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 expul sion 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 admirableand 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 men, 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.

Luther has finely remarked, "I have learned that he is not a theologian who knows great things, and who can teach many things; but he who lives holily, and as becomes the gospel." *

If the private declarations were called for of such men as Melancthon, Bucer, Zanchius, Pareus, etc. on the subject of the importance of union among those who unite in their reception of the doctrines of grace, we could fill pages with them.

Such then was the church, when in the hands of the blessed men whom God so signally honored as the instruments of reclaiming it to vitality and righteousness. And if there is a prayer to which our inmost soul will fervently respond, it is that of the feeling and experimentally pious Bernard, which we would adapt to our own day. "Quis mihi det, antequam moriar, videre Ecclesiam Dei, sicut in diebus antiquis." f

Who can tell what blessings the great Head of the church may have in store for his people? The composing of the unhappy differences which have so long palsied their very best energies, and led them to turn against each other those weapons which are mighty to pull down the strong holds of Satan, may be the signal of the returning favor of the Messiah. It is a test of love and obedience that he has the right to require at our hands; and it may be the signal of his bursting the fetters of paganism, and of his raining down righteousness upon America, till she shall bud and blossom as the garden of God. "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in my house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it. -And all nations shall call you blessed; for ye shall be a delightsome land, saith the Lord of hosts."

* "Ego hoc video, non esse theologum, qui magna sciat, et multa doceat: sed qui sancte et theologice vivat." Vide Prefat. Luth. in Psal. ad Theologiae Studiosos.

"Oh that, before I die, I may behold the church of God as it was in ancient days!"

ARTICLE VIII.

CAUSES OF THE DENIAL OF THE MOSAIC ORIGIN OF THE PENTATEUCH.

Translated from the German of Prof. Hengstenberg of Berlin. By Rev. E. Ballantine, Assistant Instructor in the Union Theol. Som. Prince Edward, Va. [Concluded from Vol. XI. p. 448.]

Naturalism.

HAVING shown that the general denial of the genuineness of the Pentateuch cannot be satisfactorily accounted for by the universal tendency of the age to historical skepticism, we must now endeavor to point out its true cause.

It lies in the tendency of the age to Naturalism-that system which seeks to explain all events by the common laws of nature—and this tendency has its root in the estrangement of the age from God. Because men have not had within themselves experimental proof of the existence of a living God, therefore they seek to eradicate all traces of him out of history. Because within themselves every thing goes on entirely according to fixed natural laws, therefore they think every thing without them must have happened in the same way.

This mode of thinking and reasoning has, by those who adopted it, been called by the dignified name of refinement (Bildung.) But this certainly unjustly. Naturalism could be considered an advanced stage of refinement only on the ground that its modern advocates bad discovered that what had before been held to be supernatural through ignorance of the laws of nature, can be fully accounted for by those laws. But as the modern extended knowledge of nature does not affect this matter at all, as that is still looked upon as supernatural which was before held to be so, it is only through gross insolence that the name of refinement can be arrogated. This pretension brings with it many absurdities. It must, in the first place, against all evidence, be maintained that the advocates of the mythos-theory, at the present time, are more cultivated than the defenders of the truth of the Bible. Then again, there is in the history of

* The word expresses the highest stage of advancement in every respect, especially in knowledge and taste.-TR.