  41,  51,  53-4,  84, 
 
 126,    147,   162,   164,   205,   274, 
 
 388,   641. 
 Dubendorf,  2,   6. 
 Duenger,  82. 
 Dunkels,   41. 
 Dunn,  534-6,  541-4,  559. 
 Du   Pert.    197. 
 Dutch     Reformed,     179-82,     304-7, 
 
 612. 
 
 E. 
 
 Eastburn,  8. 
 
 Easton,  81,  98. 
 
 Ebaugh,  19,  24,  53,  68,  69,  70,  71, 
 
 73,   131,   139,   198. 
 Ebert,   629. 
 Ebrard,    206,    208,    336,    394,    406, 
 
 411. 
 E'mniittsburg,  131,  133. 
 Enders,   22. 
 
 Erinentrout,  304,  518,   522,   524. 
 Ernst,   262,   610. 
 Eschbach,    497,    547,    612. 
 Evangelical     Alliance,     257,     567, 
 
 619. 
 Ewing,   133. 
 Exceil,  611. 
 Eylert,   39. 
 
 F. 
 
 Dalilnian,   616. 
 Daniel,  20,  190. 
 
 Fabor.   1.  6,   13. 
 Faohriiig,    11. 
 
Index. 
 
 657 
 
 Falkner  Swamp,  16,  41. 
 
 Fayette,  N.  Y.,  196. 
 
 Fayetteville,  133, 
 
 Feete,  132,  196. 
 
 Ferris,    200. 
 
 Fimiey,  .'50-1,  130. 
 
 Fisher,  16,  18,  132,  133,  641. 
 
 Fisher,  S.  R.,  81,  111,  112,  132, 
 136,  173,  260,  277,  306-7,  332, 
 349,  3.')3,  3.57,  361,  367,  370-3, 
 375,  402,  404,  407,  459,  465, 
 484,  500,  510-7,  530,  537,  543, 
 54.5,  555-6,  585,  597,  610,  613, 
 639. 
 
 Foreign  Correspoudence,  187-8, 
 617-9. 
 
 Foersch,    155. 
 
 Foreign  Missions  j  See  Missions, 
 Foreign. 
 
 Forney,   555-6. 
 
 Foulk,  360,  353,  37.3,  420. 
 
 Fouse,  489,  490,  491. 
 
 Foust,  194,  195. 
 
 Franklin  and  Marshall  College, 
 295-8,   636. 
 
 Frederick  11,  25,  29,  8.3,  131,  133, 
 428,  547,  568. 
 
 Freeze,   122,   132,   133. 
 
 Friends  Cove,  133. 
 
 Friedens,  Va.,   196. 
 
 Fries,   13,  20,  38,  43-4,   171. 
 
 Fritehey,  63,  198-9. 
 
 Fritschel,  512-7. 
 
 Froelich,  200. 
 
 Fuendeling,   631. 
 
 G. 
 
 Gans,  369-73,  378,  404,  409,  417, 
 4.39,  442-4,  488,  520,  531,  547, 
 568. 
 
 Gantenhein,  631,  644. 
 
 Gasser,    200. 
 
 Gehr,  265,  454,  527,  6.39,  640. 
 
 Geiger,  14,  1.5,  20,  134,  171,  522. 
 
 Ceistweit,    16. 
 
 Gerhard,  20,  601. 
 J  Gerhart,  19,  79,  84,  98,  105,  123, 
 1.39,  153,  177,  190,  227,  237, 
 297,  333-5,  357,  367,  375-6, 
 380,  402,  404,  408,  416,  420, 
 448,  466,  477,  483,  484,  495- 
 6,  504,  .540,  553-4,  601,  603, 
 610,   611-3,   619,   620. 
 
 Germany,  Reformed  of,  336,  366. 
 
 German  Valley,  7. 
 
 Germantown,  132,  150. 
 
 Gettysburg,  133. 
 
 Giesy,  19.3,  458,  486,  521-2. 
 
 Giessondanner,  200. 
 
 Glade,  132,  133. 
 
 Gloninger,  11,  13,   180,  353. 
 
 Gobrecht,  1,  6,  12,  13. 
 
 Gock,  38-9. 
 
 Good,  J.  H.,  119,  122.3,  221,  326, 
 
 329,   390,   394,   429,   442,   446, 
 
 450,   468,   470,   475,   482,   492, 
 
 504,  516,  518-9,  529,  558,563, 
 
 581,  585,  642. 
 Good,   R.,   123. 
 Good,  Jonathan,   101. 
 Good,  J.  I.,  613,  616,  643. 
 Good,  W.  A.,  72-3,  77-9,  4.54. 
 Gossler,  39,  40. 
 Graeff,  23,  482. 
 Grant,   186. 
 Graves,  197. 
 
 Greding,  470,  478-80,  540,  581. 
 Greencastle,  131. 
 Greensburg,  193. 
 Grier,   50. 
 Griffeth,  404,  407. 
 Grindstone   Hill,    132-3. 
 Gring,  635. 
 Groh,   197. 
 Gros,   11,  24,  83. 
 Gross,   420. 
 Gueting,  2,  6,  126. 
 Guilford,  197-8. 
 Guilford,    197-8. 
 Guldin,  16,  34,  36,  47,  48,  .54,  131, 
 
 133,   204,   229,   243,   244,   6.39, 
 
 648. 
 Gutelius,    20,    54,    133,    171,    611, 
 
 639. 
 
 H. 
 
 Hableston,  14,  190,  193. 
 
 Hacke,  14,  20,  118,  148,  193. 
 
 Haeger,  196. 
 
 Hagersto\Yn,   131-2. 
 
 Hamilton,    134. 
 
 Hamm,  621. 
 
 Hangen,   20. 
 
 Hansen,  632. 
 
 Harbaugh,  38.  46,  89,  96,  125, 
 306,  309,  .3.53,  357,  360,  362, 
 366-7,  378,  380,  402,  404,  408, 
 413-,5,  421,  439,  46.5,  477-8, 
 507,  641. 
 
 Harrisburg,   11,  58-9,   1.34,   181. 
 
 Hartman,  522. 
 
 Hassenger,  19,  54. 
 
668 
 
 Index. 
 
 Haasler,  19. 
 
 Hauck,  190-1,  198-9. 
 
 Hauser,  634. 
 
 Hautz,   1,  195,  61.3. 
 
 Heffelfinger,  304. 
 
 Hegel,  240,  314,  315. 
 
 Heidelberg  College  and  Seminary, 
 
 117-123,  636-7. 
 Heidelberg,  Philadelphia,  607. 
 Heiner,   81,  89,  92,   132,   181,  223, 
 
 216,    228,    249-50,    262,    290-2, 
 
 296,    307-9,    326,    355-6,    402, 
 
 465,  632. 
 Heisler,  292,  644. 
 
 Helffenstein,  J.  H.  A.,  3,  125,  322. 
 Helffenstein,  A.,  14,  15,  19,  24,  31, 
 
 79,    99,    112,    132,    176,    246, 
 
 597. 
 Helffenstein,  C,  14,  47,  117. 
 Helffenstein,  Jacob,   131,  133,  138, 
 
 146,    148,   151,    171,   223,    226, 
 
 229,  279,  280,  286,  290,  303-4. 
 Helffenstein,  .Jonathan,  14,  19,  22, 
 
 24,  31,  32,  131,  176,  190,  191. 
 Helffenstein,  Samuel,  8,  9,  13,   18- 
 
 20,  21-2,  24,  25-30,  51,  .59,  60, 
 
 62,    91,    160-163,    170-1,    174, 
 
 176,  180,  183,  186-7,  191,  197, 
 
 229,  304,  353-4,  362,  407,  507- 
 
 9,  630,  651-2. 
 Helffenstein,     Samuel,     Jr.,     290 
 
 325,  354,  386. 
 Helffrieh,    .3,    6,    13,    19,    36,    134, 
 
 154,    160,    162,    165,   455,   463, 
 
 500,  506,  566. 
 Hendel,  W.,  Sr.,  1,  3,  13,  12.5,  154, 
 
 175,  3.53. 
 Hendel,  W.,  Jr.,  21,  24,  35,  61,  78, 
 
 129,  170,   180,  183,  187-9. 
 Hengstenberg,  4. 
 Henop,  125. 
 Ilonsell,   132-3,  227. 
 llcrlirufk,  118,  621-2,  642. 
 Hereford,   37,   40-1. 
 Herman,  L.  F.,  2,  3,  6,   8,   12,   1.5, 
 
 22,  26-33,  35,  39,  40,  48-9,  53- 
 
 4,  91,  102.  166,  18.3,  223. 
 Herman,  16,  32,  35,  36,  47,  53. 
 Hertz,    19,    133,    176,    184. 
 Herzog,  408-10. 
 Hess,   14,  20,   120,  162,  164. 
 Hiester,  13,  37,  125,  162,  35.3,  624. 
 Higbee,    451,    462,    488,    489,    536, 
 
 539,  .540-1,  .568. 
 Hill  Church,   133. 
 Hillegas,  20. 
 
 Hines,  20. 
 
 Hinsch,  24,  32,  47,  51,  61,  70,  126, 
 
 170-1,   183,   186,   639. 
 Hinke,  162,  167,  169.  200. 
 Hodge,  24,   254,  263. 
 Hoffedeitz,    19,    20,    42,    98,    134, 
 
 171-2,    188,    204-.5,    227,    386, 
 
 597. 
 Hoffheins,  133. 
 Hoffman.   196,  357. 
 Hoffmeier,  11,  21,   22,  182-3,,  352- 
 
 3,  355,  366,  610. 
 Home      Missions.      See     Missions, 
 
 Home. 
 Horoung,  646. 
 Ploy,  635. 
 Hudson,  522. 
 
 Hundeshagen,  406-7,  410,  480. 
 Huntingdon,  .535. 
 Hutchinson,    186. 
 Hymn-books,  2,  175-7,  595. 
 
 I. 
 
 Ibbeken,   193. 
 Ingold,  299,  325. 
 Intelligencer,  222,  272,  293-6. 
 l.senberg,  535. 
 
 J. 
 
 Jannsen,  320. 
 
 Johnson,  437,  447,  490,  027, 
 
 Jones,   157. 
 
 Jonestown,  131. 
 
 K. 
 
 Kabus,  622. 
 
 Karshncr,    489. 
 
 Kefauver,  581. 
 
 Kelker,  .58,  311,  367,  398.  404,  425 
 
 437,  455,  581,  ,184,  635. 
 Keller,   132,   19,5,   311,   467-9,   470, 
 
 523,  621. 
 Kelly,  636. 
 
 Kemmerer,  20,  160,  193. 
 Keiidig,  628. 
 
 Ke.ssler,  22,5,  375,  4(14,  612. 
 Keyes,  295. 
 Kieffer,   76,   79,  88,   106,   123,   13" 
 
 134,    190,    291,   409,'  417,'  419* 
 
 449,    468-9,    470,    537,    610-1, 
 
 613,  616,  6,39,  641. 
 King,  20,   195. 
 Klar,   291. 
 Klein,  420,  451,  467-9,  470,  539. 
 
Index, 
 
 659 
 
 227, 
 
 367, 
 466, 
 
 334. 
 
 Klopp,  485,  G08. 
 
 Knaus,  1!),  li)S. 
 
 Kiii])e,    132. 
 
 Koch,   14,  20,   193. 
 
 Koehlor,  630. 
 
 Kohlbriigfjiauisni,    604-5. 
 
 Koiiij)^,   175. 
 
 Kookeii,   133,   225,   290,  304. 
 
 Krauth,  575. 
 
 Krebs,   392,   506. 
 
 Kronier,  A.  H.,  73,  79,  133, 
 292,   457,   481,   517,   601. 
 
 Krciucr,  F.  W.,  173,  289, 
 375,  402,  454,  455,  464, 
 476,   506,   648,   581,   608. 
 
 Kremer,  F.  Abner,  211,  310. 
 
 Kroh,  131,  133,  176,  184,  194, 
 
 Kriurimacher,  203-4,  248,  255-6. 
 
 Knelling,  581,  640. 
 
 Kurtz,   147,  255. 
 
 Kiiss,  631. 
 
 Kutztowu,  34,  35,  42. 
 
 L, 
 
 Lancaster,  1,  4,   11,  75,   134,  437. 
 
 Land,  629. 
 
 Landisburg,  131,  133. 
 
 Larose,  178,  194,  198, 
 
 Laueks,  642. 
 
 Lay-baptism,  442, 
 
 Leader,  501,  644. 
 
 Leahy,   221, 
 
 Lebanon,  37,  81,  131-4,  157-9,  644. 
 
 Leberman,  456,  484,  526,  627. 
 
 Lecliner,  20. 
 
 Lcidy,  54,  133,   190,   197. 
 
 Leinbach,   16,  35,  49,  51,   53,   133, 
 
 143,  227,  262. 
 Leiter,   133. 
 Leonard,  611. 
 Lerch,   199. 
 Levan,    236,    255. 
 Lewis,  230,  255. 
 Lexingfton,  131-2,  180. 
 Lincolnton,   198. 
 Tiiinerick,    16. 
 Lindenian,    608. 
 LittlestoAvn,    133. 
 Liturgy,   168-77,  322. 
 Livingston.  22. 
 Lohr,   634. 
 Long,   20,    175.    195. 
 Loos,  442,  485.  643. 
 Loretz,  6,   198. 
 Lduddii,    186. 
 
 Lutherans,   182-6,  616. 
 Lupp,  125. 
 Lyerly,  643. 
 
 M. 
 
 Mahoning,    134. 
 
 Mahn.'iisclMiiidt,   178,   193-5,  622. 
 
 Manclu'ster,  Aid.,   134. 
 
 Alancliester,    O.,    36. 
 
 Mansfield,  133,  194. 
 
 Mann,   1,  6. 
 
 Marslnill  College,   103,  282. 
 
 Martin,   79,   197,  611. 
 
 Martinsburg,  7,  64,  197, 
 
 McCauley,  99. 
 
 McConnell,  420. 
 
 McConnelstown,    134,   535-6. 
 
 Massilon,   118-9. 
 
 Mayer,  10,  13,  23-4,  26,  30-1,  41  6, 
 52,57,59,62-3,  64-7,  71,  78-9, 
 82-91,  99,  111,  136-7,  151,  159, 
 169,  171-4,  184-5,  187,  190, 
 197,  228,  240,  353,  431-2,  638. 
 
 Mayer,  Ph.  and  J.,  19,  75,  76,  79, 
 130. 
 
 Maytown,   133. 
 
 Meadville,  193. 
 
 Mease,  612,  642, 
 
 Meier,  605. 
 
 Mediating  Theology  of  Germany, 
 210,  587. 
 
 Mercersijurg,  75-6. 
 
 Mesick,  134,  295-6,  321,  324,  522, 
 610. 
 
 Milledoler,  29,  32,  42-5,  53,  56-7. 
 
 Miller,  19,  74,  79,  279,  404,  436, 
 471,  474,  611-2,  629,  640,  642, 
 645. 
 
 Millerstowu,   133. 
 
 Mills,   19. 
 
 Mifflinburg,  134. 
 
 Milton,   134. 
 
 Ministerial  Relief,  625. 
 
 Missions,    Foreign,    192,    632-9. 
 
 Missions,    Home,    189-201,    626-9. 
 
 Mission  House,  511,  540,  637. 
 
 Missouri,  194. 
 
 Moody  and  Sankev,   607-8. 
 
 Mori,' 631. 
 
 Aloore,   635. 
 
 Mt.    Bethel,    133-4. 
 
 Mt.   Pleasant,    193. 
 
 Mnsser,    437. 
 
 .Miihlbach,  35. 
 
 Mnlilenberg,    183. 
 
660 
 
 Index. 
 
 Miihlmeier,   631. 
 Myers,   628. 
 MussiT,  041. 
 Myerstovvii,  134. 
 
 N. 
 
 Naille,   325. 
 
 Nail,   643. 
 
 Nevin,  230,  356,  522,  523,  541, 
 610. 
 
 Nevin,  J.  W.,  52,  79-  80-1,  91, 
 100,  103,  106-117,  139,  141- 
 52,  181,  210-14,  217,  224,227, 
 234-42,  247,  251-9,  263-9,  271- 
 85,  287,  293,  290,  310-21,  325, 
 327-9,  347,  364,  384-5.  395, 
 402,  404,  408,  419,  420,  425, 
 431-5,  457,  405,  472-4,  470, 
 482,  491-2,  490,  500,  507,  512- 
 7,  524,  565,  598,  603,  610,  619- 
 20,  032. 
 
 Neveling,  0,  12,  13. 
 
 New  Berlin,  127. 
 
 New  Buffalo,  134. 
 
 New  Hanover,  34,  39. 
 
 New  York  State,   195. 
 
 Nittany  Valley,  131. 
 
 North  Carolina,  81,  140,  189,  197- 
 9,   279.    298-303. 
 
 O. 
 
 Ohio,    117-123,    125-6,    147-8,    162, 
 
 189,    194-5,   327,    333-6. 
 Orangeville,   134,  164. 
 (Jri)hans'    Homes,    643. 
 Osbourne,   132,   150. 
 Osnaburg,  118-9,  194. 
 Otterbcin,  2,  6,  125,   128-30. 
 
 Paltzgraff,   621-2. 
 
 I'aradise,    134. 
 
 Paris,    194. 
 
 I'auli,  1,  6,  20,  139. 
 
 Pence,    178,    195. 
 
 Penn    Valk-y,   131. 
 
 I'ennsylvania,   Western,    193. 
 
 I'ernisius,  4. 
 
 Perry   Co.,   132. 
 
 l'eterHl)urfr,    193. 
 
 Philadelphia,     8,     50-1,     132,     134, 
 
 407-9,    644. 
 Philips,  355,  438,  518,  522. 
 
 Phoenixville,   312. 
 
 Piersou,   81. 
 
 Pike,  34. 
 
 Pithan,   197. 
 
 Pister,   527. 
 
 Pithan,   197. 
 
 Pleasantville,   133. 
 
 Pliiss,   631. 
 
 Ponii),  1,  2,  11,  21-2,  98,  126,  159, 
 
 100,   180,   183. 
 Pottstown,    34,    41. 
 Praikschatis,   640. 
 Presbyterians,   180,   014  5. 
 Prugh,    335,    407,    444,    440,    529, 
 
 Oil,   044. 
 Publication   Boards,   638-43. 
 Pullish,   196. 
 
 R. 
 
 Rahauser,    1,    6,    13,    24,    31,    126, 
 
 131,   162-3,   170,   190,   193.3.53. 
 Ramsey,   134,   142. 
 Rascliig,  97,  155,  162. 
 Ranch,     73,     76-80,     87-8,     91-107, 
 
 137-9,    171-2,   184,   187,   211-2, 
 
 232. 
 Reading,  81,   133-4,  644. 
 Rebaugh,  13,  610,  611. 
 Reid,  290,  304,  420. 
 Reily,    14,    22,    24,   31-2,    64-7,   70, 
 
 74,    130,    156,    187,    189,    294, 
 
 598. 
 Reiter,    178,    195,    419,    470,    529, 
 
 612. 
 Rettig,    622,   644. 
 
 Revivals,  124-52,  600,  048-50,  653. 
 Riale,  490-1. 
 
 Rice,  11,  75-8,  99,  105-1,  65. 
 Richards,  010,  042. 
 Rickley,   122. 
 Rieger,  0,  20,  178. 
 Rike,  335. 
 Rineliart,   497. 
 b'ockinghiiiii  Co.,   190. 
 Holier,    ]()3. 
 
 Rome,  Perversions  to,  55-9. 
 Rowan,    197. 
 Rowe,   643. 
 Ruetenik,  419,  468,  475,  581,   012- 
 
 3,  640,  042-3. 
 Ruf,  644. 
 Ruhl,   621-2. 
 
 Rnnkel,  1,  6,  8,  120,  154. 
 Rnidey,  455-6,  510. 
 Rupp,'  205,  204,  550-4,  599. 
 
Index. 
 
 661 
 
 Russell,  311,  394,  408,  417,  420, 
 4;$7,  441,  485,  519,  GOl,  6U3, 
 007,  012,  041-3. 
 
 Rust,  123,  333,  420,  429,  455,  404- 
 405. 
 
 S.    . 
 
 Salems,  Philatlolphiji,  37,  53,  177. 
 
 Salters,  010. 
 
 Schaff,  84-5,  89,  153,  202-3,  205- 
 10,  214-250,  255-0,  2.59,  275- 
 81,  284,  289-90,  295,  298,  310, 
 312,  330,  347,  301,  384,  395, 
 402,  404,  407-9,  421,  425,  520- 
 1,  Oil,  020,  040. 
 
 Sehaffner,  14,  100. 
 
 Scliar])sl)urg,  Va.,   197. 
 
 Schaull,    122,   333. 
 
 Schelling,   312. 
 
 Schellsburg,   133. 
 
 Scheldt,  97,  001. 
 
 Schlatter,  0,  052. 
 
 Schleiermacher,  90,  210,  230. 
 
 Schlosser,   118,  133. 
 
 Schueck,  10,  18,  38,  78,  81,  111-2, 
 123,  129,  131,  130,  172,  181, 
 180,  188,  204-5,  230,  278-9, 
 320,  407,  501-7,  039. 
 
 Schneider,    192,   419,   033. 
 
 Scholl,  19,  131,  190,  197-8. 
 
 Schory,  289,  010. 
 
 Schweitzer,  230. 
 
 Schwob,  125. 
 
 Secliler,  133,  220,  229,  325. 
 
 Seibert,   19,  227. 
 
 Shade,   134. 
 
 Shenkle,  304,  008. 
 
 Shepherdstown,  08,  83,   132,   197. 
 
 Shippensburg,   133. 
 
 Shoups,  59. 
 
 Slavery,   197,   199. 
 
 Smaltz,  78,  112,  131,  172. 
 
 Smith,  8,  298. 
 
 Snively,  312,  517,  522. 
 
 Suyder,   19,  20,  197. 
 
 Somerset,  193. 
 
 Sonmierlatte,   029. 
 
 Soiuiendecker,   178,   194-5. 
 
 South  Carolina,  200. 
 
 Si.ringboro,  O.,   194. 
 
 Sprole,  47. 
 
 St.  John,  Va.,  133. 
 
 St.  Peters,  Va.,  132-3. 
 
 St.  Peters,  Pa..  34,  41,  131. 
 
 St.  Matthews,  Pa.,  131-2. 
 
 St.   Thomas,   133. 
 
 Stahr,  20,  640. 
 
 Staley,   290,   352,   356. 
 
 Staiilschmidt,    13. 
 
 Stapleton,    128,    053. 
 
 Stauffer,  044. 
 
 Steckel,  535,  407,  424. 
 
 Steiner,  334,  380,  404. 
 
 Stern,   312,    322,   301,    377,    408-9, 
 
 470,  517,  077. 
 Stiely,   10. 
 Stock,   1,  0. 
 
 Stone  Church,  N.  C,  132. 
 Stoneberger,  194,  Stoy,  0,  12. 
 Stoner,  022. 
 Stucki,  035. 
 
 Strasburger,   19-4,  533,  001. 
 Stump,  20,  120,  010,  021. 
 Super,   530,   538,  573-4. 
 Sugar  Valley,  Pa.,  133. 
 Sunday  Schools,  044-7. 
 Suther,  197-8. 
 Swander,  450,   012. 
 
 T. 
 
 Taneytown,  132. 
 
 Tarlton,   122,   133. 
 
 Tercentenary    Convention,    407-18, 
 
 420-3. 
 Theus,  200. 
 Titfin,   122-3,   133. 
 Titzel,  581,  001. 
 Tobias,   134. 
 Tonsmeier,   294. 
 Trappe,  34,  41,  132. 
 Trenton,  132. 
 Troldenier,  2,  0,  13,  125. 
 Tulpehocken,   35,   39. 
 
 U. 
 
 UUman,  235,  408,  413. 
 United  Bretlircn,   127-30. 
 Ursinus  College,  570,  037. 
 
 V. 
 
 Vandersloot,  10,  25-0,  171,  197. 
 Van  Home,  521,  578-79. 
 Vaughn,  298,  455-9,  403,  522. 
 Vincent,  34,  41. 
 Virginia,    190-7. 
 Voight,  193. 
 
 W. 
 
 Wachter,  247. 
 
 Wack.   1,  2,  6,  7,   12,  21,  24-0,  47, 
 150,   101,    171.    183.   289,  304. 
 
662 
 
 Index. 
 
 Wagner,    1,    6,    12-3,    62,    82,    125, 
 
 182-4.   i;57,  354,  386,  420,  517. 
 Water  St.,  134. 
 Waviiesboro,  11,  132-3. 
 Wi'i.b,  79. 
 
 Weber,  2,  192-3,  613,  621. 
 Weinel,    13,   20,    190,    193. 
 Weiser,  20,  132,  177,  569,  581. 
 Weisz,   6,   19,   20,   117,   162-3,    169, 
 
 175,    190,    194-5,    334. 
 Welkor,    92,    104,    199,    227,    298-9, 
 
 301-2,    325-6,    486,    530,    540, 
 
 581,  608. 
 Weiiritiis,  59. 
 Wentz,    12. 
 
 West  Alexandria,   194. 
 Weyberg,  3,  13,  16,  194,  198. 
 Wevnier,  125. 
 Whitnier,   189,  628. 
 Willers,  20,  78,   187,  196,  353. 
 ,  Williard,    79,    86,    384,    420,    441, 
 
 445,   470,   492,   495,   503,   505, 
 
 516-7,    529,    545,    610-3,    642. 
 Willv,   4,    6,    196. 
 Wihiis,  6. 
 
 Winckhaus,  1,  2,  3,  161. 
 Winebrenner,     19,    58-9,    60,     143, 
 
 269. 
 Winter,  294.  631. 
 Winters,    20,    117,    137,    147,    178, 
 
 189,  194,  610. 
 Wolff,  B.  C,  23,  26,  68,  85,   106, 
 
 160,   181,   195,   209,   226,   247, 
 
 261-2,  292,  296,  309,  311,  325, 
 
 408,  474,  610,  632.. 
 Wolff,   G.   D.,   290,   463,   486,   495, 
 
 597. 
 Wolff,  G.,  456,  518,  522-3. 
 Wonielsdorf,    134. 
 Woodstock,   131. 
 Wooster,   194. 
 
 York.   12,  43.   72-6,   84,   133-4,  137, 
 
 150,  648-50. 
 Yomig,  16,  72,   136,  489. 
 Yuudt,  644. 
 
 Zacharias,  133,  171,  184,  203,  2-i7. 
 303,  307-8,  324-5,  332,  404^ 
 419,  420,  428,  547,  632,  639, 
 
 Zahner,  522. 
 
 Zeiser,   193, 
 
 Zeller,  19. 
 
 Zenk,  632. 
 
 Zieber,  335,  .526,  570,  626. 
 
 Ziegler,  132,  227,  454,  535,  622, 
 632. 
 
 Zulieh,   19,  35-6,   133. 
 
 Zwingli,  115,  155,  235,  257,  410], 
 
 Zwisler,  14,  20,  193. 
 
 Zubli,  200. 
 
 Zueberbuhler,  200. 
 
Date  Due 
 
 y  er  *4g 
 
 'tic  la 
 
 ^ 
 
 FACULTV 
 
.r.     ■■tA.