divines who had preceded him. Amongst whom he names Calvin, Beza, Zanchius, Ursinus, Pareus, Scultetus, Tilenus, "and others" says he, "whom it would be tedious to enumerate; and with whom I believe it to be more safe to speak and to think, than to labor after singularities and innovations."*

We regret the necessity of omitting a number of other, excellent witnesses. But both the time and the limits assigned us forbid us to extend this essay any further than to add a few remarks, suggested by the preceding discussion.

Conclusion.

One of the devout aspirations of Martin Luther, was "May the Lord deliver his church from the vain-glorious teacher, from the contentious pastor, and from unprofitable questions."† Our heart responds amen to this prayer. It is not therefore our wish by anything we here present, to engender strife: but merely to offer a few passing remarks, which may be worthy of consideration.

1. It may be thought by some that we might have taken up and considered the remaining specifications of alleged error in the case alluded to on the preceding pages. One reason for declining this is that the present essay is already of sufficient length. In addition to this we beg leave to remark 1. That with respect to the remaining specifications, it is universally admitted that they are not of equal importance with those which we have considered. 2. Of the ten, we have selected the three, to which the greatest importance has been attached by those brethren who have sympathized with the prosecutor in this case. 3. Those brethren have themselves rendered such examination unnecessary, by their own repeated avowals and declarations. For it has been alleged by almost every individual who has taken a prominent stand on that side of the controversy, that

* "Ad commentarios concinnandos liberalem operam contulerunt praestantissimi quique Ecclesiarum nostrarum doctores; Calvinus, Beza, Martyr, Zanchius, Ursinus, Perkimsius, Pareus, Pitiscus, Scultetus, Wittakerus, Sutlivius, Molinaeus, Chamierus, Tilenus, Junius, Sibrandus, Bucanus, Amesius, et alii, quos recensere longum foret: cum quibus et loqui et sentire tutius esse arbitrior, quam novitatibus et singularitatibus studere." Vide Prefat. p. 27, 28.

"A doctore glorioso, et pastore contentioso, et inutilibus quaestionibus liberet Ecclesiam suam Dominus." Luth. Opp. tom. I. p. LV.

the whole series of charges comprises errors of such a nature,* that to a logical mind, the admission of either of the prominent ones, must of necessity carry with it the admission of all the series because such minds err systematically, and these errors constitute "a system of Gospel subverting," and "reformationabandoning doctrine." If this be sound argumentation, then, as no one can refuse to acknowledge that all the forequoted authors, were men of logic, learning and acuteness, they must by consequence, (and along with them all the first reformers without exception,) have been guilty of entertaining the whole number of specifications of alleged heresy. And if this be so, where is the necessity of entering into a similar discussion of the remaining topics?

We had intended, however, to include in the present essay, an examination of the views entertained by the Reformers, on the only remaining topic, to which the brethren of whom we speak have united in attaching serious importance. We mean the topic of imputation. We cannot now, however, do more than remark, that the reformers universally deny that the essential righteousness of the God-man Mediator becomes ours. They reject the idea with abhorrence: and perpetually speak of our being regarded as righteous on account of the merit of Christ, on account of the death of Christ, for the sake of Christ.† These are their almost unvaried expressions with regard to it.

The foregoing quotations, have, however, made this doctrine. plain, as held by these venerable men. It is therein declared at once, how plain and simple were their views, as contrasted with those now claimed by some to be "old school" and orthodox. Sin, when punished, is imputed: when forgiv en, or not punished, it is not imputed. The imputation of righteousness is the forgiveness of sins: and this is done "by, and on account of" what Christ has suffered for us. This is the sum total of the doctrine as they held it, (as the preceding quotations themselves evince,) and what can be more rational and scriptural!

2. There have been grievous charges preferred against a large portion of the clergy in this country, to this effect, that they persist in vexing the church by the introduction and use

See Vindication,' p. 28-32, together with the Reports of the trial at York and Pittsburg.

Their words are 66 propter meritum Christi, propter Christum, propter mortem Christi," etc.

of a new phraseology. But on whom, agreeably to the preceding quotations, must this charge now rest? Are those who tenaciously adhere, (though it has cost them loss of comfort, reputation, if not life itself, indirectly in some instances,) to the very language of the reformation in relation to its distinctive doctrine, to be branded as new lights, innovators, and the inventors of a new theological nomenclature? Who is, in truth and reality, guilty of this charge? I will state a simple unadorned fact, and leave it with the reader. It is this: the originators of the scheme of the imputation of Christ's active obedience, were in their day reproached by the Reformers with thus perplexing the church. And they attempted to justify themselves on the ground that a perspicuous and correct theology required such distinctions to be observed.

3. If the Reformers entertained correct views of the doctrine of Justification, Faith, and the Obedience of Christ, (which it would be absurd for Calvinists to deny,*) then, as the views which the brethren of whom we have above spoken, entertained of these doctrines, were the great cause of their attempted ejection from the church, it follows from what has appeared, that, had the counsels of their assailants prevailed, they would have been expelled from a professedly Calvinistic community, for entertaining the very doctrines on these subjects, which were taught by Calvin himself, and all his immediate followers; while at the same time, those who have attempted their expulsion have agreeably to their own showing, radically departed from these doctrines. A radical departure, on their own acknowledged principles, is syllogistically demonstrable. Because in a great variety of expressions they have declared, that, between their views on these subjects, and the views of those whom they have attempted to exclude, "there is not any agreement; and there ought not to be any compromise." So different indeed, that the one party has declared that, on the principles of the other, they cannot "read their title clear, to mansions in the skies."+ If, then, there be this great and radical difference, who, (and we press the inquiry with deep

"The creeds of the reformers do not need revising; and if they did, the men are probably not living to whom the task could be left with safety." See Sermon by C. C. Cuyler, D. D. of Philadelphia, preached before the synod of Philadelphia, at its session in York, Pa. Oct. 1835.

+ See "Vindication," and "Trial of Rev. Albert Barnes."

and solemn interest,) who are the persons that have thus radically departed from the doctrines and principles of the Reformation?

It has always been the boast of Presbyterians that the Confession and Catechisms of their Church, contain an admirable and unadulterated epitome of the doctrines of the reformation; at least on the subject of Justification, the Obedience of Christ, and Imputation. Here again we press the inquiry, and ask, If this be so, who are the individuals that have really departed from the true sense of the standards ?

If the ground is to be taken, that the commonly called old-school brethren have improved on the views of the Reformation, let the stand be taken boldly and openly; and let the world hear no more of the charge which they have been for years urging against their brethren, that they have departed from these principles! Or if the ground be assumed that the views of the Reformers are reconcilable with our standards, let us hear no more of this radical, and uncompromisable difference. If they are reconcilable let them be reconciled; that harmony and confidence may again be found within the borders of the lacerated, but blood-bought Zion of our God.

The plain and simple question, which, if answered categorically, will terminate at once the controversy, at least virtually, is the following: Were the reformers heretics on the subject of justification? Let this question be answered either affirmatively or negatively, and let the answer be given fearlessly. If the noble army of reformers are to be denounced as heretics, and at once excluded, let it be known. If they are to be recognized, let it be known.

If it be contended, that the men whose testimony we have adduced, were in error on these subjects, we demand to know what is to be our standard by which to judge of the theology of the first reformers? Creeds framed subsequently cannot be our criterion, if we find in them an acknowledged departure from the principles originally inculcated; and for the same reason, men who lived subsequently cannot be our guide, if they in like manner openly abandon and attempt the correction of what was primitively taught.

4. By these remarks it is not our intention to widen the breach in the walls of the city of our God, but to repair it. We will therefore urge upon the attention of all concerned in these controversies, another subject for consideration, which may as

sist them in disentangling themselves from their difficulties. We have already seen that disputes arose in the church in the beginning of the seventeenth century, some of which were upon the topics discussed in this article. Polanus and Gomar disputed on faith, and yet their love and confidence in each other were not impaired. Two Calvinists of the most rigid sect, were, in A. D. 1604, drawn into a controversy with each other on the subject of faith and the obedience of Christ. They were Drs. Tilenus and Molinaeus. The former took the ground attributed to him in this essay, whilst Dr. Molinaeus occupied a stand somewhat different. The controversy was long and exciting, (and led ultimately to the action of the French synod previously spoken of;) but it was at length amicably settled. "Each," as a contemporary remarks,* "persisting in retaining his own views of the matter, and yet each acknowledging the other as orthodox." Go thou and do likewise.

If there was a desire deeply felt by the great men of the reformation, it was this, that there might be a concentration of christian effort in the great work of pulling down the strong holds of sin, and glorifying their God and Saviour. Of all the first men of the reformation, there were scarcely two between whom there was not more or less difference in their views of some points in theology. Nor was it their primary care to compose these differences. They knew that with frail, erring

it would be vain to seek an entire conformity of sentiment on every point and hence they gave that over, and sought union of effort. It is truly affecting to review their unceasing exertions to attain to this object. We have referred to the Marpurgense Colloquy, between the Lutheran ministers and those of Helvetia: they instituted one similar, and for a similar purpose, 1537. In 1570, a similar effort was made by the adherents to the Confessions of Augsburg, Bohemia, and Helvetia. In 1575, the same was attempted by those denominated Hussites and Waldensian brethren in the kingdom of Bohemia, and likewise the followers of the Augsburg symbol: many other instances could be specified if necessary. Let us learn to imitate their example in this respect, for it is worthy of imitation.

"Quae contentio, interventu Domini de Plessis et aliorum quorundam doctorum, eum in modum sublata est, ut alter alterum pro orthodoxo doctore agnoverit, utroque interea in sententia sua persistente." Vide Orationem Grotii habitam in senatu Amstelrodamensi, anno 1616, opp. Theol. tom. IV. p. 179, col. 2.